Submitted by synonyco t3_yg5vqq in todayilearned
Comments
synonyco OP t1_iu717i3 wrote
Ja, the theory at the time was a devout Catholic would be mandated to obey any order of the Pope which would mean the United States would be under the control of a foreign entity.
atlcog t1_iu73wg8 wrote
Are you confusing Catholicism with Judaism? Title says Jews, now you're talking about the Pope. Or, are you just giving another example of religious oppression?
BradleySigma t1_iu8ha2c wrote
> Non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire had to pay extra taxes.
IIRC, the military comprised of conscripted Muslims, and so the extra tax was essentially an alternative to national service.
Legio-X t1_iu9p366 wrote
This was part of the official reasoning. In practice, the tax was designed to be enough of a burden to incentivize conversion.
So were all the restrictions placed upon them: they couldn’t carry weapons, they couldn’t ride horses or camels, they couldn’t build new houses of worship, they couldn’t testify against Muslims in criminal cases, their houses couldn’t overlook Muslim ones, they couldn’t practice their religion in certain ways (no public religious processions, no ringing church bells or blowing the shofar, etc.)…the only way to stop being a second-class citizen was converting to Islam.
AlsdousHuxley t1_iu9lh0w wrote
I don’t know if I find comments like these constructive. Addressing historical wrongs (which inform today’s society) requires understanding what happened. Responding to someone saying “something bad happened” with “well, something bad happened to all these other people” doesn’t do much to increase the specificity of our understanding of injustice
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuah52u wrote
Just keeping within context that all groups have been persecuted or exploited at some point in time. And yes, it should stop. Just tired of modern society constantly being expected to answer for the mistakes of the past and it never seems to stop.
AlsdousHuxley t1_iuakpdb wrote
I guess. I would be curious why you think that’s important context to keep this within?
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuasz3m wrote
The phrase "stirring up shit from the past" comes to mind.
AlsdousHuxley t1_iuaw8zo wrote
Hmm, that’s what I suspected. I don’t see that as compatible with also acknowledging it should stop.
If you agree historical wrongs are linked to modern society, it becomes are a legacy we need to acknowledge. Not to just feel guilty about, but because addressing then requires a specific understanding of their context. As you’ve acknowledged injustice happens to a bunch of groups, all in their own ways, so we can only address it by understanding specifics.
P.S. I hope my tone doesn’t seem off in anyway - this was just a conversation I’ve been hoping to have
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iuawuh5 wrote
I choose to live in the present. But I don't disagree with the concepts you've stated. I've just had enough reminders of things that happened years ago that I had literally nothing to do with. Most of these injustices have been corrected and are no longer an issue.
AlsdousHuxley t1_iuaxn4g wrote
It’s not you having caused them, it’s whether or not it matters to you to resolve their consequences - and I see the consequences as related and real. Seems you agree their are consequences and they’re related to their history, I guess the disagreement is you feel the consequences are overblown.
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iub14e2 wrote
What consequence do you feel I owe for something that happened in 1826? And how do you plan to extract that from me exactly?
AlsdousHuxley t1_iub1qbm wrote
I never said owe, and you bringing up extract seems unnecessarily hostile when I said it’s about whether or not it matters to you.
Now you said it did, so if that’s the case and you’re down to assist voluntarily, I think the relevance is that Jews face the highest per capita hate crime rate and tracing why this did not happen randomly but builds on a pattern of both state sponsored and non-state based discrimination is useful to understanding how we ended up in a place where Jews are focused on disproportionately. And this understanding is important to changing this.
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iub2pl4 wrote
That's no longer happening in modern US society. You're acting like something from 200 years ago is still happening today. Isolated incidents will always occur, but that doesn't mean Jews are being systematically or institutionally discriminated against, at least not more than any other group in various settings, even those that are referred to as "majority" don't receive fair treatment in many situations.
drak0bsidian t1_iu7mwyv wrote
Being a Jew from Maryland, I do take pride in my home state's early acceptance of religious tolerance, even if it just started with accepting different sects/denominations of Christianity (unlike the other Colonies and early States, which didn't accept Catholics and sometimes other Christian groups).
Plenty of sins in our history, but a good amount of progress, too.
Greene_Mr t1_iu8eb92 wrote
I'm from Rhode Island; we've got the oldest-standing synagogue in the United States, down in Newport.
CrieDeCoeur t1_iu7cd8s wrote
1826? Hell that's downright progressive compared to my city, where it was all over the press in the mid 80s when the uppity golf club allowed a Japanese professor play there one time. And they still don't permit Jewish members as far as I'm aware.
[deleted] t1_iu7f5x0 wrote
[deleted]
GeneralNathanJessup t1_iu7zqre wrote
>That's illegal af.
No it's not, pretend reddit lawyer.
CrieDeCoeur t1_iu7ho9r wrote
Oh fuck yes. But that golf club was run and peopled by the same rich old white men that either payed local politicians or were the local politicians. Who was ever gonna police that situation?
I only learned about all that when I caddied there as a youngster. For an entire week. Fuck that haven for racist pricks.
Greene_Mr t1_iu8ed82 wrote
But did you get to blow up the course in order to catch and kill a dancing gopher?
starmartyr t1_iu7mqzm wrote
Unfortunately, it's not. Country clubs are private clubs that are allowed to discriminate when it comes to choosing members. There are still country clubs that do not allow black people or Jews and others that do not allow women. It's less common than it used to be, but it still happens.
chriswaco t1_iu7qlu1 wrote
Depends on the state and the type/definition of private club. In Michigan it's been illegal since 1976 for most family clubs:
>(2) If a private club allows use of its facilities by 1 or more adults per membership, the use must be equally available to all adults entitled to use the facilities under the membership. All classes of membership shall be available without regard to race, color, gender, religion, marital status, or national origin. Memberships that permit use during restricted times may be allowed only if the restricted times apply to all adults using that membership.
Of course, that doesn't prevent discrimination, it just makes it more difficult. We had a friend in the 1980s that was the first Jew at a major country club here. Typically two existing members have to sign the membership request and they simply wouldn't do it for Jews. He was an auto exec, though, and the thought of losing all of the execs from his company changed a few minds.
starmartyr t1_iu7r476 wrote
That's true, but there's currently no law against it federally and it does happen in some places.
[deleted] t1_iu7q2sa wrote
[deleted]
starmartyr t1_iu7rg2e wrote
A private club is like a private residence. I can refuse to let black people in my house. It's a disgusting and racist thing to do, but it's perfectly legal for me to do so.
[deleted] t1_iu7s3uq wrote
[deleted]
starmartyr t1_iu7t5j8 wrote
Restaurants are open to the public. There are private dining clubs where only members are permitted to enter. Golf clubs do the same although some states have restrictions on this. I don't agree with the practice, but it is legal.
[deleted] t1_iu7tlyz wrote
[removed]
Major_Lennox t1_iu7r3h4 wrote
I don't think that's right:
> Marcy Frost, an employment attorney at Moss & Barnett, says it all depends on the word "private".
> "If you are truly a private club, and not open to the public, the answer is generally, yes, you're allowed to discriminate," said Frost.
> Why?
> "On the theory we have a Constitutional right of freedom of association," she said.*
[deleted] t1_iu7rlaa wrote
[deleted]
FredTheLynx t1_iu965pa wrote
It is honestly kind of amazing how much progress has been made in the last 50-70 years and simultaneously depressing how long it took.
For like 99.999% of human history we have been an almost completely tribal bunch of murderous dickheads and many of us still are.
detasselers t1_iu8jm5n wrote
Professional golfer Tom Watson quit the Kansas City Country Club in 1990 after it denied membership to Henry Bloch, one of the founders of H&R Block, who was Jewish. They offered a membership to Bloch a week later, and he joined. Watson didn’t rejoin until 1995.
Legio-X t1_iu9q627 wrote
People often forget the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government originally. States could and did have religious tests like this one for public office. Some had state religions. Some banned religions. Missouri banned Mormons from the state on pain of death.
Thankfully, the 14th Amendment led to the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies the Bill of Rights to state and local governments.
HenriettaHiggins t1_iu7ia0k wrote
Oh hon, this isn’t even the worst of it. We saw a deed in Baltimore last week that limited individuals living in a certain neighborhood from being non-white in fairly enumerated terms, and it wasn’t renounced by the neighborhood until…2014! The house sold in under a week for more than a million dollars. 😐
teh_maxh t1_iu7uubn wrote
Deed restrictions like that are pretty common. They're not legally enforceable, so it's usually not worth the bother of actually getting them removed.
HenriettaHiggins t1_iu86hf7 wrote
Yeah my understanding was they’re rendered null by the fair housing act but it felt..off.. that someone in 2014 felt compelled to “address “ it with a cover letter
genesiss23 t1_iu8vcfz wrote
Deed restrictions have been illegal since the fair housing act. In some areas, it's just hard to change the deed and so, it's just left on.
grapemike t1_iuav2mh wrote
Doubtful that racial and/or religious restrictions for holding public office will return. Probable that the US is going to allow private companies to fire minorities at will based upon “individual freedoms”. Within five years, private clubs will be able to buy out minority memberships and private neighborhoods will be permitted to exclude Jews or anyone else they choose. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is being undermined right this minute.
This is where the US is heading. The right to bigotry exceeds the rights of minorities. Disgusting, but there it is.
MarzannaMorena t1_iu7qcsr wrote
Thats pretty early on in comparison to others. Some us politicans still didn't want to allow catholic judge to be in supreme court few years ago.
[deleted] t1_iu8hpee wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu75vsa wrote
[removed]
ILoveSnouts t1_iu7l88j wrote
/Kanye taking notes
JosephMeach t1_iu8h6bu wrote
So one of the first places in the world to allow religious freedom, then?
skovalen t1_iu8jemy wrote
That fits along the concept that the federal govt was constrained by the Constitution/Bill of Rights but States could do whatever they wanted.
This country has been trying to glue/un-glue itself since it's founding.
shewy92 t1_iu97znv wrote
Technically atheists aren't allowed to hold public office today in some states because the constitution only protect against religious discrimination, a lack of religion doesn't fall into that category.
RevRagnarok t1_iuagbe5 wrote
IIRC Maryland is still one of them.
shewy92 t1_iuagnzj wrote
>Article 1, section 4: No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth
ShadowLiberal t1_iu9m34r wrote
Those bans are all illegal and unenforceable, the Supreme Court struck them down a long time ago.
BlackEyeRed t1_iu9mluj wrote
Isn't it fine to just say Jews in this situation or is it considered derogatory regardless of the context and tone?
Mitthrawnuruo t1_iuai5u1 wrote
To be fair, I also hate New Yorkers.
MoarCatzPlz t1_iualj4z wrote
The bill still required to swear a belief in "a future state of rewards and punishments," so didn't remove the religious test entirely.
dreadredheadzedsdead t1_iu9rem8 wrote
Bro. 200 years ago there was some institutional anti semitism? What a non story
killbot200 t1_iu9yjqj wrote
This is only shocking if you're twelve and reading about the worlds violent and cruel history for the first time... You know slavery still existed at that time right? Get a brain.
pjabrony t1_iu8idz5 wrote
Well, that's what, like a little before 6:30 at night? That's not so bad.
Brewe t1_iu8n2oh wrote
Oh boy, wait until you hear about women and black people
swinginghardhammer t1_iu70lu6 wrote
Why?
oxfozyne t1_iu71rja wrote
Good ole American racism.
swinginghardhammer t1_iu721wg wrote
Can you elaborate
soolkyut t1_iu74atd wrote
Sometimes religions don’t like each other.
Especially over 200 years ago
synonyco OP t1_iu74hmp wrote
Elaborate on American racism in general or against Jewish folk?
In general is a little too broad and there is the entirety of human knowledge in your hand. When it comes to Jewish folk, think of it this way... During the run-up to WWII, most Americans thought was Hilter was doing was great. Anti-semitism was rampant across the western world.
spucci t1_iu77r0r wrote
" During the run-up to WWII, most Americans thought was Hilter was doing was great"
You are full of shit you know that right?
synonyco OP t1_iu79v9d wrote
You are kidding me, right? Like, are you not at all aware?
Here's a good one for you... Thomas Watson, head of IBM sold HItler the computational equipment he couldn't have organized the Third Reich without. Then licensed them to build punchcard factories in Germany instead of buying it from the US to get around trade sanctions. He was awarded a metal for "Service to the Reich". Jews were a scapegoat during the Great Depression to blue collar workers. In 1939, Miami turned away the USS St Louis filled with German Jewish refugees and they were returned to Germany and put in concentration camps. Throughout the 30's, it was common for KKK and other hate groups to attack Jewish people and businesses, painting swastikas on their doors. Henry Ford was a well-known antisemite who praised Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and would not hire jews. Even during WWII, the US maintained Jewish immigration restrictions which were designed to prevent what they felt were 'undesirables' from flooding US cities.
​
None of this is at all hard to find. Simple Google search, my dude... Don't be that guy.
PrettyFly4aGeek t1_iu7esoq wrote
Yes, google is easy. And you wold see "most" Americans did not support Hitler prior to WW2.
StillTonight4576 t1_iu8ec9o wrote
>previously, the state's constitution required public officeholders to make "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."[
So it went from nobody but Christians could hold office, to only Christians and Jews could hold office. When could Muslims hold public office in Maryland?
Seems like Jews and Christians held a lot of privilege compared to other minorities.
walter_2000_ t1_iu7t71o wrote
That's a really long time ago. Those fuckers were psychotic in the 1800's. That's actually really liberal. Jews are like 1 or 2 or 3% of the population now, I can't imagine the hell they experienced in the 1800's. Fuck that. But seriously, they're still persecuted (Hi Kanye you cunt), so 200 years ago must have been really rough. Other minorities couldn't do anything for quite a while after that. When did women get the right to vote? The fucking 13th amendment that ended slavery was 1866 or something.
I_am_the_alcoholic t1_iu7je4i wrote
Well its alright, they're doing pretty well these days.
Dragmire800 t1_iu8g6a3 wrote
America is a country basically founded by extremist Christians, I’m very surprised jewish people could hold office as early as 1826
ThatWasFred t1_iub4h5e wrote
The founding fathers explicitly did NOT want the USA to be a Christian nation. Not saying there weren’t extremist Christians living here, of course, but I don’t really know what you’re on about.
TheClayroo t1_iu79o3m wrote
An atheist still can't.
snow_michael t1_iu7flaz wrote
Actually, since the 1961 SCOTUS win against ... oh yes, Maryland, they can
All state, county, city, school board etc. laws barring atheists from public office are unconstitutional
synonyco OP t1_iu7a5zc wrote
As an atheist, I have no problem swearing an oath on a bible. It means nothing to me. Might as well be saying, "so help me, Gargamel".
DharmaCub t1_iu7et7v wrote
You don't have to swear on a bible, you can swear on anything.
kl0 t1_iu7rsqf wrote
It’s not the swearing in. There are several US states that actually prohibit atheists from holding office. I live in Texas. Texas is one of them.
Now granted, it wouldn’t hold up today - hopefully. But there’s definitely still a law for it.
[deleted] t1_iu70qrz wrote
[deleted]
Banea-Vaedr t1_iu71x4z wrote
It's been about 200 years
thisisnttakeone t1_iu72565 wrote
And it’s still happening lol
AllbotsAllday t1_iu75bnr wrote
The abolishionists believed Jewish people ran the Trans Atlantic slave trade so they banned them from office.
Thankfully the abolitionists corrected their crimes.
DaveOJ12 t1_iu76g08 wrote
What are you on about?
AllbotsAllday t1_iu79cle wrote
Which part are you confused about?
OldPunkChick t1_iu78tr2 wrote
That might have been a pretext, but the real one was racism. I'd be interested to see where you learned that, though, and get more context. Do you have a link?
AllbotsAllday t1_iu7b3k7 wrote
Lived in MD. This is what is taught in state history lessons.
It's presented as a religious beef more than racism. I guess it's to save face?
drak0bsidian t1_iu7lzxw wrote
>Lived in MD.
Born and raised.
>This is what is taught in state history lessons.
I went to public school grades 2-12 in a county with plenty of Confederate flags and the delusional beliefs to go with them, and I have never heard this. And especially being Jewish, I feel I would remember learning this.
AllbotsAllday t1_iu7tnfz wrote
Cool, love MD.
The area I lived in was pretty diverse, we spent a lot of time learning about the Civil war and slavery, even took us out to Antietam.
synonyco OP t1_iu7c59h wrote
At the time the race and religion were relatively the same. It has been a relatively modern phenomenon where there are large numbers of people who were not born of the Jewish ancestry that convert to the Jewish religion.
TurkeyDinner547 t1_iu70mec wrote
Non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire had to pay extra taxes. Many people didn't want JFK to become president because he was Catholic. Women in the US couldn't vote until 1920. Several countries hold public elections, yet somehow the incumbent dynasty or leading political party always seems to be the one elected by a landslide. This type of shit happens all the time, unfortunately.