Points of Intersection?

[arthra]

Pilgram wrote:

Thank you for your response. I will certainly look into this religion but perhaps you can help me. Would you say that Bahai would be among the first religion to let go of its myths or would you guess that it might balk at paring down its dogma? And I admit that I do not know its myths but I'm guessing it has them. I speak of a human who claims to have received special revelation from God? Is there such a one in Bahai? And if so, would Bahai be willing to delete such dogma?

My reply:

I would invite you to explore the Baha'i Faith for yourself and allow you to form of course your own judgements on the issue as to whether it is based on "myths" or facts... Most Baha'is would probably see their religion as something founded on facts as most of the events occurred well within historical times and were not passed down over say centuries of time as some traditions are.

Pilgram wrote:

Of course I know you do not speak for Bahai.

My reply:

Actually I do seek to represent the Baha'i views on various subjects here. But I am only one Baha'i and not a formal representative as we have no priests or ministers.

Pilgram:

But I ask these questions to demonstrate the difficulty of asking any religion to pare down its dogma to the essentials needed for all people to live in peace and love. You see, if Bahai, which has agreed with my assessment above, is unwilling to let go of the myths that differentiate it from other religions, it is really not much different in that it too claims that it has revelations from God.

My reply:

You're welcome to use any frame of reference you choose to... It would probably best for you though to have as few preconceptions as possible and then investigate the Faith for itself without prejudice. In any event after you've investigated it for yourself, I'd be most pleased to answer any questions!

Pilgram:

We all have revelations from God. Every individual receives revelations from God everyday. I thank God that each of us has not insisted on starting a new religion or we would be facing six billion different religions!

My reply:

From the Baha'i view we would probably say we do not all have Revelations from God everyday... Our view is that these are actually rather rare events in human history that are not commonplace and also that they are pivotal and crucial to human progress.

The rest of your post was largely in my opinion a summary of how you feel despair and I would only hope for your sake that you are open enough to see possibilities from outside that despair, because you could become quite depressed and immobilized by it, i.e., by your despair.

One way to break through the despair I think would be to actually involve yourself in activities that direct your energy outwards toward wholesome goals that serve others in some way...otherwise, your energies will return back to you and build up a greater depression, a negative spiral as it were.

In friendship,

- Art

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

We all have revelations from God. Every individual receives revelations from God everyday. I thank God that each of us has not insisted on starting a new religion or we would be facing six billion different religions!

Dear Pilgram,

I agree with Arthra, what you are calling revelation in this context I would term inspiration. We all receive inspiration daily if we are open to it, but revelation is a rare occurrance. Revelation is something only a handful of unique individuals in the history of mankind have ever attained. These being the Prophets or Manifestations of God. Baha'u'llah, Baha'is believe is the Manifestation of God for this age related His revelation in the following words...

"O King! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred. Can it be still when the tempestuous winds are blowing? Nay, by Him Who is the Lord of all Names and Attributes! They move it as they list. The evanescent is as nothing before Him Who is the Ever-Abiding. His all-compelling summons hath reached Me, and caused Me to speak His praise amidst all people. I was indeed as one dead when His behest was uttered. The hand of the will of thy Lord, the Compassionate, the Merciful, transformed Me." ... "During the days I lay in the prison of Tihrán, though the galling weight of the chains and the stench-filled air allowed Me but little sleep, still in those infrequent moments of slumber I felt as if something flowed from the crown of My head over My breast, even as a mighty torrent that precipitateth itself upon the earth from the summit of a lofty mountain. Every limb of My body would, as a result, be set afire. At such moments My tongue recited what no man could bear to hear. "
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf - Baha'u'llah p. 22

"God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call. Accuse Me not of having transgressed against God. Behold Me, not with your eyes but with Mine. Thus admonisheth you He Who is the Gracious, the All-Knowing. Think ye, O people, that I hold within My grasp the control of God's ultimate Will and Purpose? Far be it from Me to advance such claim. To this I testify before God, the Almighty, the Exalted, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Had the ultimate destiny of God's Faith been in Mine hands, I would have never consented, even though for one moment, to manifest Myself unto you, nor would I have allowed one word to fall from My lips. Of this God Himself is, verily, a witness. "
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p 91

[Pilgram]

arthra wrote:

The rest of your post was largely in my opinion a summary of how you feel despair and I would only hope for your sake that you are open enough to see possibilities from outside that despair, because you could become quite depressed and immobilized by it, i.e., by your despair.

One way to break through the despair I think would be to actually involve yourself in activities that direct your energy outwards toward wholesome goals that serve others in some way...otherwise, your energies will return back to you and build up a greater depression, a negative spiral as it were.

In friendship,

- Art

Thank you for your kind note and your suggestions about how to deal with my despair. But I thought it was clear that I was speaking only of man's ability to find peace and unity. In my personal life I feel nothing resembling despair as I have been blessed with a rare love. My love would never allow me to become depressed even if I were prone toward that mental illness.

And again thanks for the suggestions about serving others although I have no idea why you assume I don't.

Getting back to the central subject I will definately investigate Bahai religion to see if perhaps it has already invented the wheel for me, thus saving me much time. I must respectfully disagree with your statement that revelations are actually rare. One much differentiate between a burning bush revelations heard and seen by one (hearsay for the billions of followers that believe it) and the revelations that God sends us daily when she tells us what is the right thing to do when we had only been considering the expedient.

In any case I'll check back after my research and thanks.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

9Harmony says:

Dear Pilgram,

I agree with Arthra, what you are calling revelation in this context I would term inspiration. We all receive inspiration daily if we are open to it, but revelation is a rare occurrance. Revelation is something only a handful of unique individuals in the history of mankind have ever attained. These being the Prophets or Manifestations of God. Baha'u'llah, Baha'is believe is the Manifestation of God for this age related His revelation in the following words...

If all one has to do to establish that he or she has received a "revelation" as opposed to an inspiration is to say so and get others to second the motion, what distinguishes that from Hitler's revelations from God? He certainly believed that God had spoken to him and told him what needed doing. Likewise he also had a following he thought he was indeed God's prophet.

If it is not a popularity contest what then is revelation? When I say God revealed something to me, it appears that I will be faced with many who say, "no, revelation is rare. What you perceive is merely inspiration. Go back and meditate some more."

Revelation is only revelation to those who believe it so. There are many devout Jews who do not believe that the new testament were revelations. So what then is a revelation other than what someone says it is? Numbers? If only I believe God has revealed something to me, does it become a revelation after a certain number of followers also believe it? How many must believe? 100? 1 million?

That is why I asked earlier does Bahai include any myth. Myth, as I use it is not a bad word. Myth is a learning tool. But myth is not fact. If Bahai claims God said this and God said that, why should anyone believe that without proof? Do you see my question? I am not attacking Bahai, in fact it sounds, so far, like one of the least toxic of all religions. And if I find it has no arbitrary dogma that someone claims God told him to say, I will make it my very own.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[arthra]

Pilgram wrote:

Thank you for your kind note and your suggestions about how to deal with my despair. But I thought it was clear that I was speaking only of man's ability to find peace and unity. In my personal life I feel nothing resembling despair as I have been blessed with a rare love. My love would never allow me to become depressed even if I were prone toward that mental illness.

My reply:

Sorry to have misread you... I was wrong.

Pilgram:

And again thanks for the suggestions about serving others although I have no idea why you assume I don't.

Reply:

I've learned in my life Pilgram not to "assume" anythng... but I sincerely meant what I said and was only offering a suggestion.... Please excuse me.

Pilgram:

Getting back to the central subject I will definately investigate Bahai religion to see if perhaps it has already invented the wheel for me, thus saving me much time.

My reply:

I'll be happy to assist you in any way I can.

Pilgram:

I must respectfully disagree with your statement that revelations are actually rare. One much differentiate between a burning bush revelations heard and seen by one (hearsay for the billions of followers that believe it) and the revelations that God sends us daily when she tells us what is the right thing to do when we had only been considering the expedient.

My reply:

I was only trying to convey what was the Baha'i view on the subject.... Inspiration that we daily experience is to us not the same as a Revelation from God that would be source of a new dispensation, in our view.

In friendship,

- Art

[arthra]

Pilgram wrote:

If all one has to do to establish that he or she has received a "revelation" as opposed to an inspiration is to say so and get others to second the motion, what distinguishes that from Hitler's revelations from God? He certainly believed that God had spoken to him and told him what needed doing. Likewise he also had a following he thought he was indeed God's prophet.

Reply:

I was currious if you had read this somewhere?

"He certainly believed that God had spoken to him and told him what needed doing. Likewise he also had a following he thought he was indeed God's prophet."

Not to disagree with you... but I'd like more information on your sources for this.

Pilgram:

If it is not a popularity contest what then is revelation? When I say God revealed something to me, it appears that I will be faced with many who say, "no, revelation is rare. What you perceive is merely inspiration. Go back and meditate some more."

Reply:

This a good question Pilgram... Is a divine revelation a "popularity contest"? What would constitute actions that would suggest someone was simply trying to promote themselves and win a following and what wouldn't? I think that would be something worthy of study.

Pilgram:

Revelation is only revelation to those who believe it so. There are many devout Jews who do not believe that the new testament were revelations. So what then is a revelation other than what someone says it is? Numbers? If only I believe God has revealed something to me, does it become a revelation after a certain number of followers also believe it? How many must believe? 100? 1 million?

Reply:

Again, an excellent question. The Baha'is would say a Revelation is something more than a matter of convincing others to believe... and something other "than what someone says it is". Mere numbers alone are not a measure of a Revelation from God in our view.

Pilgram:

That is why I asked earlier does Bahai include any myth. Myth, as I use it is not a bad word. Myth is a learning tool. But myth is not fact. If Bahai claims God said this and God said that, why should anyone believe that without proof?

Reply:

Exactly! Hence the need to investigate.


In friendship,

- Art

[bananabrain]

Yes, and it is this "exclusivity" that is killing us. Exclusivity creates "otherness" and it is otherness that creates fear, prejudice, war, etc.

i would be careful here if i were you. by your logic, judaism would be "exclusive" and therefore responsible for creating all the things you ascribe to "otherness". in my experience of inter-religious dialogue exclusivity need not create otherness. in fact, universalism may also create "otherness", by saying "everyone has to join" - this is the basis for saying "believe in our Truth or be damned to hell". "otherness" comes from the human instinct to divide into "us" and "them" and then refuse to take responsibility for "our" problems, by blaming external "dark forces" and the like. as a jew, i am amongst the groups that are still being accused of causing other people's problems when, in fact, it is a matter of facing up to the reality of one's situation.

the problem is not "the jews", "the muslims", "the fundamentalists", "the pagans", "the immigrants", "the government", "capitalism", "dogma", "exclusivity" and so on. the problem is US and the solution is to GROW THE FECK UP AND STOP WHINING THAT IT'S EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT. *that's* what creates "otherness" - *ME*.

btw: the traditional position about the revelation at sinai is that 600,000 people witnessed it and accepted its results, so it doesn't depend on one person's opinion. this must also be balanced with the consideration that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it "true". however, i don't think anyone's in a position to prove whether revelations are "true" or not, so it's a bit of a waste of time to argue about it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Banana says:

btw: the traditional position about the revelation at sinai is that 600,000 people witnessed it and accepted its results, so it doesn't depend on one person's opinion. this must also be balanced with the consideration that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it "true". however, i don't think anyone's in a position to prove whether revelations are "true" or not, so it's a bit of a waste of time to argue about it.

the traditional position about the revelation at sinai is that 600,000 people witnessed it and accepted its results, so it doesn't depend on one person's opinion.

Please, Banana, can you do me a favor, and give me the main thrust of the above paragraph?

this must also be balanced with the consideration that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it "true".

What is this in the above sentence?

however, i don't think anyone's in a position to prove whether revelations are "true" or not, so it's a bit of a waste of time to argue about it.

Do you mean in the above sentence that the fact of the events covering revelations and the revelations themselves as contents are matters of religious beliefs, so let's not argue about them?

In which case I agree with you. Do you have that belief as part of your religion?

Susma Rio Sep

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would be careful here if i were you. by your logic, judaism would be "exclusive" and therefore responsible for creating all the things you ascribe to "otherness". in my experience of inter-religious dialogue exclusivity need not create otherness.

Oh, I'm being very careful, thank you, Judaism does create otherness. Have you ever heard of the gentile or the goyim? Let us look at the old testament and how the goyim were treated as "others." Jews were forbidden to charge interest on loans to other Jews, but not to the goyim! You probably overlooked this accidently, no?

in fact, universalism may also create "otherness", by saying "everyone has to join" - this is the basis for saying "believe in our Truth or be damned to hell".

Universalism says no such thing. There is no mandate to join. Where did you pull this one from? (or should I take your word "may" and run with it as it applies to Judaism as well, hmmm?)

Although Universalism doesn't say that, Catholicism and many Christian denominations say just that. Our way or the hell way. But the Jews don't get any stars here either.

"otherness" comes from the human instinct to divide into "us" and "them" and then refuse to take responsibility for "our" problems, by blaming external "dark forces" and the like. as a jew, i am amongst the groups that are still being accused of causing other people's problems when, in fact, it is a matter of facing up to the reality of one's situation.

the problem is not "the jews", "the muslims", "the fundamentalists", "the pagans", "the immigrants", "the government", "capitalism", "dogma", "exclusivity" and so on. the problem is US and the solution is to GROW THE FECK UP AND STOP WHINING THAT IT'S EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT. *that's* what creates "otherness" - *ME*.

So which is it? Is it YOU who creates the problem or is it EVERYONE like you'd like it to be? Please leave me out of your analysis of how YOU are the problem and how YOU need to grow up. Speak for yourself. Your simplistic "grow up ... and stop whining" solves nothing since no one is making any moves in that direction. Least of all YOU. (Perhaps you weren't whining?)

btw: the traditional position about the revelation at sinai is that 600,000 people witnessed it and accepted its results, so it doesn't depend on one person's opinion. this must also be balanced with the consideration that just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't make it "true". however, i don't think anyone's in a position to prove whether revelations are "true" or not, so it's a bit of a waste of time to argue about it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Well this solves everything! We have hearsay that's thousands of years old that 600,000 witnesses ... blah, blah, blah. It's still hearsay, not evidence.

You are very wrong about revelations and those who claim them as true. The person making any assertion BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I, as the one hearing it, have no burden at all. I don't have to disprove it. The asserter has the burden. Otherwise I can just say God told me that you are full of ... now you have to prove that you are not. God has told me that all religions are nonsense, you have to prove that they are not.

Do you see how that works? I didn't make up the laws of logic and rational argumentation. I simply try to follow them. They beat the ... out of whatever is in second place.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


iirc, it's the positive claimant that has the burden of proof upon them, not the negative.

in any event....

the problem with a 'world' religion is that there are religious traditions that have no belief in a Creator God whatsoever. how one would find the common ground betwixt them and those that do believe in a Creator Deity remains to be seen.

from our point of view, this is a "one size fits all" approach and would not be something that we'd endorse. people are differing in their capacites, to pretend otherwise is a fallacy. people, therefore, need teachings that are appropriate for them and can help them make spiritual progress. this is specifically why the Buddha proclaimed that there are 84,000 entry ways into the Dharma.

[arthra]

You know at certain stages in the world's history exclusivity was probably necessary to preserve the religion and culture from being destroyed or absorbed by other larger groups....

Also, in history exclusivity or rather ghetoeism was enforced by the larger society..

From my understanding the stereotype of the "Shylock" and interest charging Jews goes way back to European life before the Rennaissance when the ONLY occupations left open to the Jews were the financial ones...They were forbidden to posses lands and other properties in those days.

So the developement of finance and Banking in Europe before say the seventeenth century or so largely grew out of excluding the Jews from all other occupations...at least that is the impression I've had.

That today we think in terms of "the planet" and such concepts as inter dependence, ecology, etc. is really very recent...

We Baha'is like to think that "Revelation" and inspiration from God had something to do with stirring these concepts of world connectedness and so on. That already there in some form maybe in a seed state waiting to blossom.

- Art

[Darkwolf]

Some general comments on the thread:

To me, a religion without myths and symbols would feel very empty. There seems to be an assumption by some people (and not just on this forum) that because my myths are different from other's myths, I must think I am right and they are wrong. This is not the case. I simply accept that they see things differently. I like it that way. I like diversity.

I don't like the idea of a universal religion. Peace between different religions is a good ideal, and one I work for. But trying to eliminate differences in belief and mythology in the name of unity is just as bad as trying to convert someone because you think your particular religion is the only right one.

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


iirc, it's the positive claimant that has the burden of proof upon them, not the negative.

I believe that is what I said, is it not?

in any event....

the problem with a 'world' religion is that there are religious traditions that have no belief in a Creator God whatsoever. how one would find the common ground betwixt them and those that do believe in a Creator Deity remains to be seen.

The belief in a god is not the big deal to atheists and agnostics, never has been. It's all the other baggage that come with each deity. That is why the American founding fathers were not Christians but rather deists. (I know there are about a billion Christians who are spitting and tearing out their hair but history is history. Christians will not let the facts get in the way though!)
Very few atheists or agnostics would have a problem with the mere mention of a god or gods IF it were left right there. But nooooo, then the religionists have to add on all their particular favorites. God doesn't like us to eat pork, god doesn't like us to eat beef, god doesn't like us to eat brussel sprouts, oh wait, that was King George the first.

God is not the problem. All the myth, arbitrary rules of what to eat, how to have sex, with whom you're allowed to have it with, blah, blah, blah, is the problem. Deists simply said: yeah, there's a god, great. Now let's get some good work done.

from our point of view, this is a "one size fits all" approach and would not be something that we'd endorse. people are differing in their capacites, to pretend otherwise is a fallacy. people, therefore, need teachings that are appropriate for them and can help them make spiritual progress. this is specifically why the Buddha proclaimed that there are 84,000 entry ways into the Dharma.

I don't know to whom"our point of view" and "we'd" refers in the preceding paragraph but be that as it may, one size fits all works just honky dorey with the overwhelming majority of things pertaining to humans as I've said before in so many ways. What is one more time?

The god/gods that humans choose to place their faith in is a lot less important to them than their necessity to eat, drink, sleep, have adequate medical care, have a job that affords them a livable wage and have a government that affords them real justice and protection rather than simply holy words (while the rich always obtain all the justice and protection they can afford).

THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS but most people really are more concerned with thier daily lives than with their religions and gods. I'm not really concerned about the real saints in any religion who are more concerned with their god than their daily lives. They are not a problem. And the kind of "one size fits all" (I like your description since I think it's true) religion that I envision does not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do. Just don't go spouting off all the things that other people "shouldn't" do. (Real saints don't do this, only the fakes do)

The sad thing is that the majority's religious leaders understand how valuable their votes are and so the simple are led into placing their trust where it ill serves them. But this is a long and complex issue. Perhaps better for politics than here.

The current issue still revolves around whether the human race is better served by joining one religion (voluntarily of course, I can't believe I had to address someone's suggestion that it was to be mandatory! sheesh!) where everyone is a brother and a sister, rather than six billion religions where each is the competitor of the other. Six billion little gods just aint gonna cut it!

Cultural diversity is one thing (a good thing as I said in a post yesterday - I love tasting new cuisine, hearing new music, viewing different art) but religion is something that is more than just a flavor of the month or of the district.

When two thousand denominations of the same "religion" create two thousand different ways to be "right", wars happen. Unlike the bumper stick of a similar phrase, wars don't just happen. We know what causes them now. Percieved differences that come down to nothing short of different OPINIONS. I guess the human race values its opinions so highly that it finds them worth fighting for and dying for. So be it.

All this talk of religions coming together in unity is just that: talk. We can assemble all the WORLD COUNCILS ON RELIGION and give them even more impressive names, assign "blue ribbon panels", but nothing will change. Nothing has changed since we had them. And we've had them now quite a while. Talk, talk, talk, with smiles, handshakes and pats on the backs. Then comes the fighting and the dying. Joe, say it isn't so!

We can't afford to entertain six billion gods and six billion religions. They are killing us, literally.

But as I said yesterday here or elsewhere, I have despaired [please, no more psychiatric diagnoses, thank you] of believing that it will change volutarily and with wisdom. I do believe it will change though. Perhaps like China chased out a whole gentle people and turned them into refugees, maybe other countries will follow suit. Perhaps we are seeing the first signs in France's dress code. What's next? Catholics and Protestants killing each other? Oh, wait, that's really happening. How about Jews and Moslems? Again, well how about Buddhists? Surely the peaceful Buddhist would never lift a hand to kill a fly! Sorry, even the peaceful Buddhist has a tarnished record when it comes to NOT turning the other cheek.

But you see, I have no problem with Buddhists or anyone else defending themselves against an agressor. The only problem I have is with the hypocrisy that attends religions that say one thing and do another. As long as we pretend that we are not hypocrites (think about that one for awhile) we can never see the flaws in our religions's dogma. Until we see the flaws, we can't fix them. Until we fix them, they will get us and others killed. And, although I know I don't speak for her, I wouldn't be surprised if this saddens the Goddess.

Religionists: keep your dogma, your rituals, your special decoder rings. All it costs is human suffering and death. And you get to see yourself as a martyr too!

Vanity, all is vanity.

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by arthra

You know at certain stages in the world's history exclusivity was probably necessary to preserve the religion and culture from being destroyed or absorbed by other larger groups....

Also, in history exclusivity or rather ghetoeism was enforced by the larger society..

I think you misunderstand how I am using the term "exclusivity." With the exception of the Nazis, KKK and other groups that required certain physical traits (unchangeable) most religions were always "open" to an outsider "joining" their little club. Of course during many historical times one could not simply join without putting one's life in danger as a traitor to the group one was leaving.

The exclusivity of which I speak is that inflicted by way of the dogma of each and every religion. If there was nothing different (exclusive) about a religion, it would be identical to one that already existed and therefore unnecessary!

From my understanding the stereotype of the "Shylock" and interest charging Jews goes way back to European life before the Rennaissance when the ONLY occupations left open to the Jews were the financial ones...They were forbidden to posses lands and other properties in those days.

So the developement of finance and Banking in Europe before say the seventeenth century or so largely grew out of excluding the Jews from all other occupations...at least that is the impression I've had.

I do not know whether you wrote this in response to my pointing out that Jews were forbidden by Jehovah to charge interest to Jews but they were allowed to charge it to the goyim (non-jews). But if you wrote it in response let me point out that this practice predated the Renaissance by at least one or two thousand or years!

I brought this up somewhere else to demonstrate how a religion teaches that "others" may be dealt with in ways that they may not treat their "brother/members." The goyim, btw, is still a term used by many Jews about non-Jews. But it's "just a joke", like calling a black person a ... ?

P.S., Jews, as well as every other enslaved people throughout history were never restricted to only one or two "professions." They, like so many other peoples who had been enslaved, were always to be found in the crafts and unskilled labor areas. The overwhelming majority of the world's population were unskilled laborers at one time or another and STILL ARE!

Peace and Love,
Pilgram

[arthra]

Pilgram,

I do think it's very important to be aware of the social and historical backgrounds of the various religions because a lot can be explained as well as understood, otherwise, if forgotten they're kind of lumped together in a confused sort of general misinformation in a discussion.

For the benefit of those who might be interested I'll post some of that here:

"Before the 19th century, anti-Semitism was largely religious and was expressed in the later Middle Ages by sporadic persecutions and expulsions—notably the expulsion from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella—and in severe economic and personal restrictions (see ghetto). However, since the Jews were generally restricted to the pursuit of occupations that were taboo, such as moneylending, the sentiment was also economic in nature."

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1994, 1995 Columbia University Press.

A source about the history of Judaism in Britain:

They were useful to the King for dealing in matters of money because Christians were prevented from carrying out usary (lending money for a rate of interest). However, Jews were classsed as Serfs of the Royal Chamber which meant that their property actaully belonged to the king. He could take this back at any time. They were heavily charged on an irregular basis by what were called tallages, which provided up to one seventh of the Crown's taxation income - from between three and ten thousand people.

Because the Jews leant money, the Barons owed them it. When there was a crusade, or a child murder that was unexplained, the Jews were subjected to massacres. This meant that the Barons no longer owed anything because they were dead.

The continuous extraction of money meant they became financially weak, and of no use to the Crown, so Richard I expelled them in 1190 from England and then from his Norman possessions. From then on entry of Jews into England was illegal.

Source:

http://www.change.freeuk.com/learnin...wsengland.html

Jews in Poland in the late eighteenth century:

They restricted the number of occupations that Jews were allowed to perform (for example they were forbidden to be chemists, brewers or flour-millers), engaging in trade was limited and some of the Jews were forced to move from country to towns. It should be added that some towns still enjoyed the privilege of de non tolerandis Judaeis, such as Biala, Jaslo, Wieliczka and Zywiec. In others, the occupation authorities forced the Jews to live in special quarters, ghettos, in the cities of Lvov, Nowy Sacz and Tarnow.

Source:

http://members.core.com/~mikerose/history2.htm