To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Let's change the subject line....
At 11:19 PM 10/5/97 0500, you wrote:
My perception is that (religious) Jews KNOW the OT (or the Jewish version of it), and that this would constitute common ground on which both Jew and Christian would agree.
Religious Jews, by definition, would. The five books of Moses are read as part of the services, enough each service so that the whole Bible is read annually.
I'm not sure "agree" about what, but certainly as a starting point of general events that were described, yes. The thing is, the question of translation, and therefore definition. D'you know your version of the Ten Commandments differs from the Jews'?
When we say "God," are not we both talking about "Jehovah" or "Yahweh?" I think the answer to that is "yes."
Again, it's a matter of definition. I think the answer may be "no." Ours is not a three part god, and that's a critical distinction. I think part of the “Christian right leads to anti-Semitism” (more later) issue/problem, is that they ASSUME we have the same view of God, so they say, "what's the diff?" The difference is that the assumption doesn't have a foundation in fact, and if we haven't defined our terms to recognize that there ARE distinctions, miscommunication is the inevitable result.
In our discussions, I use the term "God" as a convenient metaphor for discussion, it's more in keeping with your understanding of the term, because I THINK I understand where you're coming from (I've had more experience living in your world than you've had in mine). But it's merely a term we've agreed upon for purposes of discussion.
Being invited is a hollow gesture.
Again: "Hey," they say, "we don't intentionally exclude anyone, everyone's invited to attend. But you're a little bit *more* invited and welcomed if you already share our religious beliefs."
This sounds like a "no win" situation! I can identify with what you say. Being an officer in the Army and a Christian caused many similar conflicts with me.
It *is* a "no win" situation. That's why the first amendment is couched in terms of absolutes. That's a VERY good analogy with the drinking. And I know exactly what you mean. The comparison is very apt. Remember it.
I suppose anyone from another country, culture, or religious convictions will find themselves in an awkward situation at times.
True, but don't limit it to "at times." It may be more times than others, but it's not just "at times."
It is a historical fact that (for the most part) Christians colonized America.
A number of Jews helped finance the revolution, and many worked behind the scenes in the states and at the constitutional convention. You may want to investigate and re-visit just how "Christian" the nation was in the late 18th century. I think it's a common (and convenient) mis- conception. Even if true, it's such a broad generalization of "Christian" as to render it meaningless. The puritans came here to escape the Anglicans in England. There were Catholics and Baptists represented at the convention and different colonies had different religious majorities and sentiments than one another. Nobody had the same universal definition of what it meant to be a "good Christian." For that reason, I've always found it misleading and self- deceptive for the "right" to make the argument that we were founded on Christian principles.
The majority of our society is made up of Protestants whose national roots go back to Europe.
And if you read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, the "majority rules" argument is exactly why the first amendment and its precursors in the states were such a high priority.
If feeling like you (or anyone) are not part of a given group is considered racism, I don't believe that racism will ever be eliminated. Another basic question: Is anti-Semitism directed toward one because of his heritage or his religion?
Well, it won't be as long as one identifiable group claims moral superiority over another, or as long as man is resentful, covetous and jealous of his neighbor.
As to your question, both. It is the *perception* of a distinctive heritage or religion. It can be on the basis of either, at least, that's how the law construes it.
You said, “I'd have an easier time walking into a black juke-joint with my guitar than you would...”
Because you are Jewish? How would they know you are Jewish? Would you announce the fact? Wouldn't that be a form of racism?
No, I wasn't clear. Only because I can blend easier. I've worked on being able to blend into different situations all my life, part out of necessity, part out of desire. I'm sure you're much the same way in many respects, I just suspect I could pull it off a little easier.
This may sound like a testimonial, but it is true. I was not brought up to hate people because of their race. A black pilot became a good friend of …We were very close after that. He was nearly killed in Korea four years later in a crash that left him permanently disabled (and mentally not all there). He taught me much about the evils of racism.
Just be careful not to assume you know all there is to know about the relationships between the races because of that one friendship. Hypothetical: Don't intellectualize. What's your first, instinctive, gut reaction to the idea that your daughter is going to marry a black man? What if you'd learned that your wife had been married to a black man before she married you?
“I've had the same problem myself. There's a Jewish couple my wife and I have gotten friendly with. I'd like to invite them over, but they keep kosher in their home.”
How would you feel if they called you anti-Semitic because you treat them differently? The point is that like a charge of sexual harassment, the charge of racism (or anti-Semitism) is based on the perception of the one making the claim, not the intent in the heart of the one doing the act. Very awkward situation. Do these friends invite you over for a meal?
You lost me here. Yes, they invite us. But I think I might have the answer for you. Within the Jewish religion, there are a number of sects. It's illustrated quite well in the movie "The Chosen," in fact, it's pretty much the centerpiece of the movie. I recommend the book to you as well. It's by Chaim Potok. And if you like it, I'll recommend others.
That tends to corroborate an earlier statement about fewer people than you think are (in their hearts) anti-Semitic. If you were sensitive or even paranoid about such things, you may have then had "grounds" for making that claim. Right?
I think you may have been generalizing on some of the things I said. Anti-Semitism takes many forms. That we make assumptions about other people or races can lead to ant-Semitism or racism, but I don't know how broadly I intended to make that assertion. (Methinks, you're quoting me out of context.)
“I think our gods share much in common, but I'm not sure yours is the same as that of the Jews.”
That is a disappointing thought! My God is the God of the Torah.
AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. That is a critical, critical distinction.
Perhaps we can explore this further later, okay?
Sure, but I'm no theologian either. Nor can what I say be considered representative of what Jews, generally, think.
“I think this is one of those topics we'd have to "agree to disagree" about. Obviously, a fundamental distinction between our religions is that Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah.”
Yes, I know. But I've never heard a Jew say why. As I said, it seems so clear to me. Personally, I wonder why. Here is your opportunity to educate me some more.
Oooohhh, I don't think I can speak for the Jews on that one.
“Doesn't this passage contradict the idea that Jews are the chosen people?”
No, it doesn't contradict. It is another chapter in the history of Israel. Being "chosen" doesn't speak to obedience. My children were not always obedient. That is when they were punished. Israel has been victim of God's punishment for disobedience.
If I understand you correctly, you've just justified the Spanish inquisition, pogroms and the holocaust as divine punishment. Surely you can see how that kind of argument can lead to abuse in the hands of tyrants and demagogues. And (no offense), but if that is your God, I want no part of him.
The relevance was in that what I seemed to be hearing was that Christianity, by its very nature, was anti-Semitic.
No, no, no. Not Christianity itself. It's just another path to spiritual enlightenment, and it is clearly working for you. I was referring to much of the politics of the "Christian right" as being essentially intolerant of those that disagree or differ, claiming moral superiority, thus leading to, or justifying, ant-Semitism in the minds of the weak.
There are far more like me than you probably think. Yet, we are all labeled with the whackos.
Whackos are those who grasp an idea that's articulated by someone else to justify their own prejudices without self examination of the merits of the concept. You don't do that. People who are able to separate their politics from their religion don't do that.
Sometimes hasty litigation over racial (or religious) issues may worsen the problem. It would be a tough call, were I in the shoes of their parents.
I agree that jumping into litigation at the drop of a hat is bad, and that as lawyers we should counsel our clients to make litigation a last resort. It's difficult to have a court compel racial or ethnic sensitivity, but sometimes, where else are they gonna' go?
Talk to you soon. Rob
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment