Dr Greg Bahnsen - Islam, Judaism and Christianity: Dialogue (Part 3)

And Christianity and Islam. You all have, I presume, received the folder on this which tells you about these three scholars who have honored us with their presence. And so I will simply point them out to you. The first gentleman over on my left here is on the far end is Dr. Greg Bonson, who represents a scholarly approach to Christianity. The man in the middle is our representative for Islam and is a world traveler, as most of you have read about him, and is also the head of the local group in Orange county and serves on many committees. This is Mr. Sadeqi and Dr. Sedecki, and then our representative of the Jewish faith, which is Rabbi Daniel Landis. Now, I presume that most of you have heard them last evening, and our panel over here has heard them. And so represented on our panel are three people in these particular fields. On my far right is Sonia Ephron, who is the reporter for the LA Times and who has just returned from Kuwait. And I don't know what significance that has in terms of our questioning, but maybe it will bring up some interesting things for us. Next to her is the assistant professor of philosophy, and this year he is teaching for the first time in religious studies, a course on the philosophy of religion, Dr. Gain Anaker. And seated closest to me here is a professor, the associate professor of English and technical writing. And most of you have seen him on campus, Don Pierstorf. And I'm Ted Wall, who represents a moderating position here. I am teaching in Orange coast Now for over 22 years, religious studies and philosophy. Many of the audience are my students, have been my students. We will be interested to see what happens this afternoon. Now, our approach to this particular panel discussion is that each one of these representatives here will have three to five minutes to state a summary of anything they want to talk about that happened last night. And then they have a chance to pick one of the scholars over here and ask him a question, and then he has three to five minutes to answer that question. So we'd like to get questions then later from the audience. So we hope that this will move along smoothly, and if anybody runs overtime, I will use my heavy hand and loud voice and shout them down. Now, you all know that, and you are here because you are interested in religion, and obviously religion is everywhere. And all of these men and women here realize the truth of St. Augustine's remark that our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee, O God. And of course, people from the Orient can follow this very easily. But here we're talking about three groups that represent a belief in the supernatural. And this is the distinguishing characteristics of these three religions. Now, where they vary is what you're going to hear about today. And I hope you don't think this is twiddly d and twiddly dumb, but that there are actually some differences of significance between these three groups. So now to move right along, we're going to ask Sonia Efron to be our first representative to review some material and ask a question.

As a representative of the Fourth Estate, not as a religious cause. And the media usually avoids like the plague getting involved in these kinds of religious discussions. So although we're not as objective about these subjects as we'd like to think we are, just the full disclosure, I should tell you that I'm probably also here as a representative of the secular humanist movement, the Fourth Creed Alpha site. And in that context, I'd like to ask you some questions that are perhaps a bit more political. All of you have been having the arguments that we went over last night for about 13 centuries. And last night's dialogue was of course, much more cordial than it's usually been. And I think that's a very positive step. I'm also pleased to be here today while Secretary of State Baker is putting the finishing touches on the Middle East Conference. And I think that's also a very encouraging step. But at last count, we had about, I think the count was 86 different tribal, religious, ethnic and other wars going on on the climate. So in that context, I'd like to ask you first of all, what and this question, I think I asked first for Dr. Danzen, what, given repairs so much political and civil conflict, not just among your three faiths, but elsewhere?

What.

Do you feel that Christians have towards unbelievers, towards people of different faiths, and towards those who don't share any of the basic Judeo, Christian, Islamic tenets? And also, do you recognize that there can be such a thing as secular morality.

From a Christian standpoint? We do not, if we understand the gospel correctly, we do not believe we have any position of privilege or advantage over other individuals.

But I'm afraid.

The clarity and conviction with which the gospel is sometimes preached is taken by people as an assertiveness and arrogance or pride. We are the blessed possessors and no one else has anything to offer to the specialists and so forth. And I'm sorry, when that impression was given, I don't want to give up the confidence with which we understand the gospel, mind you, but it's important for us as Christians to know that what we do have. The blessing that we do have is a blessing of God's grace. We hear this expression bantered about even in sanctuary ways. There but for the grace of God go I. And it's banal now, maybe to use that. But from a Christian perspective, that's very true. When I look at my colleagues here seated on the right, I don't look upon them as somehow inferior to me as an individual. And what I have in the gospel, if it be I believe with all my heart, it is. But what I have in the gospel is not because I somehow have earned a better privilege in the sight of God, or I have come before him in a way that is more acceptable, and so he has honored me and so forth. It is purely a gift of God's grace. For by grace are you saved through faith. Paul says, that's not of yourselves. It's a gift of God. So our responsibility to those who do not have that faith is the responsibility of someone who enjoys grace. Privilege has a great blessing that wants it shared with others. When we get into debate, often it looks like we're beating on each other, maybe intellectually, but in the end, what we want to do is to share a gift, the gift that God himself has given us. You asked a second question about the possibility of secular morality, and we may want to judge, you and me sometimes, either here or elsewhere, about that, as you represent a fourth option before the audience today. One of the areas of my philosophical specialization, which doesn't make me right or wrong, but hopefully makes me more informed, is the question of ethics. And it's my own conviction that to the degree that secularists portray any absolutes, immorality, they have really borrowing from other worldviews, and particularly, I would think, borrowing from the revelation of God that is found in the natural world round about them. You can't come into this world without knowing God. This is my conviction. It's taught by Paul in Romans 1. He made you in his image. He is constantly revealing himself through the grandeur of the creation round about. And therefore in your heart of hearts, you do know that it's wrong to murder, to lie, to steal, and so forth. So I don't deny for a moment that unbelievers in the broadest sense practice an ethic. They're vociferous, often in their ethics or against the Supreme Court nominee or whatever it may be. They have very strong opinions and ethics. But I would argue that though they practice ethics, they cannot account for ethics. And in the end, their ethics disintegrates. Under philosophical analysis, because without the absolute of God's holy character behind ethics, it eventually becomes a matter of every man for himself. You see it one way, I see it another. Surely if you don't believe in the doctrine of creation and you have a naturalistic understanding of the human creature, you know, you believe that the opinions that you come up with are the result of electrochemical stimulus in the mind and so forth. I don't see that you can philosophically ground an ethical perspective on that. You can't come up with the oughtness of ethics just from a description of man's natural existence. And so though I don't deny that my unbelieving friends attempt to practice ethics, I would philosophically argued they have no foundation for it.

All right, thank you very much.

Now let's move on to Dr. Gain Anaker.

Okay, thank you. I was impressed last night that all panelists are affirming the concept of religious tolerance, which has as a minimal notion for swearing of force or conversion and which has also to minimal notion of permitting of different religious practices within a given area. And I would also say that all the panelists moved on to affirm something even more that arising out of each one's religion was a duty not only to forswear a force, but also to promote a sense of dignified relations between the religions and a sense of respect.

And.

Brotherly, sisterly feeling among peoples of different religions. And I think it's important to notice that that's more than just religious tolerance, but that's a positive relationship between people, which is, I think, excellent. Another commonality between the religions which is outstanding, I think, is which Dr. Bonson touched on, is that they share a common moral outlook based in large measure on the common book which they share and the traditions that arise out of that common authoritative document. And interestingly enough, all the religions assert that the practice of that common moral outlook begins in and proceeds out of humility before God, that is that the truly religious member of each of the religions begins by being a humble creature before God, and that that humility before God leads to a dignity of treatment for the others. And so I, I applaud that commonality. And that's something to be built on. I have some specific questions now that. I hope to try to determine a little more distinct sharpens and disagreements between the religions here. So if you'll permit me to try to get at some distinctions, I have a question for Rabbi Landis on this. Rabbi Landis spoke about the Jews as the chosen people, and I, as a Christian, take the notion of the Jews as a chosen people very seriously, and I don't at all diminish the idea and I have some understanding of what he means by that concept. He said at the time last night that being a chosen people means at least this. The Jews are, as a result of this, to stand at the center of humanity, between the spirit and the material, and seem to imply that the chosenness of his people is something of a unique relationship with God and especially unique relationship. And I think I understand that and I have no quarrel with that. At another point, however, later on in the evening, Rabbi Landis, who said that on your understanding, you said that being the chosen people of God does not mean that God cannot reveal himself to or deal with other peoples in other nations via other religions, apparently in a religiously adequate sense. And what I would ask you is if that latter is the case, if God can and does adequately deal with and reveal himself to other peoples and other nations through other religions, in what sense then is it meant that the Jews are a chosen people? And in what sense is this a unique and specially unique relationship with God?

You always take notes. Don't tell my wife. Someone had to do it. Also, I think it's like this. I think what's crucial is the difference between conversion and influence. The fact that Jews seek no converse and Jews feel in a very real sense that other religions may be antiquated for other groups in the real sense, I mean, in a non catechronizing sense, does not mean that we want to give up influence. It doesn't mean that we have a feeling that there are certain aspects of our faith understanding which would be quite beneficial to other groups. And therefore we do seek to influence. And the influence can go in several different arenas. Let me give an example. The fact that good works are crucial for religion is something which Judaism would like to impress upon other. That is a polemical point. That is something that we want to evangelicize into certain sense. Or the notion that one can come to God directly without the need of an intermediary, without the need of complex ways of buffers between the individual and God. This is something we'd also like to influence the other religions. And so therefore our sense of our sense is, is that we have a peculiar and particular destiny. We have ways of working things out, but our particular symptoms and our particular ways of working out might not be those that are necessarily needed to be accepted by others. We don't need others to necessarily have a Passover ritual, but the sense of liberation, the need for liberation is something we do until we upon. We don't need others to lament the destruction of our temple or for that matter even the destruction within the Holocaust. But we feel a need to impress upon others the fragility of life. So I would say that in a certain sense we are out there. We do attest to seek an effect, but it's not an effect of absorption. Let me add something to it. The danger of course is the lack of humility, which is always a personal difficulty that I have, but it's always a problem when you're out there teaching. And I could make certain ideas of selflessness. And I could possibly say that we don't feel arrogant at all. I think there's a tremendous tribe within Judaism not to be arrogant, but nonetheless we do put ourselves often in the pedagogic position. And as all of you know, that you put yourself in a pedagogic position. That's one of the occupational answers.

So.

All right, Don Pierstor, now you have your presentation.

I left last night knowing more than when I came and today I already learned something. It's the first time that Dr. Anaker and I have ever agreed on anything. The subtitles could say the same. The subtitle of this two day discussion was Sister Face and Conflict. And after last night I decided that that shouldn't be subtitled that way. I don't believe it was or is now a matter of sister faiths. I think you're more like a cousin. I'm from a very large family in Kentucky and we used to have reunions and all these Piersdorfs and Meyers and Kermans in a large field and they would throw up tents, three large tents, and all the pier stores were in this tent and the Meyers were over there and the Kermans were over there and they pretended to be religious. They talked to each other at all unless there was money or land involved. And I think that's where we are right now. So I represent the very few of you who are as ignorant as I am and I know there's only a few of you, but have faith because I'm here. The major thing that I learned in addition to that and this charge with Anachro is that seriously, the one thing I did learn in all dynamic is every religion is superior to the people who practice it. That I came away to learn. The other thing I learned is that the Jews and the Muslims seem to me as a result last time to be a lot closer than the Christians are to the Jews or the Jews are to the Christians or the Muslims are to the Christians and the Christians are to the Jews. One me to respect if I'm wrong, I know that Dr. Siddiqui and Rabbi Landis will correct me after what Rabbi Landis just said, I'm positive he will correct the Jews and the Muslims. Don't separate religion, politics, economics, jurisprudence. That's all one big integral part of the religion. As I see it from based on last night's conversation and from what Dr. Bonson said, I saw that, too. And render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God which is God seems to indicate that as well. But you notice if you were here last night, Dr. Sticky and Rabbi Landis talked a great deal about religion. And while they were talking about religion, they included as part of their religious discussion Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, all of that, because that's part of their religion. They didn't make that distinction that that's Israel and this is Judaism or that's Palestine and this is Islam. They don't do that because Islam, in my opinion, based on last night, they don't make those distinctions. This is all part of their religion. And that brings me to a question that I'd like to address, Dr. Siddiqui, but I certainly would if everything went well, I'd like to hear it from all three people. And that's the question. It's become a question. The question of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Jerusalem is important to the Muslims because of many reasons, but primarily, at least in my opinion, the Al Aqsa Mosque is certainly important to the Christians for many reasons, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and my goodness, of course it's important to the Jews for many reasons, including the whale of law. So let me tell you what I want, and then I'll find out what I'm going to get. What I want is Jerusalem to be an open city governed by the United Nations Mandate or some other way to keep it open in some strange analogy like the Vatican. But I want to know from Dr. Siddiqui, especially in this order, and Rabbi Landis and Dr. Bonson too, of course, what their opinion is about the current state of Palestine and what they think should be done about it. If anything, I'd like to start off by addressing my question to Dr. Sarah Dean.

Let me say very quickly, there are a number of issues that are involved here. One of them is the issue of the people of Palestine, who are the inhabitants of the land who've been living there for centuries and centuries, they and their forefathers and their Forefathers, I think they do have a right to their land. Regardless whether the other lands and other place exist or not. In the Arab world they do have right to their homeland and it is they should live freely there and should govern themselves and should have all the rights that everybody in other parts of the world have those rights. And nobody is supposed to say where they should go. It is their own choice where they want to live and how they want to live. And the second question is about what is the importance of the city of Jerusalem in Islam. And the city of Jerusalem is one of the holiest cities in Islam. A lot of people here, they understand the significance and the importance of the city of Jerusalem to Jews and they also know the importance of the state of the Christians. But my experience is that many Americans really don't fully understand, appreciate the importance of the city of Jerusalem to Muslims. To understand the importance of the city of Jerusalem for Muslims, you have to understand that David and Solomon are not Jewish prophets. For us, David and Solomon are our.

Prophets.

And Moses and Jesus are our prophets and Abraham is our prophet. And that history is our history. From the Islamic point of view, as much as Christians claim the Old Testament as part of their Bible, Muslims also claim that land as part of their heritage because they believe in these prophets of God and they have a great respect and they have a great belief and faith. And that's why Prophet Muhammad was taken to the city of Jerusalem. And this is part of the Islamic understanding that is he went from Mecca to Jerusalem and it was and then from there he went to the heaven. It was not that there was no direct flight available from Mecca, but.

It.

Is because to bring the Jerusalem and Mecca together. And Prophet Muhammad is the one who brings these things. The whole understanding, the whole vision of Iran, the whole vision of the prophets of Israel, this whole vision and the prophetic region. So here the Ishmael and Isaac mine are brought together in Prophet Muhammad. So and because of that the city of Jerusalem has such an important place. So as soon as Muslims came In the year 638, the city was taken by Muslims without war. In fact, Patricia Sophronius is the one who opened the gates and offered the keys of the city of Jerusalem to the Caliph Omar. And he said that I'm going to give it to the Caliph. And Caliph came all the way on the cavern from Medina to the city of Jerusalem in order to receive the keys of the city of Jerusalem from there. At that time many of you may not know that the temple did not exist. It was already destroyed five centuries before, in the year 70 by the Romans. It did not exist. And the Christian administrators of that city, they did not build the temple. They did not feel the need of building the temple. In fact, it was a dung hill. They had no respect for that place. And when was told that this is the place where the temple is stood, he knelt down and he cleaned it by his own hand. He said, this is the sacred ground. Why is Umar the callus had to kneel down and sit? This is the sacred ground because of the feeling that this is the place of Solomon, this is the place of David, this is the place of the great promise of God. And this is the place from where the prophet ascended to heaven. So it was that kind of an understanding. And then Petrax of Ronius asked him that Jews should not be allowed to come into the city. We don't want them to be here because, you know, after the Romans, for centuries, Jews are excluded from the city of Jerusalem. And it was written in the covenant of Oman that Jews will be excluded from the city of Jerusalem. That was part of the term of the thing that he wanted to give the thieves to the city because of that. But very soon, Muslims realized that this is not a reasonable demand, this is not a logical demand, and they should come. And so the city was open to the Jewish population. And they came. This established their Vedha Mitraj, they established their temple, they established their place of worship and learned it and they flourished. And when in the 11th century, Crusaders came and they took that city again, they did the same thing. They killed the inhabitants of the city, the Jewish inhabitants, they killed the Muslims. And again the whole place, that sacred place, that was not used for worship, in fact, it was used for as a state, they kept their horses on that place. And for 90 years that place remained that way. Then in 1187, Saladin comes and he takes over the city of Jerusalem from the crusaders and again purifies that place. It was washed. It was a Friday when the mosque was washed. And they brought the rose water and perfume and everything. And then after that, the Friday prayer was held and the mosque was built in that place. And then again the city was open to the Jews to come and live there. And they were living there and they were flourishing there until the colonial times. And all of those things happened. And you know, Lord Alamdi comes and he stands up at the grave of Saladin and said, today you have taken the revenge of Saladin. And then again, the whole thing was started all over again to divide the Muslims and the Jews from each other. I think Muslims have lived with Christians and Jews very well, but it is the Western Christendom they did not want to see. The two people live in peace. And if we can learn how to understand each other, how to understand our texts, how to understand our history, it is possible that we can work together.

All right, thank you very much. Now we're going to go back and let you start again.

And Estonia, you may have another question.

Would we like to get a perspective from all three panelists on that last.

Well, we'll give you a chance to do that.

I think we want to make sure.

We have a chance to ask the.

Three questions from the panelists at the end of that one. We'll go back to this more or less oblivious, but I wanted to understand for a minute.

Actually, I have a question I'd like to ask all three of you.

Get a start of practice.

Well, each of you last night discussed your view of man's covenant with God and none of you mentioned women. So I'd like to bring that up around. Because as all of us know, each of your faiths is under pressure both from outside, but primarily from inside to grant equal status to women, both in the eyes of God, but also in the institutions of religion. So I'd like to ask you first of all, Dr. Siddiqui, do you think not the scriptures of Islam, but the institutions of the Islamic faith, do you think these institutions discriminate against women and do you think they need to be changed?

There are changes things that are that are happening. Let me say from the very beginning there are things that happening in the Muslim world. They do not.

There are things that are that are happening. Let me say from the very beginning there are things that happening in the Muslim world. They do not all of them represent and reflect the true Islam. And there are a lot of improvement that is needed and we have to go back to our scripture and we have to learn from that and we have to learn from the example of the Prophet which we upon him. So I am not going to justify what is happening in Pakistan or what is happening in Egypt or what happens in some other places that that is that what Islam is. And by the way, you don't do the same thing. What is happening in Los Angeles and Orange county is Christianity. You know that that it is. There is constitution. True that majority of the people are Christians, but not everything that happens in this area is on Christianity. And the same thing is also for Jewish people. They will know, they know that that not every Jew is practicing Judaism. So it is the same way with the Muslim people. But at the same time, let me tell you that you do have certain, certain moral Buddha which are different from the way that Western world looks at this whole issue of genders. In Islam, it is recognized that both of them are equal in the sight of God. Both of them are God's covenant with both of them. And there is no distinction. The Quran has spoken a great deal about that. But at the same time, we do believe that there is a distinct role that men and women play. And also Islam has a special standard for the society, for the morality, that is the illicit sex, the premature sexual relations and all those kind of things that go on. That is not what Islam wants. Now it's good to speak about all that. And you know that last few days we've been hearing that hearing on the J. Thomas and Anita Hill's statement. We are hearing that there are certain feelings, there are certain standards and values that people recognize, but at the same time they do not know how to establish those values. There is a lot of contradiction that you can see that in the office you cannot do it, but outside you can do it. All of these things, this is the contradiction. Islam doesn't want to establish that kind of contradiction. The basis of Islam is that there must be consistency in your life. Consistency in everything is not that under 18 cannot do it. After 18 you can do it. No, there is no such thing in Islam. It's not that certain areas are licensed.

For doing all those kind of things.

But some other areas are not licensed for those things. This kind of licensing that you can license immorality in some areas, but you cannot in other areas. You can allow some people to do something, you cannot allow some other people to do. That Islamic standard is uniform standard for everyone. And for this thing, in order to keep this thing, Islam wants to see that there has to be.

This is sexual drive in the natural drive.

In fact, it is something that is a gift of God. It is recognized. So that's why Prophet said that the relation between the husband and wife is an act of worship. So it is to be taken in that kind of a sacredness, in that kind of sanctity should be given to them. And when it is to be given that kind of sanctity, it will all come. If the society is given certain rules of behavior, proper relations, distance has to be recognized and observed. The proper dress the Islam speaks about and what is the role that men will take, what is the role that women take. All of this should be understood in that broad context of morality and value. And that has to be observed, that has to be recognized, unfortunately, with the onslaught of the Western culture, with the onslaught of the pornography. And America, unfortunately, is doing two things, exporting the arms to the whole world and exporting pornography to the whole world. It is that which is creating all the. All the immorality in the world. And people use this, use the word that this is modernity. It is not modernity. It is license.

Thank you very much.

Now, yes.

Question for Rabbi Landis.

Again.

It'S nothing personal. Just like to hear from you at this point. Actually, this is a question I'll address to all the panelists. But I think it might be good to begin with. A standard way of characterizing religion in general is that there's especially monotheistic religions is that there's a conception that there is some kind of gulf or a gap between God and man, and that in a sense, the faith and practice of a religion is some sort of means of bridging that gulf or gap and permitting the human being to stand within the presence of God in some sense.

That's a.

One could argue that that's a standard view of understanding religions. Now, my question is just this. Within Judaism, what do you mean by affirming that God is holy? How do you affirm that? What kind of ideas do you use? Stories, metaphors, perhaps? What does it mean to say that God is holy? And then the next question is, what is it within the faith or the practice, practice of Judaism which serves as.

The.

Means by which the human being comes to stand before standing judgment?

The word holy in Hebrew is kadosh. Kadosh means absolutely separate. And therefore the. The gulf becomes totally understood. Because when one stands before the one who is utterly separate, utterly transcendent, how does one overcome that gulf? The only way to overcome that gulf, according to Judaism, is for the person herself to become holy, for the person herself to achieve a certain measure of transcendence. The primary techniques of Judaism would be the following. The first technique is that of restriction. Saying no, turning off, tuning out. To use some metaphors from the past that explains all the biblical prohibitions understood by the rabbis. Dietary restrictions, restrictions in terms of sexuality, restrictions in terms of economic activities, restrictions on the Sabbath laws. That one does not always have to feel that one has to participate within everything within the world. And one could stand back and say, no, I think that's by the way, the first point of maturity when you raise children, by the way, is the ability not for you to say no. To them. But for them to say no, whether it's towards the television or whether it's to a snack at the wrong time, in terms of religious elements, that saying no and one becomes themselves partially holy must become separate. The second technique of Judaism is participation in a holy cause. And the holy cause, we understand, is the mitzvah, the commandment does the moral act. One does that which is the yes. That the yes. Now, in the proper direction, when one can say no as the example in the sexual realm, when one says no to an extramarital affair, when one says no to your own desire, when your spouse is really not in the mood, when one says no when things are inappropriate, then later on, when one is able to say yes, the yes can be a very holy yes. The notion, therefore, of Judaism and holiness in bridging the gap is the ability to restrain oneself in order to store up the power to say yes and then to say yes. To say yes in a fully integrated experience.

I think the reason I want to ask Rabbi Landis another question is that he's an extraordinary speaker and all three of these people have something I'll never have. Magnificent, total dedication. Last night I took notes too, Rabbi. Last night Rabbi Landis said that the Jews believe that the humans have. That all humanity have dignity. And it's a Jewish responsibility to create dignity for others. I think that's a marvelous statement and added that to be human is not to be absolute. I'd like Rabbi Landis to comment, please, on the one sentence that I'm going to read. This is not one of those terrible questions that goes on 13 days. This was written by a rabbi who was also a member of the Knesset. The non Jew has no share in the land of Israel. He has no ownership, citizenship, destiny in it. That's leading up to the sins. The non Israel must accept basic human obligations. Then he may live in Israel as a resident stranger, but never as a citizen with any proprietary interest or with any political say. Never is one who can hold any public office that will give him dominion over a Jew or share in the authority of the country. I find that in mild conflict. As I say, I'm not Jewish. I find it in conflict with what Rabbi Landis mentioned last night. And I know it's my fault. I'd just like to reconcile that with. If I may.

Let me answer two questions. When we first answered that question, within like three minutes. I re. I reject that statement. You're not coordinated, right? I reject.

As a matter of fact, no go.

I reject.

I reject the state but let me say the following. The one country, the one place where Jews have a say of their own destiny is the State of Israel. It is the only spot on earth where we have, where we have that possibility. Within the Knesset, any member of any member of any section, anyone who lives within the State of Israel, be elected to a party. There are Arab representatives, there are Christian representatives, there are Arab Christian representatives, there are Jews who believe in Judaism, there's Jews who don't believe in Judaism, Jews who reject Judaism. Within that, the only measure that I would place within a person having a share within the State of Israel is the ability to affirm the law of the State of Israel. I think that's a fair measure of citizenship. And therefore, for example, the fact that a person, in order to be representative, takes an oath to uphold the institutions of the United States, I would say in a practical sense, I would demand the same thing of anybody within the State of Israel. A person that was seditious or was treasonous, they have to say the same thing. Therefore, by the way, three years ago the Israeli government banned an ultra right wing Jewish party called KAF for that very reason, because it was seditious in the sense that it had ultra nationalistic design coming from the Jewish experience, coming from Jewish sources that did not agree to the law of the State of Israel. And therefore I would just say the same thing. I mean, that's a legalistic answer, but it's actually the question here. As far as part of the question asked, I have to say something else. Let me just throw it aside. And that is dignity goes in many different directions. And therefore I think any movement towards greater dignity that accepts upon itself at the same time rest responsibility in a profoundly religious movement. And therefore I find out to be profoundly religious or religiously significant because it affirms human dignity as long as it also at the same time affirms the responsibility that must know in its way. And I see this also in terms of other nationalisms.

Thank you.

Now, Dr. Bronson, we're going to give you a chance on the other question which is similar to this one in some ways. So now can you help us out with your attitude toward this making the city of Jerusalem an international community under the sponsorship of the U.N. i don't.

Think I have personally any wisdom that might be added, but I do think the Bible speaks to that. And if I might offer an interpretation, and I hope will be challenging, it will at least give us another option.

To think through.

From a Christian perspective the promise made by God in the old Testament to Abraham of a land was to be seen as God's promise of park for whole. That is to say, the landfill was to be a small microcosm of what God wished to do in the entire world. It was, you will, a picture of his kingdom which was not intended to be restricted to the land of Palestine. Paul reflects on that in Romans 4:13, where he recites the promise God made to Abraham. And we might say, from a technical standpoint, gets it wrong, because this isn't what God said to Abraham. But Paul says the promise was made to Abraham that he would be heir of the world. Heir of the world. Well, heir of Palestine perhaps, but not heir of the world. Except that from the Christian perspective, what God was doing there was a pedagogical symbol of what he was intending to do for all mankind in establishing his kingdom on earth. In John, the fourth chapter, verses 20 to 23, we read, Therefore, that when the Messiah came, Jesus one day spoke to a woman at a well in Samaria. And it's fascinating insight to human psych. She, knowing that he was a prophet, he was very nervous. And so instead of answering his question, she tries to change the subject to theological debate. She goes, well, we have you Jews, you say you're supposed to worship in Jerusalem, but we Sumerians, we think we're supposed to worship here in this hill. And so what do you make of this Jesus? And Jesus replied to her, is the day is coming when you will neither worship here nor in Jerusalem. Because that is not what is significant in terms of approaching God. The day is coming when the true worshipers of God worship him in spirit and in truth. And she goes on to say, well, I know Messiah is coming someday. Jesus, says the one who speaks Jesus here. And this is, I know, part of the scandal of the claim of Christ. He claims this kind of exclusive relationship to God. And as a conduit to God, he says, worship will come not through Jerusalem or Samaria or anywhere else, but will come through me. And therefore anywhere in the world will be able to worship him. In Galatians, the fourth chapter, if I will expound this just a bit further. Paul specifically brings up this question of the relationship of Hagar and Sarah and the question of Jerusalem. When he says, it was written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid and one by the free woman. That is, by Hagar he had a son, Ishmael, and by the three woman, Sarah, he had a son High Howbeit. The son by the handmaid is born after the flesh. But the Son of the free woman is born through God's promise. And then Paul says, these things contain an allegory. For these women are really two covenants, one from Mount Sinai bearing children under bondage, which he then likens to Hagar. Now, this Hagar, he says, is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answers to the Jerusalem that now is. For she is in bondage with her children. Paul does a fascinating thing here, which I know will not be initial, will not receive well initially by those who are Muslims or Jews. But Paul says, from our perspective, who follow the Messiah, those who are children of Hagar and those who are children of Sarah, concerned with the earthly Jerusalem, are really in the same boat together. And they are under the bondage of the law. They cannot approach unto God. They claim the law as their approach, but they violate the law, and therefore they are in bondage. He says, but the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. So Paul suggests here a different approach to the Palestinian question. He suggests that the land doesn't belong to the Jews or to the Arabs, but that that was what is austere symbol of how God would establish his kingdom on earth and how the real approach to God was through the Messiah. And therefore, we as Christians believe that in the end, the only way to bring peace between Jews and Muslims is going to be for both of them to recognize the claims of Christ as the Prince of peace who might reconcile them there. And I understand that this is not the way people. People are accustomed to seeing it. Well taken. But my own opinion is if these two cultures do not find a common way, and I think that is found in Christ, if they do not find it, I don't think you ever will find an answer to the Palestinian question. The only way to get away from the Palestinian question is to get away from the question of Palestine and talk about what Palestine was appointed to. And that's the Savior.

Okay, thank you.

Now let's go back to Sunny and.

Have her ask another question.

I'd like to read direct one more time that question to you. I agree. And I think that anyone who spent the weekend in front of the television set watching the Clarence Thomas series would also agree that there is a great deal of confusion, disagreement in the Western world about sexual ethnicity. My question to you, though, is about sexual discrimination. And within the broad Islamic moral context that you described. And recognizing that Islam sees differences between men and women, do you think that the institutionalists now discriminate that slavery, for example, can there be a woman imam? And I'd also like to Ask the same question, if I may, too.

There's somebody, a woman in mind.

That.

Is that religious leader in the mosque. The rabbi is very generous.

You know that the way that Jews and Muslims were living together. Remember a few years ago, attended a lecture that was given by Bernard Lewis, one of the great scholars and has done a lot of work on Islam and the history of Arabs. His famous book called the History of Arabs, Arabs in History. He was giving a lecture in one of the temples in Los Angeles and he mentioned that in the Middle Ages, the Jews used to call their rabbis imams. You have to understand the nature of a religion, the nature of a tradition. It is not. It is not right to think that because there is a rabbi, there is a priest and there is imam. So all the three traditions look in the same way. A priest is looking in a different way in Protestant churches and then in the Catholic churches to have totally different views of the priests in the church. What to say about the priest, the role of the priest and the role of imam in the mosque and in the church. So the tradition in Islam. The point is that imam doesn't have the same kind of the rower that the priest has, the clergy has in the church. Imam's role is to lead the prayer, to stand in front of the people, just to organize the prayer. But he is not any kind of. In any way the mediator between the people and God. He is just facilitating the organization of the prayer. So that is, one has to look at the nature of the prayer. The nature of the prayer in Islam is not that people are sitting in the chairs and somebody comes and stand up in front of them and speak or ask them to recite a hymn or bow down. The nature of prayer in Islam is very different. People stand shoulder to shoulder and the Imam will stand to the in front of them. And then they stand and they bow down and they put their forehead on the ground and it's a prostration. So there are several positions. Islam, with its whole concept of modesty and recognizing the relations that should be there between men and women, cannot put a woman in that position there in front of the man, bombing and prostrating and having that kind of situation. So that's why she cannot be in that position. She can be imam of women, but she cannot be an imam with that kind of surrounding to lead the prayer, to lead the salah I'm talking about. But they have been in Islamic history much more in the earlier times than in later times. And this is again, Sassali declined this tradition has to be revived. And that is, there will be many scholars, teachers, in fact, some of the great jurists that we have in Islam. Imam Shafi, for example, his teacher was a woman prophet's own wife, Aisha. The prophet said, seek half of your knowledge from Aisha. She was a great teacher. So Alim is much more than any man in Islamic context. Alim is a scholar, the religious scholar, which is similar to a rabbi. Rabbi is a teacher, and Alim is a teacher. And woman can have the role of that. She can be a mufti, she can be even a party, according to some of the jurist. She can be a judge. Positions are available, but particular position of leading the prayer of mixed gathering of male and female. That is because of the context, because of the style of the prayer that is not given. And scholars have always said that if there is the communication of only women, and it always happened everywhere, then whenever the women gather together in their homes or any other place, they could be a woman imam for them. So I just wanted to give you an idea that each tradition has its.

Own.

Organization, its own way.

And one should not just put because.

It happens in one thing, that must happen another thing. And because it's not happening in the other tradition, that means the women are flawed in the other tradition.

All right, Rabbi Landis.

I think it's crucial for the adherence of any religion, first of all, recognize the central fact of the enormous discrimination against women and has been the truth in most of at least Western society, I venture to say, a good deal of the world for centuries. Discrimination that has been horrifying in terms of sexual abuse, horrifying in terms of economic limitations, in terms of development and growth, even though the potentialities of many religions are such that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. It's after that. And therefore, I think religion to a large degree is going to be judged in terms of how it overwhelms and overcomes much of this discrimination. You're waiting for my buffs. I'll give it to you right now.

Here's the. However.

However, it's actually partial to partial agreement with Dr. Siddiqui, and that is that religions have also other, other goals in mind. If it doesn't have that goal, the goal I just talked about, and I think in many ways it's worthless, but it has also other goals in mind. One of the goals it has in mind is of a sanctified existence in areas of home life, in areas of sexuality, et cetera. And here we don't find a ready Ally with much the feminist movements, we just don't find a jurisdiction, don't find their own way to go. Now, within Judaism, let me say the following Reform and Conservative liberal branches of Judaism. Now, I believe they have no official distinction in gender roles between male and female. They have eliminated that and they've eliminated that from a moral perspective. And I respect the. I consider it an experiment because you don't know what takes place in a few years. At the same time, however, these liberal forms of Judaism are extremely weak in the adherence to the vast gamut of laws that are really part of classical Judaism and are also experiencing great weakness in the areas of home life. That's just a fact that statistical in terms of force and in terms of breakup of marriages, in terms of the stress and strains in this area, Orthodox Judaism is much more conservative, small say, much more conservative areas, and therefore I think the wheel is going to grind slower. However, I have to say one major distinction that has taken place right now. First of all, in Orthodox Judaism, the differences between men and women in the adherence to the Commandments is minimal. There are a few striking differences in terms of leaving services and in terms of who's a Jewish imam or not. There are a couple striking differences. But overall, anyone who would take any anthropological look at how Judaism is lived, there are very small differences between the two. There have been amazing gains in, of women in the areas of education. I expect that my, my daughter, and I'm fighting that my daughter should receive an equal education to any male. Therefore, will she achieve a position of teaching in, within the, within the community if she so chooses? I still hope, I really hope so. There's a struggle right now. This is part of the development. Will she become the official title of Rabbi? I don't think so. Is this a goal? I'm not sure. I'm just really just not sure. The reason why women have been exempted from some of these areas has been the following. A rabbi is expected to be on call at all times. A person who is supposed to be involved in some of these practices, a person who's supposed to in some way dedicate their lives more fully in this direction. There has been this gender specificity in which even though males are required and should serve in the home, and there's great more service to the home, nonetheless, women who've always had outside jobs have always had the problem of being the superwoman, because that's always been true within Judaism, nonetheless have had a special responsibility for home life. Our home life has been quite good. I'm not willing necessarily to fully experiment with it. I'm very cautious about it. So therefore I request where this is going to lead to. I don't know where going to lead to. I find the feminist challenge to be a true challenge, a respectful challenge. I don't find the feminist movement as a movement per se. Yeah, I post in all areas.

No, Dr. Andrew, I have a question for Dr. Monson. Now last night, this question will deal with the issue of Christian view of the holiness of God that I roughly close to Rabbi Landis. And let me preface it this way though. Last night Dr. Sadiqi delicately referred to Christian doctrines.