Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: "Sabotage of Humanitarian Efforts by Political Opportunists" Message-ID: <506@sfmag.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 00:35:31 EST Article-I.D.: sfmag.506 Posted: Tue Feb 26 00:35:31 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 20:32:26 EST References: <21577@lanl.ARPA> <490@sfmag.UUCP> <540@fisher.UUCP> <500@sfmag.UUCP> <550@fisher.UUCP> <505@sfmag.UUCP> <559@fisher.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ Lines: 143 >Your reply (below) still skirts what I consider the critical matter: >if your position is so manifestly just and without error, would not it >be inevitably accepted by the Ethiopians? And if they will choose >"correctly", what harm will be done by giving them that choice >(whatever the motivations of those who would give them that choice)? > David Rubin To David: Who's skirting? You would prefer to shift discussion to your "critical matter". But you never responded to mine. I'll answer you anyway, but at the end. To me, the critical matter is the one that will emerge after tempers have cooled and time has added perspective. During the McCarthy era the issue was who was or wasn't a communist. In perspective, we now realize that the issue was witch-hunting. The purpose of my article was not to solve the Ethiopian problem. I can't affect that situation tangibly. On the other hand, I do hope to debunk some anti-Orthodox prejudices, like yours, often expressed on our net. In my view, one central and critical matter is that there is a vicious libel campaign against Orthodoxy. (In an earlier article, I demonstrated beyond question, that charges of racism against halachic authorities are ridiculous. No one took issue.) This is the underlying dynamic and the antidote is to expose the liars and instigators. Now to your questions: >> "Don't equate lying, malicious, instigation and emotional >> incitement with 'offering a free choice'." >I'd like to see what you consider to be a "free choice". I was trying to suggest that your favorite phrase is camouglaging the facts. You answered by again invoking the magic words and skirting my point. >> 1) The Ethiopians originally agreed to a quiet ceremony by >> their own free will. >This charge is contradicted by your earlier posting, which put forth >the far more modest claim that selected leaders had so agreed. Unthinkable as it may sound, they (choose to) obey their religious leaders. >> 2) No hint of racism was intended or involved. >As I've said, perhaps no racism, but definitely more than a hint of >moral superiority ("these people cannot be trusted to choose >correctly...") You have no basis (except distrust) for attributing distrust to the Rabbis who approached them? Does explaining the Torah constitute moral condescension? >> 3) No stigma whatsoever would have resulted. >As long as they did it your way... Not because it's my way, but because it's a fact. >> 4) Attacks charging racism and stigma were vicious lies. >Attacks charging racism were uncharitable, but only in the >motivation of the feeling of superiority, not in its existence. >Charges of threatening stigma are true. Uncharitable!? You're bending over backwards to rationalize for the anti-Orthodox. Aren't you capable of any fairness towards us? What stigma? That they were so "inferior" that they listened to the advice of the Orthodox Rabbinate and the Torah? Wouldn't you respect their choice, or would that be defacto evidence that they lack the ability to choose? >> 5) These lies were politically motivated. Their purpose was to >> propagandize against the Orthodox control of the rabbinate. >> The propagandists exploited self-righteous humanitarian >> rhetoric to incite public opinion. >Of course, asserting Orthodox control of state agencies is a political >act. I suppose if you agree with Yitzchok, you are righteous, but if >you disagree, you are self-righteous. And the Orthodox NEVER use >rhetoric to incite public opinion in Israel, I assume... I'm condemning lies not political activity. I identify the motive to clarify what's relly going on. Self-righteousness is a method of covering motives. Is it less legitimate, in your view, to expose self-righteous humanitarians than to expose self- righteous Orthodox? >> 6) The Ethiopians were exploited by instigators to be pawns in >> a political melee. The politicians gained at their expense. >The Ethiopians were exploited by politicians of both stripes. That >is what politicians do for a living. The politicians' motivations, >however, are irrelevant to our dispute; we (on the net) are only >discussing the "right thing to do", not the political advantages to >be gained in such a matter. No lies or instigations whatsoever were fostered by the rabbinate. The unscrupulous acts of these Torah haters deserved to be exposed. Why do you object? Why do you try so hard whitewash? >> Perhaps you take issue concerning the facts. But if you accept them >> as I've charged, I can't see why you would react differently. >The facts are not disputed, but we still react very differently. >Without choice, there can be no such thing as morality (at least, that >was the crux of the response given by my Hebrew school teacher (an >Orthodox rabbi) to the inevitable inquiry, "Why does God suffer evil >to exist?). If you wish to PERSUADE the Ethiopians to go through >with the mikveh, by all means.... I just object to COMPELLING them to >do so. Your clear bias in these discussions explains why you react differently. We come finally to your topic, the issue of choice. First of all, the "compelling" is only in your mind. The fact is that many chose not to go to mikveh and didn't. Unless you imagine that arms were physically twisted, you must be objecting to psychological pressures. If you mean to suggest by quoting an Orthodox Rabbi that psychological pressure is forbidden by the Torah, you are wrong. As a matter of fact, the Torah authorizes Rabbinic courts to use physical and psychological pressures where appropriate. (The Talmud explains that this does not violate free choice. You can't extrapolate to this issue from from your Hebrew school experience.) In fact, however, the only pressure exerted was the truthful explanation of the facts of (halachic) life, by recognized authorities. I have met Jews from Ethiopia and I was extremely impressed by their purity and character. I have every confidence in their moral ability. Still I appreciate that, just like you and me, they can be fooled and bamboozled. My article sought to identify and condemn the ruthless bamboozlement that occurred. I am not advocating "my view" as a criterion for free choice, as you claim. The Ethiopians were consciously defrauded. A contract made under conditions of fraud is not legally binding, under Torah law or secular law, lehavdil. It is simply absurd to invoke free choice as a legitimizing factor under conditions of deception. An unbiased person who agrees on the facts, even if he is not Orthodox, should react as I do, i.e. to cry foul when he smells a rat. Yitzchok Samet