Posted on 12/28/2011 2:46:34 AM PST by KantianBurke
BEIT SHEMESH, Israel — The latest battleground in Israel’s struggle over religious extremism covers little more than a square mile of this Jewish city situated between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and it has the unexpected public face of a blond, bespectacled second-grade girl.
She is Naama Margolese, 8, the daughter of American immigrants who are observant modern Orthodox Jews. An Israeli weekend television program told the story of how Naama had become terrified of walking to her elementary school here after ultra-Orthodox men spit on her, insulted her and called her a prostitute because her modest dress did not adhere exactly to their more rigorous dress code.
The country was outraged. Naama’s picture has appeared on the front pages of all the major Israeli newspapers. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Sunday that “Israel is a democratic, Western, liberal state” and pledged that “the public sphere in Israel will be open and safe for all,” there have been days of confrontation at focal points of friction here.
Ultra-Orthodox men and boys from the most stringent sects have hurled rocks and eggs at the police and journalists, shouting “Nazis” at the security forces and assailing female reporters with epithets like “shikse,” a derogatory Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman or girl, and “whore.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It would be a wrong assumption that you are writing from a human perspective? That’s a very big claim to make, if you’ll forgive my saying so.
Even amongst Christians, we differ in our precise interpretations of Truth: and not everyone can be presumed to be a Catholic, or indeed a Christian, even here on FR. You may well have presuppositions concerning revelation, but others will have variant ones: often likewise held validity and honestly and in the belief and hope of salvation. It’s not my place, or yours, to be their ultimate Judge: each of us can only strive to defend and live up to what we believe, to the best of our ability, whilst praying for forgiveness for those areas in which we will inevitably err.
My original point was, and remains, that whilst you, I or anyone else posting here may have differing beliefs or interpretations as to the nature of God’s Revelation, how we choose to pursue and defend our beliefs should be defined by (or in time may itself define) the nature of the beliefs themselves.
Has a priest ever tried to enforce exacting rules upon how you could dress like in the article?
Rules against killing babies and gay marriage are universal principles of human nature, not the inventions of Catholic priests.
There is a difference between zeal and thuggery. A passionate sermon about the value of modesty is zeal. Assault and battery is thuggery.
“the rabbis do not possess God-given authority to make up and enforce exacting rules upon everyone”
Neither these rabbis, nor I, nor you, nor anyone else.
Yes. When I went to Catholic school. Not since.
This is not logical or Catholic. Logically, there can be, at most, only one true faith. All other faiths must be false to the extent they differ from that one true faith. It is the place of a Catholic to faithfully represent what the Church teaches, namely, that the Catholic religion is the one true faith and that its genuine teaching does not err.
No, we differ in our interpretations of revelation but that doesn't change the objective nature of the truth of revelation any more than scientists differing in their opinion of certain temporal matters changes the objective truth of the creation which underlies them. God said his word was truth - the fact some may get it wrong doesn't change this objective fact. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the inherent objectivity of revelation as truth, either general or specific. Thus, truth is not subjective.
Zajko Neither these rabbis, nor I, nor you, nor anyone else.
The Prophets, Christ, and Apostles possessed divine authority to reveal doctrine. The Catholic Church possesses authority to define previously revealed doctrine.
Indeed: I’m not quite sure what is it that you disagree on here? We can all, as I said, defend and promote what we believe. Faithfully and firmly. HOW we do this is important, however, and must remain in keeping with the (quintessentially Catholic) principles of respect, compassion and humility, as well as an awareness that others who may be doing likewise in promoting their own beliefs, are from their own perspective also promoting truth. This doesn’t mean ‘accept that their version of Truth is equally valid’. It means ‘show some respect, and don’t forget they’re trying to do what’s right from their own viewpoint, just as you are’ - and remembering we’re allultimately human and may be subject to error in our understanding and interpretation of God’s revelations or will.
Passing judgement, however (as opposed to promoting what we believe to be Truth) is neither your business nor mine (’judge not, lest ye be judged?’), and in my own experience, I’ve found that others tend te be more receptive to Truth when it’s presented clearly and humbly from that perspective.
“The Prophets, Christ, and Apostles possessed divine authority to reveal doctrine. The Catholic Church possesses authority to define previously revealed doctrine.”
As far as I am aware, you are not a Prophet, the Christ, an Apostle, or otherwise in possession of Divine Authority, and neither is anyone else, on this thread or anywhere else in the world today. With regards to the authority of the Catholic Church, ‘defining previously revealed doctrine’ is an entirely different matter to having ‘authority to make up and enforce exacting rules on everyone’ which was the wording of your quote.
Distressing to me is that some of these bozos are wearing ritual objects associated with Jewish prayer. They are the ones who disgrace Torah and not some little girl.
ML/NJ
Since all zealots believe they are acting in the cause of the true faith, and since “God” never arranges for the correct ones to triumph, I’d say zealotry is indeed the problem.
I guess you know this for a fact. I personally couldn't care less what other people believe so long as it doesn't involve harm to others.
ML/NJ
We cannot pass judgment upon interior motives of others, but the harmful actions detailed in the article are rightfully judged to be wrong. Instead of blaming the particular religious principles involved, KantianBurke tried diverting the blame to religious zeal in general. This unfairly implicates the zealous of other religions who do not share the religious principles that are directly responsible for the harm.
So are the zealous of other faiths who disagree with the religious tenets behind the persecution of the girl also part of this problem?
Yes, I know this for a fact.
Does he tell you what you can eat on Fridays?
Temporal matters can be observed and proved objectively and scientifically: spiritual ones, in general, cannot. Herein lies the difference, and the root of the problem when you try to use phrases like ‘objective truth’: you cannot use your own inner faith, no matter how strongly held, as an empirical argument of ‘Truth’ to those who may not share it. From your own spiritual viewpoint, one particular version of truth may indeed be objective: as part of a wider discussion incorporating others who may not share your beliefs in their entirety, that perspective becomes by definition subjective: i.e. something which cannot be clearly proven to be fact.
Indeed our interpretations of revelation do not and cannot change the objective nature of truth. However, none of us who are religious can demonstrate an answer to Pilate’s eternal question - ‘Truth: what is that?’ - other than by reference to our own faith, experience and opinion. Thus, in any discussion of the nature of truth in an environment where all paticipants do not share an identical faith (which is most environments, including FR), Truth is subjective. The whole of human history unfortunately goes to prove this. Quoting religious doctrines or beliefs, which are in themselves subjective from all but your personal, spiritual perspective (however many it may be shared by, possibly including me), only goes to demonstrate this even more clearly.
That only applies to Catholics.
I think perhaps our exchange of views boils down to a simple difference of opinion in the definition of the word ‘zealous’. If by zealous, we are referring to passionate, fully-committed and enthusiastic, then I agree with you entirely. My core point was merely that (and I have seen this from personal experience on many occasions) it is very possible to be ‘over-zealous’, even in service of a noble, just or praiseworthy cause. When this occurs, we risk alienating people and betraying our own cause, doing more harm than good.
Fanatics and over-zealous proponents are found in every creed and nation - though admittedly in some more than others!
Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.