Welcome to the Nishma Commentary Discussion Forum blog.

Commentary with Rabbi Benjamin Hecht is a regular column on the Nishma website in which Nishma's Founding Director analyzes contemporary issues, in the general as well as the Jewish world, from a Torah perspective.

If you have a comment on an article within this column, we invite you to place your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Freedom of Religion (with Comments on Halachic Tolerance)

Available on the Nishma web site

6 comments:

  1. I'll confess I didn't read the aforementioned article in the Toronto Star. As I am well-stocked for toilet paper, I've not had to buy that newspaper recently. However, the gist of what the woman was complaining about fits in with a concern I've had recently. Freedom of religion, such that exists in Canada, is currently under selective attack. On one hand, different groups such as the feminist and homosexual lobbies have no respect for such freedom of belief and opinion. According to them, you are perfectly free to believe whatever you want... as long as it's what they approve of. The current controversy over the "Defence of Religion Act" (DORA) coming up before Parliament proves this. If there was no underlying desire to interfere with freedom of religion, why would secular liberals be protesting a proposed law they say they support in principle? The war on religion is being wawged by people who want to inflict their views on others since they are the most "enlightened". Freedom threatens their success. Yet this battle is selective. I somehow doubt that this Jewish woman who is thinking of suing a shul for equal rights would even think about doing this to a mosque, Hindu temple or other such religious organization. She might not wear a hat in shul but you can be sure that if she ever enters a mosque, she would respectfully cover her hair and doff her shoes. Only her own God is worthy of disrespect. This is not a case of Eilu v' Eilu when it comes to religious freedom. It comes down to a intellectual and theological dispute - religion A wants to be left alone to practice according to its rites. And in a secular, open society, there are no prisoners in that religion. A congregant who doesn't agree with "A"'s values can leave the faith freely albeit with expected social consequences (and it is presumptive arrogance to expect one to be immune to that). But then along comes religion B whose tenets include those forbidding the beliefs of religion A on all people, including not those of religon B. Now religion A has a problem because live and let live simply does not apply here. Congregants in the church (or mosque) of B cannot leave A alone. Their faith demands they confront and ruin A's religious worship. This should be seen for what it is: Western Secular Liberalism's ongoing cutlure war against Western (but not Eastern, that would racist!) religion in an attempt to replace even the thin Christian morality in play today with a complete amorality so that there are no more sins, except voting Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll confess I didn't read the aforementioned article in the Toronto Star. As I am well-stocked for toilet paper, I've not had to buy that newspaper recently. However, the gist of what the woman was complaining about fits in with a concern I've had recently. Freedom of religion, such that exists in Canada, is currently under selective attack. On one hand, different groups such as the feminist and homosexual lobbies have no respect for such freedom of belief and opinion. According to them, you are perfectly free to believe whatever you want... as long as it's what they approve of. The current controversy over the "Defence of Religion Act" (DORA) coming up before Parliament proves this. If there was no underlying desire to interfere with freedom of religion, why would secular liberals be protesting a proposed law they say they support in principle? The war on religion is being wawged by people who want to inflict their views on others since they are the most "enlightened". Freedom threatens their success. Yet this battle is selective. I somehow doubt that this Jewish woman who is thinking of suing a shul for equal rights would even think about doing this to a mosque, Hindu temple or other such religious organization. She might not wear a hat in shul but you can be sure that if she ever enters a mosque, she would respectfully cover her hair and doff her shoes. Only her own God is worthy of disrespect. This is not a case of Eilu v' Eilu when it comes to religious freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It comes down to a intellectual and theological dispute - religion A wants to be left alone to practice according to its rites. And in a secular, open society, there are no prisoners in that religion. A congregant who doesn't agree with "A"'s values can leave the faith freely albeit with expected social consequences (and it is presumptive arrogance to expect one to be immune to that). But then along comes religion B whose tenets include those forbidding the beliefs of religion A on all people, including not those of religon B. Now religion A has a problem because live and let live simply does not apply here. Congregants in the church (or mosque) of B cannot leave A alone. Their faith demands they confront and ruin A's religious worship. This should be seen for what it is: Western Secular Liberalism's ongoing cutlure war against Western (but not Eastern, that would racist!) religion in an attempt to replace even the thin Christian morality in play today with a complete amorality so that there are no more sins, except voting Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am in general agreement with your comments however I do wish to add 2 points, one in disagreement and one perhaps in further clarification of a point you are making. I do agree with you that individuals within one religious group are more willing to be critical of their own group -- thus are more willing to attack and even show disrespect to their own religion -- than another religion. I think though that, although still fundamentally problematic, this is somewhat understandable. When attacking one's own group, one is not concerned with being labeled a racist or something similar. As such, in fear of challenges of racism, we tend to be somewhat more tolerant of others than of differences within our own group. This pronouncement of reality, though, does not necessarily justify this behaviour. While it may be true that whenever we critque another group, we should investigate within ourselves to see if a potential bias is affecting us and causing us to be overly critical, we should also do a similar self-analysis to see if we are being overly critical of members of our group and not displaying a proper similar tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In regard to other points that you make, I think that your position, and my position, would be best understood if Secularism was seen also as a form of religion. In the battle between Creationism and Evolution, I always found it interesting that an argument was always made that seperation of Church and State meant you couldn't teach Creationism as it was a form of religion. Well, isn't atheism a form of religion defined in its broadest sense? My objective is not to enter the substantial issue itself. My focus is on the potential theological bias that may proceed one's analystical investigation. This is the concern for Creationism. It would be argued that it is built on a theological model that colours subsequent analysis. Yet, is there not also a potential similar bias in proponents of Evolution? Could it not be argued that many of those who take an extreme Evolution position ignoring any consideration for Creation have an atheistic model that also colours subsequent analysis. The seperation of Church and State was intended to protect the people from the impostion of religion and one group's religious values. This rule should also be applied to protect the people from the imposition of the religion of atheism and secularism as well. If we are concerned about the effects of one bias, we should be concerned about the effects of the other. There is an excellent article in one of the Torah U'Madda Journals by Rabbi Sholom Carmy on the secular bias in academia. The perception is that the Academic world is objective and that its discounting of religious bias is necessary to dismiss subjective religious perceptions. Rabbi Carmy shows that the Academic world itself has a certain bias that is non-religious. Why do we assume that to objectively look at something means to not consider the possibility of miracles? I am not one to easily declare an event a miracle or not but I do recognize that just as one who declares an event a miracle has a religious bias accepting a personal God, one who declares an event not a miracle may also have a bias rejecting the idea of a personal God. Secularism is just as imposing as any religion over history -- and this has to be articulated in the argument of freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In response to your comments - there are two types of criticisms. The first type, where one feels comfortable criticizing one's "family" as it were, for its own peculiar faults fits in with your argument. The second type, which was what I was geting at, is the kind where you criticize your own group for a particular characteristic and then turn around and praise other groups with the same characteristic. It's one thing to say "I think Judaism is sexist", quite another to add on "but isn't it lovely that the Muslims have such strong traditions in their prayer and that they separate men and women for spritual reasons". We've seen this argument with CUPE's recent anti-Semitic attempt to boycott Israel. Why is it anti-Semitic? Because if they're against state repression and apartheid, there are dozens of other countries that should equally incense them which they pay no attention to. In that regard then, the criticism a Jew has for Judaism must be carefully analyzed. Is the person saying these comments holding them as a world view or just against the Torah and Judaism? Secondly, the problem with defining atheism, or probably more properly: secular liberalism, as a religion is that traditionally the word "religion" implies a Godhead or pantheon of some sort, a supreme source of authority and power. Secular Liberalism celebrates the individual as the supreme authority. "As long as I don't hurt anybody, everything I believe and do is fine." Thus it is quite impossible for them to have a church. Other than triumphant self-interest, they have nothing in common spiritually or intellectually with each other. However, your point is well taken. Just as American science fiction movies generally assume that all aliens speak English with an American accent, Secular Liberalism assumes that it is without bias. Thus, in their minds, they can't be biased because, even as they prejudge a situation according to their morality, they insist they are complete objective and amoral! The argument with Secular Liberalism therefore must be to prove to them that they are working with an underlying set of belief that colours their apporach to the world and its issues no less than the set of beliefs a Chareidi rav would use when approaching a problem. Getting them to admit this, though, would be quite the trick because they would lose their objectivity, their personal trump card.

    ReplyDelete