GurFateh
Tejwant Ji
As a preamble: If forced (and so that my position is clear) I would describe myself as sehajdari, more or less. But I'd rather not; I also consider being a Sikh a proactive decision, so for clarity I'll use Sikh (capital S) to describe one who is proactively choosing/living a Sikh lifestyle, as opposed to sikh (small s) to describe a cultural/social sikh (usually one born into a sikh family, possibly going through the motions of being a sikh to one degree or another, but doing it for social/cultural reasons instead of doing it proactively)
Akiva ji,
I beg to differ with you. As I mentioned in my post that disagreements are part and parcel of learning processes and it is OK to debate. For you it may be to prove/ win a point but for me it is to further the dialogue by presenting a counter point in order to find a common ground, otherwise it is also OK to disagree because we are all individual beings.Disagreements commonly happen in one's own family. No harm no foul.
I actually agree with you here -- I think our "disagreement" was one of terminology. I'm using dialog in the classic greek sense.
For me a dialog is a search for the Truth (capital letter intentional)
First, you are not being honest.It is a shame that you call my disagreements as attacks towards Vouthon and in the same breath you are looking for a dialogue. This is nothing but sheer hypocricy on your part and uncalled for, or is this a challenge or a cop out? Before you start preaching more, read my first post which made Vouthon all heated up which was surprising to me because he seemed such a gentle and sweet person. As repeated several times before, it is OK to disagree. There is no harm in it. Be fair for your own common ground and a dialogue that you are preaching about. If you were then you would not call my post as attack.
Addressed in a prior post - it felt to me more a debate and less a dialog. Again I apologize for misunderstanding your intention.
Again, you do not seem to practice what you preach. This news is in all different Israeli newspaper and TV. Present your side. It is OK with me.
Nothing stops in time as many people wish it would. The case in point is for the Orthodox Jews to join the defence forces because they are burden on other tax payers is one example out of many. Once again present your points so we can all learn and dialogue and debate. You may win which will be fine. Atleast we will all learn from it which is the basic idea.
I'm not interested in "winning" -- but in factual dialog.
I would prefer gender equality as Sikhi teaches me.
Agreed. But to understand the Orthodox position one has to accept (temporarily, for the sake of the dialog) their position as valid FOR THEM. Then one can understand why they say and do what they do. Understanding the Other's position is crucial in a dialog (but not in a debate).
Newspaper articles rarely if ever do that. Not is Israel and especially not in the West. (Especially in the West -- where I rarely if ever see an honest, balanced examination of the situation here.)
You can choose all three and present your case. This is the beauty of the learning process. Let's make knowledge our best friend rather than our worst enemy.
Lastly, before you start anything, honesty is the best way. No one attacked anyone as your accusations imply. Read my first post and see if it is an attack and then follow it from there.
respectfully, your original post came across TO ME as antagonistic. Anytime one brings a brief list of items to either support one's positions or to challenge the other's position -- without supplying context or exposition - it's usually an attack. (I accept that wasn't your intention -- but it could be taken that way since it was tangential to the original post's intention)
To briefly explore one issue you brought:
For the last 150 years or so there has been a strong cultural conflict between "secular Jews" - Jews who identify as being born Jews, part of Jewish culture, the importance of Jewish Nationalism/Identity, but NOT religiously observant - and the Orthodox Jews - those who define Jewishness in religious terms (being born a Jew or one who converted - but also one who keeps the traditional Jewish practices and believes the traditional Jewish teachings).
There is a strong antagonism between the two camps.
Newspapers (not counting the religious newspapers published within the religious community) here are exclusively secular and antagonistic against the Religious community. As a given they hold that Orthodox religion is outdated - any article discussing religious/secular conflicts start from that position.
For the Orthodox, gender separation both socially and in religious practice is a given. It has strong cultural roots in the middle east (obviously). This includes seeing women (especially in what they consider non-modest dress) and/or hearing women singing (something prohibited to men under Jewish Law)
The western wall is a religious site. (As the last remnant of, and the location closest to, the second temple, it is considered holy). As such it follows the traditional gender separation.
The conflict here is that a group of "feminist" motivated women -- striving for gender-equality - want equal access to the wall, and consider the Orthodox position out-dated with no place in the modern world.
POINT ADDED FOR CLARITY: Women have access to the wall now -- there is a men's and women's section. the issue here is that these women want the right to observe practices that until now were solely practiced by men (i.e. wearing prayer shawls, singing out loud). THAT is what is being restricted.
This of course offends the Orthodox - for whom gender separation is a given (which does not mean women are seen as "lower" -- just "different", with different roles to play in Jewish life. Theoretically, at least. In practice people are people, and many misunderstand the intentions of the traditional teachings.)
To put it in Sikh terms:
From what I've seen over the last few years, "Who is a Sikh" is a volatile subject today -- in the same way that "Who is a Jew" is.
Imagine a group of punjabi sikhs deciding to enter the Golden Temple without covering their heads because they consider that an "old-fashioned" concept with no place in today's modern world. After all, most sikhs drink, don't cover their heads, keep their kesh, etc - so observant Sikhs should be tolerant/accept the fact that times have changed and that covering kesh etc. should no longer apply.
What would the reaction be?
The Sikh community should (IMO) look to the history/experiences of the Jewish people over the last 150 years as a learning source/warning/example of where things can/will go in the Sikh community if people act from ignorance/emotion.
Respectfully,
Akiva
