My wife brought home lots of potatoes and onions and asked me if we had applesauce and sour cream so I think I know what she is up to :-) Now if I could get some real gelt out of the deal!

ChrisL

Yeah, we’re celebrating the great event too,in spite of what that ignoramus Christopher Hitchens has to say about it.

No apple sauce :( Love me some latkes though.

This is how we celebrate Seattle style... http://www.jonessoda.com/gifs7/happychanukahpak.jpg

I’m holding out for my mother’s latkes on saturday night, which she serves with sour cream and a dollop of caviar (nothing but the best). Chappy Chanukah all.

Happy Hanukkah!

Simon, your link gives us bupkiss.

Happy Hannukah!

Hag Sameach from Edmonton!

Dig out that dreidel and give ’er a spin.... ;-)

>Simon, your link gives us bupkiss.

Server may be under water. Try this...

http://www.jonessoda.com/files/holiday_2007.php

And Happy Chanukah from Winnipeg. I made my own applesauce and the latkes rocked. A sweet eight days.

Typophile-relevant postscript: Chanukah is an acronym (in Hebrew) for “Light candles as determined by House of Hillel”. But the actual derivation is up for grabs.

It is an acronym indeed:

Heit
Nerot
Vehalaha
KeBeit
Hillel,

... but a proper word first:

“Az egmor beshir mizmor HANUKAT hamizbeah...”

EK — Are you related to Moshe Kaplinsky?

>But the actual derivation is up for grabs.

Chanukah is a Hebrew word meaning ’dedication’ or ’inauguration’, and refers to the re-dedication of the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem (in 164 BCE), as the song EK quotes says. The acronym is a fanciful “midrash” or interpretation. The root of the word is Chet Nun Kaf, and appears in other words meaning ’inaugurate,’ ’train,’ and ’educate’.

That is your lesson for today. Now children, you can go back to your dreidel and chocolate coins :)

> The root of the word is Chet Nun Kaf, and appears...

11 times (the Hebrew Bible)

EK, boardman, William, and David, I am always fascinated by little linguistic tidbits like these.

Happy Hanukkah, all!

Some kid on the street was handing out menoras and comes up to me saying “Miss, are you Jewish?” Jewish or not I took one of his menoras and ceremonially lit it with my roommate. I was moved by the back of the box: “There are sacred prayers written on this box. Please treat it appropriately.” We’ve lost this notion in the West, I think...

Vanina, he was asking because Jews are not supposed to proslytize, so he wanted to make sure you were Jewish before handing you a menorah. Far as I know there’s nothing wrong with a non-Jew accepting a menorah and lighting it tho. I’m Jewish and I accidentally took communion once. Long story.

(Jews for Jesus DO proslytize which is one of many many reasons I don’t think they should call themselves Jews. Accepting Jesus as the messiah is another big reason.)

David: I am not...

Patty, Its hard to say Jews are not supposed to proselytize - without adding slight modifier. We don’t proselytize to make people into Jews, but we do “proselytize” a vision and teaching for all humanity. As far as “Jews for Jesus” not being Jewish. The Jewish people are a family, if they are Jewish than they are Jewish even if they don’t profess Judaism. But the fact is most of “J for J” are simply not Jewish. Happy Hanukkah!

My understanding of proselytizing is that it is an attempt to convert. That is different from trying to promote your ideas or vision.

Is there a difference?

Proselytize:
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
(New Oxford American Dictionary)

Huge difference! Ever hear of Jewish missionaries? Didn’t think so.

“We’ve lost this notion in the West, I think”

Vanina, I think it is not only in the West. I fear that people all over the world have let their respect for different cultures slip into a sense of fear. The sad part is that most people evrywhere are good in their hearts but overreact to the actions of a minority of extremists of all kinds who always make the most noise. Perhaps today’s younger generation will overcome that and show us we can live in the same world in peace.

ChrisL

Vanina, he was asking because Jews are not supposed to proslytize, so he wanted to make sure you were Jewish before handing you a menorah.

So that’s why... Thanks for explaining, Patty. I’ve often been asked as well, and always wondered about it. :-)

PL, I love your icon! I used to have tons of Simpsons icons in older versions of the Mac OS! :-)

Ricardo - it means you look like you *could* be Jewish ;-) They don’t go up to just anybody.

Yeah, Patty, I suspected that as well. ;-D

My favorite line from the old Beatles Sgt Peppers movie is when the head Blue Meanie says, “But he doesn’t look Bluish.”
:-)

ChrisL

The story on Jews and proselytizing is rather long and complicated, as with everything in this nearly 4000 year long history.

Hillel (about 30 BCE) said “Love all your fellow creatures and bring them near to the Torah.” This indicated a positive desire to convert others to Judaism. And the famous story of a non-Jew saying he would convert if Hillel could tell the whole Torah while standing on one foot also indicates a desire to proselytize. The statement in the New Testament about how far the Pharisees would go to make a convert is probably based on reality.

This changed with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, when the Romans forbid Jews wfrom proselytizing, under pain of death. Though this situation changed, the precariousness of Jewish security did not, and the policy became not to proselytize, and to warn any potential convert of the difficult conditions for Jews—while welcoming converts as full Jews, if they still wanted to convert.

There it remained until after the holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel. In Israel, with its tinderbox of religious conflict, I believe all proselytizing by any religion is forbidden. In the US it has been different. The US became very tolerant and accepting to Jews, and intermarriage has increased greatly. This is to the point where I have read that in the US there will soon be as many people with one Jewish parent as two.

In response to this situation, in 1978 the then head of the Reform movement, the late Alexander Schindler, changed this traditional policy and urged “outreach” to the spouses of Jews, inviting them to learn more about Judaism, with bring them close to Judaism, and converting more of them. The invitation was also out to anyone not associated with a religious movement.

So it is still true that Jews will not approach anyone who has another religious affiliation about converting, but the invitation is there to others by the Reform movement.

There is an umbrella organization dealing with these issues, The Jewish Outreach Institute.

I guess I can’t see that anyone has the right to say their truth is “truthier” than anyone else’s, or that their path is any more righteous. Hence I find proselytizing basically abhorrent, whether it is to increase one’s numbers, to spread one’s word, or to tame the savages.

It was shocking to travel to a remote village in Guatemala and see an enormous Seventh Day Adventist church that dwarfed every other building in the town. Heartening, in another village in Chiapas, Mexico, to learn that the Mayans had ejected the bishop and basically taken over the church for their indigenous religious rituals, into which they incorporated the left-behind saint figures, along with rose petals, incense, and soda bottles.

>I guess I can’t see that anyone has the right to say their truth is “truthier” than anyone else’s, or that their path is any more righteous.

I had an interesting discussion with a teacher of political science, who said his students regularly expressed the same sentiments. So he asked them about female circumcision, or mutilation. They said, “No, that’s just wrong.” So their moral and cultural relativism ended there.

So Patty, do you think that the beliefs of those who advocate this practice, abhorrent to most of us, including me, is just as valid as your own views? Or is your truth better than theirs?

William, interestingly there was just a Law & Order on that, and polygamy.

I think there is more than one kind of truth.

You can find examples of female subjugation in most major religions. I think female circumcision is wrong but feel equally that women should not have to cover themselves from head to toe or hide away behind louvered windows. Or wear wigs, or be lashed for being the victim of a gang rape. Or have to shave their head and go live in a cloister after their husband dies. I judge these religious practices from what I consider a universal moral and ethical standpoint, not from the standpoint that my religion is any better or morally superior.

Most of these barbaric practices stem from the idea that women pose a threat — that if women are not mutilated, hidden away, de-sexed, or worse that men will not be able to control themselves. This is a pretty curious state of affairs, don’t you think?

> I consider a universal moral and ethical standpoint, not from the standpoint that my religion is any better or morally superior.

Ah, *you* consider it a universal moral standpoint. But they think you are completely wrong, and the universal moral standpoint, which is taught by their religion, is that women should obey their husbands, and that this is part of nature and you are just wanting to impose your despicable feminist views on them under the guise of universality. And your views result in the debasement of women and men alike, and the dissolution of the family we see in the West.

I agree with you, not them, on the substance of the issue. But I don’t think you can consistently be a relativist and advocate a universal morality.

Uhm. The use of “despicable” is a little strong. Good conversation, but let’s not let it spin out of control.

Tiffany, I was just more or less repeating what you can read are views common in many parts of the world. I was just using some of the vehement language—though a lot milder than what is actually said—to get across that this is a real life issue now, around the world, that people feel very strongly about, and are very divided on.

I don’t agree with the anti-feminists, but my point is that relativism doesn’t get you anywhere in having a respectful discussion with those you disagree with on ethical principles.

I do think you can get somewhere if you start with the premise that that are some universal principles, but we can’t be so certain about what they are in detail. We need to look not only what is declared, but what the consequences of beliefs are for the welfare or misery of society. If we can start by agreeing on that as some kind of test, then we can discuss with those we disagree with. But that’s not relativism.

Some views are truer than others, but we can’t be so sure we are in possession of the truth, and the other person is wrong. It may be the other way round. That kind of humility is the best basis of tolerance, not relativism, in my view.

“Stalin was pursuing a vision of a Marxist utopia, of which atheism was part and parcel. Killing off religion was an important part of creating the utopia. “

That is a tidy intellectual way to explain it. You may be closer with Marx or Trotsky with a philosophical reasoning. I don’t buy it one bit with Stalin. Stalin, in my thinking, was just power-hungry. Eliminating the church was just his way of eliminating a competing power to his own. He even got rid of his competition within the Marxist fold and none too gently, either.

ChrisL

Fredo, my point was that anti-religious ideals, as well as religious ones, have inspired mass murder. It seems to me the example of Stalin is right on point, and not a distraction or confusion.

>Vanina, I think it is not only in the West. I fear that people all over the world have let their respect for different cultures slip into a sense of fear. The sad part is that most people evrywhere are good in their hearts but overreact to the actions of a minority of extremists of all kinds who always make the most noise. Perhaps today’s younger generation will overcome that and show us we can live in the same world in peace.

This is really beautiful, and I long for the same peace too. I was actually referring (alas, unclearly) the notion that a shabby cardboard box is holy because a prayer has been inked onto it... That you should treat the box with respect, though the registration is quite a bit off? : ) How is one to dispose of such an object? And there’s the related notion that sacred objects should be kept at shoulder level or above. Sweet stuff.

The problem with anti-religious zealots is that they are way too sure of themselves—which is exactly what is bad about religious zealots.

With you all the way on that, William. Not only are they way too sure of themselves, they are out to convert people, too!

Fredo, my point was that anti-religious ideals, as well as religious ones, have inspired mass murder. It seems to me the example of Stalin is right on point…

Lots of things inspire violence. Pointing at mass murder during a conversation about atheism is just a cheap trick religious people use to avoid logical conversations about religion and atheism. It’s similar to the way Arabs compare the Israelis to Nazis to break down logical discussion about Israel and Palestine.

>Pointing at mass murder during a conversation about atheism is just a cheap trick religious people use to avoid logical conversations about religion and atheism.

No, it’s not a cheap trick, it was on point, the point being that tolerance, kindness and generosity do not only lie on the side of the atheists, as Hitchens would have it. There is a lot of tolerance and kindness on the side of some religious people, and a lot of intolerance and viciousness in some atheists—and visa versa. And, on the issue Fredo brought up, atheist ideals have actually inspired evil, as have religious ideals. Do you disagree?

I am not avoiding a logical conversation about religion and atheism, I am engaging in it. I taught logic for some years and do have a grasp of what is good logic, though I am certainly capable of falling down and being illogical. If I have made a logical error, tell me what it is.

> the notion that a shabby cardboard box is holy because a prayer has been inked onto it... That you should treat the box with respect, though the registration is quite a bit off? : ) How is one to dispose of such an object?

This is based on Deuteronomy 12:2-4 : You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations that you shall possess worshipped their gods… and obliterate their names from that place.  You shall not do so to the Lord, your G-d.

And read that: Proper Disposal of Holy Objects (Chabad)

David, I resent Chabad sending me, unsolicited, a Jewish calendar that pushes their viewpoint, and then telling me I can’t throw it away because it contains sacred verses with God’s name.

To me this is a kind of piety that stinks.

I am not saying this about Chabad generally, just this practice.

Bill, as you know, we have a lot of labels: Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Centrist Orthodox, Hassidic, Yeshivish,Reforms,etc; Each Rabbi & his court and his rules, interpretation.

I think that is more about the inside....what do you feel inside; that is why, I can’t say you’re right or wrong, or they’re right or wrong.

once I met Hagaon Rabbi Yitzchak Kadouri, and was blessed by him; one might say: wrong, the other — right; the third — why? etc etc. So, I think that the important thing is: what do you feel inside you.

David, I don’t have a problem with any level of observance of ritual, or with disagreements about what should be done. What I do have a problem with is being unethical, or violating your own standards in the act of pushing them on others.

If they are so concerned with God’s name being thrown in the trash, then they shouldn’t send it to somebody who doesn’t ask, because that will certainly happen. The practice invites desecration by their own standards and so is bad by their own standards.

That they do it as part of proselytizing—to other Jews to become Jewish their way—has a bad odor as they are violating their own standards, and not being respectful of others as well. It annoys me because I am being put upon. I have to either keep the calendar, which I don’t want (and has lousy graphic design!) or I have to throw it out, which I feel guilty doing because I do like treating genuine religious objects with respect. I have thrown them out anyway, for years, feeling like they are doing a mean trick—a kind of ’chilul hashem’ in itself. Fortunately, I didn’t get one this year.

The Chabad people I have met I have found to be charming people. I always feel a sense of relief because they are authentically Jewish, even though not the way I would choose, whereas so many American Jews are sadly ignorant of their traditions.

You know what the Rav Shach said ...

Most people, most organizations, do seasonally-specific events.
Mid-winter is a good opportunity.
Every year at this time consumerism and religion bash away for hearts, minds, and money.
Plenty to decry, as cynics, atheists, and scrooges join the fray.

> If they are so concerned with God’s name being thrown in the trash, then they shouldn’t send it to somebody who doesn’t ask, because that will certainly happen.

Good point. Maybe we need to ask them about that (Technically — this is mission impossible to print with & without God’s name, and to send it to the right person. I guess they take the ’risk’).

I have thrown them out anyway, for years, feeling like they are doing a mean trick

I also trash those group emails that tell you if you don’t send it to everyone you know in the next 30 seconds you will have bad luck the rest of your life. Treat it the same way, it is no more sacred. Objects themselves are not sacred, it is the meaning we assign to them. I was cleaning my apartment once with a friend and she picked up a dust-covered dutch wooden shoe with beaded flowers in it. Said, “This can go, no?” No! It was one of the last things I ever got from my grandmother, she beaded flowers to help her arthritis. That object to me is sacred, to someone else it’s kitsch. I probably couldn’t give it away on eBay.

>at this time consumerism and religion bash away for hearts, minds, and money.

The perennial issue for Jews is a bit different: how to relate to the Christian majority, and one of their central holidays, which they have made very fun. In a way this issue is very appropriate, since that war over two thousand years ago, whose victory Chanukah celebrates, was about assimilation...

Chris, I’m sorry I missed your comment on Stalin vs Marx. I got my picture of Stalin from an NPR interview with the author of this biography of Stalin. He portrayed Stalin and his circle not only as unbelievably brutal, and devoted to brutality, but also as driven by the dogmatic conviction of the “true believer”. The whole lot of them—30 or so of the inner circle—believed that they could get heaven on earth if they just killed enough people. The ’true believer’ aspect explains how many behaved in the show trials, which otherwise is inexplicable. Yes, mind-bogglingly brutal, but also a true fanatic.

A contrast is Marcos, who it seems was just a crook, in it for the money. The fanatics are much worse.

Patty,
The withered old drawings my kids made in preschool are my prized possessions—cracked library paste, faded crayola and all.

ChrisL

Yes, objects that remind us of vanished love are unique treasures. Our hours and years with those who have passed on, the acts of love between us as parents and our small children, rushing into the past. Fading memories, a mystery we can’t wrap our minds around, but emotions suddenly brought back by a photograph, an object...

Chris - my parents’ hallway is the only permanent gallery of my art. I gotta say, I showed a lot of promise at 4.

Here’s one example (an invite I drew for my 4th b-day which I recycled in 2006)

Note the movement! The gesture! The attention to detail!

> I gotta say, I showed a lot of promise at 4.

my little girl (4 y old):

I love it, Patty! Who could resist coming to that party!

ChrisL

David,
Darn good proportions for a 4-year-old!

ChrisL

Nice segue from genocide to childhood drawings. Maybe we can keep this thread going for 5 more days.

how to relate to the Christian majority, and one of their central holidays, which they have made very fun

The holiday to which they not-so-coincidentally tacked on a lot of older pagan rituals (i.e., the Winter Solstice celebration)? :-)

I guess that makes me an old Pagan :-)

Happy Winter Solstice to one and all!

ChrisL

Cheers to that, Chris!

Chris, it’s better to be an old pagan than a dead pagan.... ;-)

(signed)
Your friendly neighbourhood Zen Druid

I have been close to being a dead pagan too :-)

ChrisL

William: atheist ideals have actually inspired evil

I’m sorry but NOT believing in God hasn’t inspired anyone to kill so far. It’s not a set of ideals, you see. If you think about it, it’s pretty hard to go around doing things in the name of not God. Doesn’t quite have that oompf to it.

>I’m sorry but NOT believing in God hasn’t inspired anyone to kill so far.

Fredo, it actually has. Atheism has been an important part of a set of ideals, and these drove political movements, in particular Marxism-Leninism. A key part of this aggressive version of atheism was the view that religion was the enemy of social progress, and had to be violently suppressed, if necessary. Atheism doesn’t *necessarily* support and drive such aggressive ideals, but it did.

The same potential to be used for good or evil is true of belief in God. It can be associated with peaceful and genial views of how to live, or cruel aggressive views.

I will recount the intellectual history for you later, but I should get to work kerning now!

So... typography?

…actually…

Happy Hanukkah

pbc

William, Patty, Vavina and all,

I think this thread was a perfect tribute to Hanukkah which was spurned on by Vavina’s question about holy typography!
Hanukkah can be seen as the triumph of ideological freedom over political oppression. The greeks wanted everyone to accept their monolithic views, and the Jews refused.
Sweet!

William, its nice to hear that you can tolerate Chabad even if you resent their actions. I want to give you a reason why you may be able to come to term with their actions as well. For Jews who accept “the Code of Jewish Law”, you cannot destroy any writings which are “holy”. Vavina, that means jews will keep all the holy writings and never throw any of them out. Sometimes they are kept in a room called a “geniza” or sometimes they are buried. There are differing opinions on when writings become “holy”. One opinion is the moment the ink hits the paper and it spells out “holy” writings its considered holy. The other opinion is that writing only becomes “holy” when it is read and used for a “holy” purpose. I think the typophiles can think about that typo-philosophy during this holiday (what side are you?) Anyways, Chabad believes that although there may be some risk that someone would mess with the “holy” writings. The sad state of american jews being lost to our family through apathy and ignorance is so great that they send and give these out in hopes that it will make a difference. If you dont use their menorah and prayer box, then you can rely on the second opinion - it is not holy at all. Just throw it away, or maybe give it to someone who might want it, and make it holy.

happy Hannukah!

From the “what were they thinking?” department: The sushi restaurant next door is advertising their Hanukkah Maki which contains, among other ingredients, shrimp tempura. I’m surprised they didn’t throw some pork in there too while they were at it.

Psachyah, thanks for the explanation. I studied Kabbalah at the local Jewish center and we learned about the magic of the written words, the black fire and white fire of the letters on the page. It was interesting both from a spiritual standpoint and also from the standpoint of someone who values type, letters, writing. The parsing of the texts and the letter/wordplay was fascinating to me, unlocking deep and ancient mysteries. I can see how people can dedicate their lives to reading the Torah.

The sushi restaurant next door is advertising their Hanukkah Maki which contains, among other ingredients, shrimp tempura.

Oy.

My excessively/compulsively hardcore kosher ex-mother-in-law thought there was absolutely nothing wrong with devouring multiple shrimp cocktails at expensive restaurants. Perhaps such folks subscribe to the “what happens in the restaurant stays in the restaurant” philosophy? ;-)

(And if one orders Hanukkah Maki, shouldn’t you get the appropriate number of pieces for that evening, so you can match ’em up with the candles for that evening?)

hhhhh
aaaa
ppp
pp
y

hhhhhhhh
aaaaaaa
nnnnnn
uuuuu
kkkk
kkk
aa
h

!

Well, the Latkes were good, even if my goy hands schreadded the potatoes and added a tad of Greek flavoring :-)
My wife broke up laughing when I put the Mannorah on top of the pig-shaped trivot :-)

ChrisL

Patty, Linda, Chris... too funny! :-D

Always found Imagine unbearably naive. Even when I was young and innocent. Then I’ve heard that John Lennon needed a Green Card for the US when he wrote it. Make sense.
Happy Hanukkah everyone.

Fredo, here’s more follow up on atheism and Stalin.

A key beginning is Francis Bacon’s doctrine of prejudice. (Bacon was a contemporary of Shakespeare.) This key idea was that the truth is obvious, and that only prejudice, which blinds us, prevents us from seeing it. (You can read the fuller story in Popper’s essay “On the sources of knowledge and ignorance” in his book “Conjectures and Refutations”.)

The sources of prejudice were past authorities, both religious authorities and the ancient Greeks. Bacon’s idea that rejecting the past was the key to a brighter future help liberate thinkers to criticize past ideas, and that in many ways was hugely positive. It helped lead to modern science and liberal democracy. And it was a key ingredient in the tolerant “age of reason” in the 18th century.

However, there is a small problem: the truth is not obvious, and human beings are highly fallible. What happened is that whatever seemed ’rational’ to a thinker was held as obvious, and everyone who disagreed was an enemy of progress. This arrogant version of rationalism became prominent beginning with Rousseau, and cut a bloody swath through history, beginning with the reign of terror in the French revolution. The persecutions in the French revolution were not exactly atheist, as most of them were deists. But they were definitely against traditional religion and violently anti-clerical. Later, with Marx, the idea became a militant atheism: that defeating religion, the “opiate of the masses” was essential to the progress of humanity. So atheism part of an aggressive, and in some hands, such as Stalin’s, a violent ideology.

The story is told most extensively, I believe, by Jacob L. Talmon, in the “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.” I haven’t read that book, but I looked at it a long time ago, and believe it tells the story most directly.

lore,
I felt the same way about “imagine.” The song is ok when he is just “imagining.”
its good to imagine. but then he insinuates he really means it and that its your fault for not joining in.

“You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one “

when are people going to realize that the true unity is unity in diversity,
and stop trying to stomp everybody else out and make us “one.”
That is a truly relevent lesson of Hannukah!
Happy Hanukkah!

Chris,
did you put greek flavoring in the donuts too?
-psachyah

ps to my comment on the background to the link between atheism and communist violence. I agree with Lori and Psachya on the naïveté of Lennon’s song. It is a hymn to the utopian dreams of communist atheism, and completely ignores the bloody history of those who tried to implement this dream.

I had a look at the wikipedia article on Chabad, and learned something important about the movement I didn’t know before. I had been baffled when one wing of the movement insisted that the late Rebbe was the messiah. It seemed to me that something must have gone very wrong in the movement for some followers to adopt such a view, which seems to me alien to Judaism.

I had known that the founder of Chabad put study and learning back into Chassidism. In the wikipedia article it says further than he explicitly rejected the idea that a ’rebbe’ was an intermediary between a follower and God. This authoritarian element in Chassidism always struck me as its worst feature, and I was happy to read about what the founder of the movement had done.

However, that late Rabbi Schneerson explicitly rejected the views of the founder, according to the article, and saw himself as having better access to God than his followers. Personally, I think that ridding Judaism of priests was was of the best things that happened to it, and putting back this authoritarian element is really a backward step. Since it is Chanukah, it is good to remember that it was the Priests who wanted to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city, and betrayed the Torah.

We already had our reformation, so to speak, in the rise and dominance of Rabbinic Judaism over the priestly cult of the Temple. I don’t want to go back.

when are people going to realize that the true unity is unity in diversity

Exactly why I oppose prosletyzing.

Tomorrow is the 27th anniversary of the death of John Lennon.
Naive but still charming.

William,
I read the Wiki on chabad right now. Its long, but there is a small problem:
“the truth is not obvious, and human beings are highly fallible.”

To understand something, I have to have intimate knowledge with it - and then give it careful study and time .
Even still, I will still end up with a limited view of it. To read the wiki where an entire culture is summed up in a few out-of-context glosses and then your unassuming reaction to what you just “learned.” Makes me wonder what do I know about anybody?
not much, a few simple facts and a bunch of gross misconceptions.

I think that feeling, of “I dont know”, is strong enough to allow us to treat other’s diversity with respect, and maybe interest.

patty,
I think the missionary’s cause of “make everybody the same - and we will all live in peace” is hopeless.
Everybody does it priests, professors, and even musicians. It would be better if we focused on a few things which we can agree on to establish peace. And then let diversity flourish.

Actually I think hopeless is too kind. Misguided or worse in my opinion. I am sure that there are plenty of missionaries with only the best intentions - to help others find the true path to salvation, or whatever. But I think the impulse behind prosletyzing is not always so benevolent, it’s about power and fear and intolerance, just like the edict to procreate madly in order to up your numbers.

Gentle persuasion, an attempt to spread your own version of the truth - the Dalai Lama speaking in Central Park for example - this I have no problem with. But a “mission” to convert, whatever the religion, feels like a first step towards “death to the infidels” and we know where that can lead and has led throughout history.

I also believe that if more people made a point of learning about other religions rather than rejecting them, they would learn that they have more in common in terms of truth (if not in the details) than they expected.

I do want to emphasize - lest I am in danger of offending anyone - that my distrust of fundamentalism extends to every religion including my own.

>To read the wiki where an entire culture is summed up in a few out-of-context glosses and then your unassuming reaction to what you just “learned.”

Psachyah, I may be judging too quickly, and if so please explain to me how the parts I quote are distorting the movement.

My acceptance of the key paragraph I quoted is based on two things. First, being a Wikipedia article it could be contradicted by any Chabad follower if they wanted to. So I am assuming that the quotes and references to Rabbi Schneerson’s works are accurate.

Even if accurate, there is a danger they are out of context, as you say, and distorting a larger truth. But I think not, because these quotes make sense in the context of everything I have heard and experienced about the movement. The bitter split in the movement shows that it has grave problems, along with its strengths. And that explanation of the background to the split is the first thing I have read that makes sense of it for me.

Again, if I am jumping to conclusions please correct me.

William,
I see you made an effort (finally pulling the Popper). Atheism is however just the disbelief in God (Yours and others), and has no other doctrine beyond that. That’ll be the final word from me on that subject. I do hope your kerning went well and I am eager to see what kind of Caslon will turn out. I expect it’ll be kosher.

>kosher

No, it’s “age of reason,” like Caslon. Being a Reform Jew, I’ve got a foot in each tradition, which is either strong or schizophrenic, depending on your point of view.

>no other doctrine beyond that

I concede that there is a difference to this extent: the Crusaders killed in the name of God, whereas Stalin killed in the name of ’scientific socialism’. The justification for killing wasn’t atheism itself, but ’science,’ which supposedly led to the conclusion that if you killed enough people everything would be great. However, the positing of ’science’ in place of God as a source of certainty is “positivism” as defined by August Compte and as taken up by Marx. And positivism is a doctrine that has atheism as an key component. The key sin in my view is not theism or atheism, but rather being so certain you are right that it gives you license to kill. That’s fanaticism.

If you want to detach atheism from doctrines that it has been part of, like Marxism-Leninism, that is fine by me. But then for consistency you have to do the same thing for theism, and then you can’t blame theism itself for any of the manifold sins of religious groups. Stalin killed in the name of a doctrine that had atheism as part of it. The Crusaders killed in the name of a doctrine that had God as part of it. God was crazy one excuse, and ’science’ another, for murdering innocents. But Hitchens’ views still go out the window, because the problem is fanaticism, not theism or atheism.

William,
> you can’t blame theism itself for any of the manifold sins of religious groups.

Eh? Who said I did?

> because the problem is fanaticism, not theism or atheism.

Agreed.

Peace (and not in the communist sense)
ƒ