Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i find the article at the link to be sensationalist and inaccurate. The article perpetuates negative stereotypes of men, women, Jews, and Judaism.
Here is a photo of Ruchie Freier, she is the first Hasidic Jewish woman to be elected as a civil court judge in New York State, June 2017. Here is her face:
She is an attorney and also an EMT (Emergency Medical Tech) and founder of the all female Ezras Nashim volunteer ambulance corps
“One of the misconceptions that there are [about Orthodox Judaism] is about women and I hope to clear that up.”
Freier, herself an Ezras Nashim EMT volunteer , expressed her appreciation to her colleagues at the ambulance corps for covering her shifts when necessary and helping her show the world that Chasidic women are capable of remarkable achievement.
Noting that her own family members found sanctuary in America after World War II, Freier said that she was raised to be grateful to live in a place where immigrants were welcomed warmly and given the opportunity to succeed without compromising on their religious practices.
“As a result of the vision of the founding fathers of this great country, I was able to maintain the standards of a woman from the Chasidic community and achieve the position of civil court judge,” said Freier.
Go to several social media sites, newspapers mostly frequented by Orthodox Jews etc. and you will see that there's quite the debate going on about this issue.
I am not educated on all this at all but e. g. people debating if women should be allowed to have hair (a wig) that is longer than shoulder-length - that is what people are discussing and it's seemingly highly controversial.
Go to several social media sites, newspapers mostly frequented by Orthodox Jews etc. and you will see that there's quite the debate going on about this issue.
I am not educated on all this at all but e. g. people debating if women should be allowed to have hair (a wig) that is longer than shoulder-length - that is what people are discussing and it's seemingly highly controversial.
There is nothing in orthodox Judaism where women cover the face. That is ridiculous and totally misleading in the article. Covering the hair is what is part of tznius. Women in Judaism do not cover our face.
Having photographs of women in public places such as billboards and advertisements is controversial in parts of israel from what I've read.
Maybe I should have made clear that textbooks have certainly needed to be corrected and revised over time, as we have been better able to separate truth from fiction, right from wrong. I never meant to suggest otherwise, and ultimately of course, I keep trying to point out the NECESSITY of healthy skepticism and questioning so we can continue the better path toward truth, and more peace for all concerned.
For example, this from your first article...
"The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also offering to send stickers to cover the passage."
Again, to confuse what I am trying to explain in these regards with the very slow process of mitigating ignorance also born from racism, for example, is extremely challenging, but surely you can distinguish the difference between this process I advocate, for higher standards of criteria, ultimately to determine truth, versus "blind faith," in anything!
There is nothing in orthodox Judaism where women cover the face. That is ridiculous and totally misleading in the article. Covering the hair is what is part of tznius. Women in Judaism do not cover our face.
Having photographs of women in public places such as billboards and advertisements is controversial in parts of israel from what I've read.
I wonder how many of these traditions and/or requirements -- right or wrong -- were originated by women rather than men...
Maybe I should have made clear that textbooks have certainly needed to be corrected and revised over time, as we have been better able to separate truth from fiction, right from wrong. I never meant to suggest otherwise, and ultimately of course, I keep trying to point out the NECESSITY of healthy skepticism and questioning so we can continue the better path toward truth, and more peace for all concerned.
For example, this from your first article...
"The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also offering to send stickers to cover the passage."
Again, to confuse what I am trying to explain in these regards with the very slow process of mitigating ignorance also born from racism, for example, is extremely challenging, but surely you can distinguish the difference between this process I advocate, for higher standards of criteria, ultimately to determine truth, versus "blind faith," in anything!
Possible?
The question isn't process, it is your insistence that when we teach by appealing to an accepted authority and not encouraging constant questioning and skepticism, it is acceptable in the case of textbooks and some parenting, but not when teaching religion. If you want everything to be subject to questioning then nothing should ever be presented without full explanation and defense. But that's impractical. So we rely on those items we consider authorities (you have accepted this premise already). The parent, the doctor, the textbook. But if we accept them at face value, then we are being indoctrinated according to your definition.
All you need to do is to revise your definition so it can distinguish between cases where unquestioned acceptance of authority is acceptable and where it isn't. A test of any rhetorical position is by pushing it to an extreme case and seeing if it still holds true.
The question isn't process, it is your insistence that when we teach by appealing to an accepted authority and not encouraging constant questioning and skepticism, it is acceptable in the case of textbooks and some parenting, but not when teaching religion. If you want everything to be subject to questioning then nothing should ever be presented without full explanation and defense. But that's impractical. So we rely on those items we consider authorities (you have accepted this premise already). The parent, the doctor, the textbook. But if we accept them at face value, then we are being indoctrinated according to your definition.
All you need to do is to revise your definition so it can distinguish between cases where unquestioned acceptance of authority is acceptable and where it isn't. A test of any rhetorical position is by pushing it to an extreme case and seeing if it still holds true.
I am without the time I usually have these mornings because we have family visiting but just enough time to comment how wrong you are about what I have been trying to explain...
First of all. You use inflammatory language that demonstrates your inability to consider what I am saying without bias and emotion. I am not "insisting." I am trying to explain myself, my thinking, at least to the point that you understand what I am commenting. Clearly you do not, but unfortunately that is clear only to me, not to you, so I try again.
We do not and should not teach by "appealing to an accepted authority." You put my words into yours, because this is what you want to do, but what I am trying to explain is that we should agree upon truth by way of a reasonable, acceptable and agreeable criteria. This is what we expect of professionals in all these fields you list, or their peer-reviewed research and conclusions DON'T MAKE IT INTO THE EDUCATION TEXT BOOKS. This in no way is to suggest ongoing updates and revisions are not necessary and appropriate forever going forward.
This is very different than the manner in which religious teaching -- preaching -- is conducted and accepted. That you can't make the distinction between these differences is beyond me, but surely we all have a certain level of appreciation for process and rigor that goes into what is published in educational text books books versus how books like the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon were published and how those teachings are the "appealing to an accepted authority" you are "insisting" upon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
