elephant@vikasana.net Yaakov

“… If we explain the texts that I have cited according to their simple meaning – that certain groups are prior to others – they imply that [one may distribute the entirety of one’s tzedakah money to one group within the established hierarchy] and need not give at all to those who fall outside of that particular group. But it is well known that every wealthy person has many more relatives who are poor, and how much more is that true for people whose tzedakah funds are scant! And if this is the case, poor people without wealthy relatives will die of starvation. Now how is it possible to say this?…” (Yoreh De’ah 251:4)

He goes on to suggest that the hierarchy is about the amount of resources an individual should give, but that one is obligated to give to *all* of the groups in the hierarchy.

The point is a relevant one today: Every person of means has her or his potential beneficiaries who are somehow close to them (because of family, ethnicity, geography, religion, political arrangement, etc etc). And yet, there are always those poor people who are not connected to any rich people at all. Those with the ability to assist them, he argues, must be obligated to do so, regardless of affinity. Because if the wealthy only ever give to those with whom they have some connection, the extremely poor would be left to starve, the responsibility of no one.

The Aruch HaShulchan’s argument is, in my opinion, rather convincing.

Frosh, so by that standard it’s intolerant to criticise intolerance if it’s perceived to be present within a “cultural group”? Do you think there’s also ironic to think that Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance and can contribute to making one more intolerant?

No Michael, what would be ironic is if one were to espouse either of the following:

“I dislike racists and I dislike religious Muslims/Jews.”
or
“I dislike racists, and the most racist people of all are religious Muslims/Jews.”

The world / secular society also contains teachings of chauvinism / exceptionalism, so I would take exception at your expectation.

There is no such thing as “the classical position,” certainly not in the Jewish tradition, which is full of divergent views on law, morality, theology, and even history.

You can say that there is a culture of racism in a certain group, but this would have to be based on evidence that it the culture of racism exists. Based on Keren’s article, there is absolutely no evidence that there is a culture of racism amongst religious Jews – she doesn’t specify whether the Jewish doctor, or Jewish father that she describes are religious or secular. From your link to an American blog with a single anecdote involving one racist person, there is also no evidence that this culture exists amongst religious Jews.

I don’t think you can say that a religious tradition like Judaism or Islam produces racism a priori. This is because both traditions are complex enough to hold a diverse range of people, communities and cultures. It may be the case that there are sub-cultures in certain communities of the Jewish and Muslim faith that are racist and breed racism and intolerance, but if you are not specific about your allegations, you end up sounding as though you are prejudiced against religious people (or in this case specifically religious Jews?).

Re immigrants: I always welcome new immigrants to Australia. As long as they come here with an understanding that living here is a privelage, not a right; contribute positively to society; accept democratic values; and have respect for all other cultures in Australia. Just like you, me and our grandparents do/did. If someone comes here and advocates for replacing the Australian Constitution with Shari’a law, I will not embrace them; I will tell them they came to the wrong party.