"The museum has a general strict policy to be sensitive to the entire spectrum of society and to avoid anything controversial - the exact opposite of this blog!"
How appropriate! HGL just wrote a massive expose on censorship in the Modern Orthodox world:
It's not called censorship when you choose what to say and what topic to avoid for a particular audience. It's called wisdom, sensitivity, the key to education, etc. See Kohelet 3:7
Trash. That doesn't appear in any dictionary or historical definition. Are you suggesting the Soviets never censored their press because it was not enforced by the outside?
do you even have a dictionary? If not you can find one online. It's not called censorship for a museum curator to choose his exhibits appropriate to his audience. Or are you making up a new definition?
I mainly agree, see my post https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/dear-atheist - though there is nuance from Sanhedrin 99b which I didn't get into there for obvious reasons. Though I'm not sure what you mean by 'winning'
The “expose” also contained the usual generalizations, deceptions and demonizations that he usually includes in his writings. It’s actually more like rantings.
Interesting that ‘Happy’ wrote the following in response to a comment. He actually approves of censorship: “ The justification for "censorship" is not because "they do it too", but because it is inherently a good thing that everybody agrees to when they actually care.”
"All these reflect a central theme of the museum, which is that everyone’s perception of, and cultural relationship with, the animal kingdom is influenced by the region of the world in which they live."
"The latter ties in very closely to one of the museum's fundamental messages. Different parts of the world have different wildlife which become part of cultural heritage of the people in those regions. <b>And the wildlife of the Bible and of the Jewish People is the wildlife of Biblical Israel, not that of Europe of North America.</b>"
It is a shame that the comments from the old blog posts from the previous Blogger format did not get carried over to this Substack format. Because if they were brought over, you would see a certain "traditionalist" call out Rabbi Dr. Slifkin for that line as contradicting the claim that his museum is intended to avoid anything controversial. By saying the wildlife of the Bible is limited to the wildlife of Biblical Israel, he completely contradicts the traditional understanding of Noah's Ark which saved all the land animals on the entire planet!
I am heartened that Rabbi Slifkin amended his statement here and omitted that phrase, but now, this message of the "Biblical Museum" becomes incoherent. What does the fact that different people's perception of the animal kingdom is influenced by their region have anything to do with the central theme of this Biblical Museum?
You just had to make it controversial 😆
"The museum has a general strict policy to be sensitive to the entire spectrum of society and to avoid anything controversial - the exact opposite of this blog!"
How appropriate! HGL just wrote a massive expose on censorship in the Modern Orthodox world:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/censorship-in-the-modern-orthodox
Massive? Yes. Expose? No. Yawn? Dozens.
It's not called censorship when you choose what to say and what topic to avoid for a particular audience. It's called wisdom, sensitivity, the key to education, etc. See Kohelet 3:7
Yep. Burn the presses. Stop the flow of misinformation. Don't cause panic.
Mr Soviet, according to your definition what is censorship?
Censorship is when it is enforced from the outside.
Trash. That doesn't appear in any dictionary or historical definition. Are you suggesting the Soviets never censored their press because it was not enforced by the outside?
You literally made it up.
do you even have a dictionary? If not you can find one online. It's not called censorship for a museum curator to choose his exhibits appropriate to his audience. Or are you making up a new definition?
Are you actually following the thread over on the other blog.
Slifkin keeps winning by default. If he is accused of being a kofer instead of being engage in a substantive discussion he wins.
I mainly agree, see my post https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/dear-atheist - though there is nuance from Sanhedrin 99b which I didn't get into there for obvious reasons. Though I'm not sure what you mean by 'winning'
The “expose” also contained the usual generalizations, deceptions and demonizations that he usually includes in his writings. It’s actually more like rantings.
Interesting that ‘Happy’ wrote the following in response to a comment. He actually approves of censorship: “ The justification for "censorship" is not because "they do it too", but because it is inherently a good thing that everybody agrees to when they actually care.”
Of course he approves of censorship. Without censorship his ideology would go completely extinct within a few generations
Hit the nail on the head DB!
Glad we can agree on something.
✔️
Tx very much for waiting until after Shabbos:)
Here Rabbi Dr. Slifkin writes:
"All these reflect a central theme of the museum, which is that everyone’s perception of, and cultural relationship with, the animal kingdom is influenced by the region of the world in which they live."
But in a previous post,
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/noah-and-dragon?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fregion%2520of%2520the%2520world&utm_medium=reader2
he said the following with an additional point:
"The latter ties in very closely to one of the museum's fundamental messages. Different parts of the world have different wildlife which become part of cultural heritage of the people in those regions. <b>And the wildlife of the Bible and of the Jewish People is the wildlife of Biblical Israel, not that of Europe of North America.</b>"
It is a shame that the comments from the old blog posts from the previous Blogger format did not get carried over to this Substack format. Because if they were brought over, you would see a certain "traditionalist" call out Rabbi Dr. Slifkin for that line as contradicting the claim that his museum is intended to avoid anything controversial. By saying the wildlife of the Bible is limited to the wildlife of Biblical Israel, he completely contradicts the traditional understanding of Noah's Ark which saved all the land animals on the entire planet!
I am heartened that Rabbi Slifkin amended his statement here and omitted that phrase, but now, this message of the "Biblical Museum" becomes incoherent. What does the fact that different people's perception of the animal kingdom is influenced by their region have anything to do with the central theme of this Biblical Museum?
Mazel tov!
The new exhibit sounds wonderful. I'm sure it will prove popular with museum visitors, especially kids.