You know, yov - you've given me a lot of food for thought. I have always been the "thats your way, and this is my way" person, and yes, I have been arrogant about it. It never occurred to me that by saying that I was doing a similar thing - renouncing their truth - whatever it may be.
But if "you go your way, I go my way" doesn't work, what will????
Insisting to everyone else that "my way is the only way" doesn't seem to work at all.
I still think the latter is well, more tolerant? At least am not telling them to change. But they are asking me to!
Catholics to Pray (Again) for Jews to be...Enlightened
I'm glad you at least thought a bit about what I was saying. The answer? That's tough but I'd say it'd be a good start for more people to start realizing that saying "I think you're wrong" isn't necessarily disrespectful or intolerant. That it's not "arrogant" to believe oneself correct or to mention it. Yes, it can cause problems, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about it. Ultimately, we all think we're right about what we think we're right about!!
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Yov, I agree. Especially since that's exactly what I just said. 
There is a big difference between saying "I think you are wrong" and stopping there, and saying the same thing but following up with "and you must change your beliefs to match mine."
There is a big difference between saying "I think you are wrong" and stopping there, and saying the same thing but following up with "and you must change your beliefs to match mine."
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Yov - thats' a very, very valid point. Atleast acknowledge and not be arrogant about your position.
Thank you.
Frelga, I think there's a slight difference between what you are saying and what yov is - maybe it's just linguistic. But I don't think so.
still thinking
Thank you.
Frelga, I think there's a slight difference between what you are saying and what yov is - maybe it's just linguistic. But I don't think so.
still thinking
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Well, I thought I was saying some of the same things, but I guess I am too tired for nuance at the moment.
<heads off to cook dinner>
<heads off to cook dinner>
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Yov, breaking it down into two choices is probably too simplistic, but for the sake of argument I would say that we could view the discussion in this thread as broadly falling into the two world views you describe: religion as a purely spiritual realm versus religion as a set of facts.
But I disagree that the two world views they are symmetric in their arguments or equal in their consequences for 'the other.' I also disagree that they reflect equal arrogance in the religious sphere.
If I might rephrase the two positions as you presented them:
1. There is no single accessible truth, so I don't have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to let you believe whatever you want.
2. There is a single accessible truth, so I do have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to harrass and maybe even persecute you until you believe as I do.
When these two positions are talking to each other, the essence of their dialogue is:
1. Don't try to convert me and I won't try to convert you.
2. I must convert you. Don't try to stop me.
When these two positions are talking to a hypothetical third party:
1. Not saying anything at all. Listening.
2. You are wrong and have to change.
Both positions may hold their views with equal vigor, and be equally persistent in arguing them, but the first position is a defensive one and the second position is an aggressive one. Aggression and defense against aggression are never equal in their morality, culpability, or consequences.
But I don't find it surprising that you would argue they are equal because you have often argued here for the right of others to persecute you.
I'm afraid I cannot agree at all that others have the right to persecute me or that I am equally culpable of assault when I defend myself against persecution. In fact, I am pretty sure that neither of the positions you describe above would agree with this, because position 2 is also absolutist in that sense of wishing to decide where culpability lies in any moral situation.
They do no in fact argue that both sides are equally guilty of aggression. What they argue is that the aggression on their side is justified where absolute truths are concerned. Once god is introduced to the picture, his law (as they understand it) overrides human law and aggression against unbelievers becomes not only justified but necessary.
(Let me re-iterate here that this second position is not characteristic of all Christians. Most of the Christians in this discussion have expressed the "live and let live" position.)
When my ex-husband and I were breaking up ... a very long process ... we encountered one really misfortunate marriage counselor who told me the following:
"You do understand, don't you, that your husband is suffering just as much as you are? You want him to love you, and he doesn't. But he wants to harm you and you won't let him. Neither of you are getting what you want. You are completely even in your disappointment."
At a later date, I recounted this conversation to a different counselor, and she explained to me that this is a particular school of thought in psychology, where first you get both partners in a marriage to accept that there are no good and bad desires, only convergent and non-convergent desires. Then, once both parties have accepted this, you get to them to search for their regions of convergence.
So ... spousal abuse, for example, is OK in a marriage as long as an abused woman is willing to trade her physical safety for economic safety. She essentially agrees to accomodate her husband's desire to beat her up in exchange for his agreeing to accomodate her need for financial support. That's her choice. And it she wakes up one morning and decides she is fed up with those terms of trade, the failure of the marriage is her fault because she's the one who abandoned the region of convergence.
In my personal opinion it's not possible to get sicker than that ... than the psychologist who buys such a theory, I mean. But this one counselor we went to is not the only one I've heard espouse this kind of theory. There is a rather famous lecture circuit counselor on gender relationships named Patricia Sun who says (I've got her on tape): when a woman carps constantly at a man or pleads constantly with a man, this is no different from physical rape. Women rape men all the time. To be constantly criticized and forced to respond verbally is as damaging to the male psyche as physical assault is to the female body, because the constitution of the male psyche is non-verbal and intensely vulnerable to verbal attack. She refers to the male psyche as the "beast metaphor" and to the female psyche as the "linear verbal." Women cause physical violence against themselves by the verbal way they choose to defend themselves.
It is weird for me that both the psychologists I've heard espouse this kind of approach are women. But then, as I said above, yov, you've claimed many times to understand the fanatic, right-wing hatred of homosexuals and why they would be trying to change you if not outright kill you.
I do not understand their hatred towards you, and I will never excuse it. Crucifying a human being to a barbed wire fence for being gay is always wrong. Genocide is always wrong. Forced conversion is always wrong.
"We have to let Christians be Christians," and "We have to get rid of all the Jews" -- these are not equivalent ambitions. And the only reason no one every stopped certain subsets of Christianity from pursuing these dark ambitions is because no one else THINKS about the world this way, not even other Christians. There simply exists no the subset that would think the way to stop fanatical Christians from killing all Jews/Hindus/Moslems/ homosexuals/ adulterous women, etc. is to kill all the fanatical Christians.
UNTIL ...
the new, improved, fanatical Islam. They want to destroy Christianity just as much as Christianity wants to destroy them. First time, really, in history, that we have two equally-matched opponents with an identical annihilation motif. If I didn't have to live in the world they're creating, I would be tempted to buy popcorn and pull up my easy chair.
Marquee: Eric Prince v. Obama bin-Ladin. Who will succeed to kill the most innocent bystanders in the shortest amount of time purely for believing in the wrong god? Paramutual counters at the east end of the building. Get your bets in before the first bell rings.
Of course, the first bell has already rung.
Bottom line is: people who practice aggression are not the moral equivalent of those who defend against it.
Jn
But I disagree that the two world views they are symmetric in their arguments or equal in their consequences for 'the other.' I also disagree that they reflect equal arrogance in the religious sphere.
If I might rephrase the two positions as you presented them:
1. There is no single accessible truth, so I don't have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to let you believe whatever you want.
2. There is a single accessible truth, so I do have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to harrass and maybe even persecute you until you believe as I do.
When these two positions are talking to each other, the essence of their dialogue is:
1. Don't try to convert me and I won't try to convert you.
2. I must convert you. Don't try to stop me.
When these two positions are talking to a hypothetical third party:
1. Not saying anything at all. Listening.
2. You are wrong and have to change.
Both positions may hold their views with equal vigor, and be equally persistent in arguing them, but the first position is a defensive one and the second position is an aggressive one. Aggression and defense against aggression are never equal in their morality, culpability, or consequences.
But I don't find it surprising that you would argue they are equal because you have often argued here for the right of others to persecute you.
I'm afraid I cannot agree at all that others have the right to persecute me or that I am equally culpable of assault when I defend myself against persecution. In fact, I am pretty sure that neither of the positions you describe above would agree with this, because position 2 is also absolutist in that sense of wishing to decide where culpability lies in any moral situation.
They do no in fact argue that both sides are equally guilty of aggression. What they argue is that the aggression on their side is justified where absolute truths are concerned. Once god is introduced to the picture, his law (as they understand it) overrides human law and aggression against unbelievers becomes not only justified but necessary.
(Let me re-iterate here that this second position is not characteristic of all Christians. Most of the Christians in this discussion have expressed the "live and let live" position.)
When my ex-husband and I were breaking up ... a very long process ... we encountered one really misfortunate marriage counselor who told me the following:
"You do understand, don't you, that your husband is suffering just as much as you are? You want him to love you, and he doesn't. But he wants to harm you and you won't let him. Neither of you are getting what you want. You are completely even in your disappointment."
At a later date, I recounted this conversation to a different counselor, and she explained to me that this is a particular school of thought in psychology, where first you get both partners in a marriage to accept that there are no good and bad desires, only convergent and non-convergent desires. Then, once both parties have accepted this, you get to them to search for their regions of convergence.
So ... spousal abuse, for example, is OK in a marriage as long as an abused woman is willing to trade her physical safety for economic safety. She essentially agrees to accomodate her husband's desire to beat her up in exchange for his agreeing to accomodate her need for financial support. That's her choice. And it she wakes up one morning and decides she is fed up with those terms of trade, the failure of the marriage is her fault because she's the one who abandoned the region of convergence.
In my personal opinion it's not possible to get sicker than that ... than the psychologist who buys such a theory, I mean. But this one counselor we went to is not the only one I've heard espouse this kind of theory. There is a rather famous lecture circuit counselor on gender relationships named Patricia Sun who says (I've got her on tape): when a woman carps constantly at a man or pleads constantly with a man, this is no different from physical rape. Women rape men all the time. To be constantly criticized and forced to respond verbally is as damaging to the male psyche as physical assault is to the female body, because the constitution of the male psyche is non-verbal and intensely vulnerable to verbal attack. She refers to the male psyche as the "beast metaphor" and to the female psyche as the "linear verbal." Women cause physical violence against themselves by the verbal way they choose to defend themselves.
It is weird for me that both the psychologists I've heard espouse this kind of approach are women. But then, as I said above, yov, you've claimed many times to understand the fanatic, right-wing hatred of homosexuals and why they would be trying to change you if not outright kill you.
I do not understand their hatred towards you, and I will never excuse it. Crucifying a human being to a barbed wire fence for being gay is always wrong. Genocide is always wrong. Forced conversion is always wrong.
"We have to let Christians be Christians," and "We have to get rid of all the Jews" -- these are not equivalent ambitions. And the only reason no one every stopped certain subsets of Christianity from pursuing these dark ambitions is because no one else THINKS about the world this way, not even other Christians. There simply exists no the subset that would think the way to stop fanatical Christians from killing all Jews/Hindus/Moslems/ homosexuals/ adulterous women, etc. is to kill all the fanatical Christians.
UNTIL ...
the new, improved, fanatical Islam. They want to destroy Christianity just as much as Christianity wants to destroy them. First time, really, in history, that we have two equally-matched opponents with an identical annihilation motif. If I didn't have to live in the world they're creating, I would be tempted to buy popcorn and pull up my easy chair.
Marquee: Eric Prince v. Obama bin-Ladin. Who will succeed to kill the most innocent bystanders in the shortest amount of time purely for believing in the wrong god? Paramutual counters at the east end of the building. Get your bets in before the first bell rings.
Of course, the first bell has already rung.
Bottom line is: people who practice aggression are not the moral equivalent of those who defend against it.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Okay, I was reading your post and working up a reply until I got to that and had to stop to ask: WHAT THE HELL??But I don't find it surprising that you would argue they are equal because you have often argued here for the right of others to persecute you.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
WampusCat
- Creature of the night
- Posts: 8464
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:36 pm
- Location: Where least expected
I'm not comfortable with the mystery vs. facts split. I would say, rather, that facts point to mystery but the mystery is larger than one set of facts.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by facts. A detective might have to obtain statements from several witnesses to a crime to get a complete picture of what happened. Their statements might differ in significant ways because of their limited perspective or understanding, but they are describing the same thing -- each in part. What they describe is factual, but incomplete.
I also think that it is possible that one religion -- for sake of argument, let's say WampusCatism
-- is factually true (other than a few accretions added by followers concerned about competition) but that other religions can also lead their followers to God by a less direct but equally valid path.
Whether I'm right or wrong in the facts (and I may well be wrong!), in the end I trust in God's love, and trust that it is there for all.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by facts. A detective might have to obtain statements from several witnesses to a crime to get a complete picture of what happened. Their statements might differ in significant ways because of their limited perspective or understanding, but they are describing the same thing -- each in part. What they describe is factual, but incomplete.
I also think that it is possible that one religion -- for sake of argument, let's say WampusCatism
-- is factually true (other than a few accretions added by followers concerned about competition) but that other religions can also lead their followers to God by a less direct but equally valid path.Whether I'm right or wrong in the facts (and I may well be wrong!), in the end I trust in God's love, and trust that it is there for all.
Take my hand, my friend. We are here to walk one another home.
Avatar from Fractal_OpenArtGroup
Avatar from Fractal_OpenArtGroup
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
In the end, it's not what you believe but what kind of person you are that matters. Of course, certain personality types will be attracted to certain extremes, and clever people can manipulate less clever people into believing and doing things they would never do on their own. But in the absence of manipulation, a decent Methodist, a decent Muslim, and a decent Atheist are all decent, and a jerk is a jerk no matter what creed they follow.
Umm...Jnyusa wrote: Re Orthodox conversions ... yes, the Orthodox party in Israel has made Judaism very uninviting in Israel... but part of this is purely political and has to do in a backhanded way with the relationship between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform here in the United States. The US has the largest Jewish population in the world and they are the source of megabucks for Israel.
If the Orthodox accept the conversions performed by rabbis with Reform and Conservative smechot, they will have de facto acknowledged the legitimacy of these schools, and this they do not want to do because the Orthodox have already effectively lost control of the US Jewish population, and this loss can be measured in dollars and cents. I think that nearly two-thirds of Jewish marriages are mixed religion today, and we are holding our own in the Reform and Conservative synagogues because they are welcoming to converts and anxious for families to be able to share a common religious culture, but overall the building funds are suffering.
The one deterrent to further erosion of their influence which the Orthodox have been able to levy is to deny the converts of other synagogues entry into Israel under the Law of Return.
Again, I say- umm...Jnyusa wrote:The other thing going on here has to do with the Messianic beliefs that Hasidic orthodox do still adhere to. The Messiah is supposed to come from the House of David, so they put some effort into maintaining their family trees and trying to keep their bloodlines pure, in case the Messiah should want to be born of their family. This does not preclude converts as such - one of the ancestors of David was a convert - but they want to make sure any convert is really their convert ... really Jewish by their rules.
*is reading thread with much interest....still only on pg. 5 (alas).....continually formulating responses....having to grade papers to meet next monday's deadline (alas)....still formulating responses....still reading....will hopefully contribute soon...just saying as she runs back to grade papers....*
Home is behind, the world ahead
And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow til the edge of night
Until the stars are all alight
Mist and shadow, cloud and shade
All shall fade, all shall fade
And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow til the edge of night
Until the stars are all alight
Mist and shadow, cloud and shade
All shall fade, all shall fade
Glowy! I hoped you'd weigh in.
HOWEVER I also said that stating publically, as part of your creed, that the other side MUST change their opinion to yours, otherwise they are silly, blind, inferior, offensive to God and/or doomed to eternal damnation, is something other than tolerance.
I hasten to add that no one on this board has ever stepped over that line.
I'll be back.
I think there was a 'however' missing from my post. I agree with yov that disagreement is not the same as intolerance. Stating, as hal has done, that you strongly feel you are right and wish the other "side" would see it, is NOT intolerance.Mahima wrote: Frelga, I think there's a slight difference between what you are saying and what yov is - maybe it's just linguistic. But I don't think so.
HOWEVER I also said that stating publically, as part of your creed, that the other side MUST change their opinion to yours, otherwise they are silly, blind, inferior, offensive to God and/or doomed to eternal damnation, is something other than tolerance.
I hasten to add that no one on this board has ever stepped over that line.
I'll be back.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Perhaps the goal wasn't to convince as many people as possible of the event. Perhaps the goal was to have the faith founded on faith rather than on proof.Frelga wrote:Now, if the goal was to convince as many people as possible of the event
Referring to #2 above, I don't see anyone here saying they have the right to tell someone else what to believe. What we have here in the forum is a mutual right to discuss our beliefs. So I would rewrite #2 as follows:Jnyusa wrote:But I disagree that the two world views they are symmetric in their arguments or equal in their consequences for 'the other.' I also disagree that they reflect equal arrogance in the religious sphere.
If I might rephrase the two positions as you presented them:
1. There is no single accessible truth, so I don't have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to let you believe whatever you want.
2. There is a single accessible truth, so I do have the right to tell you what to believe. Because I am convinced that I am right about this, I am going to harrass and maybe even persecute you until you believe as I do.
2. There is a single accessible truth, so anyone who doesn't believe it is mistaken.
As to #1 above, I would rewrite it thus:
1. There is no single accessible truth, therefore anyone who believes that there is, is mistaken.
I very much agree with yov that the two views expressed in the thread are symmetric in their arguments and equal in their consequences for 'the other.'
Jn, I certainly agree with your general observations regarding the marriage counselor's theories, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. I believe you were referring to views expressed in this thread, not to the history of persecution by Christianity of other religions. Am I missing some connection there?
Are you suggesting that 'We have to get rid of all the Jews' is a view represented in this thread?"We have to let Christians be Christians," and "We have to get rid of all the Jews" -- these are not equivalent ambitions.
Do you perceive that there are people practicing aggression in this thread? Is it your view that to hold Christian beliefs is to practice aggression?Bottom line is: people who practice aggression are not the moral equivalent of those who defend against it.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Cerin, this thread is not devoted to discussion of people in this thread. It was started in response to a specific decision by the Pope. No one made any personal statements about any people in this thread except to say how awesome we all are, or in fact about ALL Christians. Please don't make it personal when it's not.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Frelga, I was seaking clarification based on this portion of Jn's post:
Now perhaps I got that entirely wrong, and Jn wasn't saying that she felt those two views and the further extrapolations she offered were represented by people in this thread. But certainly I think it's better to ask than to go on wondering if she meant what it seemed to me she was saying.
She refers to the discussion in this thread as falling into two world views (as described), and then goes on to dispute the notion that these two views, as represented in the thread, are symmetric in argument or equal in consequence.Jnyusa wrote:Yov, breaking it down into two choices is probably too simplistic, but for the sake of argument I would say that we could view the discussion in this thread as broadly falling into the two world views you describe: religion as a purely spiritual realm versus religion as a set of facts.
But I disagree that the two world views they are symmetric in their arguments or equal in their consequences for 'the other.' I also disagree that they reflect equal arrogance in the religious sphere.
Now perhaps I got that entirely wrong, and Jn wasn't saying that she felt those two views and the further extrapolations she offered were represented by people in this thread. But certainly I think it's better to ask than to go on wondering if she meant what it seemed to me she was saying.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Glowy! How great to see you here!
I do admit to extreme bias against the Union of Orthodox Rabbis in the U.S. They are disingenuous in their willingness to accept money in exchange for violations of halacha, in the arena of kashrut and in the arena of conversion, from what I have personally experienced. I have a friend who's a Jewish orthodox attorney and has made it his lifelong avocation to uncover all the dead rabbis' signatures on kosher certificates. And the reason I did not go through the union for my own conversion was because the rabbi in our town for a nice fee allowed female converts to wear their nightgown in the mikvah, lol!
Corruption is never universal, of course, but I observe that the net effect of modifying the Law of Return is simply to discredit Reform and Conservative conversions in a business-as-usual manner. Does anyone really think this modification would be enforced if there were a persecution in the United States, and the born Jew would be allowed to flee to Israel while his/her spouse and children were denied entry?
Anyone being killed for being a Jew is going to be allowed into Israel if that is their only hope of salvation. That was the original purpose of the Law of Return and I don't think any amount of pilpul could overturn it. I tremble to think what the rest of us would do to the guys in the Bratslaver yeshiva if they stood in the port of Haifa and tried to stop people by force from getting off the boat, as the British once did.
nel's experience is instructive to me because she found an orthodox community in Boston with whom she felt very close. But my experience with those in the midwest was pretty weird ... perhaps because the sense of isolation is greater in the midwest ... but then, there is also New York, which is a whole 'nother planet.
***
I apologize to everyone on the board for exaggerating yov's construction beyond anything actually said on this board. The people here are overwhelmingly tolerant and do fall into the first category rather than the second.
I did, however, understand yov's argument to be referring to positions quite a bit broader than what individuals have expressed here, because he said that it is equally "arrogant" for those beset by proselytizers to tell them to go away.
To say that one believes what one believes and that other beliefs are mistaken is not "arrogant" in my view, and the fact that yov was talking about the arrogance of believers and unbelievers led me to understand that he was referring to active harassment as well as simple expression of belief, as if those who rant against proselytization are just as aggressive as those who do it. For that reason I responded as I did, that to aggress and to defend are not equivalent positions.
I did agree with yov that one might broadly distinguish two camps - one believing in the facticity of religious claims and the other not - and that this division does get represented on this board, more or less, but I'm afraid I conflated my response to the rest of his post with this initial agreement, making it sound as if I think all people who believe in the facticity of religion are necessarily aggressive, and I don't think that at all.
On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are content with their own religious beliefs and also some very aggressive atheists! The distinction I wished to make was between people who aggressively promote their beliefs and people who do not - it is these positions that are not equivalent, in my view, as yov seemed to be lumping them all together. All positions are equally arrogant, he said. That is not, in my opinion, true.
Now ... that being said ... (suggests that vison get a soda to go with her popcorn) I think that some of the emotions expressed on this board at various times come very close to the line of aggression, without really meaning to. (At least, I think it is not posters' intention to be aggressive, and they would seek different words to express themselves if they could hear themselves with my ears.)
I realize that it is uncomfortable to talk about historic persecution, but I think that this is one of the things that various religions have to speak to one another about if we are ever going to reach a point of "tolerance." I don't think that "tolerance" means keeping your mouth shut while hating someone in your heart. I think it means keeping your mouth shut because you understand where they are coming from, even if their experience is not your own. Christianity has an historic relationship to Judaism which has shaped the Jewish view of the Christian world, and to put that relationship out of bounds because "no one here did it" is, in fact, to deny the Jew the right to explain their own world view. That comes very close to aggression, in my opinion.
Anyone may think their own beliefs right and other beliefs wrong without behaving aggressively, but if someone posts fifty times in succession that THEY ARE RIGHT, that starts to be harassment, in my opinion.
I have a friend, someone I've known since childhood, who is generally a tolerant person and would cringe to think she had said anything racially offensive. But she made a statement once that knocked my socks off, and I'm sure she had no idea how racist and persecutory it sounded. She was simply speaking from within a worldview that is so self-satisfied and naive that the audacity of her statement did not occur to her at all.
She was living in Rhode Island at the time and talking about the Indian casinos that were going up in RI. "They talk about what we did to them," she said, "but here they are building casinos. They're just as bad as us."
Really? Building casinos is "just as bad as" genocide?
Of course she does not mean that if we went out tomorrow and killed all the Indians building casinos this would be a fair retaliation. What she means is that what her ancestors did yesterday no longer counts. Only what she did to the Indians since the moment of her own birth counts. And what they are doing right now is as bad as anything she ever did.
But her ancestors still count to the Indians, you see. And the idea that it doesn't count if your people are the ones who did it but not recently, or not in front of your eyes, is an idea that I find alsmot nauseating in its covert aggressiveness. Never mind that all these persecutions of which we might speak did happen within living memory and are still happening in many cases. In Pennsylvania we are still forcing land swaps on the Indians which rob them of millions in potential income. It was in my parents' lifetime that Indians were being forcibly sterilized by the US government, and in their lifetime that twelve out of every thirteen Jews in Europe were murdered just for being Jews, and it wasn't the Indians who did it. In my lifetime I have seen genocide, or murder on a scale tantamount of genocide, on just about every continent. Not all were religious genocides, of course, but I can't help but notice that our indifference is positively related to our religious and cultural distance from the victim. We are all reluctant to absorb the suffering of others. It is terribly uncomfortable to do so.
But our world views are shaped by our collective pasts. If we want to call our threads 'dialogues' or 'discussions' then we have to be willing to listen to one another's collective pasts.
It was very interesting for me to hear Mith and kam and sol explain the history to this prayer that we are discussing. That helps me to understand where they are coming from, and why they might tolerate the continued use of the prayer even though it does not reflect their own opinion and might even be repellent to them personally. I can live with that, you see, because having received an explanation I understand better their point of view. I expect, in turn (and did receive from them), the right to explain why Jews would have such an extreme reaction to that same prayer. Hopefully this gives them a better understanding of the controversy as well. In the end, the official church will approve whatever it wants, and none of us, Jew or Catholic, will have any influence over that as individuals. But we can understand one another better. That's what we can do. And that's the purpose of these discussions, as I see it.
Jn
edited format later because I seem to have forgotten how to do quotes
I do admit to extreme bias against the Union of Orthodox Rabbis in the U.S. They are disingenuous in their willingness to accept money in exchange for violations of halacha, in the arena of kashrut and in the arena of conversion, from what I have personally experienced. I have a friend who's a Jewish orthodox attorney and has made it his lifelong avocation to uncover all the dead rabbis' signatures on kosher certificates. And the reason I did not go through the union for my own conversion was because the rabbi in our town for a nice fee allowed female converts to wear their nightgown in the mikvah, lol!
Corruption is never universal, of course, but I observe that the net effect of modifying the Law of Return is simply to discredit Reform and Conservative conversions in a business-as-usual manner. Does anyone really think this modification would be enforced if there were a persecution in the United States, and the born Jew would be allowed to flee to Israel while his/her spouse and children were denied entry?
Anyone being killed for being a Jew is going to be allowed into Israel if that is their only hope of salvation. That was the original purpose of the Law of Return and I don't think any amount of pilpul could overturn it. I tremble to think what the rest of us would do to the guys in the Bratslaver yeshiva if they stood in the port of Haifa and tried to stop people by force from getting off the boat, as the British once did.
Oh my gosh, I must have heard this one is trotted out a hundred times. Hard for me to believe it's idiosyncratic. Haven't you seen the family trees that trace the Hasidic rebbes back to David?Glowy wrote:Again, I say- umm...myself wrote:The Messiah is supposed to come from the House of David, so they put some effort into maintaining their family trees and trying to keep their bloodlines pure, in case the Messiah should want to be born of their family.
nel's experience is instructive to me because she found an orthodox community in Boston with whom she felt very close. But my experience with those in the midwest was pretty weird ... perhaps because the sense of isolation is greater in the midwest ... but then, there is also New York, which is a whole 'nother planet.
***
I apologize to everyone on the board for exaggerating yov's construction beyond anything actually said on this board. The people here are overwhelmingly tolerant and do fall into the first category rather than the second.
Yes, I agree that this is what people here are expressing, and I place this kind of statement in the first category -- those who are not interested in harassing others to make them change.Cerin wrote:2. There is a single accessible truth, so anyone who doesn't believe it is mistaken.
I did, however, understand yov's argument to be referring to positions quite a bit broader than what individuals have expressed here, because he said that it is equally "arrogant" for those beset by proselytizers to tell them to go away.
To say that one believes what one believes and that other beliefs are mistaken is not "arrogant" in my view, and the fact that yov was talking about the arrogance of believers and unbelievers led me to understand that he was referring to active harassment as well as simple expression of belief, as if those who rant against proselytization are just as aggressive as those who do it. For that reason I responded as I did, that to aggress and to defend are not equivalent positions.
I did agree with yov that one might broadly distinguish two camps - one believing in the facticity of religious claims and the other not - and that this division does get represented on this board, more or less, but I'm afraid I conflated my response to the rest of his post with this initial agreement, making it sound as if I think all people who believe in the facticity of religion are necessarily aggressive, and I don't think that at all.
On the contrary, there are plenty of people who are content with their own religious beliefs and also some very aggressive atheists! The distinction I wished to make was between people who aggressively promote their beliefs and people who do not - it is these positions that are not equivalent, in my view, as yov seemed to be lumping them all together. All positions are equally arrogant, he said. That is not, in my opinion, true.
Now ... that being said ... (suggests that vison get a soda to go with her popcorn) I think that some of the emotions expressed on this board at various times come very close to the line of aggression, without really meaning to. (At least, I think it is not posters' intention to be aggressive, and they would seek different words to express themselves if they could hear themselves with my ears.)
I realize that it is uncomfortable to talk about historic persecution, but I think that this is one of the things that various religions have to speak to one another about if we are ever going to reach a point of "tolerance." I don't think that "tolerance" means keeping your mouth shut while hating someone in your heart. I think it means keeping your mouth shut because you understand where they are coming from, even if their experience is not your own. Christianity has an historic relationship to Judaism which has shaped the Jewish view of the Christian world, and to put that relationship out of bounds because "no one here did it" is, in fact, to deny the Jew the right to explain their own world view. That comes very close to aggression, in my opinion.
Anyone may think their own beliefs right and other beliefs wrong without behaving aggressively, but if someone posts fifty times in succession that THEY ARE RIGHT, that starts to be harassment, in my opinion.
I have a friend, someone I've known since childhood, who is generally a tolerant person and would cringe to think she had said anything racially offensive. But she made a statement once that knocked my socks off, and I'm sure she had no idea how racist and persecutory it sounded. She was simply speaking from within a worldview that is so self-satisfied and naive that the audacity of her statement did not occur to her at all.
She was living in Rhode Island at the time and talking about the Indian casinos that were going up in RI. "They talk about what we did to them," she said, "but here they are building casinos. They're just as bad as us."
Really? Building casinos is "just as bad as" genocide?
Of course she does not mean that if we went out tomorrow and killed all the Indians building casinos this would be a fair retaliation. What she means is that what her ancestors did yesterday no longer counts. Only what she did to the Indians since the moment of her own birth counts. And what they are doing right now is as bad as anything she ever did.
But her ancestors still count to the Indians, you see. And the idea that it doesn't count if your people are the ones who did it but not recently, or not in front of your eyes, is an idea that I find alsmot nauseating in its covert aggressiveness. Never mind that all these persecutions of which we might speak did happen within living memory and are still happening in many cases. In Pennsylvania we are still forcing land swaps on the Indians which rob them of millions in potential income. It was in my parents' lifetime that Indians were being forcibly sterilized by the US government, and in their lifetime that twelve out of every thirteen Jews in Europe were murdered just for being Jews, and it wasn't the Indians who did it. In my lifetime I have seen genocide, or murder on a scale tantamount of genocide, on just about every continent. Not all were religious genocides, of course, but I can't help but notice that our indifference is positively related to our religious and cultural distance from the victim. We are all reluctant to absorb the suffering of others. It is terribly uncomfortable to do so.
But our world views are shaped by our collective pasts. If we want to call our threads 'dialogues' or 'discussions' then we have to be willing to listen to one another's collective pasts.
It was very interesting for me to hear Mith and kam and sol explain the history to this prayer that we are discussing. That helps me to understand where they are coming from, and why they might tolerate the continued use of the prayer even though it does not reflect their own opinion and might even be repellent to them personally. I can live with that, you see, because having received an explanation I understand better their point of view. I expect, in turn (and did receive from them), the right to explain why Jews would have such an extreme reaction to that same prayer. Hopefully this gives them a better understanding of the controversy as well. In the end, the official church will approve whatever it wants, and none of us, Jew or Catholic, will have any influence over that as individuals. But we can understand one another better. That's what we can do. And that's the purpose of these discussions, as I see it.
Jn
edited format later because I seem to have forgotten how to do quotes
Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.