Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Sep 14, 2011
Reciprocal Response To Religious Refusal
Yair Lapid has written a column in response to the increasing demands by religious soldiers to not be forced to listen to women singing at army ceremonies. The crux of his argument is that if religious soldiers should be exempt from army duties due to their beliefs, secular people should as well.
Many religious people, myself included, think or thought that a secular lifestyle does not have any specific worldview, of course people can have beliefs such as morality, kindness, save the whales, cure cancer, equality or any belief or ideology out there, and that belief can be the driving force behind a person's actions and lifestyle. However in the larger context, religious people tend to think of secular people as not having a specific worldview. Meaning, if you ask a secular person to respect religious beliefs for any given period of time, the religious person will see no problem with making such a request because we assume asking him to put on a kipa while in my house, for example, does not contradict his worldview.
I have learned, and Yair Lapid says so as well, that that assumption is false. People do have worldviews that drive their lifestyle. Asking them to respect our religious beliefs is going against their worldview (obviously it depends on the person, I am talking generally) and the fact that some are willing to do so anyway despite the fact that putting the kipa on the head contradicts what they believe in, they do so anyway to show respect. Others refuse, and we tend to not understand, asking why its such a big deal to wear a kipa to the ceremony for an hour or whatever else it might be.
So, Yair Lapid suggests that if the religious soldiers have the right to demand not listening to female soldiers sing, secular soldiers should be able to refuse to listen to rabbis give talks at IDF ceremonies or other similar occasions.
I don't know what the response to that would be. Perhaps religious soldiers won't care - saying we shouldn't listen to women singing regardless of the effect because it is prohibited. Or perhaps they will say the trade-off is not worth it.
Here is Yair Lapid's article:
Many religious people, myself included, think or thought that a secular lifestyle does not have any specific worldview, of course people can have beliefs such as morality, kindness, save the whales, cure cancer, equality or any belief or ideology out there, and that belief can be the driving force behind a person's actions and lifestyle. However in the larger context, religious people tend to think of secular people as not having a specific worldview. Meaning, if you ask a secular person to respect religious beliefs for any given period of time, the religious person will see no problem with making such a request because we assume asking him to put on a kipa while in my house, for example, does not contradict his worldview.
I have learned, and Yair Lapid says so as well, that that assumption is false. People do have worldviews that drive their lifestyle. Asking them to respect our religious beliefs is going against their worldview (obviously it depends on the person, I am talking generally) and the fact that some are willing to do so anyway despite the fact that putting the kipa on the head contradicts what they believe in, they do so anyway to show respect. Others refuse, and we tend to not understand, asking why its such a big deal to wear a kipa to the ceremony for an hour or whatever else it might be.
So, Yair Lapid suggests that if the religious soldiers have the right to demand not listening to female soldiers sing, secular soldiers should be able to refuse to listen to rabbis give talks at IDF ceremonies or other similar occasions.
I don't know what the response to that would be. Perhaps religious soldiers won't care - saying we shouldn't listen to women singing regardless of the effect because it is prohibited. Or perhaps they will say the trade-off is not worth it.
Here is Yair Lapid's article:
In two weeks or so, the IDF Rabbinate will embark on “Operation Elul” ahead of Rosh Hashana. This is a religious revival campaign mostly based on lectures delivered by rabbis to tens of thousands of secular soldiers.So, what do you think? Does Lapid make a good point or is it wrong? Should the demand result in a reciprocal demand, should that make a difference and force a reconsideration of the issue?
It would be proper to allow a secular soldier who is not interested in hearing the lectures to skip them. Why? For the same reason religious soldiers demand to skip performances by female singers.
As opposed to what many religious Israelis apparently think, seculars too have a worldwide and they also don’t like it when forced to listen to people whose words contradict secular principles. Hence, the seculars are also deserving of having their views and thoughts respected.
In both cases, I am of course not referring to official military ceremonies. Secular soldiers must also cover their heads while a prayer in memory of fallen troops is recited, just like religious soldiers are not exempt from attending Yizkor ceremonies that feature female singers.
If a soldier who stands at attention during a Holocaust Commemoration Day or Memorial Day ceremony cannot think of anything else but the level of sexiness in a female singer’s voice, he should be released from the IDF in any case on mental grounds.
However, the above equation does not apply to events that are not an obligatory military ceremony. If a religious soldier does not wish to attend the performance of a military band at his base during his leisure time, we can spare him this experience. At the same time, if a secular soldier does not wish to hear a rabbi lecture we can and should spare him this experience as well.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. General Benny Gantz recently said that the issue of female singing in the military should be examined. This would also be an excellent opportunity to look into the issue of rabbinical lectures. If we have an army that accommodates the requests of various sectors, let’s apply this to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Yes. It has always shocked me that religious people not get that I and other atheists/secularists have deeply held convictions which guide our actions.
ReplyDeleteWhat has always been more shocking is the dismissive and arrogant attitude that I have often recieved when I have bothered explaining myself.
Of course that arrogance is to be almost expected because the worldview of the religious is based on their being right and righteous. So no other worldview can have merit. And an atheist/secularist who claims to have a guiding set of principles is dismissed.
I hope that you no longer feel that way.
He has a point - but only to a limited extent.
ReplyDeleteA shiur by a Rabbi should only be compulsary if it is of direct relevance to the army, for example a discussion on Military Ethics.
A shiuur on Tshuva, or a musical performance may both be good for soldier moral, but they should not be compulsary to anyone who objects on religious grounds.
As a side point, one of the things that impressed my about the IDF that I saw during my limited basic training and miluim was that every base that I was on had not only a shul/Beit midrash available, but a variety of Sforim available for use as well as many shiurim offered for those who wanted it by the Rav of the base or the Mashak Dat (not sure how to translate that - Religious supplied officer?)
Pedant Warning:
ReplyDeleteIn no dictionary could I find the construction "worldview".
If the article (and its translator) was referring to "השקפת עולם" that might be better translated as "ideology" or, perhaps, "view of the world".
Pedant warning over!
I agree that it is a two way street and therefore one that neither side should go down.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, thinking it over a few more minutes it's not a two way street, its a free for all. I would be classed as religious but I don't necessarily agree with everything the lecturing rabbi says. Others wouldn't agree with a lecture in humanistic ethics, others don't believe in the kibush and others not in geirush. In the end no-one has to do anything because in a multi-faceted multi-cultural world everyone will object to something.
The solution: make the religious soldier stay in the musical performances.
"Mashak Dat (not sure how to translate that - Religious supplied officer?)"
ReplyDeleteA 'mashak', or מש"ק in Hebrew, is officially translated as a "non-commissioned officer". If you would like a more literal rendering try "a commander who is not an officer".
A 'mashak dat' in the armed forces of the United States is descibed as a "chaplain's assistant".
thanks pedant. I did a quik search on google, typing in the word "worldview" and it found the word without a problem. As a matter of fact, the word is referenced three different ways - worldview, world-view and world view.
ReplyDeletethe meaning is defined thusly, The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world..
regarding mashak dat, I didnt translate the article.
I get his point overall, but I am offended by his trying to cast the soldiers in a negative light by trying to pretend that singing only happens at during ceremonies honoring the dead (Yom Hashoah, Yom Hazikaron). Obviously there are many other times as well and his specific use of those two sad occasions to try to make the case that the religious soldiers are sickos for even being aware of the singing is offensive (but typical.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, even one who rejects this religious legal system can be expected to be intellectually honest about the fact that a secular soldier who does not want to listen to a rabbinical lecture is expressing a desire, whereas a religious soldier who walks out of a concert because a woman is singing is, from his perspective, fulfilling a religious legal duty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4121866,00.html
condescending at best
The difficulty with his point is that it is a very fine line between where the religion (which he is anti) and the tradition/history (which he may or may not be anti as well) begins. It is this tradition/history that lets us know why we're fighting and why we're here in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBen,
ReplyDeletefulfilling a religious legal(?really? legal) duty... which only exists because of his belief in the rightness of his belief.
Your god does not exist in my mind. Your belief in him does.
So if I believe in something, you don't have to believe it, but you can believe that I believe it and have the same belief based duty to my personal worldview.
Of course, if you want to be condescending you would than make the point clearer that because your god actually exists, and your belief is right, and you know what your god wants, so you are right and I am wrong. Therefore, you don't have to take my beliefs into account, or recognize them as equally valid when they clearly are not.
is that what you meant to say?
or do you not understand how offensive it could be to be forced to listen to a religious sermon? or be forced to participate in religious rituals?
ReplyDeleteWay - you are baiting Ben. I don't think any religious Jew, who grew up religious at least, can be aware of that.
ReplyDeleteThe way we think generally is that what can be offensive about religion - just because someone does not want to keep it, that is because he desnt want to be bothered, or maybe has questions or doesnt believe, but there isnt anythign to be offended about.
That's why religious people always expect secular people to show respect and don a kipa or not drive on shabbos when visiting or anythign else like that. Because at worst it is an inconvenience, not a contradiction to any worldview which doesnt exist.
That is what we religious people think.
I have learned that to not be true, and that is Yair Lapid's point as well.
i think that you misunderstood me. the paragraph on the top is a quote from an article, linked below. then i wrote my comment, which i meant to say "the stuff above is condescending, at best".
ReplyDeleteI did misunderstand you Ben. Thank you for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteRafi,
I am glad that you have come to understand that atheism is not about being lazy but about a deeply help conviction which just happens to be the polar opposite ideologically from religion but no less dear personally.
you are number 1 aaa
:-)
not being lazy. most of the time it is about a belief. but we tend to think that it doesnt require anythign of you. you can just do what you want when you want. we dont realize that not belg in God does not mean you believe in something else. We think you just do what you want.
ReplyDeleteRead R. Cherlow's latest article on precisely this issue http://www.ypt.co.il/show.asp?id=46397
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you can extend this idea out to the peace process.
ReplyDeleteWe as jews/israelis, believe we have the inherent right to x land based on our belief in our perspective on god and history.
Others feel that have rights to the land based on their belief in their god and history
so how does one respect, not just tolerate or not mock, another's belief which is the polar opposite of their own.
and further, how does one bridge the gap between two polar opposite beliefs?
Noway way! I am #1 AAA.
ReplyDeleteThe way:
ReplyDeleteto answer your question: the standard response is we're obviously right so kill em all! actually, just a lot of yelling "we're right, our religion is older than yours" and whoever yells the loudest wins. just like at home when we argue with karebear.