Tolerate yes, respect no (Leftist Hate Spew BARF ALERT)

Last weekend's interesting Upfront cover story by Larry Derfner ("Spirited away") focused on Rabbi Ya'acov Israel "The X-Ray" Ifergan.

The piece about folk religion, North African-origin miracle workers, and assorted charlatans was also the occasion for a Post editorial exhortation concluding with an expression of hope that "the 'rationalists' will be wise enough to remain aware of the limitations of their own intellect and respectful of other people's desires."

I, for one, found that an extremely strange formulation, as condescending an expression of cultural relativism as I've read in many a year; and as removed from the worrisome day-to-day reality of Israel.

The editorial asks rhetorically how a post-industrial Israel should coexist with people who "buy holy water bottles (the photo accompanying the article shows Holy Arak), travel from afar to receive a blessing from a man they consider sacred, and bask in fires set at this or that sage's graveside."

Neither The Jerusalem Post, nor any other newspaper or official agency, has the right to preach to others about whom to respect, and, by analogy, disdain.

When it comes to feelings, it's a free country. We have the right, even duty, to preach against potentially antisocial and dangerous behavior. And to differentiate between respecting and tolerating those who are different from us.

A nagging question is, should we extend tolerance to those who are themselves intolerant?

The condescending attitude expressed to how we should view the practitioners of Israeli folk religion should apply equally to Jews for Jesus, Hare Krishna and other non-Jewish cults, and to the Temple Mount Faithful, as well as Islamic fundamentalists, to mention but a few such phenomena.

To the best of my recollection, however, prejudice and discrimination which denies the freedom of various Israelis to put their various religious (or nonreligious or anti-religious) beliefs into practice, is nearly entirely one-directional.

I vividly remember how an Agudat Yisrael MK, Rabbi Menachem Porush the elder, tore up a Reform siddur, ripping the prayer book apart page by page on the Knesset podium. He was not summarily ejected from the hall.

I do not recall any "rationalist" treating Orthodox holy books with similar disdain. Even today, Reform and Conservative congregations are the only ones to be denied freedom of religion in Israel.

The Orthodox rabbinate is the one that continues to deny recognition to the "different" Ethiopian version of Judaism and to its religious leaders. Giving in to Orthodox demands that all Ethiopian immigrant children be sent exclusively to national religious or haredi schools is the modern equivalent of forcibly shearing the payot (sidecurls) of immigrant Yemenite children in the early days of the state.

No one – so far – is denying the Orthodox rabbinate the power of exercising exclusive control over marriage (and especially divorce), procedures which are blatantly anti-women.

But these same rabbis, and their political representatives, insist on denying the rights of hundreds of thousands of new Israelis and a growing number of veteran Israelis from marrying in ceremonies of their own choosing.

As an apikoros "rationalist" myself, I reject the modern-day applicability of rabbinical halachic Judaism. But I have no problem, historically, in admitting that a gigantic stride was made by the rabbis, following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, in substituting a Judaism of synagogue prayer and beit midrash study for the paganism of temple animal sacrifices.

I thus view with disdain and horror the declared intention of the Temple Mount Faithful to rebuild the Temple and restore every jot and tittle of animal sacrifices.

They are entitled to their belief, but when they openly admit that their intention is to destroy the Muslim structures on the Temple Mount, as a prelude to that restoration, I have no compunction in demanding that the police, the Shin Bet and a "rational" judicial system take the most extreme steps in their power to prevent such a catastrophe.

In regard to the scores of thousands who participate actively in the various manifestations of our folk religion, the Post editorial does raise at least one very pertinent issue: that we ponder why so many of our fellow Israelis have reason to feel they have been left behind in a fast-developing Israel.

The problem with many of our folk-religion cults (and the con-men who run many of them) is not what some of us would consider their outlandish practices, but that they divert attention and energy from adopting "rational" policies" that would encompass as many "failed" Israelis as possible.

The writer is a retired lecturer in political science and a veteran journalist.

Translation: a senile Bolshevik

A nagging question is, should we extend tolerance to those who are themselves intolerant?

The Bible teaches, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," Mr. Goell. That applies even to unabashed bigots like yourself.

I laugh at people who buy vials of "holy water" and "holy vodka blessed by the Rebbe" and other silly superstitions that I don't share. But I don't claim the right to HATE these people as much as Mr. Goell. They are harmless.

Mr. Goell is apparently suffering from senile dementia, because the gentleman from the Agudah Party did no such thing. The Reform themselves update their praperbooks and bibles every few years and toss the outdated ones like disks of Windows 3.11 or last month's issue of Vanity Fair.

How can someone who claims to be a "rationalist" promote such entirely irrational notions as "unilateral withdrawal" which will not only not bring peace but will cause more terror inside Israel.

I just wish Yosef Goell and his fellow "rationalists" go to a secular, rationalist country like France. They can hide under the cabaret tables when the jihadis attack the Parisian cafes.

I just wish Yosef Goell and his fellow "rationalists" go to a secular, rationalist country like France. They can hide under the cabaret tables when the jihadis attack the Parisian cafes.

I've always had two problems with these "rationalists." First (which may not apply to this fellow, who seems to be an equal opportunity scoffer) is their tendency to demonize their own while exalting and romanticizing the "irrational" religions of others. But my second problem is is even more basic.

What is "rational" about insisting on "rationalism" as the only "rational" (forgive my repetition!) basis for life once that "rationalism" has established that life is ultimately meaningless? I don't get it! I've never gotten it. Instead of drawing the actual "rational" conclusion (ie, since life is meaningless, to h*ll with everything), these people seem to treat the "meaninglessness" of life which their "rationalism" has revealed to them as though it were some precious, blessed knowledge that sets them free. Then they form schools of ethical thought which (life being meaningless) can only provide a phony "meaning" for life by being forced on people by a secular state.

I can understand (though I don't agree with) the late Carl Sagan could claim that science is a "light in the dark" because it reveals that the universe is a meaningless, random phenomena of mechanistic causes and effects. What I cannot even fathom is his reaction to this "knowledge" with an almost orgasmic ecstasy that led him to an evangelistic zeal to "enlighten" the "savages" with this "great" and "liberating truth."

"Rationalists" appear to be the most irrational people in the world.

"Rationalists" appear to be the most irrational people in the world.

Yeah, if they tell you "rationalists never committed mass murder in the name of rationalism" just ask them how many people were beheaded during the French Revolution.

Though I gotta hand it to the "rationalists" at least their method of beheading was more humane than the Muslims.

"Rationalists" appear to be the most irrational people in the world.

Yeah, if they tell you "rationalists never committed mass murder in the name of rationalism" just ask them how many people were beheaded during the French Revolution.

The problem with their thinking goes much deeper than this. The point is, if the world is purely random and meaningless, why does it matter if someone commits mass murder??? Why do they feel the need to boast of their superior ethics when ethics are a mere hang-up and the deaths of an entire human population have the same meaning and significance as the annihilation of one ant colony by another?

I have seen someone use as a tagline "religion stopped [insert large number here] beating hearts in Yugoslavia." But my argument isn't "no it didn't!" or "prove it!" but why would someone who rejects the ultimate meaning of human (or any other) existence get all righteous when it comes to denouncing man's inhumanity to man?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.