Akiva Ji,
Guru Fateh.
I actually agree with you here -- I think our "disagreement" was one of terminology. I'm using dialog in the classic greek sense.
There is a very thin line between the two which too is subjective. In Sikhi we call it conversation especially here on SPN.
For me a dialog is a search for the Truth (capital letter intentional).
Please elaborate what you mean by Truth. Is it the subjective kind like the 10 commandments written by God, Hell, Heaven, Minorah lit for 7 days when it only had enough oil for one day or the Objective Truth as the Sun, the Mars and all the rest of awe and wow factors we are surrounded by?
You did mention below :[ I'm not interested in "winning" -- but in factual dialog]. From which I gather that it is not the subjective Truth based on beliefs but simple facts because that is what factual is, sans belief. Please share if you think differently.
Addressed in a prior post - it felt to me more a debate and less a dialog. Again I apologize for misunderstanding your intention.
As mentioned above, there is a very thin line and it is subjective. No harm no foul.
Originally Posted by Tejwant Singh
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).
I do understand the Orthodox position which you and I know needs to be changed because everything changes with time. Refusing to change for the sake of some old traditions in the changing world is not VALID for anybody; no matter how hard it is, especially when the tug of war is in the same faith, in this case Judaism. Even the debate about them joining the IDF is happening while we speak as mentioned earlier.
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.)
Newspaper articles are there for us to decipher the information. In this particular case the news is factual. The facts about this particular news are well known. I have no idea what your gripe is in here. Yes, one interprets them according to one’s own self interests from either side. This is a different debate/dialogue all together. But let’s get the facts right first before we delve into that.
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)
It is a matter of opinion. I just voiced how I perceive the three Abrahamical religions and also gave the reasons about them. You and others have every right to disagree which is fine with me. To claim my post is 'antagonistic'- your word -throws cold water on the term dialogue that you use so often. It is prejudgmental on your part to say the least. You have every right to express your disagreement with my perception by giving your reasons. Isn't this the way you would like to have a dialogue rather than on the offset calling it antagonistic? I did supply the context which may not be enough for your understanding. Let’s be honest here.
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.
Yes, but this antagonism is in the same religion and not only in two camps but in many, factually speaking.
I am also aware of that and how some Jewish scholars are also scouting the Eastern part of India where they have found the same Jewish practices by some and bringing those people to Israel and at the same time deporting many blacks who claim to be Jewish to their countries of origin. The crisis is all about the true Jewish identity. Many Middle Eastern Jews who are darker in colour are antagonist (using your word) against the 'white' Europeans and so is the rest of the Midddle East. It seems like a passive 'apartheid' in the minds of many.
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.
As mentioned earlier, newspapers are just means of information as is the internet. It depends on the individual how to decipher it.
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)
Yes, but the times there are changing. That is the reason there is so much hue and cry by the women who have been treated in such a manner and they are acting rightfully in my opinion. Women could not vote in the US not too long ago. The above shows how some live in their biased boxes. What good is the religion/faith if it cannot help a person to move forward, to breed goodness within, to see God in all irrespective of the gender,hue,creed or faith? A religion should not become the place of shackles, repression and suppression but of self-liberation.
Hence, no practice which discriminates others can be considered as ‘is a given’. It is not good for any party involved.
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.
In a monotheistic religion where One God is for ALL there is, gender separation is nothing but open discrimination against the gender. If a wall is holy, then it becomes an idol which it has. One should not be afraid to admit that fact.
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.
Please elaborate what you mean by ‘a group of "feminist" motivated women’. It has a tinge of bias and loathing. We all come from a woman as Guru Nanak says it beautifully and we shall not denigrate them. They are our mothers, sisters and daughters.
Is gender equality to perform the same ritual a bad thing? You make it sound like that. Do you think they have the equal right to the access of the idol Wall? If not, then please give reasons. I happen to agree with them on the latter part. Things get outdated and many cling to them stubbornly. It is more like a power grab laced with ego than a quest to be a better being in the eyes of God in my opinion.
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.)
I understand it offends the orthodoxy of the Orthodox because sadly, they consider them superior to women. Of course it does mean women are lower. To put it bluntly, door mats and it is a shame that the so called men of God treat them like that.
Your justification,” (which does not mean women are seen as "lower" -- just "different", with different roles to play in Jewish life. Theoretically, at least”), does not hold water. It is an open discrimination against the opposite sex by ‘the sexist men of God’.
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.
I totally disagree. "Who is a Sikh" is NOT a volatile subject today or any day. One is not born a Sikh but becomes one.I have no idea what gave you that notion. Have you been reading the same newspapers you loathe?
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.
This hypothetical from a person who claims to be Perennialist makes little sense.
Actually, you should read the article ‘ Bogey Men’ posted here. You may have the better picture of the ladies with the shawls at the Idol Wall with the Sikh women against the orthodox power grabbing Sikhs. That would make a good comparison
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.
Once again, it is a shame to notice that you started very well and degraded with your post. Let me use your own term. Factual proofs please.
What would the reaction be?
My reaction about what? As I said in the other post, one is not born a Sikh like a Jewish would claim but becomes one.
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.
Who are you talking about? “if people act from ignorance/emotion”.
FYI, Sikhi never stopped in time and it never will. Many Sikhs will keep kesh many will not. Nothing wrong with that.
Sikhs are always ready to change, hence the name. Change to be better in every aspect is the only constant for a Sikh.
Thanks for an educating dialogue. Hope to have many more like that.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
