samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/13/85)
> > As an aside, Christianity attempts, on the one hand to subscribe > > to the Torah, and on the other hand to advocate tolerance towards > > some practices which the Torah views harshly. The liberal > > tendencies of modern humanism stem in part from such biases which > > are tracable to Christianity. Again, the issue of capital > > punishment is a case in point. [Y. Samet] > Christianity may "advocate tolerance towards some practices which the Torah > views harshly" but it is not tolerant per se. ... I > would argue that humanism in this century has been greatly influenced by Jews > who were trying to cultivate in society a sense of tolerance that would make the > types of oppression we (and others) experiened over the centuries less > acceptable in Western societies [Barry Buchbinder]. I agree with your points. When I spoke of Christianity advocating tolerance I meant only the familiar talk about "love, forgiveness, turning the other cheek" etc. While these values have counterparts in a Torah outlook, lehavdil, they are not absolutized. Thus, the Torah also recognizes circumstances where hatred, punishment, destruction, or war are appropriate. For instance, we are mandated to physically wipe out every remnant of the nation of Amalek. We are also obligated to execute someone who is liable for a death penalty even if he has totally repented and become a great Tzaddik. This contrasts, lehavdil, with the church's opposition to the death penalty. While it is true that the church has burned infidels and fostered anti-semistism, its RHETORIC has always stressed love and forgiveness. My contention is that some of the values/rhetoric of modern liberalism is tracible to that rhetoric. It seems implausible that people who are raised in a society can avoid being influenced by the society's traditional values. That explains how Jews seeking societal improvements could (unwittingly) be reiterating a christian slant on Jewish values. Whether people always live up to their professed ideals is a separate issue. It shouldn't surprise us if people fail to achieve ideals which are lofty to the extreme. The Torah gives us a spectrum of ideals which are potentially conflicting. The halacha helps us to resolve the conflicts and chart a middle course, by applying those ideals in moderation, and in the proper context, rather than absolutizing any one of them. > I'm not sure what the point on capital punishment is. If you > are implying that the Torah approves the death penalty while > liberal Americans do not, I seem to remember some Talmudic > citation that referred to a court that would apply the death > penalty (more than once in 70 yrs.) in very disapproving terms. > As for Christianity's disaprovaly of executions, you will > recall burning at the stake and other nasty forms of death were > used by the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations > at various times. The talmudic citation is accurate. It tells us that rabbinical courts sought moderation to avoid abusing the Torah, and that they did actually apply the death penalty at times. (I recall hearing that there were periods when the 70 year rule could not be adhered to.) The moderation is not surprising, since the rigorous legalism in the halacha is an overwhelming normative influence which prevents people from going to excess. As we say in the evening prayers, the rules if the Torah are an expression of Divine love for us. What christianity criticized as "cold legalism" enabled us to apply the Torah in a loving way. By contrast, "the religion of love" is basically one of excess and imbalance, since its absolutizing of "love" is an extreme. It is also vulnerable to excesses since it lacks the normative legalistic process. The tortures, persecutions, crusades,and executions which you cite are cases in point. Yitzchok Samet