A Look at Conversion to Christianity: “Rachmana liba ba’i”? (Absolutely not. Column 498)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
Almost a year ago I read a chilling article about a Jewish child who was saved in the Holocaust by Christians, converted, and became a priest. At his request, he was buried as a Jewish-Christian. This account raises several points worth touching on.
Case Description
He was born to a religious Jewish family in 1931, named Yaakov Zvi Griner. When he was eight years old, the Nazis invaded Poland; there they murdered his father and led the Jews of the town—including his mother and two sisters—to mass graves, where they were shot. He survived thanks to a forged baptism certificate and a Polish-Catholic name, Gregor Pawlowski. After the war he arrived at a Christian orphanage and from then on was raised as a Christian and became devout. He retained a Jewish identity and even informed church leaders of this, but they allowed him to advance in learning and piety, until in 1958 he was ordained as a priest.
Following an article about him that circulated throughout Poland, his brother, who lived in Israel (they had not known of each other’s survival), heard about him and made contact. Together they set up a monument on the grave of their parents and the townspeople, and then Gregor decided to immigrate to Israel. In the meantime, he also purchased a plot for himself in the nearby Jewish cemetery. He even drafted the inscription for the headstone he prepared during his lifetime:
Father Gregor Pawlowski, Yaakov Zvi Griner, son of Mendel and Miriam, of blessed memory. I left my family to save my life during the Holocaust. They came to take us to extermination. The life that was saved I dedicated to the service of God and humankind. I returned to them, to the place where they were murdered in sanctification of the Name. May my soul be bound in the bond of life.
In Israel he served until his death as a priest in a church in Jaffa. There (in the outside plaza) his funeral service was also held, in the presence of Christians and Jews who recited Kaddish for him, and afterward his body was flown to be buried in the plot he had purchased in Poland.
Throughout his life he did not deny his Jewishness but also did not express regret for his conversion and for being a Christian cleric. The article describes him as having returned to Judaism at the end of his life, but it is not entirely clear to me in what sense. He did not become a member of the Jewish religion; rather, he remained a member of the Jewish nation, as he always defined himself. In this sense he resembles the Jewish cardinal of Paris, Jean-Marie Lustiger, who was of Jewish origin and all his life defined himself as belonging to the Jewish nation while believing in the Christian religion and serving God accordingly.
This account is a good trigger to discuss several points.
The Reasons to Adopt a Religious Faith vs. a National Identity
From reading the article, one gets the impression that Gregor chose the Christian religion out of gratitude for having been saved. That is a puzzling reason for adopting a religious faith. There were Christians who did not exactly save Jews (I’ll let him in on a secret: throughout history there were even some Christians who murdered Jews, including in the Holocaust, and including many of those who instigated it). There were also members of other religions who saved Jews, as well as atheists who did so. And in general, why should gratitude be a reason to adopt a religious belief? Seemingly, belief and religious practice are based on factual claims, unless we’re speaking of a purely psychological practice. If it’s a psychological practice, then Gregor wasn’t truly a Christian and all is well. But if it is an actual faith, I don’t understand why gratitude is a relevant basis for it.
By contrast, the reason to adopt a national identity belongs more to the psychological plane. Of course, one can define a nation in an amorphous manner, in the style of Benedict Anderson, Shlomo Sand, and their ilk; then it’s just a fact. Be that as it may, Gregor chose to belong to the Jewish nation—either for psychological reasons or because he viewed it as an unavoidable fact not under his control (cf. the previous column that dealt with a person’s ability to define himself as male or female, black, brilliant, handsome, belonging to this or that nation and religion).
The conclusion that follows from the Principle of Charity (again, see the previous column and column 440. I stress that this has nothing to do with performing acts of kindness for anyone but oneself) is that Gregor thought he belonged to the Jewish nation because this is a fact and perhaps also felt solidarity with the Jewish people, but as far as his religious belief he believed in Christianity. Accordingly, his request to be buried in a Jewish cemetery and to have Kaddish recited for him in a quorum stemmed from national identity and not religious faith—similar to many secular Jews. I’m not sure he was aware of these distinctions, but this is probably what underlies his views.
The Relationship Between Nation and Religion
So far I have dealt with the motivations and rationales for adopting a religious and a national identity. I now move on to discuss the substantive link between them. It is commonly thought that Judaism is both a religion and a nation and that the two cannot be separated. If that is indeed the case, there is, ostensibly, something inconsistent in Gregor’s views as described above. But this linkage between nation and religion in Judaism can be interpreted in several ways.
One can interpret it to mean that there is no content to the Jewish nation beyond religious obligation. I fully identify with this statement and have written about it more than once. Of course, there are not a few Jews who feel Jewish but are not committed to halakha. That is certainly a fact, except that in my view their feeling lacks any real basis. This brings us back to the previous column about a person’s freedom to define himself. If you are not Jewish in any substantive sense (apart from your mother), you cannot define yourself as Jewish. You can, of course, utter the words “I am Jewish,” but that is only because lip movement is not constrained by the truthfulness of the content. The mouth tolerates everything.
One can, of course, soften this definition and say that there is no content to the Jewish nation beyond religious obligation, but that doesn’t mean one must actually observe it. According to this proposal, a Jew is someone obligated in the commandments, even if he himself does not recognize that. This is, of course, the meaning of the first definition I suggested here.
But we must distinguish here between Jewish culture and the Jewish nation. Nationhood is a genealogical matter—that is, a question of lineage. Therefore, national belonging does not concern a person’s culture. He may belong to the Jewish people while his culture is entirely foreign. My comments above addressed the question of Jewish culture, not the question of nationhood. There is no content to Jewish culture apart from halakha and commitment to it. Belonging to the Jewish nation is a matter of fact.
Of course, one can dispute this as well and argue that defining a national culture—that is, a people—is very amorphous, and therefore it is hard to determine or to dispute it. From here one arrives at the Principle of Charity from the previous column: if a person feels Jewish, then he is Jewish. Despite the circularity and emptiness of this definition, it expresses an intuitive feeling about the existence of the concept “the Jewish people” or “Jewish culture.” In principle this is possible, but it seems to me very unlikely in general and in this context in particular. Again, I don’t see any feature or set of features that could help us define Jewish culture unless we adopt something as constitutive: speaking Hebrew, serving in the army, paying taxes, consuming Jewish culture, eating cholent on Shabbat, celebrating in various ways the holidays of Israel (bringing first fruits at a kibbutz, dancing at sundown on Tu B’Av, tormented discussion circles on the day of Rabin’s assassination, on Tisha B’Av and the Fast of Gedaliah, and so on). Gentiles can also participate in all of these, but one could say these are gentiles who possess a Jewish culture. There is no logical problem with that; it just makes the matter not truly related to Judaism and the Jewish people.
Put differently, one could say that Jewish culture is the culture that characterizes Jews. And who are “Jews” for this purpose? Here we would have to adopt a non-cultural definition—either national or religious. Again, this somewhat empties the definition of content.
Certainly one cannot claim that belief in the Jewish religion depends on belonging to the nation in any other sense (apart from the religious obligation itself). In this sense, Judaism depends on religion but not vice versa. In fact, the most reasonable thing is that we are speaking of identity, which drains the notion of “Jewish culture” of any firm content.
Bottom line, it is clear that there is no value in belonging to the Jewish people or to its culture. It is a matter of fact—or at most folklore—that you choose to belong to. Therefore there is no problem defining whatever you like as the Jewish nation or Jewish culture, as long as you ascribe no value to belonging to one or the other. Instead of speaking Swahili you choose to speak Hebrew. Instead of reading in English you choose to read in Hebrew. Instead of eating bacon you choose to eat cholent every third Shabbat of an odd month. Be my guest; just don’t tell me there is any value in it. A “Jewish value” is a synonym for halakha. Anything beyond that is a universal value—that is, a value for every human being—and therefore it has no connection whatsoever to Judaism.
The Attitude Toward Conversion to Christianity
A Jew’s conversion to Christianity arouses our antibodies. When we hear of such an act, it is accompanied by a feeling of betrayal—of human and national baseness. I see no reason for such thinking. The psychological reasons are very clear: Christianity tormented us not a little, and this is a natural reaction. But essentially, this is a person who made his choice. If he believes in the Christian religion and not in Judaism, I would expect him to take the necessary step and convert. If he does not do that, then he is not worthy of esteem. He is simply allowing his psychological sense of belonging to dictate his beliefs and ways of conduct in the world. But as I explained above, there should be no connection between belonging—which is a psychological fact or arbitrary decision—and our beliefs and values. Both because beliefs and religious obligations are a normative choice while belonging is a fact, and also because there is no value in culture and national belonging, so there is no flaw in abandoning them either.
Gregor’s situation—belonging to the Jewish nation (and perhaps also to Jewish culture, depending on how you define it; Kaddish and burial, for example) together with Christian belief—is actually the inevitable result of the dichotomy in which he lived. My amazement goes the other way: why are there so few like him? Anyone who belongs to the Jewish nation but does not believe in the Jewish religion—I would expect him to estrange himself from it and seek another alternative. By the way, this should also apply to secular Jews: the fact that they do not believe in the Jewish religion does not exempt them from examining other religious alternatives (for some reason it is always the religious who are accused of this; see, for example, the amusing back-and-forth with Yossi here and onward).
The Ban on Missionary Activity
I have often written here that the ban on religious (or other) proselytizing outrages me. In general, any infringement on freedom of speech and argument should outrage everyone (see column 6 and column 118). If someone believes in the Christian religion and tries to persuade a person of Jewish origin to convert, how can one forbid him to do so? He isn’t forcing anyone; he is presenting arguments. The listener will weigh them—adopt if he wishes and reject if he wishes. The same goes for Holocaust denial. This ban, too, is outrageous in my eyes. If someone has good arguments for the claim that there was no Holocaust or that six million Jews did not die there—let him present them for the examination of anyone who wishes. If we are convinced—then fine; if not—also fine. Why on earth should decisions about what happened historically or what is religiously proper be handed to political hacks who will decide for me what is true and what is right?! This is absolutely intolerable to me. A collection of fools and interested parties sitting in the Knesset decides for all of us which arguments we may hear and which not, what happened in history and what did not, and how one ought to behave in the religious sphere and how not. This is simply inconceivable to me. It is no different from the culture of political correctness that forbids the expression of ideas and opinions that do not please it. For some reason, there one tends to be outraged, but that does not stop us from forbidding others to express their opinion and present reasons for it.
A General View
In sum, I do not understand why gratitude is a reason to adopt a religious belief and practice. But if a person reaches the conclusion—whether for the right reasons or the wrong ones, but on the right plane, the intellectual one—that this is his belief, I certainly expect him to take the necessary step: to abandon his current faith and commit to the one he believes in. Of course this does not contradict feelings of national and cultural belonging, which should not in any way depend on his religious belief. Gregor’s case—feeling belonging to Judaism while believing in Christianity—is unusual but, in my eyes, very natural, and it is a wonder that we do not find many like him. The rabbi mentioned in the article assumes that he wanted to return to Judaism as a religion. I understand that he knew him while I did not, but at first glance it seems to me that he erred and conflated these two planes.
It turns out that psychology still moves us even in domains where it shouldn’t. This brings me to the main conclusion from the points raised here: we must overcome this weakness. Our attitude toward people and differing beliefs—and even the adoption of religious and other beliefs—should not draw from our psychology or even our history, but from substantive discussion. We are all, of course, human beings, and therefore we all have psychology; no one is perfect. But this is a weakness we must strive to overcome (see, for example, column 218).
In the Christian world the heart is given a very central place. Among us as well there are those who cite “Rachmana liba ba’i” (“The Merciful One desires the heart,” which in my view means something very different). See here, on a page connected somehow to the “Liba” organization, an example of the base use of this phrase by Yechiel Harari. It seems these are people who want to turn us all into atheists (that is, believers in feeling instead of intellect). The sub-heading of that heart-warming (in both senses) organization is that one can arouse interest online without cynicism and without critical thinking. Well, without critical thinking one can perhaps arouse our interest, but we will have no control over whether our interest is in the right thing. As for myself, I wouldn’t dismiss cynicism so lightly either, but without critical thinking we will all become a flock of sheep. We will follow the Pied Piper who tells us what to feel (indeed, the piper is our own heart), and he will lead us into the depths of hell.
So after the appreciation and concern for the rights of Christians and converts to Christianity, allow me to recommend deviating from their path (of the Christians and their Jewish successors) and to understand that emotion should have no part in our values and beliefs. Intellectual critical thinking is the basic tool for these matters, and a bit of cynicism never hurts. After all, without it we will all fall asleep from lack of interest and lack of critique. The aversion to cynicism is itself following the heart. People who encounter arguments to which they have no reasonable answer cling to the fact that they were voiced cynically and thereby exempt themselves from addressing them. Therefore, precisely if we equip ourselves with some healthy cynicism and critical thinking, we will be able to address arguments on their merits and suspend our feelings and psychology—so they won’t interfere in the grown-ups’ arena.
In the end, it is very easy for a charismatic person to mislead people who are not endowed with sufficient skepticism and present distorted information. There is no shortage of people with such an interest.
We, as a society that wants to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, need to find a way to fight for public consciousness, and I see no other way to do it.
I don't know who "we as a society" are. I'm not a society, but a private individual, and I don't want anyone to worry about me, my education, and my values. Certainly not our government officials. A charismatic person can also mislead people and sell them that there was a Holocaust even though there wasn't one. Let me decide who is telling the truth and who is not, and don't decide for me. There's no need to fight for any public gratitude. There's no fear that in Israel they'll deny the Holocaust, and if there are historical appeals, then they should be dealt with matter-of-factly or accepted. Just as it's not forbidden to publish anti- or post-Zionist opinions, and unlike the Holocaust, here there's a fear that the Jews will follow suit.
Since reality is not labile, and I think of a very specific convert from the 14th century who became a rabbi and a bishop, there is no choice but to state that sometimes it is a matter of simple betrayal of your community, of joining the murderers of your people.
If your community is unjust, and you have come to the conclusion that your enemies are righteous in their actions, then you must resort to them. Loyalty in this sense has no value. At most, if someone finds it difficult to “betray” his brother, that is understandable. But this is certainly not the right way.
Miki.
I think the reluctance to convert to Christianity is because Jews who worship idols, as early as Chazal, are many times more serious than heretics or babies who were taken captive. The former do not recognize their Creator. The latter violate the prohibition of idolatry. A very basic prohibition that is forbidden according to interpretations from the end. Even for Gentiles. They are perceived from a religious perspective as stupid. Why would a person who grew up on Jewish wisdom, absorbed and nursed the fear of God, be drawn to the belief in vain and worship false idols?
I am not talking about this case. In my opinion, by the way, he specifically would have met the criteria of a baby who was taken captive. Many and perhaps most of the converts to Christianity in our history were also people who hated their religion, their people, and their God, even emotionally. And they worked to inform on the authorities and also to publish excerpts from the Talmud in order to arouse anger and damage the Jewish community.
That is, there were people whose motivation was to abandon their weak people to join the enemies of Israel and become anti-Semites themselves and, along the way, justify to themselves that they do such things for religious reasons.
Even today, conversion to Christianity as a result of mixed marriages. Falling in love with a Christian spouse. Growing up in a Christian society without a Jewish environment. Growing up in a mixed family where you are not even aware that you are considered Jewish. It is a very common thing. And I think that the attitude towards those, who are perhaps the majority of Jews in the United States, for example, is forgiving. They are similar to Jews who grew up secular and have never heard of Judaism. We are not talking about immoral people, or sexists, or people who exploited their intellectual ability to help the haters of Israel and justify joining a hostile religion.
And for the Marten Ze'ot, this was seen as sadder and more serious. Because Jews who converted to Christianity in a Gentile society had children who were already Gentiles for all intents and purposes. Women who converted to Christianity in a Gentile society had grandchildren who were already Gentiles. And the products themselves no longer had a high chance of returning. Unlike secularists who always have a high chance of finding the truth and repenting.
There are different motivations for different people, both for those who convert to Christianity and for those who remain Jewish. That is why I am not dealing with the analysis of characteristics but with the actions and perceptions expressed. If a person reaches any conclusion, he is supposed to act on it.
It is true that no one should be put on the psychologist's couch.
But a person who commits a vile act from an ethical and moral point of view (abandons his community and helps its persecutors) is not out of an innocent mistake but out of a desire to earn material gain. And along the way, Trump also commits acts of idolatry. In the hypocrisy of pure faith.
You can treat him objectively. But there is also room to hate him. To pray for his death. And to despise him. I do not see this as an indecent or immature act.
That is if you know those are his motives. My argument is that you usually don't.
In the Bible, the Bible, the Bible
It's a bit hard to make claims about "lack of coherence" for someone who grew up as a child as a persecuted animal after losing his family, and adopted the identity of the people who first gave him a sense of home. He's not the first adopted child to be torn between his adoptive parents and his biological parents, and the tragic fates of his parents – didn't really allow him to forget them. B ” we didn't get to his place so we could discuss it..
With greetings, K ’ the shooter
It's worth noting that after his death, a will was filed in 2018 in which he bequeathed his property to a woman in Poland who he claimed was his daughter, which of course he is not allowed to have as a Catholic priest. Which raises the thought that the rediscovery of his Jewishness and his immigration to Israel stemmed from his entanglement in forbidden love relationships in his homeland, which forced him to exile to a place where he was not known.
And as for the post's indignation at the opposition to the right of Christian propagandists to offer their ‘ware’.
After asking for forgiveness from the sanctity of liberalism and kissing the dirt at its feet – ‘ the ‘people of the remnants of the sword’ that has gathered wants to calm down and recover from the trauma of thousands of years of persecution and humiliation of believers in the ‘religion of love and kindness’. We are allowed as ’post-trauma victims’ to demand that they leave us alone…
All the more so since this is usually not just a pure ’theological debate’, but rather the exploitation of the economic or mental distress of Jews in order to convert them to their religion. Let them go to India or Africa to instill their ‘pure faith’ in the worshipers of idols 🙂
With blessings, Noam Shaltiel Menuhin
It was Christianity that sanctified Platonicism, which demanded that a person completely neutralize his turbulent emotions. A person who was offended was required to “turn the other cheek,” and a religious priest was required not to love a wife and children, so that his love for his God and humanity would be “purely Platonic.”
Judaism did not require a person to erase his feelings, but to soften and soften them. Have you been offended? – Do not go wild with rage, do not hate your brother in your heart, and do not hold grudges, but rebuke your fellow man, make it clear to him in a patient and respectful manner how hurt you are by his actions, and then there is a chance that the refined expression of pain – will bring about a calmness of spirit.
And your love for your God will fill you with a spirit of fullness of feeling, and you will do it with joy and good-heartedness, but also with caution and seriousness, and you will show it with trembling, so that joy will not overflow into debauchery. And in your joy, you will not forget to humbly thank your God who gave you the strength to do good.
And your love for your God will also expand to people in ever-widening circles. Rejoice your wife and your children, and with them also the backward ones in society, also your servant and your maid, and also the orphaned stranger and the widow within your gates. And your love for your brothers, who are called sons of the place, will expand to every person created in your image. When you cultivate love, It expands and grows.
Perhaps when ‘Father Gregor’ got into trouble and became the father of a real daughter – he suddenly found himself identifying with his father and mother, his brothers and sisters – who surrounded him in his childhood with love and warmth, and suddenly he felt again the strength and purity of the love of parents for their children. The shrunken ’Gregor’ returned to identifying with ‘Jacob’, the devoted and loving father to his 12 sons and 70 grandchildren, the founder of the Jewish family blessed with children, which radiates love and light to its surroundings.
With best wishes,, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”R
Paragraph 3, line 1
And your offering to your God can and should be full of emotion. Serve him with joy…
In the Sada, you ate and sat down and blessed the pious
Feeling good is also a ‘value’. Just as it is clear that giving a good feeling to others is a ‘value’, for in this we follow the path of the Creator who desires to do good to His creatures – so too when a person cultivates his emotional world, he thereby fulfills the will of his Creator to do good to His creatures.
In the blessing of Shabbat Tava, Noam Shaltiel Menuhin Halevi
It is clear that there must be a ‘mind ruling over the heart’ and the intellect must stand guard so that the emotion does not go wild and does not exceed what is proper. But its proper boundary - the emotion is blessed.
On Shabbat, I read Nathan Sharansky's book "I Will Not Fear Evil." He mentions the statement of the Polish Jewish writer Julian Tovim: "By the blood that flows in my veins, I am Polish." "By the blood that flows through my veins, I am Jewish."
And he interprets Tovim's meaning, "the blood in my veins," in a cultural sense, as being immersed in and identified with Polish culture, but identified with his Jewish brothers because they were persecuted. This was also Sharansky's feeling in the first stage, when he was completely immersed in Russian culture, but identified with his Jewish brothers because they were persecuted.
And it is possible that this was Griner-Pavlovsky's feeling. Culturally and religiously identified as a Polish-Christian, but identified with the plight of his persecuted brothers.
Greetings, Neshm”h
I once saw a man named Manito, who explained what was said about Moses: "He struck the Egyptian and buried him in the sand," and that until then Moses had been torn between his Egyptian identity and his Hebrew identity, and then he finally decided to "lock" himself into his Hebrew identity.
However, Moses' abandonment of universal human identity is not absolute, but rather "buried in the sand" until the time comes when there will no longer be a contradiction between Hebrew identity and universal identity.
With greetings, Noam Shaltiel Menuhin Halevi
https://mikyab.net/posts/70387
Many thanks to ’Lyhak’ for finding the source of the matter, which is ‘Shoshani’ (and not his student ‘Manito’)
With greetings, Neshm”h
I read the following page:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94
Interested in connecting As it says there, “The joy that is required of us is not spontaneous, but joy that has a purpose and is created by consideration.”
On the other hand, in my opinion, there is no problem with spontaneous joy if it is connected to the Creator.
For example, I have a very strong emotion on Shabbat and holidays when I see all the delicacies, and then I connect it to God (I become more Godly) and not just to some desire for a lot of eating that arouses joy, but for example, I actually say thank you to the Creator for all the abundance (I become more Godly by being grateful for the food that exists).
Of course, there are other examples of spontaneous joy in which I become more Godly.
Don't you think there is a place to prohibit missions in the context of persuasion by gifts and needy people, etc.?
And what about an age limit?
Both of these things are common among Christians.
Also, is it unlikely that in a country that has persecuted Christians for 2000 years and thousands have been thrown into fiery furnaces, they would be (specifically) prohibited from presenting their doctrine?
I said that as long as it's about persuasion, it can't be banned. Seduction can't be banned either, even if it's not appropriate to do so. All of this is for adults.
By the way, Jews do all this (temptations and for children) and no one opens their mouths and whines.
Hayutha wrote:
There are adults who are economically or educationally weak. Shouldn't the state set boundaries to protect them?
My answer:
First, you probably mean the weak, not the weak. For some reason, the phrase "weak" has become politically incorrect, and the assumption is that the strong are to blame for everything. When someone is weak, someone necessarily weakened them. So absolutely not.
But this terminological paternalism continues from the terminologically to the assumption at the heart of the question. If someone is economically or educationally weak, that's their problem. You can strengthen their finances or education, and it's appropriate to do so, but not to take control of their minds. What you call "protection" is about dictating to them a way of thinking that you want them to think, or thinking for them. You decide that Christians are working on them, and therefore prevent them from making arguments. But they don't think so, and maybe your weakling will think so too (that's what you're worried about). Adult humans are supposed to make decisions for themselves, and that involves hearing different and varied arguments and positions. Even if they are weak or weak or the devil knows what, the decision is theirs alone and not that of any other paternalist. To balance it, present your own arguments to them, or increase their education and financial situation. That's the only legitimate and proper thing to do.
And I say again that Jews do this without a mouth and a whistle (A”a Shas and its education system, seminars and lectures on Judaism in which positions are presented in a demagogic and misleading way, sometimes in exchange for scholarships and so on). I am against paternalism of any kind.
Is there no place for paternalism at all? Suppose there is a Nazi propaganda organization (and perhaps "weak" people tend to be drawn to things like this), isn't it appropriate for the state to protect those weak from such views?
No, unless there is imminent fear of violence and harm to others.
The distinction between the weak and the disadvantaged is correct as usual theoretically. In the jungle of life there are predatory animals and it is highly recommended that the state protect against them. Whether they offer a new religion, a fake job or an apartment at a bargain price. At the same time, it is advisable to educate, of course.
Protect against stings, not against arguments. Arguments may seem problematic, false, and demagogic to you, and not to others. This approach is a mechanism aimed at ensuring that positions that someone in power does not like are not presented. Silencing and censoring opinions that the government does not wish to discuss.
Here is a really stupid example from these days: https://www.mako.co.il/news-world/2022_q3/Article-280b470f435b281027.htm
The German police are opening an investigation (alek. He has immunity) against Abu Mazen, for saying that Israel committed 50 holocausts against the Palestinians. A completely legitimate statement, and there is not even a shred of Holocaust denial in it (although in his doctoral thesis he denied the effects of the Holocaust. If only they were supposed to judge him for his words there). Here he uses the term Holocaust as a metaphor for the murder of many innocent civilians, and said that Israel does it all the time. Completely legitimate (although I also think it is a biased lie). What does that have to do with Holocaust denial? Why is it forbidden to make such a statement?
After all, there is a ban on Holocaust denial by individuals of political correctness. A device for silencing arguments that I do not like. If I think he is lying, I must present arguments and facts that will justify this and not shut him up. In our country, the Holocaust, beyond the completely excessive sensitivity towards it, serves as a tool for silencing and a substitute for arguments, both externally and internally.
In the next stage, we will have an ultra-Orthodox government that will prohibit talking about evolution and the Big Bang (like the Americans. See column 489) or a secular government that will prohibit talking about faith, the Bible, and creation. I do not want governments and courts to decide what is permissible and what is not permissible to say. Certainly in light of the very limited intelligence of those in office there.
And if a children's club is opened in a slum that is essentially a mission. They hand out sandwiches, candy, and games, and in between they teach them to cross themselves and say the Hail Mary. Is that okay with you? Shall we leave it to their learned judgment?
Did you read what I said? I said adults. By the way, Jews do this all the time, and Muslims do it to their children too.
As someone who has expressed sympathy for Christianity here more than once, I can attest that I have never seriously considered converting to Christianity. Ostensibly, the reasons are emotional, since I feel comfortable in my distorted Judaism (only ethnic) and do not see what I would gain from such a dramatic change in my lifestyle. Ostensibly, one could come at me with claims that I am not faithful to my truth and the values derived from it that supposedly oblige me to convert to Christianity.
But on further thought, I think the main explanation is rational: since in my opinion the source of our knowledge and understanding stems from our intuitive ability and its interpretation by reason, then in my opinion institutionalized religion, any institutionalized religion, cannot claim to present us with the entire truth (because truth is primarily the property of the individual and in any case placing it on an interpersonal level will inevitably dilute it).
So this does not mean that there is no theological truth at all in institutionalized religions, there is. It is just that it is based on what is called “natural religion” which stands at their center. Therefore, in my opinion, the main purpose of established religions is not pure theological truth but to serve as a hyphen (connecting line) between the truths they carry for human life and well-being. In this sense, they have and must have an instrumental side. Such an approach allows one to be very tolerant of any religious conversion (because the test is largely the well-being of the one who converts) without compromising the commitment to truth and rationality.
“Anyone who belongs to the Jewish nation but does not believe in the Jewish religion, I would expect him to alienate himself from it and seek another alternative. By the way, this also applies to secular people, because the fact that they do not believe in the Jewish religion does not exempt them from examining other religious alternatives”
Many people who do not believe in the Jewish religion or any other religion seek and find other alternatives. They are not necessarily religious. People seek a system of values / principles by which they will conduct themselves. The collection of values. These principles can come from a variety of sources and not necessarily from one religion or another, but also a collection of universal values with which they identify, some of which were taken from one religion or another and some of which are the result of a person's personal moral perception, the origin of which may not even be known to him himself. Preventing suffering from animals is, for example, a value that I hold and uphold as much as I can, and many of my religious friends do, even though they say they command it – They do not maintain it and continue to finance with their own money the horror called by the dirty name of “animal agriculture” every day.
And another thing: “The fact that they do not believe in the Jewish religion does not exempt them from examining other religious alternatives”. Even those who do believe in the Jewish religion are not exempt, in my opinion, from examining other alternatives. Most believers in the Jewish religion have not examined in depth the fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism or any other religion. They were born into this religion and if they were born in Tibet they would probably believe what they believe there.
Why should a person who does not believe take religion as a package deal, why not gather the good things that are in every religion or secular worldview and reject the things that are not worthy of their opinion.
The reason why one imposes his opinion on his friend and prevents him from being exposed to the arguments of another opinion, in my opinion, is very logical: if the one imposing it has examined the same matter and knows for sure that he is right, and is aware of the weakness of the human race to be mistaken with false arguments, out of concern for his friend, he imposes his opinion on him because he knows that he is right, and thus saves his friend from making a mistake, even though it is against his will. In significant matters, the benefit outweighs the sorrow that the one imposed feels.
This is clearly the perception, but I don't agree with it. First, maybe you're wrong, even if you think you're not. Second, a person needs to reach and formulate positions themselves, and not have someone do it for them. And certainly not when the state decides for us. Many secularists are sure that they have checked properly and that religious belief is childish nonsense. Would you accept their secular coercion on you or me (such as a ban on studying and teaching Torah)?
Even if we assume that it makes sense according to their theory (i.e., if religion were vain, it would be appropriate to prohibit the study of Torah), there is still no reason why anyone who does not think like them should accept it.