|
.0 is close to the mark.
The kids parents hired someone to teach the kid for his Bar Mitzvah, I think
it is a family that is originally from Israel. The person they hired
is on the extreme right, so much so that even Satmar have disassociated
themselves from him; the Rabbi claims to be of Satmar. As the kid studied
he started to become more religious. His parents wanted him back home,
the Rabbi kidnapped him - not clear if the kid was willing or not, but legally
and morally that is irrelvant - and refuses to tell the parents where he is.
Rabbi is currently out on bail but could be thrown back into jail on
contempt charges.
|
|
re: .2
"Fundamentalism" generally connotes literal interpretation of
scripture, however, there is obviously a lot of disagreement over what
is the "correct" literal interpretation of scripture.
I agree that "fundamentalism" is not *synonymous* with "extreme right",
but it seems that many people use "fundamentalist" beliefs to justify
"extreme" actions - violence against people and property "in the name
of G-d".
/sl
|
| As a Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant yet is
not a "fundamentalist", I thought I could provide more
insight into what a fundamentalist is (less you be
taken in by the uninformed media's characterization of
any Bible-believing Christian as a fundamentalist).
Fundamentalism as a movement started in the late 19th
century and was a direct response to Darwin's book in
1858 (or so). The question: Is the Bible true? Christians
became split into 2 camps (those who believe the Bible to be
true and those who believed it not to be for whatever
reasons) and 5 principles of "fundamentalism" were written
which were accepted by approximately half the Christians
churches in the country as true.
Of course, as time wore own, the movement changed so that
it became associated more with its strict rules regarding
drinking, gambling, dancing, etc. There also tended to be
a rather strict "literal" interpretation of the Bible (and
I use the word literal with great fear and trepidation as
there are no fundamentalists around that I'm aware of that
interpret every word literally, e.g. God does not have wings
despite what Psalm 91 says). As a movement, this declined
rapidly after WW I with the Scopes trial in the early
twenties accelerating the decline.
In the 1930's we see the start of the Evangelical movement
which moved away from the strict rules and lack of social
activism of the Fundamentalists and really took off in the
1940's and 1950's with Billy Graham becoming the most
influential spokeperson. These are conservative Christains
who accept that the Bible is true (which is simply to say
that it means what it says - not that you necessarily interpret
every word "literally"). This movement is by far the
predominant group of conservative Christians and does hold
to the principles of 1890's fundamentalism (but are often
very different than fundamentalists today).
An example may make this distinction clearer. I visited
a Fundamentalist church about 10 years ago where a teacher
claimed all rock music is bad (i.e. sinful). I've never heard
a similar claim from an Evangelical teacher (and I listen to
Oldies all the time :-) ). Another example is the a study
Bible put out by fundamentalists in the early 20th century
which claimed the earth as exactly 4xxx years old based on
its interpretation of Scripture (Scripture being somewhat
unclear on this issue). Evangelicals ran the gamut from
accepting the fundamentalist point of view to accepting a
"science" point of view with a 4 billion (is that the current
estimate) year old earth to variations in between; all agree
that God created the world.
Fundamentalist organizations tend to have very strict rules.
Prohibitions of dancing, smoking, drinking, card playing
(oh not, not bridge!), kissing (sometimes touching) members of
the opposite sex are normal. Evangelical organizations rarely
have any such rules. Many colleges, for example, which used
to prohibit some of these activities 30 or 40 years ago allow
all of them now. They do not consider themselves
"fundamentalist", but rather "evangelical". There still are
some fundamentalist schools (such as Bob Jones university which
is clearly in the fundamentalist camp).
The media hasn't a clue what the difference between the two
is and doesn't care. Classifying a person or a group as
"Fundamentalist" (despite the actual facts) which tends to have
a negative connotation in most people's minds is sufficient
as the desire is usually to portray the individual or
organization in a negative way (approximately 90% of the
media is non-Christian or anti-Christian). When is the last
time you heard a person or group labelled an Evangelical? Yet,
chances are pretty good that this is what a conservative
Christi truly is. I'd say that only about a quarter of the time
is the label "fundamentalist" a relatively accurate label when
used. I suggest that, for the most part, you ignore the label
as the labeller doesn't have a clue.
Collis
|
| Hi All,
I was reading the news about an Indian boy who was attacked by a
Hasidic sect member in Brooklyn, N.Y, as reported in the India
conference. I just felt that it's not possible that a Jew would do this
BUT in the real world people are like that no matter what religion they
are.
So my question is not why this person attacked this boy but what is
this sect ? What do they believe in ? How many sects are there ? How
do they fit into the Jewish faith ? I have come across a few Jews who
look down upon non-believers but it bothers me not as I have meet many
good Jews.
I just want a better understanding and an overview if it's possible !
Regards,
Sunil
|