« He Travels, I…. Count…. Down | Main | Trep's Travel Tips (part I) »

Monday, November 17, 2008

Risking a Thrashing

Scanning 'The Times of India' over breakfast yesterday I was struck by how similar the concerns and interests are all over the world... but the little differences remind one that you are abroad.

For example, the headline "Mob thrashes pastor in Bhayander" immediately caught my eye. 

First of all, the word 'thrashed' has been so completely co-opted by sports writers and color commentators in the US that I had to actually look it up to see what it really meant off the field of play. 

It turns out that 'thrash' means "to beat soundly with or as if with a stick or whip".  Yikes.

So, reading on in the Times of India article:

"Around twenty men suspected to be from the VHP barged into  the prayer hall of a Christian sect at Bhayander at 12:30PM on Saturday, stripped the pastor and thrashed him after accusing him of converting people"

Now, I'm not a fan of violence (mob or otherwise), and I certainly don't take lightly the idea of a religious leader being publicly stripped and flogged because of his beliefs.  But as a Jew, that penultimate word in the article made me reserve judgment for a moment. 

There are literally dozens of religious groups operating in Israel today who are actively working to proselytize Jews.  Yes, it is illegal for them to do so... but they are quite adept at tip-toeing along the boundaries of legality with semantic hair-splitting ("It's not a prayer meeting, it's a party!  With free food and drink and lots of people your age... why don't you stop by?"), and the penalties make a slap on the wrist seem severe by comparison. 

Considering how we have faced centuries of organized predation and forced conversions, it bothers me to think about well-meaning missionaries coming to the Jewish State for the sole purpose of trying to pick off the strays and stragglers of the dwindling herd known as the Jewish people.

So, returning to the topic at hand... yes, it is the little differences, like the use of the word 'thrash' in its proper context, that remind me that I'm not at home.  But by the same token, I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing those guilty of trying to convert my Jewish brothers and sisters stripped and thrashed by Israeli mobs. 

Throughout our wanderings, Jews have been powerless to defend ourselves.  And when faced with a choice between death or apostasy... many have chosen death.  So now that we have our own country it galls me to think of groups planning trips, allocating budgets and setting up Israeli offices... all with the sole design of stripping even more limbs from small, fragile tree of my people.

Perhaps we could learn something from this Indian mob.  Yes, they were arrested for their attack, but the modest legal penalties that exist, both in India and Israel, for proselytism is hardly a deterrent when placed alongside potentially 'saving a soul'.  Maybe it's time the world realized that the price of a Jewish soul may very well be the kind of medieval corporal punishment that was previously reserved for the Jews who refused to convert.

OK, I knew that I'd be risking a thrashing when I wrote this piece... but based on two emails I just received, I should offer the following post script:

I know that there are many non-Jewish readers of treppenwitz, and I'm sure some of you will have been disturbed by this essay.  I am very pleased to be able to give a glimpse of my Jewish/Israeli world to people of other religions and nationalities.  But if you were truly bothered by this post, perhaps you should honestly ask yourself... 'Am I a birdwatcher who is genuinely interested in the beauty and habits of those I observe?  Or am a simply interested in bagging a game bird for my collection?'

It really is that simple.

Posted by David Bogner on November 17, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef010535f3e0ee970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Risking a Thrashing:

Comments

I should say that this comment, by Mr. Treppenwitz, struck me in particular:

"I say that missionaries have no right to walk among us trying to convert us. If the law won't/can't deal with them then it should not come as any surprise when extra-legal means are employed."

Impossible to misunderstand the bracing clarity of this comment. Mr. Treppenwitz's candor is refreshing. And scary. And really, truly, abhorrent.

Posted by: JDS | Nov 21, 2008 6:06:15 PM

JDS: Thanks for picking up the flag after I had fatigued. Just one point of clarification. I'm no expert on the law. I thought libel was a state crime (or maybe it's called defamation of character or slander..), no? I thought that it defined false speech that caused material harm to another (so that truth of the statement would be a valid defense). Am I wrong?

Other than that point of (perhaps my) confusion, I enthusiastically agree with everything you said.

Posted by: Albert | Nov 21, 2008 7:46:42 PM

JDS: Here you go. For what it's worth: the Wikipedia entry on US defamation law.

Anyway, on the larger point we're in agreement.

I'm going back to work now to generate income that will be redistributed to GM executives and their unionized employess. So long.

Posted by: Albert | Nov 21, 2008 7:54:27 PM

Quick comment on criminal libel, and similar laws: criminal libel statutes are generally understood to be unconstitutional in light of NY Times v. Sullivan, though they remain on the books much the way laws against sodomy remain (unconstitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas) or blue laws. It's just too much trouble, and pointless, to repeal laws that are unconstitutional and never prosecuted; politicians have better things to do, such as spend our money. Wikipedia's article is generally correct, but I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for the last word on anything.

While Albert gets back to work helping the fatcats in Detroit, I should say again that I do not mean to say that laws against proselytizing -- and I say laws, not violence, which is never right -- are inappropriate for Israel, but they are unthinkable in the United States, and thank God for that. A country that prohibits or prosecutes such speech, or religious activity, is not a country that I could ever live in (as another commenter said above). I also know that my Jewish friends here in America have enough confidence, and pride, in Judaism to know that the Israeli regime (making proselytizing illegal) and the Treppenwitzweltanschauung (advocating physical violence if criminal laws don't deter) is counterproductive, immoral, and, ultimately, incompatible with Judaism. Their Judaism, at least.

Posted by: JDS | Nov 21, 2008 8:15:14 PM

I found JDS's comments to be encouraging and interesting, but am wondering about the libel comments (there was no link to follow -- as there is not with me). I thought that criminal libel could be a crime, and one that could have jail time.
I agree of course that whatever that thing is that Christians think missionaries are doing when they "witness" to non-Christians, is neither illegal today in the United States, nor in the past, and I sincerely hope not in the future.

Posted by: Channah | Nov 21, 2008 8:25:21 PM

Suing for libel is different than saying it is a crime.

JDS did a very good job.

Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Nov 21, 2008 11:19:05 PM

I have just googled around a bit, and if it is true what I have read, I can understand the anger much better now (though not beating up and parcel bombs). It looks like some of those missionaries do not confine themselves to pester secular adults in the streets or to runnig through Jerusalem claiming to be the King of Israel. (Is that woman with the donkey still there, btw?) Obviously, some have started to disturb religious Jews during or after their prayers at the Wailing Wall. Others seem to run low-fee kindergartens and summer camps claiming to be secular while the children are looked after by born again Christian "role models" and "servant leaders". In my book, that is disgusting, and I would certainly be a bit more than annoyed if my children would be told that they were condemned if not believing in trinity.

Posted by: reader | Nov 22, 2008 12:27:06 AM

Jordan Hirsch and Albert are absolutely correct: allowing lawsuits for libel is of course permitted (though only under stringent constitutional rules) but is very different -- worlds different -- than making libel a crime. The latter is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Constitution protects the freedom to burn the American flag (Texas v. Johnson; United States v. Eichman); it also protects the freedom to try to convince someone else to follow your vision of god. You can't be put in jail, thankfully, for speaking your mind, even if your thoughts and speech are disgusting, treasonous, or deeply offensive to others. That's one of the beautiful things about America, and one that sets us apart from others. (I didn't link, but any basic constitutional text for laypeople, or even basic US history surveys, will lay all this out.) "Reader"'s comments raise the question whether someone in the US could be punished for activity other than their speech. Answer: of course. There's nothing unconstitutional about prohibiting kidnappings, batteries, or disturbances of the peace. (But note that "loitering" is constitutionally protected activity, for reasons I won't bore you with; Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville). The same is true, generally but not entirely, in nearly all Anglo-American common-law jurisdictions (e.g., UK, Canada, Australia) -- generally, but not entirely, because the US has a written constitution (unlike the UK, or, for that matter, Israel), and our Constitution is far more protective of civil liberties than nearly any other in the world -- or the history of the world.

Posted by: JDS | Nov 22, 2008 6:20:47 AM

JDS, that is interesting. What would you do in the U.S. with people who use the freedom of speech to deny others said freedom (or any other constitutional rights)? Would they go free, or would such speech fall under disturbance of the peace? What would happen to those who disturb other people's prayers at their holy sites? And what if someone would run child care facilities under false pretence?

(Where I live, the law limits free speech, but in a way I quite am comfortable with. For instance, there is a law against racist statements in public. The disturbance of prayers or services could probably be punished as an offence against the freedom of belief and worship. I have no clue what the law would say about that kindergarten and summer camp swindle if it should happen here around, but at least the state run facilities are not allowed to proselytise.)

P.S. If only I had known about that loitering thing when I was a teenager. It would have been so nice to tell my parents that the activity they nagged me about was under the protection of the American constitution.

Posted by: reader | Nov 23, 2008 3:26:42 AM

Reader, you raise interesting and nuanced questions -- ones that keep lawyers and judges in business. To oversimplify, the First Amendment allows what are called "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech; that is, the government is permitted to limit speech in reasonable ways (e.g., restricting public speech to daytime hours; restricting loud talking in libraries; etc.), though the permissible restrictions vary by circumstance. The whole loitering thing is fascinating. The Supreme Court essentially said that "anti-loitering" laws were really disguised restrictions aimed at certain ethnic groups (not just teenagers) who would congregate in the streets on warm summer nights. So loiter away! Oh, and needless to say, teenagers, and students, have lessened protection for their speech than adults (so, for instance, the Supreme Court allows schools to prohibit banners saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"). But "racist" speech in public is pretty much completely protected in the US and cannot be criminally proscribed, though disturbing others' prayers would certainly be punished under time, place, and manner restrictions. I know that Germany makes public advocacy of national socialism a crime, which I understand and think justifiable -- for Germany -- but the US Constitution protects that and other disgusting speech, for better or worse; in my view, for better.

Posted by: JDS | Nov 23, 2008 6:13:27 PM

I like your blog and I really enjoying reading it. I learned a lot from you - thanks for this.

This post along with comments is a lesson I am not pleased to take.

I live in Warsaw, Poland. From time to time I am attending various courses in Warsaw's synagogue. I meet there many people in the process of conversion to judaism. Please imagine what would you feel reading my blog entry where I would think that thrashing a rabbi converting catholics to judaism isn't that bad idea. Of course I am simplyfying but anyway I guess you can get my point.

On the top I think you are doing almost the same back there in India:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785074.html

And one last word - conversion to christianity in India is completely different story than the same in Israel. In India in most cases is a way to escape caste system. And this is real issue for Hindutva and their followers. Most of converts are either from schedulet castes or dalits.

Andrzej

Posted by: AndrzejM | Nov 24, 2008 1:25:25 PM

JDS, I see your point. The freedom of speech is indeed a very high value. I find it rather embarrassing that there was a need for a law against racist speech in public in my country. (Actually, it is not a law but a 'legal rule', as I have just learned.) It asks for something which ought to go without saying: a minimal degree of decency. It makes it a punishable offence to incite hate against ethnic or religious groups, to libel them and, if the motive is vilification, to deny, play down or try to justify crimes against humanity.

Have you never felt the need to convince a court to set time, place and manner for disgusting speech, e.g. 'from 01:00 to 01:05, in the bathroom, alone'? But maybe the nutters in the States are more decent or not that prevalent like here around. (I have never been in the States, but the US American expats I have met so far all seem to be pleasant and polite people. If they should feel the urge to advocate disgusting ideas, they certainly know how to control themselves. Maybe I should ask them whether they orate at night or spend their leisure talking loud in libraries instead of loitering in the streets.)

Now I am going to look up the difference between 'law' and 'legal rule'. Law seems to be a very fascinating thing, a mix of philosophy and sociology. Pitty that I did not find out earlier.

Posted by: reader | Nov 26, 2008 5:17:19 AM

This is a very old thread, but a very important topic. I just saw a video by Penn Jillette (of the magic team Penn & Teller) describing his encounter with a Christian. Penn is an atheist who understands the necessity of proselytizing. Take a look.

Posted by: Albert | Jan 6, 2009 11:34:03 PM

Post a comment