Date: Tue Oct 07 14:09:39 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2
At 04:49 PM 10/6/97, you wrote:
"Religion" is man's attempt to reconcile himself to God. Works won't get it. It takes a relationship. Did I say that already?
We are judged by our deeds, not our words. My relationship with God is defined by my deeds, no? I understand what you're saying (no, you didn't say it already), I just view it differently as to which comes first.
What happens when Michael Jordon commits too many fouls? He gets put on the sideline (punished).
Basketball metaphors? I'm sorry, that's a little too simplistic, and it anthropomorphizes God too much. Man may be made in God's image, but it's presumption to assume he is made in ours.
The Israelites were not always an obedient people. They fell into idiolatry periodically. Because they are God's _hosen, (See I'm learning!)
"_hosen?" Um, Frank? You're getting weird on me. And Frank? Go put your flack jacket on. You might want it in a bit.
He keeps dealing with them, and trying to get them to be obedient.
Well, that's the justification for proselytizing, but as I said earlier, it's also been the justification for the pogroms, the Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, etc. If we can't convert them, let's kill the non believer in the name of Christ? I'm never gonna' buy that one.
“Repeat after me, ‘My Jewish friend says I shouldn't say things like that...’ Yes, Jews have made their share of contributions, yes, as a generality, they prize education for its own sake.
Okay, I actually said it three times. I'll try to refrain, unless it is absolutely essential for the discussion. Okay? What I really understood from your response to this and other similar comments is, "We don't WANT to be considered "_hosen" and don't want anyone reminding us of that fact." I'll comply.
Friend, you totally misunderstand. I can't speak for all Jews, although the debate among Jews as to what it means to be "chosen" is probably endless. If the Jews don't themselves know what it means, how can the Christian? Here, my point is that we don't have a common definition of this honorific, and it's unhealthy to generalize about a group of people. It's meaningless to me for a Christian to say, "We're supposed to love the Jews, because they're the chosen people." Chosen to what end? To suffer? To lead by example? I know you'll say, "But the Bible says they are." But we elevate the Jew to this "chosen" status and we're not even clear on what it means. What is clear, and this is my main point, is that when we do that -- generalize about any group -- we head down a path that leads toward conflict.
“What kind of God is it that would exclude from heaven someone who doesn't accept Christ as his personal savior, yet nonetheless adheres in every other significant way to his teachings?”
To try to keep it short, suffice it to say, a JUST God. He has provided a way of escape. If that way is rejected, why should He provide alternate ways. The way I read it, there is no Plan B.
Not a bad answer. If I go to the doctor with some ailment, and he prescribes a course of treatment, who am I to disregard the prescription and just pick and choose what I want to do, or how to get well? Kind'a defeats the purpose of going in the first place, eh?
“The history of every overt act of anti-Semitism begins with the answer ‘no.’ And ‘no’ is the message the Christian right teaches.”
Don't just blame it on Christians. I think it was God's idea.
SECURE YOUR FLACK JACKET NOW....
Frank, not to erect unnecessary barriers here, but that's just warped. My point was that men who do not follow the righteous path will twist and pervert the word of God to their own ends. When you look to the origins of specific acts of ant-Semitism, you'll find that it is rooted in intolerance of people who believe differently, and the defenseless become the scapegoats. I will never accept the idea that God sends people like Hitler to shepherd his wayward flock if that is what I'm supposed to be gathering from what you say. And I don't mean to suggest that every Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, or Jerry Falwell will become a Hitler. Only that you have to watch such men that preach that theirs is the only way, to make sure they don't.
(Just an aside, when the hyssop was dipped into the bason (trench at the threshold) and struck upon the doorposts, they were unknowingly making a sign of the cross.) Selah. Think about it.
O.K., I thought about it. I think you're reaching.
(Honestly, your questions just scream for the answers I've been giving.) Hmmmh!!! I wonder if that is by design?? You know how lawyers are reputed for getting people to say the things they want them to say.
The biggest fault in communication between two people, between the sexes, the races, whatever, is the failure to define common terms. For example, before people decide how they want government to operate, first they have to agree that they even want a government. Then they have to agree on what government is and why, on a general level, it is even necessary, and what its role is in society. If you try and implement the "how" before you agree on the "whether," "why" or "what," you never reach accord. My questions are designed for us to reach a common understanding of terms we use. First things first. I've not really made any arguments.
(I enjoy our contest of words and ideas! But, hey, I'm at a disadvantage. This is your job!)
Yes, it is my job. But I do fight fair too. We should not consider it a contest, though. It is merely a journey we are traveling together for the moment on our own searches for truth.
“Hearing people pray in OUR communal space though is another matter.”
So the First Amendment only applies in ones private place or in a religious institution??? Come on now!!! Perhaps you need to explain "prohibit the free exercise thereof" to me.
Flack jacket still on? Helmut, too? Insect repellant?
Absolutely bass-ackwards. The first amendment's establishment clause applies to public places, the free exercise clause protects you from government intrusion into private places of worship. What you do in private, as an individual or in a group, is your concern, as long as you're not violating some other law. It's what you do with my tax dollars to pay for your idolatry (one view by Jews of Christianity and its three part god) that concerns me.
'Got news for you. My God don't need people like Moore to front for him. My God thinks he's an imbecile and the worst form of hypocrite, someone who would use God to advance his own personal political agenda. My God prefers a humble man who leads by example, not someone whose actions invite the KKK to attend (which is what happened at the rally in Montgomery). Mine is a God of love and compassion and tolerance and understanding, his is a jealous god who can justify all forms of tyranny, intolerance and abuse as long as it's done in the name of God.
To answer your question, "prohibit the free exercise thereof" is simple enough. The Mormons believed in bigamy, certain American Indians believe in ingesting peyote as part of their religious ceremonies. The court's have held that the government has the right to regulate such actions, as it does with church services that violate noise ordinances or animal sacrifices by groups that believe in Santeria. Not every act done "in the name of God" is protected by the free exercise clause.
No one's prohibiting Moore from exercising his religion. That's his BIG LIE. What he does as an individual is protected under the "free exercise" clause. What Moore does as a state official is not protected, but is regulated by the "establishment" clause. See the difference between official and individual actions?
What people object to is his use of government resources to summon and subpoena jurors and witnesses, to compel people to attend a place of government for the purpose of promoting his brand of religion. I don't believe in his God and I resent like hell the idea that if I don't like it, I can wait outside in the hall while the business of government goes on without me, particularly if I was summoned there in the first place.
The bumper sticker sloganists say "Save the Commandments." From whom? They don't need saving, they're not in jeopardy, except from scribes and Pharisees like Moore.
Sorry about the little diatribe. You must have been tired when you wrote that and I know it pushed some buttons with me. This is not a contest of words or ideas.
“You and I don't share the same view of God or, more importantly, what God expects of us.”
Well, I've told you who mine is. Who is yours?
I guess it's easier to describe what it isn't, like some of what I said above. I would say my God is more concerned with what I do than what I say, how well I follow the golden rule, than how many offerings I've made in his name.
“Remember my hypothetical of the black belt county commission that turned every public event in the county into a Moslem ceremony? Strip away everything you know about what actually is, and imagine that you lived in that county, as a good Christian. And the questions becomes, how do you feel?”
If the elected Commission were Moslem, and they had a prayer before meetings, I would respect that. I'd prefer they be Christian, praying to the God I believed in, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. A Jewish prayer would be far more acceptable to me. A Satanist prayer would be very difficult to handle, however.
Frank, I really think you're intellectualizing here. You say you would accept it, but I think that may be because you've never had your little girl come home to you in tears because her parents raised her to believe differently than those in control or the majority at school. If the Moslem example doesn't work for you, then use the Satanist example you proffer. Either way, you must admit you are being compelled to compromise your principles in order to participate in government, and THAT is what the free exercise and establishment clauses are supposed to protect against.
“If you can REALLY imagine what it would be like to live there, you'd understand what it is to walk a mile in my shoes, and you might understand and truly appreciate the answer to the question you pose.”
A very ponderable point. While I could accommodate the situation of which you refer hypothetically, I know there are plenty of others who couldn't or wouldn't be inclined to. In that regard, you are right.
Thank you. Now, the fact that you CAN accommodate the situation personally (as do I) isn't the same thing as saying you SHOULD HAVE TO in a perfect world.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment