Many comments on my previous post about the challenges of hate speech found on both the left and the right, deserve a response not only because they are so interesting (they all were), but because they offer real opportunities to raise the level of decency in our public discourse. Ultimately, what ought to distinguish such debates, especially when conducted in a spiritual context, is not that we fight more about religion-related topics, but that we access our respective spiritualities to treat each other better even (perhaps especially) when we deeply disagree.
"D C Fem" calls me "disingenuous". How can she know? Why do we so often resort to personal attacks about each others' motives when we disagree? Perhaps she is right, and my analysis is wrong, but as long as we fail to assume the best about each others' motivations, nothing is going to get better. It's what the Rabbis of the Mishnah meant by teaching us to assume the best about each other (dan l'kaf z'khut in Hebrew). It never means giving up what we believe. But it does ask us to argue based on what we believe and not based on the bad things we presume about others.
"Rob the Rev" and "Anne" confuse disagreement with ignorance --
Each of them assumes that I do not watch MSNBC because we do not agree about the content we all see there. As it happens, I watch regularly. We just disagree about the meaning we attach to what we all see. But the definition of openess is the ability to appreciate that reasonable people can do just that. If we can not, then it simply furthers my original observation that the idealogues of the left and the right are equally close-minded, even if I happen to prefer the conclusions of one over the other.
Anne, I am sorry that it "upsets" you to see a "rabbi talking this way". But is that because you assume that a rabbi must agree with you to be a good rabbi? Now which one of us is being ultra-orthodox? You may want to ask yourself if you, like most people, and all of us at times, are confusing what's Jewish with what you already believe.
The only thing of which I am certain, is that when what we think our faith demands of us always confirms what we already believe, that's not God/our faith talking -- it's us dressing up our own opinions with fancy footnotes.
Finally, for "Klein". I do not edit the comments. I would love to see your comments about Leo Baeck.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Rabbi Herschfield - Thank you for the response to the previous day's comments. What struck me about the comments, whether from the right or left, was the amount of anger and frustration people had and felt comfortable voicing there opinion to you and to others.
From the time I was quite young it was ingrain into me the idea of 'mutual respect'. Whether or not I agreed with a person's views, religion, culture, or personal habits I was still to give them the basic respect I would ask from others for my own opinion and life choices. When one resorts to personal attacks, we not only begin to disrespect the other individual we disrespect ourselves and how our parents raised us. Once we lose respect, its all downhill.
Rabbi, I frequently disagree with your views on Israel and I certainly do not share some of your sensibilities. But as a very frequent reader of your posts I have to say I have never seen a single instance where you failed to treat even your screaming critics with respect as the human beings they are. We Christians could take a cue from you on how to respond to those who disagree with us.
hola amigo,
Bullies must be stood up to.
Sir, to speak of a moral equivalence when it comes to hate speech between the right and the left is ridiculous!
Show me a 'lefty' Scott Roeder or James von Brunn!
Plus, as Levin, pointed out, in your own way - SAD To SAY -
you function as an enabler of what you decry, as long as you refuse
to call David Klinghoffer on the carpet for his censorship of dissenting views, and his personal attacks upon those with superior Judaic knowledge, who dare to expose his sciolism and arrogance for what it is.
Rabbi Brad,
Why did the Leo Baeck posting I just sent, generate the message that it was "received and was being held for approval by the blog owner" instead of automatically being posted, as is usually the case?
This was also what happened last week, when I attempted my original posting of the Baeck entry and it never showed up here.
I therefore posted a complaint - which did show up- which then solicited your above query in response.
Rabbi. It is one thing to make an accusation. It is another to back it up with proof. You imply in you previous blog that Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow on their MSNBC programs issue forth hate speech. Please give us the evidence and examples of such hate speech? Their programs are archived at their respective websites and you can copy the URL links and embed them so we can all see examples of such hate speech. Produce your evidence, sir or retract your charge!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.