@ The Avon Lady:
You can't do my posting with a few one and two liners, an occasional three liner and one four liner and get away with it.
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
@ The Avon Lady:
If somebody greets you in a Western country like Holland by streching out his/her hand and you refuse to take that hand for reasons of modesty, you are making a mistake. Whether it concerns a Muslim man or woman is not the determaning factor for my claim.
|
I fully agree with you. In fact, I would shake that person's hand if it will avoid embarrassing or insulting him, as that is much much greater prohibition in this case.
|
I am glad that
you would shake that person's hand. But I want to make sure that my argumentation is not directed at you personally but is nothing more than my opinion of a clash between a modern society and cultural/religious attitudes based on - in my view - archaïc rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
My point, however, was that you should not attribute this case to Islam's viewing women as inferior. You have other proofs for that but not here.
|
You are fighting a point
I did not make. I did not say that the limitation for the Muslin girl to shake the hand of any 12+ year old (Dutch) male is proof of inferiority of women in Islam. I said it is proof of disdain for the dominant culture of the host country, i.e. Holland. Which is not nice towards the Dutch. Realise that you might create the impression of being rude or even superior towards the autochtone population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
The mistake is that, while the rule that has been given in your religion, may be very valid within the timeframe and/or within the society in which it is generally accepted, you - as a new immigrant - have moved to a new society, with another culture and you have to think hard whether that is acceptable for you and - if not - how far you will compromise without shutting yourself up in your own subculture.
|
Even assuming I would not shake someone's hand under the circumstances, it is farfetched to state that such an act alone indicates I am intraverted within my own subculture. That is a totally unproportional description.
|
The problem is not your - or better: one's single act, the problem is the attitude behind it which may pop up in any interaction with autochtones depending upon the interpretation of one's own cultural and/or religious
mores. The only logical consequence I see are: a) possible offensive behaviour towards autochtones; b) compromising one's religious interpretations; c) withdrawing into one's subculture.
All these attitudes can be found in cultural/religious minorities in Holland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
I know this kind of problems can pop up within Judaïsm as well as in Islam. However, there it is - if I am well informed - not only a matter of modesty but also of cleanness and hygiene. That had its merits, 2.500+ years ago in the desert, but those rules are archaïc an sometimes offensive.
|
I have never heard this one. Logically, that would mean that same-gender handshakes should be forbidden, too. This is certainly not the case in Judaism. Please enlighten me if you find a source for this explanation in Islam.
|
I was talking about "this
kind of problems", I did not mean same-gender shaking hands but todays cultural and/or religious interpretations of age old commands, conflicting with another (dominant) culture. I am explicitly using the word "interpretation" because the Torah, the Tenach, the New Testament and the Qur'an were given/written in a timeframe that shaking hands did have a different meaning than it does today in Holland, that Jewish and Muslim minorities were not living in a modern European culture and that Jacob dreamt of a ladder towards heaven and not of an elevator. If one decides to adhere to 1.400 year old rules or 2.500+ year old rules one cannot escape the necessety of interpretation. This quote from Aish.com is proof that this is
one of more possible interpretations:
Quote:
True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
|
The operative words are clearly "permit" and "choose". The next quote was ment by me as an example of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
I once knew a stewardess with KLM who was asked by a fundamental (male) Jewish passenger if she had her period, otherwise he did not want to be served by her.
|
The gentlemen is either a super holyman or he's cracked out of his wits. This never happens in all of the circles I am involved in, including what you call "fundamental" ones.
|
I am surprised about your reaction on this example. I would certainly not include the possibility of "a holyman" (with or without the adjective "super"). I also would not say "cracked out of his wits" if the guy is strictly obedient to his religion. I would just suggest to fly El Al, they might have a solution for his problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
My reaction: go hich hiking or fly El Al.
|
On El Al, they'd let him starve. And other strictly Orthodox Jewish passenger's, knowing how out of line this is, would be disgusted and pipe up and tell him so.
|
Your words
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
Nobody ordered you to fly KLM, but if you do, you accept the local norms.
|
I think I've responded to this point of norms and your case of abnorms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
(Although religious Jews sometimes prefer to fly KLM to enjoy non-kosher food, not having ordered a kosher meal beforehand but blaming KLM for a mess up in order to justify themselves with their friends. KLM countered those tactics by keeping scores of extra kosher meals on Tel-Aviv-Amsterdam-New York flights.) :D
|
An observant Jew who wants to eat non-kosher food is really wasting the opportunity by jumping with excitement over an airline meal. Poor fella!
|
First of all, I want to say that my two KLM examples are documentated and found their way to internal KLM-instructions.
I also want to stress that culturally or religiously weird or "abnormal" behaviour (in Dutch eyes on board of KLM) is quite common on intercontinental flights with many cultures on board and is therefor not just a problem with observant Jews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
This kind of behaviour, whether based on religion or archaic customs, is often considered very offending if not discriminatory by the autochtones, who are reaching out to help newcomers integrate in our society.
As far as I know, especially the Jews are masters in strechting the interpretation of those rules in such ways that they are not to much hindered in their daily live by these rules themselves, in the proces circumvening their original intention. To give an exemple: observant Jews are not allowed to make fire or light during the Sabbath. When my father was young (in the early thirties of last century) he and his friends went to Jewish families on Friday nights and earned a few dimes by switching on the light in their houses.
|
In this case, the rules might and might not have been stretched. Furthermore, this ruling is based on other existing rules.
|
Rules, rules, rules...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
Nowadays modern wigs have replaced old time veils
|
There is a strong opinion whether wigs are permissable or not but either way, it is not a question of stretching rules and laws but rather whether permissable or not.
|
Wouldn't you call that a matter of
interpretation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
and electronics has come to the help of the observant Jews. Hotels in major Israeli cities have a "Sabbath-elevator" which is set to stop at each floor so you can get in and out without pressing - and lighting - a button (or having to resort to the stairs).
|
Once again, no stretching of laws here - rather their application.
|
Streching the application of rules? Fine with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
While this may sound funny, opportunistic or even hypocritical to some, observant Jews are fully justified to set their own religious parameters and shouldn't care about world opinion.
However, a problem arises when one decides to settle in a different country and culture and especially when one interacts with the autochtone population. Because not observing the dominant rules of normal behaviour is a statement: I moved to and am now living in your culture, but my own culture forbids me to follow your cultural rules. In other words, my culture is superior and I don't accept your culture as dominant.
|
Well, Jewish history in Europe speaks for itself. In some places, especially in but not limited to Eastern Europe, strictly Orthodox Jews were often limited to living in Ghettos.
But for the most part, even such Jews were farmers and tradesmen once they were permited to be. And they never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government.
|
Which is again something I was not stating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Watch me jump to Islam's defence! :yep:
|
I am not surprised that you do...
I may on this point give my views regarding this subject on the three great monotheïstic religions - warning people who don't know yet that I an convinced Christian (Protestant) - so probably not fully objective - but who is objective on these subjects anyway.
Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Judaïsm is the foe of modernity as much as Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Islam is, be it with one major exception that you (TAL) already indicated: the Jews "never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government." You formulated this line very carefully to make sure I can live with it and I can. You mean to say - if I may - that Islam has a much more missionary approach towards other cultures then Judaïsm, which is not missionary at all but - more passively - sees itself as an example for the world at large.
Both Judaïsm and Islam, which was heavely influenced by Judaïsm by early - and rather positive - contacts with Jews, are heavely depending upon sets of rules or commands that either formed or reflected but certainly strenghtened and codified the social
mores of those times. As Skybird has argued (concerning Islam, and in other wording) that the strictest interpretation is the most valid one, but at the same time excludes a step into modernity.
Other than Judaïsm and Islam, Christianity is a religion without sets of rules. Christ formulated all the rules of the Old Testament into the first and major command: "Love God above all" and the second: "And thy neigbour like yourself", which means: "because in the eyes of God he is equal to you". All Christian behaviour, manners, rules etc. are considered
man made interpretations of Christian mores within a certain time and place. Of course I know that there are Fundamental/Observant/Extremist Christian groups, but they are always small, never accepted by any major church or by Christian philosophical or theological thinking. They tend to be extreme conservatives and as much an enemy of modern society as their Jewish and Muslim counterparts, with whom they have at least their fundamentalism in common.
The absence of archaïc rules gives Christianity a great flexibility of inetrpretation of what God expects from mankind.
Christianity has however its missionary drive in common with Islam, which has often been exploited by Western imperialism - although Christ never gave any indication that Christianity should fight for worldly power or use the sword, but on the contrary subservancy towards the State as long as it did not actively fight Christianity. Combined with the absence of strict rules gives this the posibility to Christianity to exist if different cultures all over the world without the necessity to fight and dominate those cultures. That is in my view a fundamental difference with Islam, but I would be interested to hear Skybirds opinion about my analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
Well, you really have a problem then, because you are offending another ethnic group or culture. Integrate or move back, too bad.
|
All this for a handshake. Tsk. Tsk.
|
Exactly my words when I read this Aish.com
Quote:
True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
|
OK, this was a cheap shot, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass to be sarcastic. The real problem is of course not the handshake, but the attitude behind it - as I remarked earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
By the way, the link you gave clearly states the archaïc, sexually induced, male dominant view on the "problem" of normal physical contact between men and women (weird that neither the fundamental Judaïsme nor the Islam takes the possible sexual tangent of physical contact between men and men into account! In those cultures men to men contacts can be quite intense, embracing and often kissing is considered acceptable. This is in my view proof of the male-dominant background of those rules).
|
Once again, your claim is faulty. We women also greet with hugs and kisses.
|
Once again, you are fighting a point I did not make. I did not say that "you women" did not hug and kiss. Please do, just as your men. In your culture it's socially acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Furthermore, once upon a time the world wasn't full of homosexuals, as it is today - certainly not the Jewish world. Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them.
|
Oh no, Ma'am. The world is not "full of homosexuals", they are percentage-wise a small minority. And while I may agree with you that there are circles where homosexuality is
en vogue, or that some can make a choice for a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle, you will agree with me that a substantial number of homosexuals were born and will die that way - as homosexuals. And I dare to say that the percentage of those homosexuals is probably equal all over the globe, with all races and in all times, including Cana'an in Byblical times. As far as that is concerned I can't believe the ancient "Jewish world" was any different than the non-Jewish world. Whether these old time Jewish homosexuals had the opportunity to practice homosexuality is of course another question.
You surprise me by saying in this context: "Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them." There are as far as I know a number of references to homosexuality (Sodom, Gomorrah, even David & Absalon perhaps) in the Old Testament and practising homosexuality was forbidden. If you can agree with this it undermines your own statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham
Quote:
Every time an Orthodox man or woman distances him or herself from even the most non-erotic forms of physical contact, he or she is reminded that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage.
Every act of distancing is also an act of drawing close to one's spouse.
A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.
True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.
True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire. Judging from the proliferation of sexual-harassment charges in work settings and elsewhere, many women would prefer precisely such relationships
|
... but are not asked", I would like to add.
Demanding women not to do certain things and cover themselves up to a certain degree is a typical male-dominant easy way out-rule. The problem clearly lies with men who are obviously susceptable to hit the "slippery slope" of "disrespect" and even possible "sexual harrisment" when seeing an unveiled woman or touching het in "even the most non-erotic form".
Poor Jewish and Muslim men, what should we do about them. I guess those religions should come up with some drastic rules for men to behave, for instance a ban on looking at attractive women. The problem is that unless you resort to Burka's and Niqfa's or whatever garbage bag-style of clothing, women still can be attractive to men, and often want to be so. Sexual attractiveness is created by G-d, God, Allah and any denial of this sexual tension only serves to magnify sexual frustration.
I mean I can honestly say that - ostentably contrary to the men the quote reflected upon - I can shake a man's or a woman's hand with the most non-erotic thoughts...
:D
|
Yet G-d put limitations on many things. This is a decree to enforce such limitations, plain and simple.
|
If that is what you believe, that's fine. Still I would not say that "(t)his is a degree (by God) to enforce such limitations..." but that it is a human interpretation of God given limitations. I can agree that modesty is a virtue. I can not agree that the Bible therefor forbids a social handshake in the modern Western society. That this would serve to remind us "that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage" makes me say: "All this by a handshake. Tsk. Tsk."
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
You don't believe in modesty? Fine? But your intollerant view of those that do is just that - intollerant.
|
You suggest that I don't believe in modesty. To use the words you often ask others: "what are your sources?" My posting over the last 15 months on this forum? You have any further knowledge of my personality? I don't think so. Actually I may be more modest than you think, which makes your bald statement "Your intollerant view of those that do (believe in modesty) is just that - intollerant" litterally a
non-sense prejudice (no offense intended).
Anyway, I hope that our argument will not make you refuse my hand if I would ever happen to meet you, whether in Israel or elsewhere...
:D
