The Catholic Church and the Jews

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. L. Oberstein says:

    “Mishpacha (whose readership now exceeds that of Yated and Hamodia combined)”. Isn’t it amazing? I just renewed my annual subscription to Mishpacha for the price of $ 199.00 ! This is at a time when Time and Newsweek will practically give away subscriptions. The secular Jewish weeklies are getting less thick by the week. Mishpacha succeeds because it is interesting. The Jewish Observer has gone out of business because fewer people read it. They had to be careful not to offend anyone and it was boring. Of course, Mishpacha is a private enterprise , not a party organ which is good, but they have to be careful not to go too far off the reservation.
    The fact that they printed Rabbi Adlerstein’s point of view is in itself a good thing. Even if the editor doesnt’ agree 100%, he was willing to accept that someone else can still be a good Jew and have another viewpoint.
    It is a sign of the times that Mishpacha, as rightwing as it is, is the most tolerant of the Chareidi publications. Yated and Hamodia are very resticted in what aspect of news they will publish and they both change the story to conform to political correctness as understood by Gerrer Chassidus or Lakewood Chareidism. Women do not exist until they are eulogized. Live women are not pictured and even their names are not mentioned. Is that the future of Judaism.

  2. Nathan says:

    Muslims are forcing Christians to flee Eretz Yisrael, yet strangely, very few people are aware of this and nobody complains about it.

    Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt is also ignored by the media.

    I wish that G_d would grant Jews the magical immunity from criticism that the Arab/Muslim world enjoys.

  3. Shades of Gray says:

    “I was struck by the fact that Mishpacha apparently had no problem presenting two conflicting and passionately argued points of view.”

    The essay was called “Counterpoint”, and was titled similarly to the Jewish Action’s columns of that nature. I recall that the Jewish Observer published a number of years ago a debate between R. Berel Wein and Prof. Aharon Twerski about the Torah approach towards some aspect of policy of the Christian Right.

    I sometimes wrestle with the disturbing thought that the Torah world, as represented by some publications, does not trust its members to think critically in terms of two sides of an issue. Some apparently fear that by presenting two sides of an issue on even non-fundamental hashkafa issues such as the Catholic Churh, there is the danger that laymen will want to do the same for public policy issues(“daas Torah”), or fundamental hashkafa and emunah issues.

    Of course such thoughts are themselves disturbing, because a person takes comfort in being part of a community of like-minded people who think deeply about, and are able to comfortably discuss fundamentals of Yiddishkeit(and challenges to them)! On the other hand, newspaper policy simply represents a sensitivity towards children or towards adults with a weak Torah backround, and is therefore justifiable.

    I agree with Rabbi Adlerstein that the Mishpacha article is a welcome development. The key is to find an issue which is interesting, can have two-sides within Torah hashkafa, and be appropriate to debate publicly. Obviously not every issue can be discussed publicly for more than one reason, even if the topics are fundamental and thoughtful Jews think about them(what to do with the fact that mediums not friendly to Torah will attempt to provide intellectual and emotional depth about the latter topics, is a separate question).

  4. Shades of Gray says:

    “Women do not exist until they are eulogized. Live women are not pictured and even their names are not mentioned.”

    I admit to thinking about this too and have tried to come to a fair conclusion. I view this as a halachic and hashkafic tzniyus sensitivity. They are setting a community standard, even if daily halachic observance of various aspects of tzniyus for community members is a little more complicated than photoshopping female politicians out of pictures!

    One magazine did an article on the White House, and printed an article along with an original picture of three Lubavitcher mashgichim/rabbonim pictured next to Laura Bush, dressed very modestly, but they photoshopped the First Rebbetzin out of the picture when publishing it. I think that was an awkward way of handling it, and becasuse of Kavod Malchus, the magazine should simply not have published the entire
    picture!

    It is interesting that Hamodia Magazine publishes a weekly column by a rebbetzin involved in kiruv, and the JO as well has had women writers.

  5. Raymond says:

    This reminds me of a study done of the voting patterns of the 2004 Presidential election. When Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians were asked why they voted for President Bush, 85% of them said that their #1 reason was his strong support for the Jewish State of Israel. When the researchers asked Jews why they voted for whom they voted for (which in the vast majority of cases was for John Kerry), only 15% of Jews gave Israel as their primary reason. Stated another way, the average American Christian is more likely to be pro-Israel than the average American Jew. Pretty embarrassing stuff.

    We Jews have so few friends, that I as a proud Jew will take support for Israel from wherever it comes. I frankly could not care less what particular religious beliefs people have, as long as they support our Jewish State of Israel. I will say that because of Christianity’s past, that I do not think I could ever completely trust them. As President Reagen was known to have said, “Trust, but verify.”

  6. shloi says:

    “Women do not exist until they are eulogized. Live women are not pictured and even their names are not mentioned.”

    In Mishpacha women are not pictured either.

    On the other hand,R.Yaakov Kaminetsky biography by J. Rosenblum does have pictures of women.

Pin It on Pinterest