ext_45084 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
essius.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2012-03-09 02:52 pm
essius.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2012-03-09 02:52 pm
Invisible Children, Kony 2012, and criticisms
The other day I noticed the Kony 2012 video by Invisible Children that has been receiving a great deal of attention on the Internet as of late (it’s received over 56 million views on YouTube). I watched the video and was immediately curious. Evidently, the video has received multiple lines of serious criticism. No one denies, of course, that Joseph Kony must be brought to justice. But Invisible Children’s methods (and in some respects even intent) are highly questionable. I’ll mention just a few of the criticisms brought against the film and the movement.
Chris Blattman, a Poly Sci & Econ Assistant Professor at Yale, argues not only against the style of the film (“the hipster tie and cowboy hat” and the “macho bravado” tend to detract from the message) but also against the notion of rescuing or saving African children: “It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming.” One result, says Blattman, “is a lot of dangerously ill-prepared young people embarking on missions to save the children of this or that war zone. At best it’s hubris and egocentric. More often, though, it leads to bad programs, misallocated resources, or ill-conceived military adventures.” Finally, Blattman is also troubled by the film showing the faces of child soldiers, as well as implying (erroneously and incredibly) that the US and Invisible Children “were instrumental in getting the peace talks to happen.”
Grant Oyston, Sociology and Poly Sci student at Acadia University, has made several criticisms—such as the fact that “[m]ilitary intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away” (q.v.)—and also provided links to many others as well. Among the latter, perhaps the most important are lawyers Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub’s article, “Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of ‘Kony 2012’,” which raises methodological criticisms, and writer Joshua Keating’s post “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things),” whose chief argument is that IC “has made virtually no effort to inform” concerning important details (such as where Kony is located, where the LRA’s members are currently distributed, and how many “mindless child soldiers” the LRA presently has).
Author Michael Deibert helpfully lays out some of the important historical details and concludes with another heavy charge against IC: “By blindly supporting Uganda’s current government and its military adventures beyond its borders, as Invisible Children suggests that people do, Invisible Children is in fact guaranteeing that there will be more violence, not less, in Central Africa.”
My father, a retired juvenile hall peace officer, was also pretty critical of the video and, in addition to some of the familiar criticisms, he said it “seemed to violate some pretty serious child rearing tenets, i.e., ‘tis not good to expose a child to an adult’s world as it robs them of their childhood, etc.; and, beyond that it seemed to prepare the film maker’s kid to early indoctrination (and believe me, he’ll get that soon enough as kindergarten is just around the corner for that boy)…”
Meanwhile, IC has responded to some of the above criticisms, and the group certainly has its defenders (e.g.), but it would seem IC has yet to address one of the main claims many are raising: that it is working with groups that are guilty of the same atrocities as the LRA.
Here is another recent source attempting to make sense of the issue.
I’m still wading through some of the various criticisms and IC’s response, but I tend to think IC’s basic motives are pure, but their methods and strategic intent are questionable and in various ways even dangerous. What do you think?
Chris Blattman, a Poly Sci & Econ Assistant Professor at Yale, argues not only against the style of the film (“the hipster tie and cowboy hat” and the “macho bravado” tend to detract from the message) but also against the notion of rescuing or saving African children: “It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming.” One result, says Blattman, “is a lot of dangerously ill-prepared young people embarking on missions to save the children of this or that war zone. At best it’s hubris and egocentric. More often, though, it leads to bad programs, misallocated resources, or ill-conceived military adventures.” Finally, Blattman is also troubled by the film showing the faces of child soldiers, as well as implying (erroneously and incredibly) that the US and Invisible Children “were instrumental in getting the peace talks to happen.”
Grant Oyston, Sociology and Poly Sci student at Acadia University, has made several criticisms—such as the fact that “[m]ilitary intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away” (q.v.)—and also provided links to many others as well. Among the latter, perhaps the most important are lawyers Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub’s article, “Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of ‘Kony 2012’,” which raises methodological criticisms, and writer Joshua Keating’s post “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things),” whose chief argument is that IC “has made virtually no effort to inform” concerning important details (such as where Kony is located, where the LRA’s members are currently distributed, and how many “mindless child soldiers” the LRA presently has).
Author Michael Deibert helpfully lays out some of the important historical details and concludes with another heavy charge against IC: “By blindly supporting Uganda’s current government and its military adventures beyond its borders, as Invisible Children suggests that people do, Invisible Children is in fact guaranteeing that there will be more violence, not less, in Central Africa.”
My father, a retired juvenile hall peace officer, was also pretty critical of the video and, in addition to some of the familiar criticisms, he said it “seemed to violate some pretty serious child rearing tenets, i.e., ‘tis not good to expose a child to an adult’s world as it robs them of their childhood, etc.; and, beyond that it seemed to prepare the film maker’s kid to early indoctrination (and believe me, he’ll get that soon enough as kindergarten is just around the corner for that boy)…”
Meanwhile, IC has responded to some of the above criticisms, and the group certainly has its defenders (e.g.), but it would seem IC has yet to address one of the main claims many are raising: that it is working with groups that are guilty of the same atrocities as the LRA.
Here is another recent source attempting to make sense of the issue.
I’m still wading through some of the various criticisms and IC’s response, but I tend to think IC’s basic motives are pure, but their methods and strategic intent are questionable and in various ways even dangerous. What do you think?
no subject
All this is an excuse to avoid facing up to the reality that these guys are Christians. Orthodox Catholics do that *now*, what with the Nazis having killed off most of Western Judaism. If you want to erase the medieval history and modern history of Christian anti-Semitism and complicity in wholesale atrocities, so be it. It just confirms you as a moral coward and hypocrite afraid to admit that Tomas de Torquemada, Henry, Duke of Guise, founder of the Catholic League, the architects of the great Pogroms from the 11th-20th Centuries, and the like who were indeed pious Christians were in fact Christians.
But I don't think this is an argument in good faith anyhow.
no subject
The truth is, neither the written rule of orthodoxy (Scripture) nor the living pattern of orthopraxy (Christ) have ever changed, regardless of the cognitive dissonance of many throughout the history of so-called Christendom. Now, if there were actual evidence that the LRA had some kind of robust ecclesiology and Christological hermeneutic, that would be another thing entirely, but I really doubt you're willing to engage the question on that level (because it actually involves asking the essential question: what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being incorporated into the Body of Christ, on the accounting of Christ and his disciples?—as well as an empirical question concerning the doctrinal history of the LRA vis-à-vis the answer to the first question).
Incidentally, I wonder if your apparent view of "being a member of a certain religion" applies to political ideologies, too. Guess what? I'm a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, and an Anarcho-Primitivist! And now I'm not! Wait, now I am again. This sure is fun.
*"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Mt. 7:22-24).
no subject
See these quotes by Popes and two of the Gospels:
"And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this. We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless-which we do not believe-they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.
^Blood Libel
I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.
^John, showing Jesus's love for the Jews.
And Matthew:
"His blood be on us and our children", the rationale for many a pious Christian to butcher innoncent women and children for Jesus.
And last but not least, there's the brutal Jew-hatred at the root of Protestantism, and the strand of pious Christian rulers who invariably expelled Jews from Western Europe, the last two of which were the very same Los Reyes Catolicos who began Generalplan West and the extermination of Native Americans, also done for Christian purposes to civilize the heathen savages. As though endiing human sacrifice to replace it with arbeit macht frei is some moral improvement.
no subject
Second, you are ignoring my specific point concerning the words of Christ himself—viz., in Mt. 7:22-24. Does the founder of a religion have any say as to who does and does not count as a true follower of that religion, or not?
Third, I have a hard time knowing what was going through the heads of professing Christians throughout history who have commit atrocious acts against the Jews, or why they adopted the hermeneutics of Scripture (on which I'll respond below) that they did. I don't know enough about the social context of medieval anti-semitism to make a judgment. If, in the end, Christ decides that these were true Christians who were simply acting, in this serious way, diametrically contrary to Christ's gospel, that is his call. If he decides that they were only professing Christians, that is his call. All I can say is that they were not acting in accord with the commandments to love the neighbor in the way Christ showed us by means of his holy life and self-sacrificial death—and that needs explanation. As I said above, if Christ is our teacher and our example, then we should love our neighbor unto death—our own death, not our neighbors'.
Fourth, in the passage from John 8, Jesus is referring to specific Jews—Jews who accused him of being demon-possessed and later tried to stone him. Jesus could have said these very same things, without the Abraham rhetoric that his interlocutors introduced, to any Jew or non-Jew. So to anti-semitism into this passage is pretty disingenuous. Ironically, in this very passage Jesus makes the point I've been making all along: "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples'" (Jn 8:31).
Fifth, how could an anti-semitic hermeneutic ever make logical, coherent sense of the Ephesians passage I cited earlier, let alone Paul's statement that God has called "both Jews and Greeks" (1 Cor 1:24) and admonishes the church, "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32)? Consider Paul's remarks in Romans 3:1-2: "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." Consider, especially, the whole of Romans 11, and in particular v. 18: "do not boast over those branches [i.e., the Jews]. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you"; and further: "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" (vv. 25-26a). All these passages would have to be ignored or wildly distorted. But in actual fact, the Christian gospel holds that no one is righteous—neither Jew nor Gentile (Rom 3), and in both Romans and Colossians, Paul refers to all non-Christians as enemies of God. There is no discrimination.
(continued below)
no subject
1) No, I define religion in terms of lived belief over professed belief. The spirit of Christianity is that of the destructive, annihilating vacuum that consumes all, giving little. The Church has burned books, buried scholars, and exterminated entire peoples. The Church created the largest religious war in human history. Only because it's Christianity this is all neglected and given various excuses under the No True Scotsmen fallacy.
2) No. The Founder of the religion does not, especially since His Followers only needed a generation to start whining about the Jews as Christ-Killers and to butcher them with impunity whenever opportunity presented itself. For the Jew, the Christian is the menace. The Muslims are capable of being friendly in sincerity, good faith between the Church and the Synagogue didn't exist until post-1945.
3) No True Scotsmen and moral cowardice, evading a point so you don't have to answer it. Answer the question, friend. This is called evading the question, using the No True Scotsman fallacy to do it. You're just too much of a coward to admit that when these men sincerely thought they were avenging deicide they were perfectly pious in it. This is how the Church that introduced disputations, Blood-Purity Laws, the Ghettoes, the vicious savage Pogrom, and the expulsion of Jews time after time against the express wishes of the state lies merrily about what it really is. The Church to the Jews is Torquemada, not St. Francis.
4) Again, this is an excuse and an evasion. I provide you with Jesus's words and you immediately leap to deny them the universality in the statement.
5) Don't ask me that, I'm not the one trivializing and minimizing 2,000 years of massacre, hatred, and oppression.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
2) What if the founder is in fact God? What if the founder truly is the ultimate judge of the human heart? Unless you divorce the theological question from the psychological and sociological questions, you can't ignore this possibility. If Christ says that some set of attitudes, actions, etc. are an essential part of what it means to be a Christian, and a person doesn't follow that, then eschatologically speaking, the entire world can consider a person a Christian and be wrong. It seems you fail to acknowledge this possibility of error. Am I misrepresenting you? Also, is it not possible for the followers of a religion to engage in heteropraxy? Do you honestly think Christ or Paul would be pleased with the slaughter of innocent Jews, given their stress on love, grace, gentleness, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness?
no subject
2) Quit evading my questions. I'm talking about 2,000 years of sustained bigotry and massacre. You seem to be either incapable or unwilling to address this point. God killed people for cheating on their tithes in the 1st Generation in the Church, but He promotes butchers and monsters to the Papacy. Thus, we can conclude God approved.
no subject
2) The only question you've asked in this thread, thus far, is "So I suppose God allowed false agents of Satan to occupy the See of Rome during the Medieval ages, did He?" I responded by saying that I have a hard time knowing what was going through the heads of professing Christians throughout history who have commit atrocious acts against the Jews. I said that either they were true Christians (and thus not practicing Christianity's love commandments or any of the virtues listed in the New Testament) or they were not (though they claimed to be). Is there an alternative to these you'd prefer I adopt and, if so, on what grounds should I hold it? I don't know what other questions you have in mind, as you haven't been making very much use of the question mark in this thread. I, on the other hand, have been asking repeated questions, in order to better understand your positions, but you—while accusing me of evading questions you've never actually asked—have consistently evaded answering mine. By the way, I'm not a Roman Catholic, I don't hold that God always holds church leaders (Pope or otherwise) accountable in the present life for their actions, I don't believe in the Calvinist God who micromanages everything, and consequently I deny the formal validity of your argument.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
4) If say that a passage says something, and the context of that passage demonstrates otherwise, then yes, I'm going to deny your claim. Jesus clearly isn't referring to all Jews, because he never says, "If you are a Jew and hold to my teaching, then you really are disciples and are no longer Jews anymore." Rather, he simply says that Jews can be his disciples. And if you still want to universalize the passage to all Jews and not those he is speaking with, you'll have to provide reason for it and not just assume the truth of your reading. After all, Jesus doesn't say this to just any group of Jews. In most occasions in the New Testament, he does not take this kind of polemic toward the Jews. There are many Jews who don't accept his teaching who he never goes off on in this manner. How do you account for that?
5) I didn't trivialize or minimize anything. You're the one who brought up these atrocities, and I wholeheartedly admit the existence and horror of these events. Again, I see both the good and the evil within Christianity, and I admit ignorance as to how to interpret (some of) the evil. (I'm no more a telepath than you are.) But you, on the other hand, are painting a very monochrome picture of Christianity, and if anyone is guilty of evasion here, it is you. See, I have asked you how an anti-semitic Christian could ever make logical, coherent sense of various biblical passages, and you ignore the question (and those passages). You may disagree with my interpretation of certain passages of Scripture that you have presented, but at least I give you my interpretation. You, on the other hand, offer no response whatsoever to how a Christian could consistently interpret Paul's remarks in Romans 3 and 11, 1 Cor. 1 and 10, and in Ephesians and Colossians. So it seems like you're the only one who gets to argue on the basis of Scripture and history? Your textual and historical evidence counts, and mine doesn't? That's fair.
no subject
4) "Woe to you blind guides who strain out gnats but swallow a camel."
5) EXCEPT WE'RE DISCUSSING THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF CHRISTIANITY'S GOOD SIDE IN THIS DISCUSSION?
Perhaps the all-caps will make the point clear.
And no, I'm not at all denying your evidence, I'm simply noting that Romans 2 sees Paul lay the claim that Jews aren't real Jews unless they agree with him:
Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
While the Bible in the New Testatement is filled with grotesque anti-Jewish bigotry. This shit didn't come out of nowhere, it's the cowardice of the Church in the wake of the gas chambers that kept it from being otherwise.
no subject
4) The group of Pharisees Jesus encountered in the NT ≠ Jews in general.
5) Yes, and I addressed the LRA in §3 in this and my previous comment; you have yet to respond to those comments. As for the relevance of Christianity's good side, it is relevant in the context of your reductive (rather than merely selective) treatment of the "spirit of Christianity" (see the latest §1 in comment above). As for Romans 2, how it it anti-Jewish to say that to be a true Jew you must practice your Jewish faith inwardly and believe in the God-man who is, hmm, a Jew! And no, you're not denying my evidence, you're ignoring it (whereas I've been consistently responding to the various scriptures you've brought to the table). You're ignoring passages that would, if followed, preclude bigoted anti-semitic action. Paul says very sternly not to cause the Jews to stumble, not to be arrogant toward them. He speaks of peace between Jews and Gentiles. And the New Testament never condones violence against nonbelievers. Also, there's a difference between arguing against the Jews concerning their very existence or their ethnicity, which the New Testament never does, versus being critical of Jewish theology. There's nothing anti-semitic about saying that Jewish theology, to be fully consistent, must accept a Jewish Messiah to is foreshadowed in the Jewish Scriptures.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Seventh, I know a little more concerning Protestant anti-semitism, though I find it equally inexplicable when the gospel is taken holistically and verses are not wrenched out of context to support and justify pre-existing enmity toward the Jews—an enmity that Paul speaks out very loudly against. I don't know whether these were true, believing Christians who had a very distorted hermeneutic, or whether they were merely professing, perhaps self-deceived into thinking themselves Christians (you're aware that one can think one is something one is not, no?), or whether there is some other explanation. But aside from all the above points (which, this time, I hope you will not ignore, as I've tried, charitably, to respond to each of yours), there is the one most relevant to the topic at hand:
The last point I'll underscore is another I raised before. What is the actual evidence that the LRA had a robust ecclesiology and Christological hermeneutic? In what way do they follow the essential teachings of Christ? In what way do they express a belief that Christ is who he claimed to be? Empirically, what aside from mere self-identification indicates any genuine belief in Christ?
no subject
7) None of the examples I've raised are Protestant. And this is excluding the Russian Orthodox Church.......
no subject
7) You said, "last but not least, there's the brutal Jew-hatred at the root of Protestantism."
8) You didn't respond to this one, which is the primary thing at issue: What is the actual evidence that the LRA have a robust ecclesiology and Christological hermeneutic? In what way do they follow the essential teachings of Christ? In what way do they express a belief that Christ is who he claimed to be? Empirically, what aside from mere self-identification indicates a genuine belief in Christ? Even independent of Christian practice, there's still the doctrinal question. If I take a verse or two from the Bible and build my hermeneutic on those couple verses, but ignore (and often act diametrically opposed to) all the rest, am I still thereby a Christian?
no subject
8) What's the evidence that anyone has such a thing in the real world? Most Christians couldn't tell you the difference between Trinitarianism and Arianism and I guarantee you most ones here haven't read the BIble enough to know what Onanism, the Sin of Lot, and the phrase Ananias and Saphira means. This stuff might fly in a Christianity community, but this one isn't one. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
And yes, you would be as this is every Christian nowadays. The Church says gays are icky but ignores greed and anger and other more pressing, individual sins. The Bible says interest is evil, slavery is good, and the concept of kings is bad, while never once mentioning anything like democracy. Nobody cares about this, so yes, people pick and choose all the time in the real world, and this is excluding that outside evangelicalism nobody uses the Bible alone in Exegesis in the first place.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I can't judge the hearts of these individuals, but if when speaking about Christianity we take the words of Christ seriously, what are we to make of his saying, "By their fruits you shall recognize them?" Or John's saying that true Christians shall be known by their love? Are not Christ and his disciples capable of determining the marks of true Christians? Or do later believers get to ignore the actual teachings of Christ when claiming to follow him? If someone has claimed to be a Christian and generally exhibits true Christianity, but there are serious exceptions and they at times act atrociously, I suppose the right thing to do is emphasize the Scriptures that castigate such those serious exceptions and apologize on behalf of the church for those actions. But if someone exhibits no serious interest in true Christianity at all, and vicious behavior is not the exception but the rule in their lives, there seems to be no reason to take seriously their self-identification as Christians. On Christ's own accounting. And as a Christian, I tend to think Christ's accounting is a little more important than the backwards voluntarism of
no subject
no subject
no subject
Anti-Semitism is perfectly consistent with Christianity, as I keep illustrating. But those who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel aren't interested in the fruits of the Christian spirit, which weren't in this regard limited to Jews.
no subject
Anti-semitism is perhaps consistent with a Christianity that doesn't take seriously the full life and teachings of Christ, or even merely the central parts of his life and teachings—e.g., his nonjudgmental and nonviolent manner, his emphasis of loving the neighbor, and the like. In other words, it's consistent with Christianities which fail to be holistic and comprehensive, and tend to really look Christ in the eyes and see what he is about. But anti-semitism is not consistent with a Christianity that does take seriously the central teachings of Christ, and the various Pauline passages mentioned above.
Which is of course a moot point unless Christians actually acknowledge the evil perpetrated by many earlier Christians against the Jews, and I think that's what you're after. I'll admit, we have a lot to make up for, and a lot to apologize for. But part of how we do that is by moving forward and actually looking at Christ's example. If you retort with John 8 again, all I can say is that strong language and strong rhetoric can imply frustration and anger at a group of people without implying lack of love or outright hatred. If Jesus hated the Jews and wanted us Christians to kill them, I think he would have said so. I also think he'd have qualified many of his statements about loving our enemies. "Love your enemies, unless they are Jewish." "When cursed, bless and do not curse, unless a Jew is cursing you." Etc.
no subject