David Cameron called 'racist' after accusing Sadiq Khan over links to IS supporter

A race is a racial group.
Judaism is not a racial group.
A theological doctrine is not objective fact. If a theological doctrine says all people with brown hair are Muslims, that doesn't make it so.

Now, in the context of the genetic Jews, there is not a Jewish "Race" per se, however, there are Jewish "Tribes" and each tribes have their own unique genes and such. These tribes are "Ashkenazi" (Eastern European) "Sephardi" (Spanish) and "Mizrahi" (Oriental). So yes you can be "Genetically" .

Killing people who profess Judaism may not be racist if you leave people alone who do not profess Judaism but are descended from Jews.

The Nazis killed anyone descended from Jews regardless of whether they professed Judaism.

Killing people who profess Judaism is similar to killing people who profess Islam is similar to killing people who profess capitalism, but none of those things are the same as what went on in Germany between 1940 and 1945.

I have given you a definition of a race and a reasoned argument why Jews satisfy that definition.

I'm not saying they were.
I'm saying that Judaism and Islam are both religions, not races and just because some people or religious doctrines regard them as racial groups, it does not make it so.
Killing someone because they are Jewish is the equivalent to killing someone because they are Muslim, irrespective of whether they profess such religion.

Judaism is a religion that defines membership by descent. It is chauvinist, isolationist, and arguably racist. To convert to Judaism you must beg a Rabbi to become a Jew, be rejected three times, and still come back and ask again.

Islam is a religion that says that it is and ought to be the religion of the entire world. Not only do Muslims want every living human to be a Muslim, they believe that every living human "really" is a Muslim already, and just needs to "revert". To convert (or "revert" to Islam you merely have to say three times that you are a Muslim.

These are not the same idea, nor do they or their membership have the same biological properties. Judaism is, to a first approximation, an extended family. Islam is pure universalist ideology.

The idea of "a Muslim who doesn't profess Islam" doesn't even make sense. Who is such a person? Can you name one? The Nazis on the other hand primarily wanted to kill irreligious Jews - people who didn't believe in the Jewish religion but were descended from Jews - who they regarded as carriers of Bolshevism, and ended up killing all of them indiscriminately in large part because they decided it was too difficult to try to tell the difference.

Judaism is a religion that defines membership by descent. It is chauvinist, isolationist, and arguably racist. To convert to Judaism you must beg a Rabbi to become a Jew, be rejected three times, and still come back and ask again.

The idea of "a Muslim who doesn't profess Islam" doesn't even make sense. Who is such a person? Can you name one? The Nazis on the other hand primarily wanted to kill irreligious Jews - people who didn't believe in the Jewish religion but were descended from Jews - who they regarded as carriers of Bolshevism, and ended up killing all of them indiscriminately in large part because they decided it was too difficult to try to tell the difference.

Only according to Orthodox Judaism, not in reform, liberal and other types of Judaism. In those you can just convert no problems at all.

The Nazis mistakingly regarding Jewish people as a race does not make it so.
It's a religion regardless of what the Nazis or any theological doctrine says.

Race is an objective, biological quality. Judaism is not. Judaism runs according to a religious doctrine, race runs according to biology and science.

And to which has Judaism for the greater part of 2,000 years born closer resemblance? Especially given, as shown by genetic science, only 0.5% admixutre at every generation for 80 generations!


The Nazis were correct to view Jews as a race, and as I have already pointed out, modern genetic science confirms this view entirely. Judaism is a religious doctrine that has created a race by mandating inbreeding.

Orthodox Judaism doesn't speak for all Judaism.

You have admitted you can convert to Judaism even if t is difficult. You cannot convert to a race. A race is an objective biological quality attached to a person. Not a belief system nor a belief system that your ancestors had.

It's unbecoming for the PM to use his parliamentary privilege to make unsubstantiated accusations and allegations about citizens of the UK, safe in the knowledge that he will not be hauled up before judges for defamation.

It is also unbecoming for the PM to use his office to deliver verbal personal attacks against the future Mayor of London, in an effort to help his own candidate secure the coveted position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/david-cameron-called-racist-after-accusing-sadiq-khan-over-links/

A bit hypocritical of Cameron considering that we remain such strong allies with the KSA, but racist? It's racist to criticise someone for shmoozing with fascists?

Orthodox Judaism doesn't speak for all Judaism.

You have admitted you can convert to Judaism even if t is difficult. You cannot convert to a race. A race is an objective biological quality attached to a person. Not a belief system nor a belief system that your ancestors had.

YES WE KNOW.

You are the only one calling judaism a race, you retard.

Judaism is just the religion, the unorthdox sects of that religion allow any person to convert to judaism, the religion.

But the jewish lineage is restricted to only jews.

Whoppi goldberg is an african american woman who practices judaism, that doesn't mean she's jewish by birth.

As a Labour member I was disinclined to believe these accusations, and Sadiq Khan has been good in opposing anti-semitism and distancing himself from Corbyn.

But there have been so many instances coming out of Sadiq Khan associating with and drawing political support from extremist Pakistani Islamist factions that I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

This Harry's Place article lays it out pretty well I think

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/20/sadiq-khans-record-versus-the-rhetoric-the-fosis-case/

Judaism is a religious doctrine that has created a race by mandating inbreeding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/david-cameron-called-racist-after-accusing-sadiq-khan-over-links/

A bit hypocritical of Cameron considering that we remain such strong allies with the KSA, but racist? It's racist to criticise someone for shmoozing with fascists?

Nor does it say anywhere that the PM's office should be a partisan constitutional institution and indeed, the courts would generally interpret it as the following:

When the PM sits in office, he is representing the interests of the entire country, and not just those he pandered to during the election. This PM seems to have forgotten that.

Of course, he can represent his constituency from the benches, as is his prerogative but when he speaks in front of No.10, all semblance of partisanship must be absent.

The electorate does not elect a partisan Prime Minister.

Of course not, because that is not a partisan issue. It is a national issue, which affects all regardless of how we voted in the last general election.

Cameron's claim is seemingly fraudulent, which is why he made it in the Commons and refuses to utter it outside of Parliament, so as to use parliamentary privilege as a shield against any future defamation case.

The PM occupies a number of offices whilst being PM, of which being an MP is one of them.

Should he wish to represent the wishes of his constituency, then he does so as an MP or a private citizen, like he did when he wrote that letter to his local council lamenting the front line service cuts that they were engaging in, a policy that ironically was of his own making.

You use 10 Downing Street to carry out matters of state, not constituency matters, a fact which David Cameron seems well aware of.



The electorate elect MP's and not the PM. Whilst the PM may be drawn from the Commons, it is not necessary that he, or she plays partisan politics with the office of the PM.

You may not like it and you may pass it off as "It's always been done this way" but you cannot deny that the Office of the PM should be strictly above partisan politics and looking out for matters of state.

It is not a partisan issue, demonstrated by the fact that the Conservative Party are split, as are some of the Labour Party members.

If the EU referendum was a partisan issue, we would see one clear and coherent message from the Tories, but they seem all over the place.

The Government, and by extension the civil servants (the people that actually run the country and are the backbone of Westminster), are obliged to remain politically neutral on all policy issues.

They serve the Crown and the realm, not petty political maneuverings.

The man that he has accused, has asked the PM to repeat said statements outside of Parliament. Cameron has not done so, hence, skirting the issue.

If he has links to extremism, then the police must have carried out some investigation and given that supporting IS is a crime in this country, the fact that said person has not been charged with any offences speaks for itself.

The simple truth is that Cameron is a coward who hides his oily exterior behind the office of the PM, which perverse and demeans such a distinguished office.