Her response sounds -- sorry, my friend -- rather Jewish, invoking the Law and the Prophets to describe what Christians should do.
My friend responds:
Why do you characterize Higgins response as "rather Jewish"? Are those your words?
I'm no expert in such things -- talk to a rabbi if you wish -- but I know of nothing in Jewish tradition that calls upon Jews or anyone else to verbally bludgeon anyone with "moral convictions". We don't see Jewish groups of any stripe behaving in that manner in the modern world. Jews never evangelize others to change their religion. They do not go door-to-door worrying people about their fate on Judgment Day. Jewish leaders are generally central figures in interfaith dialogues and voices for tolerance. What other sensible path can a world-wide minority of about 7 million among 6.5 billion humans follow? (Yes, there are small extremist (fundamentalist, in fact) Jewish groups that behave more truculently. They do not speak for even 5% of Jews. Every religion has its holdouts who refuse to come into the modern world.)
Historically, Jews were small minorities at the mercy of local political or religious powers (usually Christian or pagan, depending on place and century). Typically, they could barely hope for a chance at a verbal defense. They were victims of bullying and themselves bullied no one.
In Old Testament times, the Prophets spent most of their time scolding the ancient Hebrews for falling short of moral and religious expectations. The ancient Hebrews, as the people of ancient Israel or Judea, lived among multiple empires and were part of the complex warring politics of that time. The Hebrews' independence was regularly threatened and often taken away.
Modern Israeli behavior, for example building settlements on Palestinian land and waging wars that seem to have no legitimate or rational objectives, does often impress me as bullying. Understanding that they are responding to much Palestinian and other provocation, I have spoken against all that Israeli behavior for decades.
Old Testament language (variously translated into modern languages -- that is often part of the problem) is easily (mis-)interpreted to support just about anything. The Nazis, the Inquisition, Senator Joe McCarthy in American history -- all had no doubt that God was on their side.
In any case, the behavior you ascribe to Higgins and IFI is deplorable, should be condemned and verges on criminal. No one under any accepted interpretation of free speech has the right to bully anyone else, nor to rabble-rouse students to that behavior, nor to encourage school staff to defend, much less participate in such behavior. Provoking confrontations of this sort in the schools is probably criminally actionable.
The Southern Poverty Law Center can be relied upon to take a balanced view of groups like IFI. If SPLC calls IFI a hate group, I'm sure they have a strong basis for that.
So let me go back to my sentence and clarify and apologize.
Yes, the origin of the word "Jewish" was mine. I had intended it to refer only to that one sentence. I apologize for allowing it to seem that my Jewish description extended into the discussion on moral convictions and (ugh) into what Higgins claims is a duty. I probably shouldn't have used it at all. The Christian faith does refer to the Old (or Hebrew) Testament as "The Law and the Prophets." We rightly include it in our bible because we interpret so much of it to point to events in the Christian Testament. However, since so much of the Christian faith says the life and death of Jesus supersedes Jewish law it is annoying when Christians use the Law and the Prophets, not to provide background to the Christian faith, but to enforce their own moral code. And before I get into more trouble, that isn't a Jewish concept. It shouldn't be Christian one.
My friend says the Old Testament is easily misinterpreted to justify just about anything. Alas, the New Testament is too.
No comments:
Post a Comment