>>>>>Peter - FWIW, I did not read your original comment as a joke and I was shocked that you would say it. So while you may have known what you meant, clearly it did come across as you intended to multiple readers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Tamar, perhaps you too are somewhat sensitive? I beg you to read the sentence one more time. Then tell me what's improper.
>>>
>>>Peter - I just went back and read the sentence again. Knowing you meant it as a joke, I can see how it could be taken that way, but clearly, a number of people did not read it that way originally. (And, of course, the lack of a smiley of some sort meant you provided no clue.)
>>>
>>>I think this is one of those cases where, face to face, the joke would have been obvious (by the look on your face and the tone of voice and so forth), but where in writing, the joke just didn't come through.
>>>
>>>FWIW, I would have seen that sentence as inflammatory no matter what religion or ethnic group you referenced. Test yourself. Fill in the blank with different groups and see why some of us were stunned:
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank G-d plants and trees and animals, fish and birds and the majority of mankind are not _____________.
>>>
>>
>>Tamar, there was a clear context. Orthodox jews (observant jews) are not allowed to work/create during Sabbath. However, there are many activities that must continue during that period too. Thanks to others those activities are indeed done. (So, G-d will have planned it that way. <s>)
>>
>>But even without having knowledge of that context people shouldn't automatically interpret the text in a negative way. It demonstrates too much sensitivity. It demonstrates an eagerness to see anti-jewish sentiments in other people.
>
>Actually, I think it doesn't demonstrate an eagerness as much as it does a resignation. I've said this often before and I'll say it again; context is everything.
>
>Without the context, how would anyone know?

Resignation is a difficult word for me. Do you mean 'giving up'?