 Future Pope Ratzinger and IDF Paratroopers Liberate Jerusalem |
Jerusalem Post provides these recorded remarks from the new Pope Benedict XVI nee Ratzinger:
“I think it is very important that Jews, even if they live all over the world, have a homeland, a point of reference, live in the land of their fathers as a people in continuity with their own history and the promise given to their forefathers.”
A short while after this, Pope John Paul II uncoincidentally stated that “the Jewish people have a right to a land of their own” รขโฌโ adding that Palestinians too have a right to their own state.
Asked…whether Israel had special meaning for Christianity, he replied, “I think yes, certainly, but without rushing to theological conclusions, because the State of Israel was created by secular thought and is in itself a secular state. However, this fact has a great religious value because this people is not simply a people like any other. They have always maintained ties with their great history and therefore find themselves in this Holy Land, the Holy Land of the history of all three monotheistic religions. This, of course, also bears a message for Christians.”
Sounds like the kind of person who has an affinity for the Jewish people and who understands the need for a Jewish state. ๐
Edit: It seems this pope, as a cardinal, was responsible for sending a letter to US Roman Catholic bishops that had an impact on Kerry’s loss in this past election to Bush.
In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a “grave sin.”
He specifically mentioned “the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,” a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.
The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion “must refuse to distribute it.”
A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter “would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion,” the letter read.
Note that Kerry was born Jewish but raised Roman Catholic by his (apparently paranoid) parents. It was reported that he is quite a devout Catholic, although that seemed to work against him here.
The Vatican Must Return the Temple Treasures
The Jews have prayed for 2,000 years to again see the Temple upon the Temple Mount. It’s past time for prayers alone: ACTION is necessary to put faith into practice!
Will the pope act like Belshazzar or Cyrus?
Will Rome learn from history and receive instruction from the Bible or harden their hearts and be destroyed like pharaoh and Babylon?
Pope John Paul II Was No Saint
The plain truth is that the pagan pope (Catholics aren’t Christian) was a Roman wolf in sheep’s clothing, a politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Remember the popes are both a religious leader and head of state.
what is all this silly christian bashing by jews? dont you guys understand that many of us stand by you over the threat from pretty much every neighbour of yours.
i’ll always support israel before any arab country
the catholic church is a cult( the church of aton) is and always will be one. the pope is just a politician whose sole deire is to rule the world as international governor through jerusalem.
the catholic church has survived scandal after scandal, lascivious popes, incestuos popes, peodophilia and mass murder. the catholic church is the most blood thirstiest religion on the planet,( really consider it’ involvement in rwanda’s internal affairs leading to the most recent massacres ordered by priests exonerated and ” protected ” by these perverts) and it just waits out and attempts to revise history, amazing
I’m not sure if the Pope acknowledged Christianity’s historical record of forced conversion in the same speech; however, I think he’d admit to that record with alacrity. Certainly, his predecessor took great pains to try to repent for the Church’s misdeeds.
I read the Pope’s remarks to suggest that Islam’s history, like Christianity’s, is a mixed one with respect to coercion and violence (jihad). The Koran, in his reading, is susceptible to varying interpretations. Accordingly, Muslims (and Christians) must choose. Shall we all agree that God wishes us to appeal to reason? Or does doing God’s will mean that individual choice doesn’t matter, and His will may be imposed on others?
Have to say I’ve got the Pope’s back on this one. The quote may have been a poor choice, but the message is fairly clear– and shouldn’t be the stuff of riots or Hitler comparisons.
On the one hand, that is simply astounding stuff for someone of his visibility and stature to say publicly. On the other hand, it’s a fascinating remark about the acquisition of faith and what may or may not be appropriate in this regard.
It is also noticeable that while the Vatican is doing damage control, Ratzinger has not made any public comment moderating or explaining these remarks further.
As a Jewish person, I have to admit that considering the Church is not immune from criticism regarding forced conversions, it is clear that there has been a profound evolution of ideas within the Church over the past decades and certainly in the past centuries. Perhaps this is one key difference in the modern outlooks of Islam and Christianity.
Text of the Pope’s remarks, currently sparking ritual outrage by the usual suspects across the Muslim world (remember those Danish cartoons?):
“In the seventh conversation (‘diรยกlesis’ – controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
“Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels,’ he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'”
“The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (‘syn logo’) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats … To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….’
“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
“As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?”
The first Benedictine pronouncement I’ve come across that would never, ever have been uttered by his predecessor. (Good luck on your upcoming visit to Turkey, B, and make sure to pack the bulletproof vest.)
Ha, you beat me to it. I was going to point you to the article. I didn’t think it was related to, uh, Jews, so it didn’t quite merit a post, but I actually kinda gave out an inner gasp when I read what he said. It really was startling. I guess he’s a Bush fan now. ๐
The Pope fired a rather startling shot at Islam during a homily at Mass in Germany yesterday, condemning Koranic texts which advocate violent conversion, and taking a veiled shot at Ahmadinejad. The NYT has coverage of it today.
Every pagan pope is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a lying politician who cannot be trusted.
The popes speak with forked tongues like the serpent, pretending to accept A Jewish Homeland while undermining it by aiding and abetting calls for an accursed “Palestine” that seeks to erase Jacob-Israel’s name off the map (Ps. 83:4).
Pope John Paul II Was No Saint
The Vatican Must Return the Temple Treasures!
Vatican Linked to the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
The bigger gulf, Middle, may lie in the attitude we take toward those with whom we have much, but not all, in common. Having read so much here re O v. C. v. R, I’m struck by the reluctance of the right side of the spectrum, so to speak, to concede any validity or show any respect toward Reform Judaism in particular. You’ll pardon me for concluding that, for some on this site, Reform and Conservative Judaism are as pernicious as J4J. As an ignorant observer, I find this incredibly perverse.
Meanwhile, you’re in the difficult position of knowing not to fight back in kind. You’re not going to respond by saying: ‘no, our way is better than your way, and your way lacks any validity.’ Instead, you have to fight a lonely fight for civility and tolerance. (I admire you for that, btw.)
We Christians have killed enough of one another over the centuries that we’re able at least to acknowledge that we’re all rowing in the same direction, that you don’t need to be Catholic to have eternal life, etc. etc.
There’s far more than a semanticdistinction between saying, ‘we think our way is better, but we understand you’re also Christian and wish you luck in your spiritual journey’, and ‘you’ve deviated from the true path, you place everyone else in peril of straying and damnation, and God will surely condemn and punish you for it.’
(Just don’t look for the pope to guest on the 700 Club anytime soon.)
Hmmmm…now that you put it that way…ouch!
Actually, and very strangely, Shy Guy and I are very far apart on some issues but I get him because we share the same history and cultural aspects of our heritage. I understand where he’s coming from very well and can even relate even though I strongly disagree.
The schism is along the lines of faith perhaps more than practice. I guess that does create a bigger gulf than what you’d find between an Evangelist and a Catholic.
Haha, Middle! There IS a difference! Granted, the gap between BXVI and Pat Robertson isn’t quite as wide as the abyss between, say, Middle and Shy Guy.
Tom, you mean there’s a difference?
๐
Charles, nice to have a fellow Opus Dei conspirator on board. Don’t mind Ephraim– Middle’s right. One of these days our friends here will figure out they’re better off with us than with their Evangelical pals…
Oh, and thanks for your blessings.
I think.
Charles, welcome to Jewlicious where our secret mission is to entertain Catholics.
Seriously, your comment is welcome and don’t mind Ephraim too much, he says some pretty nasty things about Jews as well. Feel free to browse around some more and join our discussions.
Wow. Just dropping in on the party a year late..
Like my fellow papist Tom up there I’ve been mucking around in Jewish sites catching up on what our older brothers in the Faith are up to (not that you would recognise me as apart of the family, Oi vai iz mir!!) and this thread caught my eye..
All I can say is great stuff. I’ve never seen a thread on il Papa devolve into an argument about fish sticks before. And I’ve read a lot of them. Freakin’ hoot. Count me a jewlovin’ fool. You guys are great.
Just a few remarks, (not that anyone will read this, or be interested, but hey):
Most Catholics of my stripe would classify this pope as orthodox, a traditionalist and an Augustinian (as opposed to a Thomist), with a strong predeliction for Eastern & Ancient tradition: Orthodoxy, and yes, Judaism. Not a conservative, or worse, a reactionary.
He was a theologian at the Vatican Council, and helped draft its documents. His critique of the liturgy, for example, is a more a correction than a “reaction.”
And on moral issues like abortion and divorce, many of you don’t seem to understand the Church – no priest would ever suggest a woman stay in an abusive relationship. Not today.
And abortion is all about a strict understanding of human life beginning at conception. Even the child of a rapist is human, and is due protection as such. I understand many might find that belief repugnant. Still, I hope you might appreciate it’s inherent moral logic.
Anyway, I think Ephraim (not sure- sorry if I’m wrong) stated he believes “Catholicism to be a crock and a plague on humanity.” Ouch.. umm.. I don’t take stuff like that personally, I’m used to it. Probably worse things are said about us goyis in private. Ah, well. I appreciate Ephraim’s initial positive comments though.
And that photoshop is great. Hope you don’t mind I’ve stolen it for my screen saver.
Shalom, Pax & Bonum, Blessings on your Heads, all that.
Ibby, thanks for comparing Jewlicious to Aljazeera!
You have many questions, and there are many answers. However, to boil it down for you: when you put two Jews in a room, you are going to end up with at least two and possibly more than two opinions which will be debated openly and with aplomb. There’s also a good chance you’ll find some food in the room.
Hi Jews. I have a question for those of you who are educated, of which there are many (I hope and assume). Do you harbor hatred for muslims? Does a Jew generally mean a person who has a love for their Creator? Or does it more often mean a person who has a love for their Ethnic background? Is Jew a political party? Or a Race? or is it the common belief of a humble and devout group. A famous man of Jewish origin is Mel Brooks. He quotes that, he feels his work is sometimes a reflection of the Jews being angry at God for their misfortunes. Clearly, this is not an religious Jew’s sentiment. Do most Jews feel that this speaks for them?
I as an educated man can not make decisions about you based on ramblings of some people on a website. I know that racism is all over and will for ever be in our face as long as we are on forums where anyone is allowed to post freely. Similarly I know that if I go to aljazeera.com, I can be sure to find many people ranting anti-israeli sentiment. One thing I can say in the favor of you is that, usually racist remarks by Israelis are limited to racism, stereotyping and generalizations. It is less often that you folks will blatantly discuss annihilation or extermination of muslims.
On the other hand, I can say for aljazeera, that most of them will stick to politics and not generalize on Jewish people or the Jewish philosophy, but rather limit their hatred to Zionists and the violent fascist side of Israel. So is it racism or just hatred of a political enemy? Is it Religious hatred?
Obviously it is not Antisemitism, Since Muslims are equally if not more semitic than Jews of today.
In any case, any God fearing Jew and any God fearing Muslim should find a great deal of common ground based on their lifestyles and their ideologies. I fail to understand how petty racism has become the people.
DAVE DUDE – One last comment on monotheism, muslims,and Shikhs.
One G_d vs. Holy Trinity (It was always a JEWISH CONCEPT!)
Example:
The other big headache folks have is a collective amnesia, allot of early Jewish and Christian works are no longer used, and some think the boogie-man will get them if they read them. Example the Book of Enoch (1), with no less than 11 fragment copies found in Qumran. This was in LARGE use at the time, and it reference the รขโฌลSon of Manรขโฌย, in the text as Jesus referred to himself. But not one Christian or Jew this side of Ethiopia knows this.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr3.html
Remember Ignorance is temporary, Stupidly is foreverรขโฌยฆ
Popes, the only good one, was a Jew.
Regarding the current incarnate of the Bishop of Rome, the present lineage can be traced to the 1960รขโฌโขs when the Vatican Mafioso couldnรขโฌโขt decide on any candidate because of internal fighting. So they opted for the age ole tradition of selecting some old fart that wouldnรขโฌโขt rock the boat for a couple of years. But the mistake was underestimating the nice, happy, fat old guy, namely John XXIII. He was the one that did all the reforms and Vatican II, and flushed a good amount of Dogma. Pope John XXIII (not JP2) since Peter (Cefas) was the first to associate with Jews and spoke the biblical passage to the Rabbi in Rome. รขโฌลIt is your brother Josephรขโฌย on their first meeting.
I think you have to put the recent guys JP2, and Benedict XVI into perspective. What JP2 is to George Bush, Benedict XVI is to Dick Chaney, strong arm behind the scenes. That being said, the Catholicรขโฌโขs have their own dogma agenda
http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp
Dave,
Your comment รขโฌลOnce there is peace in the Middle East, it is my fervent hope that we as Jews can work together with our Muslim brothers and sisters to promote monotheism throughout the worldรขโฌย. DUDE, wake up and smell the smoke from the suicide bombers!
Try reading their book and see if itรขโฌโขs the same G_d of Israel, they wish to kill the people of the Book (Jews/Christians). They are in fact queuing up in Iran today asking for suicide volunteers to help support the Iranian nuke program. But donรขโฌโขt take this example look to what happens when land is turned over, look to the destruction of Josephรขโฌโขs tomb, so much for honoring Oslo accord.
Et Al,
I found an interesting article that relates to the Islam issue in Europe. Enjoy.
Europe died in Auschwitz
The following is a translation of an article written by a Spanish journalist, Sebastian Villar Rodriguez: I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims! We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create. We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God.
We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened itรขโฌโขs doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.
We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition. We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better peaceful world, for the suicide bomber. We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our children.
What a grave mistake that we made!!!
fuck you jews die and go to hell you will all die
Well, Tom, if Al Guardian hates him, he must have something going for him.
I hope you’re right on the appeasement thing.
Middle, the Orthodox Judaism-Catholicism analogy is a faulty one. If you’re looking for a Christian sect that’s a closer match, I suggest evangelical Protestantism. (Best of luck!) The evangelical approach to sacred scripture, from what i can tell, is far closer to the Orthodox one.
And if you have in mind relative hardass quotients– there, too, Catholics fall short, next to our literalist brethren. The Orthodox get along famously with evangelicals on Israel, etc., n’est-ce pas?
Ephraim, I don’t think that Benedict gives a rat’s ass about appeasement sentiment in Europe. The Guardian newspaper hates him, anyway. From everything I’ve been able to glean about him, Benedict sees the world through the prism of past successes, and failures, in standing up to Nazism and Communism. I don’t think he’ll waver on terrorism.
Okay, you’re a nice non-reactionary guy who got up on the wrong side of the futon today. ๐
Actually, no. I am actually a very nice guy.
Besides, I sleep on a futon.
Okay Ephraim, you didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed. You’re always cranky and grumpy like this and you don’t have a good-natured side.
There, are we in agreement now?
I didn’t Middle. You just think that because I disagree with you.
Sure, sure, disagree all you like. But don’t pretend you didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed again.
No, I didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed “again”, Middle. I was objecting to you once again trying to slip in the “Orthodox Judaism is reactionary” thing.
Yes, yes, I know you think that you are right and that you have proved it. I will continue to disagree, if it’s all the same to you.
Hello Romania!
Thanks for the explanation, guys.
I have no idea where you got the part about objecting to Ratzinger speaking plainly about dialogue or getting Europe to oppose Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the only thing I am concluding from your posts today is that you got up on the wrong side of the bed. Again.
Ephraim,
Guess I got beaten to the punch.
Well, Middle, there’s this old joke, and it’s not really worth retelling in its entirety, but it’s about the Lone Ranger and Tonto, and they’re being progressively surrounded by hostile Indians, and the Lone Ranger cries out, “Tonto, we’re surrounded by Indians!” and Tonto says, “What you mean ‘we,’ white man?”
So the punchline has become a catchphrase meaning, of course, “don’t include me in your we.”
It’s from an old joke when the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians, Middle. The Lone Ranger says:
“Well, I guess it’s just you and me, Tonto”. And Tonto says “What you mean ‘we’, white man?”
I see. So you object to Ratzinger speaking plainly about Jewish-Christian dialogue and trying to get Europe to wake up to the threat to the West posed by Islamic fundamentalism?
My views regarding Ratzinger are only determined by whther or not he is “good for the Jews”. Whether he is “good for the Catholics” is something for Catholics to determine. Right now, he seems to be as good a Pope as the Jews could hope for. I could care less whether he is a “reactionary”, however one wishes to define that term.
๐
Oh yeah. Muffti and the middle did predict a certain sympathy that all y’all would have with Grandmaster B. And know you are exhibiting it, as expected. High five, Middle!
Uh, Ephraim, forgive me but I have no idea what insult you intend by “white man.”
And Muffti is the other person in the “we” comment. Don’t worry about being wrong again, though, WE have come to expect it. ๐
I think the point we were trying to make is that in many ways Orthodox Judaism is reactionary and thatรขโฌโขs the similarity to Benedict and his orthodox views.
What you mean “we” white man?
That was the point you were trying to make, not anybody else. I don’t recall anybody agreeing with you.
Protecting Christian minorities in Arab countries, Tom?
Well, then they better git crackin’. Ain’t gonna be much to protect if things keep up as they are now going, at least in nascent “Palestine”, which is rapidly becoming “Christian-rein”.
Appeasing Muslims to protect Christians living amongst them doesn’t appear to be working any longer. They had better start thinking of something else.
Oh, but wait. That means that they will have to stand with the Jews and Israel and actively resist Islamic jihad.
All joking aside, do you see much chance of this really happening? I think Benedict is making some small sounds in this direction, but he is really swimming against the appeasement tide in Europe, which is getting stronger by the minute.
Ephraim, for a long time, Vatican policy toward Islam hinged on (purportedly) protecting tiny Arab Christian minorities in Muslim states. That was John Paul’s make-nice approach.
On the other hand, politically and spiritually, Catholicism competes with Islam in places like Nigeria and Ivory Coast and Tanzania. So Benedict seems to have opted for candor. In telling Muslims in Germany that “the defense of religious freedom” is a “permanent imperative and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization,” he implies repressive Muslim regimes aren’t civilized. His predecessor wouldn’t have ventured nearly that far.
Tom I do apologize for not posting about Benedict’s visit, I was away for a while and those days in particular were days where I was away from the computer. Benedict was impressive in Germany.
Benedict threw down the terrorism aguntlet to the Muslims in Europe. For that alone, I have decided I like him. And if he’s saying to both Jews and Catholics: “Were different, get used to it, but respect each other while you do” I like him even more. I can’t stand namby-pamby Kumbayah interfaith dialogue crapola. It’s time to talk tochlis and grow up.
It is like I said in the beginning: Benedict is the Pope chosen to man the walls of Vienna. Let’s see what happens.
Aron, I think you’re right. B’s “orthodox,” but that’s not to be confused with a reactionary approach to the faith.
And if he ticks off both the Opus Dei crowd and the pawn-the-artwork-in-the-Vatican Museum crowd, then yes, he’s doing a good job.
Too bad Jewlicious didn’t treat Benedict’s visit to Germany. During which he proved how German he is, with some rather blunt remarks on the subject of Islamic extremism and terrorism. This is a subject JP II felt comfortable avoiding (in favor of accentuating the positive).
In addition, Benedict remarked to his Jewish audience that a mature and respectful relationship between Judaism and Catholicism involves acknowledging differences between the faiths. Not the sort of thing feel-good JP II would’ve stressed, to a Jewish audience in a live appearance, especially.
I think I like the straight-no-chaser style, but it takes some getting used to.
I think the point we were trying to make is that in many ways Orthodox Judaism is reactionary and that’s the similarity to Benedict and his orthodox views.
Interesting discussion. However Pope benedict is neither reactionary or traditionalist. He like John Paul II are very modern and supporters of Vatican II with very positive views towards Jews and Judaism. Benedict is orthodox in his Catholic faith which is not the same as traditionalist or reactionary or conservative. Neither the extremes of left and right in the Catholic Church are happy with him which says something positive.
Another point. Jewishness through the mother goes right back to Abraham. Abraham’s son by his Hebrew wife was a Hebrew and heir to the promise. Abraham’s son by his goy maid Hagar was not a Hebrew and not heir to the Promise. Both Jacob and Esau were Hebrews but Esau’s son were not because their mothers were Canaanites. Jacob’s sons were Hebrews because their mothers were Hebrew women. Joseph’s wife Asenath was Hebrew (even though brought up as an Egyptian)because her mother was Dinah the daughter of the Patriarch Jacob- which made Ephraim and Manessah Hebrews.
what did paris hilton say about the pope? is he hot or not?
dovid
*sigh* there’s so much I don’t know about
JudaismCatholicism.For TM 168:
Vatican II did not banish Latin, it only allowed the
vernacular for parts of the Mass. Latin was to be used for the commom elements, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus etc. The US bishops are not authoriativae in their theologogy if it veers aways from Rome. The International Commission for the English Language (ICEL) have been banned from issuing new chruch texts because their translations were so bad.
Hey, Middle, is that my name or yours that’s being taken in vain at #174?
Read the article on Papa Ratzi. And, no sooner than, wanly hopeful, I gave him credit for “no gaffes” up above, he commits one this week with his comments on terrorism. The Israeli gov’t. described his omission of Israel from his list of victims as “deliberate,” but I don’t know– that may be giving the Vatican too much credit for coherence.
Are you saying I’m Catholic? Is the Pope Jewish?
Anyway, Tom, there’s an interesting article about ratzinger in the July 25 issue of the New Yorker.
T_M = themiddle = Tom Morrissey…c’mon and quit navel-gazing you fershlugginuh nebbish!
No, no, Tom, this is not a matter of belief. I was just, you know, testing…
Oh, we do, just not on our heads, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN HAWHAWHAW.
Ahem.
Man, that’s akin to Middleman’s belief that if we Catholics screw up, we’ll get struck by lightning from on high (#160). Really a pre-modern belief.
In fact, the Pope simply dispatches the Luftwaffe for a fly-over.
Michael– you mean they don’t?
Thanks for the info!
About the horns (best seen on Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses), the reason the Catholic tradition of Moses had him with horns is because of a mix-up in translation or copying. When Moses comes down from Sinai, his face is described as shining – in translation, this came out as also meaning “horned.” Admittedly, I’m a little shaky on the exact details, but it’s true (if weird). I believe this also may have been the genesis of the formerly widespread Christian myth that Jews have horns.
Michael:
The Vulgate translation is the handiwork of St. Jerome, who undertook it c. 420 AD. (Jerome employed a Jewish scholar of Hebrew to help him translate the Torah/Old Testament.) The Council of Trent in 1570 (in which the Church sought to standardize liturgical and other practice following the Reformation) declared Jerome’s translation the authoritative Latin version. However, the Council declined to elevate it above any original rendering of Scripture, or over translations in non-Latin languages. Of course, with Latin dominant, Jerome’s translation reigned for nearly 400 years.
The Second Vatican Council (1965) gave Latin the liturgical boot, replacing it with vernacular languages. A boom in biblical translation followed. The current, US bishops-approved English translation dates from 1991.
More generally, the following (from ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’) seems applicable to translators:
“In order to discover the sacred [scriptural] authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.'”
Hmm, not sure about Moses’s horns, but keep in mind that all sorts of curious, non-biblical, non-Church-approved texts floated around back in the day, putting an imaginative gloss on Scripture. To pick but one (hilarious) example, Giovanni Boccaccio’s fourteenth-centur work ‘Famous Women’ purports to recount Eve’s life following the nasty business involving that apple in the garden.
Tom, since you’re doing your Catholicism homework, I’m actually curious: are the translators of the Bible also considered to have any sort of special Divine helping hand?
Although there have been two major translations of the Torah in antiquity (the Septuagint and the Targum), the Hebrew text was always the main, most respected text, and now within Orthodox Judaism the attitude towards the Hebrew Torah approaches that of the Muslim attitude towards the Quran – that the Torah can only be truly understood in its original language.
Now, the Vulgate is a translation based on a translation (at least, as far as I know, the Vulgate was based mainly on the Septuagint), and the KJV adds another link in the translation chain. We also know that the Vulgate did stuff like inspire artists to put horns on Moses.
So I guess my question is kind of multifold – first, is the Vulgate considered to be within the Catholic Church as the authoritative version of the Bible? And second, does it as such have any greater legitimacy than modern translations in dozens of languages? And third, were the translators of the Vulgate supposedly divinely inspired?
Middle, upon further review, the official teaching is that God gave the Torah to His people “through Moses.”
This view is consistent with the more general belief that “God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. ‘To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while He employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though He acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more.'”
This wouldn’t pass muster with evangelical Christians, nor Orthodox Jews, I assume.
Yes Tom, but that relates to the fact that Jews believe God gave the Torah at Sinai. On the other hand, Christians acknowledge that their sources are written by the disciples. So I believe there is a fundamental difference in perception and this is why you see similarity with other streams of Judaism outside Orthodox.
For example, the Catholic Church does not teach that any portions of the Bible, including passages purporting to quote Jesus, are literally true.
You know what’s interesting, Middle? Reviewing the Jewlicious posts that deal with interpretation of Scripture, e.g. the Passionate Life one, the Catholic view is sharply at variance with the Orthodox, or at least, say, chasidic, take. It’s very striking how consistently the Catholic approach mirrors the Conservative/Reform one. It’s counterintuitive, I know….
No lightning? Hmmm. Could it you’re in the wrong Church. ๐
Tom, you’re virtually Orthodox!
Middle, call it a form of outreach to the Catholic community. But yeah, I’m there every Sunday at 8. Actually, I read (the weekly passage from the Torah!) during the service, so I actually have to be awake and alert at that hour. Ugh. Also do religious ed in the parish. (Sometimes score free doughnuts.)
No lightning. He’s a big target, too.
Tom, this is a revelation, your going to Mass. I received the impression you were anything but a devout practitioner of your faith.
By the way, when Fr. Jack made the error, did lightning strike him down?
Middle, his highest-profile activity has been to reach out to the Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church, with which the Catholic Church has famously poor relations. In this instance, all that really stands in the way of unity is Rone’s insistence on papal primacy. (In contrast, the Western Protestant churches differ with Rome on numerous points of doctrine.)
Rumor also has it that B 16 may also lift the papal condemnation of Luther. (Better late than never. Just ask Galileo.)
As for relations with the Jews, a Catholic-Jewish meeting just concluded this week in Jerusalem, with the parties jointly affirming the right of freedom of religion.
I think it’ll be a couple of years before we know whether Benedict’s a seat-warmer or something more. Papal encyclicals (the real signature pieces of a papacy) often take that long to prepare.
For now, no bold gestures, nods to continuity, no gaffes.
And speaking of gaffes– Fr. Jack, my parish priest, got to the ritual prayer for the hierarchy last week at Mass and intoned, “for our pope, John Paul…” We’re all still adjusting to Benedict. And so, I suspect, is the Pope himself.
Tom, it has been a couple of months. Have there been any indications of how the Pope is doing? Is he pro-active or a quiet caretaker?
Ah yes, #121, I remember it as though I had written it yesterday. Darn good post. ๐
Obviously, it has little impact on me if Ratzinger loosens the rules on divorce for Catholics, but that would make him anything but a reactionary and we will have wasted this entire discussion. I have to agree that until we see what he does, it’s impossible to guess. I am just glad that he continues to show friendship to Jews, because there needs to be a great deal of work done to heal many wounds.
TM, going waaaaaay back to #121 re Vatican II: I think it’s best viewed as a process, akin in secular terms, perhaps, to the civil rights movement. There was the stuff Ratzi and Hans Kung could agree on, e.g., Mass in the vernacular, or rebuilding relations with the Jews, and the more far-reaching changes the church is struggling with now. B 16 thinks we’re all done with V II; Kung thinks we’re just beginning. Compare it to disputes over affirmative action. The implications of initial, widely-popular and needed change are, inevitably, more divisive.
And don’t assume that B 16 won’t make signficant progressive changes. Word has it that he was at work on relaxing certain strictures on divorce at the time of his election. In the immortal words of former Cards pitcher Joaquin Andujar, ‘you never know.’
Everybody expected John XIII to be a seat-warmer; it didn’t work out that way.
Take as you fit, ol pal. Of course Muffti takes you seriously. He’s a fan of yours from the ol’ McGill days. You know that right?
As for the dagger and the cutting…err…ok, you can have JS and DIgItAl if you like. ๐
You can use intuition all you like. Muffti has no doubt that it makes you more of an effective therapist in a one-on-one setting. And that would be perfectly appropriate when you have a subject right there to talk to and get to know. It’s only when you use intuition to access general truths that you take to be grounded and justified by intuition that people ought to balk at what you say. So go ahead and intuit the morosity of philosophers all you like. Mufft has been to three universities and hung out with may more philosophers than you ever will and can say that the group he’s met are all pretty happy, not to mention socially conscientious and responsible people. But there are A LOT of philosophers out there so Muffti doesn’t go around claiming that philosphers are typically happy and socially responsible, even if he has the ‘intuition’ that they are.
“Muffti supposes that one could decide what is true based on what the likes of Joe Schmo ”
Actually, Schmo was one of many, here’s a clue: DiGiTaL says:
“…but the Shtreimels words cut deep with the dagger of truth.”
I like that. Anyway, in my profession we use something called intuition. And while research/stats are nice to secure funding, nothing beats the ‘ol transference/counter transference dance when it comes to “having that gut feeling” with respect to why a person is suffering (see: “The Gift of Therapy : An Open Letter to a New Generation of Therapists and Their Patients” by Dr Irving Yalom). Actually, you’d like Yalom. He’s an existential therapist with a background in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Very bright. Doesn’t believe in God. You’ll love it.
Anyway, I feel proud and confident with how I handled the whole SG thang. And besides some pervs and nihilists, I have no doubt that others will agree with my position.
BTW…for someone who “trusts not a word of what “I” say “, you sure take me seriously Muffti. In a sense, I guess that’s a compliment.
Shtremiel, Muffti finally has an inisight into your real dialectical goals:
Muffti supposes that one could decide what is true based on what the likes of Joe Schmo (that’s what he calls himself) thinks. Muffti could care less if the whole world agreed with you to be totally honest. But way to win the popularity contest the easy way.
As for my waist and my pants, that’s again another rather strong assumptions. But Muffti could care less, once again, what you think his motives are.
Finally, as for the morosity of philosophers, Muffti recalls you saying that you took 2 (undergrad Muffti assumes) philosophy classes. This generalizing from bits of experience to large groups seems to be a pattern of yours. Is it any wonder Muffti trusts not a word of what you say without more evidence than ‘I’ve been around a bit…’?
No problemo, you…you reactionary, you.
Well, like ck says, do whatever you want.
Just include me out.
We agree completely with respect to your final paragraph. This is the basic dividing line, complete faith that what we have is all from god versus faith or less faith that addresses the torah and halacha as man made.
And yes, at that point the question of how one applies our traditions and halacha to our lives becomes another dividing line between the Orthodox Jews and the rest of us.
Well, I simply cannot agree, TM. I guess you and I define respect differently.
I can respect the fact that the Reform say they respect the halacha, if respect means “OK, the fact that you say this is what you believe is registering audibly on my eardrums and I am aware that this is what you say you mean”. I mean, OK, so they say that they respect it. But it seems like nothing more or less than lip service. When the rubber meets the road, they reject the actual application of halacha to their lives more often than they follow it.
And it is precisely because they believe it is man-made and therefore subject to being radically revised, changed, ignored, or rejected that is the crucial issue separating the Orthodox from everyone else. The Orthodox obey because they believe it is commanded of them, not suggested that they do so.
I can’t speak for Reform rabbis, but the Conservative rabbis that I worked with, and my general impression while applying to JTS was that the movement very much respects Halacha. They don’t agree with Orthodox Jews about how Halacha has evolved or the Divinity of the Oral Law, but the respect and adherence to Halacha is obvious.
No Ephraim, they respect it. I respect it too but do not follow much of it. I can’t respect Buddhism and not follow its teachings? I can’t respect fiscal conservatives but support welfare? And the Reform rabbis I know do not do anything like what you’re describing in your Tokyo anecdote.
Seriously, you disagree with their philosophy? Fine. But stop dismissing it already, it’s just not serious.
No, but they DO reject it, TM. If they respected it they would follow it. How can you say you respect something and then turn around and do the opposite?
I once met a Refom “rabbi” who was visiting Tokyo. When he wasn’t stuffing his face with shrimp and saying he could do it because he was Reform, he was taking taxis and shopping on Shabbat after services.
Sorry, but respect that ain’t.
The problem I have with the justification of porn, especially when teens are involved (and 18-19 year olds are teens, I don’t care what your town/city by-laws state), is that it normalizes something that is very unhealhty. And instead of whacking off to these kids, we should be helping them. Not by preaching, but by doing many of the things the Torah already suggests.
Western culture needs Tzinut more now than ever before.
“Wow, that chick is in need of some hugs so she can stop with the self-mutilation.”
TM gets it.
Wow, that chick is in need of some hugs so she can stop with the self-mutilation.
TM,
The posts have less to do with matzah lady, and more to do with this one:
http://suicidegirls.com/girls/fenchurch/
Oh dammit, Shtreimel, must I now go visit there again?
Fine! If I must look at that awful photo again, I’ll make this grand sacrifice. Please note that if ck was on the ball, we would have posted it first. Ck, ayecha?
Ephraim, your post 135 is very different than 105, which was my point. Nobody rejected anything wholesale and nobody rejected anything for that matter. They look at halacha as man-made and another stream of thought within the long history of Judaism and its precursor, Israelite religion. But you are right that this is a point of breakdown for us in the sense that while I come at the halacha from a point of view of respect, you treat it as god-given. Vive la difference.
“Personally, I found that picture quite, uh, cracklingly delicious”
We all agree.
“And donรขโฌโขt understand the brouhaha.”
Mob said SG wasn’t a porn site. And then he got his ass handed to him. Funny thing is, it was one of the SG girls who said: “Of course it’s a porn site” And then Mob contacted her. You gotta read the comments dude.
Anyway, the whole thing spun out of control when I turned up the heat by discussing the shadowy parts of why people might pierce their genitals and put their photos on-line. From a clinical perspective, I see huge problems with this, but I’m not surprised that Muffti and Mob don’t.
Actually that should’ve read:
“Can’t get your pants off your waist”
Regardless. Mob and you look like horny teenage fools. And I’m enjoying the analogy between the resemblance b/w R2D2, yourself and your authority to say anything that would benefit human kind. Like I said, the philosophers that I’ve know were pretty morose characters. Not the sort of folks I’d turn to for advice on relationships and community building.
“Yes, and Shtremiel has helped by being, well, the kind of guy who tells charming little anecdotes about his life and then makes wild leaps towards absolute generality.”
Seems more than a few folks agree me with me Muffti (read the comments). Moreover, it would appear that Mob and yourself can’t get your pants around your wasit fast enough to charm these ladies. It’s kinda yuchy.
TM, all of your posts about Reform only serve to point up one central thing: that the Reform reject the binding authority of the halacha.
Since that is really all I have been saying all along, and since it is obvious that you agree, but simply think this is a good thing rather than a bad thing, I see no reason to discuss this further.
Facts are facts. It is the interpretation of them that matters.
Personally, I found that picture quite, uh, cracklingly delicious and don’t understand the brouhaha. She’s 18 and a soldier, therefore old enough to think and decide for herself. Obviously she rejects the idea of tzniut, but then again, maybe she is simply reveling in her….wait for it…
…god given body.
Yes, and Shtremiel has helped by being, well, the kind of guy who tells charming little anecdotes about his life and then makes wild leaps towards absolute generality. Then he tells anyone who points out obvious flaws in his reasoning to butt out. All the while he insults a woman who as far as Muffti can tell is about a million times more reasonable than he is. Oh right, and between the anecdotes and the straight up insults, he pronounces on the value of things like porn without bothering to argue for it.
But don’t listen to me. It’s just Muffti being Muffti. Check for yourself at jewschool. You’ll see a cute chick with strategicall placed matzah as a reward…
Being german and having a catholic father and a jewish mother I’m just wondering about all your concerns. benedict xvi is actually john paul iii. ratzinger is not at all more conservative than john paul (by the way i’d like to hear about all of john pauls reforms i read about in some previous artitcle). there are not going to be any changes. neither towards the jews nor towards any other religion or the catholics themselves. does anybody actually think that an african or latin american pope would be any different or even be more interested in allowing abortion or condoms? they are all very conservative. hey, it’s the catholic church…
Soft Porn vs. Art
“Shtreimel, you donรขโฌโขt know what youรขโฌโขre missing”
I’m busy over at Jewschool. Hell, I’m pushing the comments on the soft-porn vs. art discussion to almost 70. Mob should thank me. GM’s helped by being, well, Muffti.
Shtreimel, you don’t know what you’re missing. ๐
Seriously now, all I did was cut and paste information about Reform Judaism. Since so many of you believe it’s anathema to the Jewish people, why not take a moment to read and evaluate whether your views are accurate?
PS ck, you know that I keep having to look at the pic on this post and it remains absolutely hilarious. Instant classic.
“dude, itรขโฌโขs a blog, not an essay contest. Brevity, my friend, and more people will actually read what you write”
Bingo. And at times I commit this very sin. Actually, the ONLY long posts I take the time to read are by a dude named “J” on Jewschool. He’s worth it.
TM, just tell CK he doesn’t have to eat shrimpy fish sticks to avoid being a reactionary. Muffti thinks he’ll quit.
๐
Yeah! Fuck brevity!
Whatever, Laya. Fuck brevity. TM, your lack of brevity is refreshing to be honest and it’s good the way you take the time to flesh out arguments and provide data. If anyone should drop something, it’s CK with his goddamned fish sticks!
Just kidding CK. Keep up your anti-shrimp encrusted fish sticks. Clearly that’s the importantest issue of the day ๐
*sigh*
Okay, let’s address the fishsticks. Which post did I miss or not respond to earlier in the discussion?
TM mon ami – why you so literal? And why do u continue to ignore the fish sticks? And yes, I read with great interest and enjoyment everything you write.
Wait a minnit, ck. When you pray, do you not say “mechayei hametim?” Now who is the Jew for Jesus?
Ephraim,
The point of those posts, other than to finally put on this site something tangible so we can stop making incorrect generalities about Reform, is to show that Reform didn’t just wake up one morning and “reject Jewish tradition” or that it rejects halacha. It does neither.
You are right to state that Reform views halacha as man-made, and therefore another strand in the development of Judaism. However, where you perceive rejection and hostility, you may wish to consider that there is the respect due another aspect of our Judaic culture, traditions and history.
Your point about Ruth accepting halacha has forced you to type a lot but is still lost on me. Nowhere does she say this. She simply says “Your God is my God.” Boom! Ta da! Whoohoo! She’s an Israelite. She is accepted as one by Naomi and as one by Boaz, right?
So she’s taking on the customs of the Israelites. This is before Judaism existed, right? This is Israelite religion, a precursor to Judaism (and Christianity for that matter). Judaism is what happens in the first century of the Common Era and is, in part, directly related to the destruction of the Temple. Right? Halacha is finally put on parchment 300 years later, right? So Ruth is not taking on “halacha” but is saying that she will join the family of Naomi and live by their customs. That’s it, Ephraim. That is all we see in the story.
My point was that in today’s Orthodox conversion process, she would be rejected much like any devout Conservative convert would be rejected. She would be forced to undergo training and a lifestyle change, much as the Ethiopian Jews were forced to “convert” when they arrived in Israel with their arguably purer form of Judaic practice than any Hasid could claim.
As for the elders at the gate…you may wish to research Near Eastern societies a bit because they all have elders. To this day, you will find that in many cultures around the world, elders are accorded status within the community. So Boaz, who had already accepted Ruth as one of his people, went to the elders to receive approval to bring her into the tribe or larger family to which he belonged. Did she have to come and prove that she knew her traditions? Nope. Did she have to practice as an Orthodox Jew for a year or two? Nope. Was there a serious questioning of her committment for their customs? Nope. Boaz came and asked and the elders said yes.
For all we know, Boaz may have been a wealthy man who wanted Ruth for a wife. After mouths started yapping about his unconventional wife, he decided to put a stop to it. So he went to the elders, gave them some bakshish and got them to say yes. Then he commissioned a scribe to put the story on parchment so that it would receive another mark of quality and so that she would be remembered as an Israelite in the future and his children would be part of the clan. How is this story I’ve just made up any different than any story you tell me about a beit din? At least mine is based upon the facts while you have to invent facts.
ck, this is the problem with not using emoticons, perhaps my sarcasm is not always clear. I was not serious about the two of you watching me like a hawk. As far as I know, you don’t even read what I write any more. Much to your relief. [insert emoticon of your choice here]
Laya, #109, it’s like shooting ducks in a pond. Why don’t you – and I say this in the nicest way possible – put a smile on your face and try to enjoy. Really, I can be fun. I promise.
Yisrael, I don’t agree with your comment #93 because it presupposes certain actions and only certain actions as reactionary. So if you have Vatican II and then 30 years later the American Catholic Church begins to show some openness to, say, birth control or divorce, and then a Pope says that he adheres to Vatican II but rejects any movement towars birth control or divorce, then he is not being reactionary? In my opinion, he is.
Likewise for our 3 musketeers. It is not that they believe Jews should be held to higher standards than Orthodox that makes them reactionary, it is that they reject other streams of Judaism that offer different interpretations, not to mention that it appears they also reject changes in Modern Orthodoxy such as the whole premarital sex issue.
It is by adhering to a stringent interpretation of a dogma/ideal/practice when parts of your people have taken on newer customs that seem to replace your stringent interpretation, that you become reactionary. How prevalent was birth control in 1964? Was Roe v. Wade an issue in 1964? And yet, because of those two developments, Catholic Americans suddenly had different options. Divorce was also not as prevalent back then and was not a serious societal issue. It became one. By addressing the issue in a manner that rejects any change whatsoever, Ratzinger proves himself a reactionary.
Hmmm…
Jews For Jesus dot Org
What? You refuse to believe in Jesus cuz yer Jewish? REACTIONARY!
๐
TM wrote:
We affirm that Torah is the foundation of Jewish life.
We cherish the truths revealed in Torah, G-dรขโฌโขs ongoing revelation to our people and the record of our peopleรขโฌโขs ongoing relationship with G-d.
Uh… so how do we explain reform’s “kosher” shrimp encrusted fish sticks?
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Why do we keep avoiding the fish sticks issue? Thanks to godhatesshrimp.com
dude, it’s a blog, not an essay contest. Brevity, my friend, and more people will actually read what you write.
Here is the program of study for Reform rabbis.
Question 18.4.17:
Fallacy: Reform Jews do not observe Shabbat
Gates of the Seasons, the American Reform Movement’s guide to the Jewish Year, views Shabbat as a unique Jewish contribution to civilization, and a central activity to surviving the forces of assimilation and corruption. As such, it calls out the following mitzvot for Reform Jews:
A-1
The Mitzvah of Shabbat Observance
It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married, young or old, to observe Shabbat. The unique status of Shabbat is demonstrated by its being the only one of the holy days to be mentioned in the Ten Commandments. … Shabbat observance involves both positive and negative mitzvot, i.e., doing and refraining from doing.
A-2
The Mitzvah of Joy
IT is a mitzvah to take delight in Shabbat observance, as Isaiah said, “You shall call Shabbat a deligh”. Oneg implies celebration and relaxation, sharing time with loved ones, enjoying the beauty of nature, eating a leisurely meal made special with conviviality and song, visiting with friends and relatives, taking a leisurely stroll, reading, and listening to music.
A-3
The Mitzvah of Sanctification
It is a mitzvah to hallow Shabbat by setting it apart from the other days of the week. … Shabbat must be distinguished from the other days of the week so that those who observe it may be transformed by its holiness.
A-4
The Mitzvah of Rest
It is a mitzvah to rest on Shabbat. However, Shabbat rest (menuchah) implies much more than refraining from work. The concept of Shabbat rest includes both physical relaxation and tranquility of mind and spirit. On Shabbat, one deliverately turns away from weekday pressures and activities.
A-5
The Mitzvah of refraining from work
It is a mitzvah to refrain from work on Shabbat…Abstinence from work is a major expression of Shabbat observance; however, it is no simple matter to define work today. Certain activities that some do to earn a living, others do for relaxation or to express their creativity. Clearly, though, one should avoid one’s normal occupation or profession on Shabbat whenever possible and engage only in those types of activities that enhance the joy, rest, and holiness of the day.
See Gates of the Seasons for additional details. Note support for Shabbat is also in the 1999 Statement of Principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html), which says:
We bring Torah into the world when we seek to sanctify the times and places of our lives through regular home and congregational observance. Shabbat calls us to bring the highest moral values to our daily labor and to culminate the workweek with (kedushah), holiness, (menuchah), rest and (oneg), joy.
Fallacy: Reform Jews (RJs) choose practice based solely on convenience
The 1976 Centenary Statement (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html), adopted in 1976 stated:
“Judaism emphasizes action rather than creed as the primary expression of a religious life, the means by which we strive to achieve universal justice and peace. Reform Judaism shares this emphasis on duty and obligation. Our founders stressed that the Jew’s ethical responsibilities, personal and social, are enjoined by G-d. The past century has taught us that the claims made upon us may begin with our ethical obligations but they extend to many other aspects of Jewish living, including: creating a Jewish home centered on family devotion; life-long study; private prayer and public worship; daily religious observance; keeping the Sabbath and the holy days; celebrating the major events of life; involvement with the synagogue and community; and other activities which promote the survival of the Jewish people and enhance its existence. Within each area of Jewish observance Reform Jews are called upon to confront the claims of Jewish tradition, however, differently perceived, and to exercise their individual autonomy, choosing and creating on the basis of commitment and knowledge.”
The 1999 Statement of Principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html) says:
We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of (mitzvot) and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community [Emph. added by editor]. Some of these (mitzvot), sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the unique context of our own times.
From same source:
Reform’s Position On…The authority of Talmud?
[Based on material in Contemporary American Reform Responsa by Rabbi Walter Jacob, publ. by CCAR]:
Reform Judaism views the rabbinic past as a historical development. The “Oral Law” is not seen as divinely given at Sinai, but rather as a reflection of Judaism’s historic development and encounter with G-d in each succeeding generation. In this, Reform follows Zunz, Geiger, Frankel, Graetz, and others in viewing G-d working through human agents. Reform believes that each generation has produced capable and religiously inspired teachers (this means that Reform rejects the often expressed view that assigns greater holiness to those who lived in the past). Some individuals of our generation may equal or exceed those of the past.
Historical and sociological studies of the rabbinic literature during the last two centuries have illuminated it. Reform Judaism view this vast literature as the product of human reaction to varying needs motivated by religious thought and the divine impulse. Reform Judaism feels no necessity to justify each segment of the literature in terms of every other portion as done through hidushim and pilpul. Reform sees the differences among Talmudic and later authorities as reflections of particular points of view, different understandings of the divine mandate, as well as the needs of specific groups within their Jewish communities.
When Reform Judaism analyzes each period of history, it discovers different strands in the halakhah. These appear both in the decisions and underlying philosophy. Traditional Judaism has chosen a single path and rejected the others, but we recall the existence of the other paths and the fact that they were suggested and followed by loyal Jews in the past. Reform Judaism feels that diversity has always been the hallmark of our literature and our people. Thus, when Reform finds itself facing new situations, it turns both to the mainstream of rabbinic thought as well as its divergent paths for halakhic guidance. In Reform’s view, the halakhah is a vast repository whose old debates are often relevant to new situations.
Sometimes the solutions of Reform Judaism may parallel those of past generations. On other occasions, Reform diverges from them. Through this effort, Reform Judaism seeks solutions for generations living in lands distant and distinct from those of the ancient Near East or medieval Europe.
Reform Judaism recognizes that not every question can be resolved by reviewing the rabbinic literature; in some instances, totally new legislation is appropriate. That may be buttressed by rabbinic precedent.
Reform and Torah – from the same link
The 1937 Columbus Platform of Reform Jewry (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/columbus.html) expressed the position that Torah results from the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people. The records of our earliest confrontations are uniquely important to us. Lawgivers and prophets, historians and poets gave us a heritage whose study is a religious imperative and whose practice is our chief means to holiness. Rabbis and teachers, philosophers and mystics, gifted Jews in every age amplified the Torah tradition. For millennia, the creation of the Torah has not ceased and Jewish creativity in our time is adding to the chain of tradition.
The platform went on to say that G-d is revealed not only in the majesty, beauty and orderliness of nature, but also in the vision and moral striving of the human spirit. Revelation is a continuous process, confined to no one group and to no one age. Yet, the people of Israel, through its prophets and sages, achieved unique insight in the realm of religious truth. The Torah, both written and oral, enshrines Israel’s ever-growing consciousness of G-d and of the moral law. It preserves the historical precedents, sanctions and norms of Jewish life, and seeks to mold it in the patterns of goodness and of holiness. Being products of historical processes, certain of its laws have lost their binding force with the passing of the conditions that called them forth. But as a repository of permanent spiritual ideals, the Torah remains the dynamic source of life of Israel. Each age has the obligation to adapt the teachings of the Torah to its basic needs in consonance with the genius of Judaism
This position is echoed again in the current (1999) statement of principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html), which says:
We affirm that Torah is the foundation of Jewish life.
We cherish the truths revealed in Torah, G-d’s ongoing revelation to our people and the record of our people’s ongoing relationship with G-d.
We affirm that Torah is a manifestation of (ahavat olam), G-d’s eternal love for the Jewish people and for all humanity.
We affirm the importance of studying Hebrew, the language of Torah and Jewish liturgy, that we may draw closer to our people’s sacred texts.
We are called by Torah to lifelong study in the home, in the synagogue and in every place where Jews gather to learn and teach. Through Torah study we are called to (mitzvot), the means by which we make our lives holy.
I am cutting and pasting from that link:
What, if any, are the fundamental principles of Reform?
The fundamental principles of today’s Reform movement are captured in the Statement of Principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html) adopted by the CCAR in May 1999. The following are some excepts from that statement, modified slightly for FAQ presentation (e.g., “We” was changed to “Reform Jews”, etc.). Note that the principles of Reform have changed over time, from the 1855 Pittsburgh Platform (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/pittsburgh.html) to the 1937 Columbus Platform (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/columbus.html), to the 1976 Centenary Perspective (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html), to the 1999 Statement of Principles.
G-d
Reform Jews affirm the reality and oneness of G-d, even as we may differ in our understanding of the Divine presence.
Reform Jews affirm that the Jewish people is bound to G-d by an eternal b’rit, covenant, as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation, Revelation and Redemption.
Reform Jews affirm that every human being is created b’tzelem Elohim, in the image of G-d, and that therefore every human life is sacred.
Reform Jews regard with reverence all of G-d’s creation and recognize our human responsibility for its preservation and protection.
Reform Jews encounter G-d’s presence in moments of awe and wonder, in acts of justice and compassion, in loving relationships and in the experiences of everyday life.
Reform Jews respond to G-d daily: through public and private prayer, through study and through the performance of other mitzvot, sacred obligations — bein adam la Makom, to G-d, and bein adam la-chaveiro, to other human beings.
Reform Jews strive for a faith that fortifies us through the vicissitudes of our lives — illness and healing, transgression and repentance, bereavement and consolation, despair and hope.
Reform Jews continue to have faith that, in spite of the unspeakable evils committed against our people and the sufferings endured by others, the partnership of G-d and humanity will ultimately prevail.
Reform Jews trust in our tradition’s promise that, although G-d created us as finite beings, the spirit within us is eternal.
Torah
Reform Jews affirm that Torah is the foundation of Jewish life.
Reform Jews cherish the truths revealed in Torah, G-d’s ongoing revelation to our people and the record of our people’s ongoing relationship with G-d.
Reform Jews affirm that Torah is a manifestation of ahavat olam, G-d’s eternal love for the Jewish people and for all humanity.
Reform Jews affirm the importance of studying Hebrew, the language of Torah and Jewish liturgy, that we may draw closer to our people’s sacred texts.
Reform Jews are called by Torah to lifelong study in the home, in the synagogue and in every place where Jews gather to learn and teach. Through Torah study Reform Jews are called to mitzvot, the means by which we make our lives holy.
Reform Jews are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of mitzvot and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community. Some of these mitzvot, sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the unique context of our own times.
Reform Jews bring Torah into the world when we seek to sanctify the times and places of our lives through regular home and congregational observance. Shabbat calls us to bring the highest moral values to our daily labor and to culminate the workweek with kedushah, holiness, menuchah, rest and oneg, joy. The High Holy Days call us to account for our deeds. The Festivals enable us to celebrate with joy our people’s religious journey in the context of the changing seasons. The days of remembrance remind us of the tragedies and the triumphs that have shaped our people’s historical experience both in ancient and modern times. And we mark the milestones of our personal journeys with traditional and creative rites that reveal the holiness in each stage of life.
Reform Jews bring Torah into the world when we strive to fulfill the highest ethical mandates in our relationships with others and with all of G-d’s creation. Partners with G-d in tikkun olam, repairing the world, we are called to help bring nearer the messianic age. We seek dialogue and joint action with people of other faiths in the hope that together we can bring peace, freedom and justice to our world. We are obligated to pursue tzedek, justice and righteousness, and to narrow the gap between the affluent and the poor, to act against discrimination and oppression, to pursue peace, to welcome the stranger, to protect the earth’s biodiversity and natural resources, and to redeem those in physical, economic and spiritual bondage. In so doing, we reaffirm social action and social justice as a central prophetic focus of traditional Reform Jewish belief and practice. We affirm the mitzvah of tzedakah, setting aside portions of our earnings and our time to provide for those in need. These acts bring us closer to fulfilling the prophetic call to translate the words of Torah into the works of our hands.
Israel
Reform Jews are Israel, a people aspiring to holiness, singled out through our ancient covenant and our unique history among the nations to be witnesses to G-d’s presence. We are linked by that covenant and that history to all Jews in every age and place.
Reform Jews are committed to the mitzvah of ahavat Yisrael, love for the Jewish people, and to k’lal Yisrael, the entirety of the community of Israel. Recognizing that kol Yisrael arevim zeh ba-zeh, all Jews are responsible for one another, we reach out to all Jews across ideological and geographical boundaries.
Reform Jews embrace religious and cultural pluralism as an expression of the vitality of Jewish communal life in Israel and the Diaspora.
Reform Jews pledge to fulfill Reform Judaism’s historic commitment to the complete equality of women and men in Jewish life.
Reform Jews are an inclusive community, opening doors to Jewish life to people of all ages, to varied kinds of families, to all regardless of their sexual orientation, to gerim, those who have converted to Judaism, and to all individuals and families, including the intermarried, who strive to create a Jewish home.
Reform Jews believe that we must not only open doors for those ready to enter our faith, but also to actively encourage those who are seeking a spiritual home to find it in Judaism.
Reform Jews are committed to strengthening the people Israel by supporting individuals and families in the creation of homes rich in Jewish learning and observance.
Reform Jews are committed to strengthening the people Israel by making the synagogue central to Jewish communal life, so that it may elevate the spiritual, intellectual and cultural quality of our lives.
Reform Jews are committed to Medinat Yisrael, the State of Israel, and rejoice in its accomplishments. We affirm the unique qualities of living in Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel, and encourage aliyah, immigration to Israel.
Reform Jews are committed to a vision of the State of Israel that promotes full civil, human and religious rights for all its inhabitants and that strives for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Reform Jews are committed to promoting and strengthening Progressive Judaism in Israel, which will enrich the spiritual life of the Jewish state and its people.
Reform Jews affirm that both Israeli and Diaspora Jewry should remain vibrant and interdependent communities. As we urge Jews who reside outside Israel to learn Hebrew as a living language and to make periodic visits to Israel in order to study and to deepen their relationship to the Land and its people, so do we affirm that Israeli Jews have much to learn from the religious life of Diaspora Jewish communities.
Reform Jews are committed to furthering Progressive Judaism throughout the world as a meaningful religious way of life for the Jewish people.
OK, TM, from your link:
Since the non-traditional viewpoint is that the the Torah itself was written by people, both the interpretation of the Law and its application are re-evaluated in each generation, using the interpretations of the past to serve primarily as non-binding guidance in how to continue this process (emphasis added).
That sounds pretty much like: “We know what the people in the past said, and while we might respect what they said, we feel no particular need to follow anything they said, since we believe that their decisions are non-binding, i.e., we are free not to observe it.”
This is not a rejection of tradition? I suppose you see it as a veneration of tradition combined with modern flexilbility, but I do not see it that way at all. So, same fact, different interpretation.
And regarding Ruth, let me turn your question back at you: If Ruth was not accepting the yoke the commandments when she said “your G-d will be my G-d” what do you think she meant?
My point about the elders in the gate was not that they were a Beit Din as we would understand it today, bu they functioned as what we would call a Beit Din. If they did not, what purpose was served by Boaz going to speak to them about Ruth, and why was their opinion important, as it so obviously was?
I never said that the conversion process took place then exactly as it takes place today. However, it is quite obvious that there was a definite procedure for this and that the elders of the community, who presumably were the learned members of the community, had to give their approval for it to be accepted. If not, the whole story doesn’t make sense. However, while I am sure that our rabbi wl be able to direct me to sources that support my contention once I have time to talk to im about this, I am equally sure that you will reject them as man-made and self-serving, so I suppose there isn’t much point.
Anyway, the whole point of Orthodoxy is that there is a recognized tradition and that it is followed. This tradition develops and changes, but only within certain parameters, and they don’t include saying “we respect the sages and will use their views as a guide, but since our modern world is what it is, we have decided, upon re-evaluating the applicaton in our generation, that the situation demands that we abandon traditional Shabbat observance”. The minute that happens, one steps outside of that tradition.
Anyway, I am speaking of Refom as an institution. There may very well be people who call themselves Reform who are quite observant. I have personally not met any, but I am willing to entertan the idea that they exist. However, it is clear that Reform as an institution rejects the binding nature of the halacha, and this means that they reject it. I don’t see how you can put any other meaning on it.
Oy TM. Seriously man. I am not watching like a hawk. I’m not Mr. Kiruv dude trying to convert the masses. Ephraim’s interpretations are based on old, ancient and widely accepted interpretation. But whatever – seriously, do whatever you like. Your seder sounds like it was awesome and I totally wish you and your friends and family nothing but the best. I know very well how committed you are to Judaism and said committment is nothing short of inspirational.
And when you’re ready to deal with the fish sticks in a serious manner… let me know.
tm said Laya, itรขโฌโขs not important enough for me to waste the time, especially in light of the ridiculous response you gave the last time I answered you in detail. I find it amusing that you are so concerned with me admitting that Iรขโฌโขm wrong somewhere. Perhaps you should be focusing on your own personal flaws rather than your perception of mine? Just a suggestionรขโฌยฆ
dude. chill out. seriously. you are being way too anal about this…maybe all that matza is making you a little batty.
I’m sorry, ck, I know it was a fine rebuttal by Ephraim, but I had to stop reading it after the first couple of points.
1. It specifically rejects Jewish tradition. Shabbat, kashrut, etc. all get thrown out, since they are not “modern” and “scientific”.
2. When Ruth says “your G-d will be my G-d”, what she is doing is making a public declaration that she will abide by the halacha
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I read through the rest of it and could respond to it, but I thought we had better clear up these two issues first.
Ephraim, would you kindly explain those two statements above. I’m specifically looking for information showing that Reform Judaism (and I am not Reform, don’t forget) rejects Jewish tradition. That Reform “throws out shabbat, kashrut, etc.” and that it does so because they are not modern or scientific.
When you are done, Ephraim, assuming you can do this, which in my opinion would make you a chacham (sage) – and by the way, here’s a good place to begin your research – please show me how you know that Ruth was making a public declaration that she was following halacha or that the men at the gates – the elders – were a beit din.
Once we get over those tiny little obstacles, I might – and I say this with great trepidation, knowing that you and ck will be watching like hawks – be able to address your other, extraordinary, points.
Well, you set the bar pretty high, ck. Gotta keep up and show the flag.
BTW, do you have your mother’s recipe for Pesach vegetable soup? My wife wouldn’t care if she never ate another piece of meat again, so I am always on the lookout for Jewlicious vegetarian recipes, especially for Pesach.
Well put Ephraim. I await the rebuttal ….
Is it (Reform) not based upon Jewish laws and traditions?
Ummmm…..no, it isn’t. It specifically rejects Jewish tradition. Shabbat, kashrut, etc. all get thrown out, since they are not “modern” and “scientific”. As I keep saying, just because Jews do it doesn’t mean it’s Jewish. Who needs this kind of “Judaism”?
When Ruth says “your G-d will be my G-d”, what she is doing is making a public declaration that she will abide by the halacha, that is, she will keep Shabbat, etc. Boaz took her case to the elders, that is, the Beit Din. In those times, the elders of the community (the Beit Din) gathered in the gate and heard cases and rendered decisions. They were convinced of her commitment and dedication, so the conversion was accepted. And if “the Rabbis” had rejected Ruth and her descendents, her story would never have made it into the canon. The Orthodox understanding of this story is not that she just showed up, said “I’d like to be a Jew” and everybody said “cool”; it is that she underwent a public and official conversion ceremony as it existed at that time. The text itself alludes to this. Just because the text doesn’t contain the word “rabbi” doesn’t mean that there was not an accepted formula for this type of thing.
The key is that she said “your G-d will be my G-d”. She accepted upon herself the “yoke of the commandments”. That makes her a ger tzedek. This has always been the bedrock for an Ortodox conversion. And since conversion is a halachic phenomenon, how can there be such a thing as a “conversion” by people who do not accept the halacha but rather specifically reject it? It is a contradiction in terms.
You have to understand that the Orthodox view is that the people in the Tanach are all holy people. They were closer in time to the Revelation at Sinai, therefore they were more, not less, aware of what Hashem really wanted. This is really essential to understanding the Orthodox perspective on such things. The idea that a modern Orthodox rabbi would reject Ruth’s conversion is absurd.
Regarding the Reform understanding of “Jewish tradition”, I can’t count the number of times I have heard Reform people say “Well, kashrut was just an ancient health measure since everybody knew that if you ate pork you got trichinosis; since we have refrigeration and modern scientific health methods now, we don’t need to abstain any longer”. The depth of ignorance shown by such a statement is just, well, mind-boggling. Kashrut is not a health code. But since modern Reform “scientific Biblical criticism”, based on modern scientific advances in philosophy or whatever, has simply decided that it is (the real reason being that they simply want to find a way to eat trayf), this becomes the basis for jettisoning everything in the Jewish tradition that is specifically Jewish.
This rejection is not based on anything from within the tradition; since they start with the idea that these things must fall by the wayside in order for the Jews to assimilate and acculturate to gentile society, they therefore must find reasons to get rid of what they find inconvenient. It is very much like Christianity, which redfined what the Messaih was supposed to be because Jesus din’t fit the traditional definition. Jesus had to be the Messiah, therefore we will start from that and redefine everything in relation to this assumption. The Reform had to get rid of Shabbat and kashrut in order to assimilate as they wanted, therefore they simply made up reasons to do so and pretended that they were “scientific”.
This is not “evolution from within the tradition”. It is a wholesale rejection of it.
As long as you leave the cheeseburger at the door.
TM– Thanks, and likewise! Looking over the above posts again, I think Yisrael (#93) is right on target.
You all have quite a site goin’ here. Lots of insight and intelligent comment, and not just on B16, of course. I closely follow a range of issues re Israel, Mideast politics, and Judaism, so I’ll be back often…..
Do fries and a shake come with that membership?
Tom, you are more than welcome to leave comments such as these because we’re all learnin’ here.
Now trust me on this, it wasn’t the Pope who sowed discord among my fellow Jews. Not at all. ๐
Oh, and if you’ve actually read this entire discussion, you get an honorary Jewlicious membership.
Hmm, I’m not sure if I should leave a comment… I’m a Roman Catholic who’s checking out the non-Catholic take on B 16. From the looks of most of these comments, he seems to have unwittingly sowed discord among our Jewish brothers and sisters. As Elvis Costello once said, what’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?
I do think the view of Ratzinger as fossil is off-base. Most of the clerics he’s come down on are pretty clearly off the reservation, e.g. some Zambian (I think) bishop who got married in the Unification Church. (Poor career move.) This is one of the core differences between Judaism, with its various branches, and Catholicism: for better or worse, we’ve got a bouncer at our nightclub. Now we’ve made the bouncer the bartender. Can he make the transition? Time will tell, but to portray him as Grand Inquisitor just plays into media stereotypes.
Thanks for the solicitude for poor Catholics like me. Who knows how it’ll turn out for us.
As for the Jews? They’ve got nothing to worry about.
Laya, it’s not important enough for me to waste the time, especially in light of the ridiculous response you gave the last time I answered you in detail. I find it amusing that you are so concerned with me admitting that I’m wrong somewhere. Perhaps you should be focusing on your own personal flaws rather than your perception of mine? Just a suggestion…
Ck, #96 is a very interesting comment in light of your assertions that you’re not a reactionary. Now tell me, how is Reform not directly related to Judaism? The change is too great for you so you reject it as the monster child of another tradition? Is it not based upon Jewish laws and traditions? Does it not try to combine an understanding of the world as it was then in relation to traditional Judaism? Just because you reject it as unacceptable Jewish evolution doesn’t mean it came from without. On the contrary, it came from within but was influenced from societal and technological changes that impacted most segments of most European societies they touched.
Wait, why sorry Michael? I’m an Orthodox Jew. I think Reform is, like, total kefirah. But it still was implimented by Jews. Just…Jews who wanted to be goyim.
TM said Laya, you could be using your commenting and posting time to search for a place where I admit Iรขโฌโขm wrong.
Why would i possibly waste my time looking for what i believe ISN’T there? Trudging through each one of your comments is no small task, it’s not like you’re the king of brevity. If you believe you said you were proven wrong (and not in a kidding way) at some point, then you are in a better position to remember where. Like I said Middle, it’s your ascertation, it’s your burden of proof. Sorry.
from what I’ve read, the Reform movement was motivated by trying to understand Judaism from the outside. IE, how do German, Italian, Greek, philosophers think about the written and oral Torah.
The reforms instituted by Reform Judaism were so beyond the fold, so outside the purview of acceptable Judaic evolution, that they do not represent an internal development. In that respect Reform Judaism is as valid as Jewish practitioners of Jews for Jesus. Sorry Michael – and keep in mind, it is I who determines who you will be rooming with in Israel …
Reform, I guess, would be an internal development brought on by external pressure. Jews did so goyim would find them more acceptable. I don’t know if that makes ck a reactionary or not.
Muffti isn’t sure, CK. You objected, for example, to the liberalization of conversion. Is that internal to or external to the system? The distinction isn’t very clear to Muffti to be honest. Is reform Judaism an internal development that you reject or an external development? There are an awful lot of self-serving ways to draw this line that will indeed protect you from being a reactionary, but at pain of making the denial of the label trivial…
I don’t think ck, laya, ephraim, or Ratzinger are reactionaries. In ck, laya, and ephraim’s case, it would require believing that Jews should generally be held to stricter standards than are currently accepted by the orthodox. I have heard no such opinion expressed. In Ratzinger’s case, he would have to reject Vatican II and its progeny like certain so-called traditionalists who are approaching (or crossed into) schism with the Catholic Church. He has taken no such position. The comparison is accurate in that each are relatively orthodox within their broader faith communities, but neither is reactionary.
TM: To be clear – Ruth is Jewish because at the time, the process she went through, which included seeking and gaining approval from the community, was fine. Things changed since then – Jews were thrown into exile, their existence, both physical and almost as importantly, spiritual, was not a given. Innovations were thus instituted in the conversion process to take into account the fact that we were now a people in exile surrounded by non-Jews, some of whom may express a desire to convert but without the undoubted love of Judaism and sincerity expressed by Ruth. These innovations sought to make sure that only the most committed would convert and not weaken our already vulnerable corpus. It would be nice to go back to the old system, but times have irreversibly changed.
As for this continuously uninformed notion that we are reactionaries – you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word. Lets put it this way… Rabbis decided that one can use a baby carriage on Shabbat if there is an eiruv. If we were reactionaries we could decide that we are uncomfortable with this liberal halachic development and advocate a return to a time when a baby carriage was considered muktsah and couldn’t be used on the sabbath. Why would a baby carriage be considered thus? Well, what if a wheel fell off while you were using it on shabbat? You might be tempted to fix it rather than to abandon it and carry your child. But anyhow, that would be reactionary.
Resisting change that developped OUTSIDE the system is not reactionary. Just as shrimp encrusted fish sticks have nothing to do with Judaism, so to do many of the reforms instituted by Reform and Conservative authorities. I mean they are free to practice as they wish, and call it what they like, but it’s not the kind of Judaism we have ever practiced.
It’s like Jews for Jesus! If I resist their “reforms” does that make me reactionary? They call their practice Judaism, and they are free to do so and practice any way they wish, but I don’t think I am being close minded when I refuse to have anything to do with them. Jesus as a Jewish messiah is as treif as reform judaism sanctioned shrimp encrusted fish sticks.
Please note the correlation between reform from within the system (opposition to that is reactionary) and reform outside the purview of the system (opposition to that is not at all reactionary).
Otherwise I would urge you to explore the history of the term reactionary with its roots in post-french revolutionary France. You’ll see that a nuanced and informed understanding of the term would not allow one to make the outrageous comparison between myself and others of my ilk and Ratzinger. In fact, let me make it easy for you: a nice wikipedia history of reaction. Read it carefully. If you continue to insist on your erroneous use of the term, please address the salient points I’ve made. You continue to ignore the fish sticks issue as well… don’t think I haven’t noticed that.
Laya, you could be using your commenting and posting time to search for a place where I admit I’m wrong.
Now on to the ridiculous assertions:
Did Ruth convert? Was there some sort of conversion rabbinical court? Or rather, did she do, a la Bronfman, an I-love-Israelite-culture thingy and consider herself part of the nation?
“Do not urge me to leave you, or to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die and be buried.”
Ta da!! She was of the Israelites and a monotheist. There was absolutely no official process whatsoever. At some point, Boaz goes to the gates to tell the men there that he’s taking her as his wife, and they agree.
So I bring this story up, point out that the current system, in which you three reactionaries believe, completely negates the flexibility and openness a BIBLICAL story like this reveals, and you try this poorly thought out argument that somehow I’m refuting myself because you went from total flexibility to no flexibility about 1700 – 2000 years ago.
Who are you kidding? Yourselves?
You make this claim on behalf of a system that doesn’t allow Jews who have lived as Jews for thousands of years to move to Israel as Jews without being forced to “convert” according to your inflexible strictures. You make this claim on the basis of a system that has been locked in essentially since the halacha was put down on paper. Sure, people can seek responses for modern issues within the context of halacha, but not outside of it.
So how about some integrity that it isn’t progressive or liberal thinking that changed laws so that what happened to Ruth couldn’t happen again. Rather, it was the creation of Judaism, subsequent to the demise of Israelite religion, that changed things. It’s because, at one point about 1700 -2000 years ago, a set of rules was put down on parchment and you reactionaries who would reject Ruth – King David’s foremother – today unless she converted with an Orthodox rabbinical court, adhere to them still even though times have changed, science has changed the world, Israel was founded, and Judaism has splintered into a number of groups with differing philosophies.
So again: you have an inflexible system that is born of an era completely different from our times. You like this system. You live by this system. When somebody wants things to change to suit a modern interpretation of this system, you reject it because it goes against the system. You do this even if it costs you or others a severe price (difficulties finding spouses; forcing good Jews to convert if they’re, say, Ethiopian; forcing good converts to reconvert; forcing women wishing a divorce to wait until the husband is good and ready; etc.). The only time you consider change is when it is related to the halacha.
I’m not saying this is bad or good, I am saying that sticking to it makes you no different than this pope.
Now really, it’s okay for Laya to be saying this stuff. She’s a bit younger. But ck and Ephraim, with your life experience…to say you’re not reactionaries while then commenting about how everything must be done on the basis of halacha regardless of consequences…
Really now.
laya and ck:
You are both truly Jewlicious (and much more patient than I am).
TM:
Like I said, you just don’t understand how halacha evolves. I am absolutely sure that you know that melacha is not “work”. It is melacha, “creative labor”, from which Hashem desisted on Shabbat.
You know, of curse, that the rabbis defined 39 categories of for the purpose of defining what is and is not allowed on Shabbat. Every new thing, such as an internal combusiton engine or an electric light bulb, is examined and catregorized according to these 39 categories and their derivations. Therefore, since starting an internal combustion engine involves some of these 39 categories, it is forbidden.
This has nothing to do with how difficult or easy something is for the individual performing it. Is “work” on Shabbat that which is difficult? That which requires great physical exertion or the use of tools? That for which you get paid? That which you do not enjoy? No. It is melacha.
And, yeah, laya is right: if Shabbat restrictions from 3,000 years ago are no longer valid because they’re, you know, reactionary, how come conversion practices from 3,000 years ago are not also reactionary?
Your definition of “reactionary” is whaever cramps your style. It’s a pretty lazy definition.
Excellent post CK.
*sigh*
Both Muffti and TM’s understanding of what “reactionary” means, as well as Ratzinger’s perception of the evolution of Catholicism is so simple minded that I can’t believe that not one but two people, blinded by their ideological biases, fail to see how uninformed they both are.
Ratzinger is a true reactionary because he opposes reforms that have already occured within the system he seeks to define and shape. This makes him more than just conservative and suspicious of change, it makes him extremely conservative and a dictionary definition of reactionary. Look it up at dictionary.com.
I don’t hate change – I welcome it. The ability to change and evolve is what makes Judaism so attractive and compelling to me. All I hope for is that such change is systemic and internal. Thus if the laws of circumcision or kashrut were to be altered by a foreign government, I would resist such change. Not because I automatically resist all change, but because this change was instituted by an external body that has nothing to do with the Judaism I practice.
Similarly, if mt friend Steve decided on his own that the concept of Pilegshut deserves a revival, and declared, contrary to common wisdom, that married Jewish men ought to be able to have as many sex partners as they wish, I’d be all – cool steve. do what you like, but you are in no position to make such a change in Judaism. That would not make me a reactionary.
Finally, if Reform Judaism, in a misguided attempt to deal with the challenge of Jewish emancipation decides to remove all reference to Israel from their liturgy, have their rabbis dress like protestant priests and dispense with thousands of years of accrued wisdom and practice, well thats cool but it simply isn’t Judaism. It’s change based on external pressures and done outside the purview of the way Judaism functions and evolves. So I don’t follow that tradition but that doesn’t make me a reactionary.
Judaism has a well established history of evolution which I relish. Your example of Ruth converting without the benefit of rabbinic supervision is a perfect example of laws evolving in order to take into account things like exile, the destruction of the temples and all attendant evolution.
Call me a reactionary. Sheesh. Please look into how badly both your ideological biases color your ability to comprehend the simplest word.
see here’s the funny thing TM, in one breath you say a law made 3,000 years ago about what constitues “work” on shabbat is no longer valid because it could not take into account our modern world, then in the next breath you say that which constitued a valid conversion 3,000 years ago should still be considered valid, and modern reformations on that should not apply.
And wow, for a guy so adimit about having no time today, you still seem to be commenting a lot. Just sayin.
Yeah, thanks a lot Muffti. You sure were there for me when I needed you. [insert emoticon of The Middle strangling Muffti]
ARRRRRR!!!!!!
(gnash, chomp……)
The Muffti has no issues whatsoever. None. He’s issue free, ok? So stop bugging him. HE HAS NO GODDAMN ISSUES!
To clear up an issue no one cares about, Muffti was trying to be funny, kind of. He just meant that Ratzinger seems like a reactionary, just the way CK does: a straightforward rejection of proposed changes to halacha or liberalization of the way we view our relationship to God and the Torah. That’s cool and all; the Catholics are doing it too. Muffti was just pointing out that there is an analogy there. (Kudos, TM, for bringing forth the dictionary definitions. For once we can bring an authority in on the matter to settle something that we can ALL agree on!) And nice job on the passive aggressiveness, TM. Similarly, Ephraim, nice work on the aggressive- (errr?) aggressive front.
I don’t “advocate” anything. I don’t pretend to have the answers and understand quite well why you don’t either.
As you point out, whatever changes you make have to be made within halacha. Ratzinger would say that any changes have to be made within an understanding of their cannon and laws.
For some people, Orthodox Judaism is very well suited and gives them a solid structure, contentedness, confidence, a sense of purpose and fulfillment and even joy. The idea of keeping the laws of the Torah and halacha, while requiring discipline and commitment, seems obvious and necessary to them. This is also attendant to their true faith in god and particularly in the god we see in the bible.
What this means, however, is that certain things don’t and won’t change over centuries because these laws are immutable. If somebody wakes up one day and says, “There were no cars with indirect ignition systems 3000 years ago, and power steering means there is no ‘work’ involved in driving on shabbat,” that person will not be accepted and their ideas will be rejected. Yes, this seems reactionary to me. Not bad, but reactionary.
If somebody refuses to look at the story of Ruth and compels a person who may be devout and observant to “convert” a certain way because it is the only way acceptable to them, and rejects that person as a Jew and her children as Jews because she doesn’t believe that his group is the only group to have a monopoly on this issue, then I consider that to be a reactionary point of view. Ruth didn’t convert with a rabbinate.
I repeat again, I accept and understand your choices. I accept and understand the choices of the Orthodox. I disagree with these choices but respect them regardless of your claims that I don’t. However, I disagree that this is how Judaism should be practiced and I think your views are reactionary. Is that bad? Maybe. I don’t know. It’s not my choice.
Do I know better than anybody else? Of course not. But others don’t know any better than I do either.
None of us have seen god. So, in reality, we’re all just guessing. A lot.
It is funny, because I agree with all of you to some extent.
Can’t we just agree on a few things.
These are my bottom lines:
1. I believe in G-d, the Indivisible Unique and Only Merciful Creator of the Universe, who is constantly renewing the Universe at every moment.
2. Judaism is a vehicle for promoting ethical monotheism worldwide. When I am confronted with a choice between universal ethical monotheist view and a strictly Jewish tribalistic view, I choose the universal ethical monotheist view.
3. The ritual mitzvot are important, because they structure our lives. However, when the strict observance of them gets in the way of my being kind/ non-exclusionary to other human beings or obstructs my mission as a Jew of promoting worldwide belief in the Indivisible and Unique Creator, I must interpret such ritual mitzvot in the nicest, flexible way..
to be continued..
Sigh. (smarmy emoticon)
You still have to explain why the kind of wholesale changes you advocate are necessary or even desirable. Change for the sake of change is meaningless and may very well be destructive.
A kosher and freyliche Peasch, everyone.
You too, TM.
reรยทacรยทtionรยทarรยทy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
n. pl. reรยทacรยทtionรยทarรยทies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.
The reason that the positions of Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics don’t have anything to do with one another is because I am a Jew and Ratzinger is a Catholic. Why don’t you get that, TM?
I think Catholicism is a crock and a plague on humanity. I wouldn’t care if it all went away tomorrow. So I ask the question I asked in the beginning: why do you think I care a single whit about what the Pope thinks about anything? He’s a Catholic. I don’t care. It is not relevant.
Also, I object very strongly to your characterization of Orthodox people as “reactionaries”. It displays your bias from the get-go. Clearly you think that Ratzinger is a dinosaur and that his views are, well, wrong. And so clealry you must think the same thing about Orthodox Jews, otherwise your supposition that we would somehow like and agree with him would be nonsensical.
The use of the term “reactionary” as opposed, to say “Orthodox”, or even “traditonal” shows your bias. Everyone knows that “reactionary” is Bad. Ergo, the opposite of reactionary (Orthodox) is “liberal”, and therefore Good.
You need not be rude to be hostile. You think we’re reactionaries. Fine, I get it. We think that people like you who say it is OK to desecrate the Shabbat and that Judaism as an institution should dump the halacha whenever it doesn’t fit in with your particular ideas about how Judaism should be made to fit modern sensibilities are irresponsible.
ck’s comments upthread about accepting the authority of the rabbis is key. Orthodox people, while they may agitate from within for the adoption of practices that might ameliorate certain problems (let us take the whole issue of agunot as an example, even though I am not that familiar with it), recognize that whatever evolution takes lace within the halacha must take place from within the halacha, and not be imposed on it from the outside in response to gentile fashion. That is really the key difference.
Marrying a woman whose conversion I have issues with is for me like marrying someone whose Judaism is suspect, or eating kosher labelled shrimp encrusted fish sticks. It’s simply not anything I can do.
Perhaps we have different understandings of the word reactionary? Am I extremely conservative? Certainly not from my perspective. Am I an opponent of progress or liberalism? Again, not from my perspective.
I can go on and on… but really I think we all have better things to do today …
ck, ๐ you crack me up!!!!
I really don’t have time to do the searching but how many times have you indicated that you would rather, for example, not compromise on marrying a woman if she did not convert with an Orthodox rabbi? How is that different than this pope’s assertions that the liberalism (by the Church’s definition) of some of their American and developed countries’ clergy is unacceptable and should be rejected? That is just one example.
But then again, really, if you’re not reactionaries, that’s great. Now what’s the matter with you, you sinners! You’re going to destroy Judaism by wavering on god-given rules! [insert emoticon of your choice, avoid smarmy ones]
TM: You’re wrong because Ephraim has stated a non-judgemental position regarding a woman’s decision not to follow the rules of negiah should she find herself unmarried at 34 and in need of human touch and affection. Hardly a reactionary position. You’re wrong about me being a reactionary because many of my opinions, while respectful of the current state of Orthodox Judaism, express a longing for a more enlightened interpretation – especially when it comes to aggunot and the role and perception of women in Judaism. This is also just the begining of my critique. In any case, once again, hardly the position or outlook of a reactionary who shuns and despises change.
Uh TM, I wasn’t trying to imply you’re a retard or anything – just that you have issues. I already wrote that I have issues too. But I’m glad that was followed by a smiley face emoticon and a LOL.
Now I know it’s all good.
๐
Um ck, I have “issues?” ๐
but the intent is pretty clear: people who hold by Orthodox positons are reactionaries and should be thrilled that a fellow reactionary is now Pope, since, hey, obviously we should be able to relate, right?
This is what I was saying. This is what Muffti was saying. The word I use, “thrilled” is meant to be humorous, since I don’t think you guys care who is pope or what he believes. But the point is that there are similarities in outlook between your views and his about respective traditions. Now, if you disagree, why don’t point out why we might be wrong. All the other stuff in this discussion is really quite irrelevant and makes little impression other than to waste time. [insert smarmy emoticon waving away all the fluffy irrelevant crap]
Ephraim: So he has issues! And he deals with them by being a little aggressive sometimes. You have identified this tendency – now try and get over it and deal with substantive issues!
ck, thanks for the comments. I don’t think my lifestyle matters in this conversation, but whatever.
Listen, I approved a gigantic comment earlier, but cannot locate the post where it belongs. It seems to be a post in the archives. Do you have the ability to go back about 30 or 40 comments to seek it out? If you do, maybe you could post a link to that post so we can all find it. Thanks.
I’m not questioning TM’s committment to being Jewsih, ck. I’m wondering why he goes out of his way to insult the Orthodox.
For example, in comment #6 he says:
“After all the, ahem, pontificating we get in here about sticking to traditions, not wavering, women not allowing men to touch us even if it means theyรขโฌโขll never be touched in their lives, marrying only Jewish women (or Orthodox converts), adhering only to Orthodox conversions, etc., etc., one would think our regulars would be thrilled with this new popeรขโฌโขs reactionary positions. ”
This shows a masterful grasp of the nuances of passive-aggressiveness, but the intent is pretty clear: people who hold by Orthodox positons are reactionaries and should be thrilled that a fellow reactionary is now Pope, since, hey, obviously we should be able to relate, right?
I believe TM when he says that he was just trying to be funny. But hostility is at the root of humor, and even though his hostility is couched in a wink-wink, nudge, nudge cloak, it is still pretty clear, at least to me.
Oh, and Ephraim, I disagree with some of my Haredi cousins’ views quite strongly and they and I have had open, pleasant and intense discussions about these differences. I don’t think they respect my lifestyle although I respect theirs. They do seem to respect and genuinely like me, as I like them.
Yes, Ephraim, is there anything wrong with #6? Is there mistaken information in there? Is the use of the word pontificating in a discussion about the pope not amusing for you? Is the use of an emoticon not enough to soften the meaning of what comes before it since you’re not there to see my smarmy face or gestures? Is it an offensive post in any way or does it speak to the facts of both our conversation on Jewlicious and in general within the Jewish community?
You attacked unpleasantly several times before you received in kind. You took umbrage because you didn’t see or didn’t want to see the simple thesis Muffti put forth.
Laya, just made two phone calls, sent out two emails and wrote a check to a supplier. I’ll try to work a bit harder between frequent posts. Just for you.
Now, now y’all.
It’s a whacky situation. I know TM and in many ways, MANY WAYS, his actions are, for lack of a better term, frummer than mine. Without going into personal details, TM lives a life mamash committed to some of the highest values endorsed by the most right wing Haredim, let alone the sort of watered down orthodoxy I and others pay lip service to.
He has issues of course, who doesn’t? I mean Rav Ovadiah Yosef, my ostensible Rabbinic leader, often says things that make me gag. And I understand why TM’s committment to Judaism being questioned causes him to rear back and strike out given the very real and daily sacrifices he makes to a larger notion of Judaism that is not so far removed from my own.
This is why I always urge understanding. Try and focus on commonalities – after all, ezeh hoo chacham? Halomed me kol adam – who is truly wise? He who learns from every man – even a guy I often disagree with like TM, can teach me and many of us here, how to be better Jews.
So let’s try and step back from our righteous indignation for a minute. Let’s try and be good Jews for a change …
Just sayin that’s all ….
Re: comment #10:
Check comment #6.
I freely admit to my deep-seated hostility to people like Kelly, TM. I wish you would be as honest.
I mean, come on: you call ck and I Jewish Ratzingers, i.e., reactionaries who espouse religious policies with which you obviously strongly disagree, even though you atempt to disguise your disapproval of our views behind emoticons, hoping that people will laugh instead of saying “Hey, wait a minute….”
Fine, feel free. I assure you, by Orthodox standards, I am really quite left-wing, believe it or not, certainly more so than your hareidi relatives, for example. So, even if you choose to disagree politely with other Orthos and reserve your vitriol only for me, I think it is more than safe to assume that you disagree just as vehemently with their views, whether or not you ever discuss it.
wow, for someone who doesnt have much time today, you sure are commenting frequently.
Oh no Ephraim, I was talking specifically about you. With respect to deep seated hostility, I suggest you go back to where you told Kelly that her mouth should be sealed.
Oh wait, I just realized, you should go back to your comment #10, which preceded the comment that made you so angry. Perhaps the order of things should enlighten you a bit as to why you got bitten back.
Laya, did I hit a nerve somewhere?
Laya, I’m positive the hordes of readers out there all agree with you. Really, I do. The rational ones, anyway.
As for answering your questions, I already took the time once to write you a fairly lengthy response that incuded sources. Your response was to ignore it and call it “splitting hairs.” Another way to say it would have been, “I disagree and don’t bother me with details.” You blended that non-answer with some assertion about my overall ability to admit I’m wrong about anything.
Now why would I be foolish enough to repeat that, ahem, mistake?
You and Ephraim aren’t dating on the sly, are you?
What is the difference between an Orthodox vegetarian, a Conservative vegetarian, and a Reform vegetarian?
An Orthodox vegetarian never eats meat of any kind, meat by-products of any kind, any food that has been prepared using pots or pans that have been used to cook meat, and never eats food using dishes or utensils that have been used with meat.
A Conservative vegetarian may eat meat, but only at restaurants or at other people’s homes, never at his own home where it might trayf up his dishes.
A Reform vegetarian eats meat.
Yes, TM, I believe that people should make an honest attempt to observe the halacha to the best of their ability and that if they find they cannot do so for whatever reason, they should take responsibility for the choices they make.
For example, as a BT who grew up in a decidedly non-religious home, I grew up eating all sorts of delicious trayf, most of which I still remember quite fondly. Occasionally, I still get a strong jonesing for the comfort foods of my childhood, things like Swedish fleishpankaken, a delicious bacon pancake, and German schinkenflecken, a nutmeg-flavored ham kugel, served with applesauce. (Both sides of my family are from Germany.) I realize that many of you may find these foods disgusting, but because of the nostalgia assocated with them, choosing not to eat them was, far more than being a physical deprivation, a spiritual deprivation because I consciously rejected what I grew up with and the pleasant associuations that went along with that.
However, as much as I would sometimes like to, I do not indulge these desires. And if I did, I would not try to find a way to get my rabbi to tell me that I really wasn’t eating trayf. If I fall off the derech, that is between me and Hashem. Like ck said about the shomer negiah single woman, 34 and still a virgin: no one is holding a gun to her head. If she were to decide to sleep with someone tomorrow, I would not hold it against her, nor would I think it is my place to make any sort of judgment against her. It is between her and G-d.
If you had simply said “Ephraim wants people to obey because G-d said so” and left it at that, I wouldn’t have gotten so angry. But since you have an obviously deep-seated hostility to Orthodox Judaism, you chose to phrase your argument in a way that was deliberately inflammatory. Your statement that you are talking about me only and not about Orthodox Jews/Judaism in general is, again, not to be taken seriously.
hey, it’s your ascertation, its your burden of proof, but i TOTALLY understand the time thing. That’s quite probably what goes on with other people when they havent fully answered your questions and you insist they do so. But I won’t do that.
however, i think any rational person would agree with my comment no. 49, perhaps you’re just a little blind to see it, but whatever.
I’m actually most shocked by the concept of a Reform hashgahah…never realized those existed. FWIW, I would never serve any of you fish sticks where there was even a batel b’shishim chance of shrimp contamination.
Uh, Laya, this is going to strike you as odd, but I actually have some important things to do today rather than search out an answer to your question – it’s enough I actually went back to the 500 comment thread for you.
But you are welcome to conduct a search. Focus on those posts where you think I hold the wrong views or ideas ( ๐ that should be quite a few! ) and see if you or somebody else got me to agree. Good luck!
really? where? and I’m not being snarky about that.
Regarding the fishsticks, I believe Reform considers shrimp and any food to be acceptable. I don’t have time to research it right now but I suspect kashrut isn’t an issue for Reform.
Hey, how about the new pope? [insert cutesy emoticon with a red kipah here]
No Laya, I admit I’m wrong when I’m wrong. It’s even happened on Jewlicious once or twice.
Sigh. The packaging was not faulty. The Reform Rabbi granted his hechsher because in his estimation the shrimp content was less than one 64th of the finished product and was not there by design but merely as a byproduct of the manufacturing process which involved taking a whole mess of fish byproducts, mushing them together and molding them into a deep fried, breaded fish stick.
This does not pass the kashruth muster according to Orthodox Judaism and for very legitimate reasons. I don’t consider it kosher and if you’d serve me these fish sticks, despite the lovely 10 commandments logo on the hashgachah, i would not eat them nor would I allow these in my kitchen. Now members of the Reform movement may insist all they like that these fish sticks are kosher, but all they are is kosher to adherents of the reform movement.
I make no excuses for not considering these fish sticks kosher and I am sorry if reform jews think that my insistence that these are not in fact kosher, is divisive. People can call a ham sandwich a felafel if they like, but in my estimation that does not make the ham sandwich any less of a ham sandwich. You can call the process by which a car burns fuel “internal combustion” and ignore the combustion part, but for me its still fire and still work and still not allowed on shabbat. One can call the dude that converts folks a “Rabbi” but if the conversion process takes a few minutes and is being administered by a dude who has to think for a minute or two about who the founding fathers and mothers of Judaism are… (Abraham, Isaac and, uh… don’t tell me, I so know this…”) well, forgive me if I have issues with that. Call the convert Jewish if you like, I’ll reserve my judgement.
And no TM, I am not speaking directly to you in any of these comments. I am quite certain you are in fact horrified by the shrimp fish sticks, but that, and other things, are the inevitable end result of unchecked reforms and lack of deference to rabbinic interpretation and authority.
TM, are you this positively incapable of admiting you are wrong in real life too? I broke it down for you as you asked. anyone can see. don’t split hairs.
The message of all of this discussion is clear.
Fight the real enemy: fish sticks.
Um, ck, I had nothing to do with those fish sticks. I also don’t know how this packaging came to be labeled kosher. Really, I’m not to blame. [insert blameless haloed angel emoticon here]
Laya, I was speaking about Ephraim and not all Orthodox Jews as he suggests in his post. Key difference #1. I also wasn’t speaking about loneliness although I was speaking about celibacy and in fact any kind of touching. Key difference #2. I also didn’t mean, as he suggests, some nefarious evil intent on his part because he’s Orthodox. Key difference #3.
I had a clear impression in my mind of what Ephraim thinks about this topic because of comments he had made in the long premarital sex discussion. *sigh* Yes, I actually went back into that discussion to find out what had given me that strong impression about Ephraim’s beliefs. Check out comments #171, 336, 386, and 407.
No less important is the crux of my comment. I am saying in my comment that he believes what he believes not because he’s mean or evil and it is his natural tendency to want to cause anguish to a woman, but because he genuinely believes that this is a law that comes from the Torah and the Torah is from god.
In other words, he wants for people what god has commanded. He knows that people may not succeed, but he wishes that people will follow god’s commands. I think this is self evident if you read enough of Ephraim’s posts. By the way, although I disagree, I respect his right to believe this.
His response, which you propose is similar and which I think is very different from my comment, suggests that I attribute some inherent evil nature to Orthodox Jews and believe they wish the harm and pain of “loneliness and celibacy” on these single women.
I suggest and think nothing of the kind. I don’t think there is evil intent or a desire to cause harm. There is merely a desire on Ephraim’s part to strive toward fulfilling as many of god’s laws as possible.
To prove that this is what I mean, let me explain that even with a far deeper issue of concern to me, the plight of agunot, I do not think for a minute that the rabbis, or those who follow these laws, mean any harm or evil to the agunot who may end up suffering terribly (as might children born to them). Rather, it is an unfortunate by-product of their faith and it is understood as the will of god which must be kept, even if some humans are harmed by it.
This is why I rejected the comparison he made and continue to reject it.
By the way, I just googled Negiyah, shomer negiyah, halacha shomer negiyah…and found Jewlicious in either the #1 spot or close to it. [insert half happy half rolling eyes emoticon here]
TM wrote: ck, regarding your post #18, anybody who gives a shrimp filled fish stick kosher approval should be fed the stuff raw.
Well… now you kind of understand the very nexus of my entire outlook. I’m glad we could see eye to eye on the fish stick issue, which as you of course know, is merely a small part of a much larger picture.
I can’t stop you from eating shrimp encrusted fish sticks. But when you call them kosher, there are problems. The Hashgachah looked “legit” and had I not looked at the ingredients I may have eaten these fish sticks and trayfed up my kitchen.So again, do what you wanna do – just don’t mess with my beliefs. If you wanna eat shrimp, eat away, but why must you also call it kosher?
Capish?
TM said:
Ephraim wants women who donรขโฌโขt find a husband to go through life being untouched in any way by a male. Because god said so.
(comment no. 11)
to which ephraim said
First, why do you think that since I am Orthodox I somehow believe that single women should be condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy? (no. 17)
which TM then said never said any such thing. ignore. (no. 40)
then asked me to prove to him that he “kinda did say/imply some of those things that [he] then den[ies]” (no. 45)
ok, lets break it down:
TM’s comment about ephraim uses the term “women who donรขโฌโขt find a husband”
whereas Ephraim’s comment about what TM said uses the word “single women”
was this the source of confusion?
or was it that what TM called “go through life being untouched in any way by a male”, ephraim refered to as “condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy?”
help me out here TM, cause it’s hard for me to see how these two statements are so different that you can deny you said anything of the sort
geez TM, you are so fricken sensitive! maybe all that pesach cleaning is getting to you, but chilling out for a while might not be the worst thing.
And yes, like the Dalai Lama (whom I love). He’s got some great things to say about humility. You can borrow my books if you promise to return them. ๐
Oh, and Laya, I did not say any such thing to Ephraim and you have the contents right in front of you. Prove me wrong.
ck, regarding your post #18, anybody who gives a shrimp filled fish stick kosher approval should be fed the stuff raw.
Laya, lemme see if I get ya. I am not a “specialist” in my religion and therefore should place my life in the hands of such specialists.
I am fallible and therefore should trust “specialists” to help me see through the haze of life. Is that it?
Religion is not my forte (whatever that means) but it is the forte of others.
Like the Dalai Lama?
“Specialists” rejected the Theory of Relativity when it was first presented. “Specialists” rejected Jonas Salk’s ideas about how to create a polio vaccine. “Specialists” rejected the idea that the world was round. “Specialists” assumed that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the messiah.
People are people. That’s not to say we can’t ask and learn. We certainly can and should. We should respect them as a source and then we should investigate and come to our own conclusions. My conclusions differ from yours. That doesn’t mean I disrespect them. On the contrary, as I keep pointing out, I respect them while being among the group who is disrespected because I disagree and do not wish to adhere to what I consider man made traditions except by my choice.
Now excuse me, I have to go help my wife finish with removing the chametz from our kitchen.
oh, and middle? I know ephraim can be a little uppity, but you kinda did say/imply some of those things that you then deny. sorry yo.
Oh, and why has no one responded to my post #18?
Paris Hilton said that?
Really?
Hmmm… she is lookin’ kinda fetching on this month’s cover of Elle Girl for the teen and pre-teen set. If Paris Hilton is a good enough role model for them then sure as shootin’ her text messages are like the Gospel for me!
As for liturgy, again, nothing stops anyone from doing whatever they are comfortable with. Many Orthodox people I have spoken to now omit the morning blessing thanking G*d for not making them a woman (sheh lo assani ishah) and replace it with thanking God for making them as to his will (sheh assani kirtsonno).
That’s cool. I can’t find fault with that. However, some of these Liberation Haggadahs are so pathetic… “Oh God! We are so sorry that we had the temerity to defend ourselves and subsequently beat the Arabs in war of anihilation after war of anihilation. Just as Pharoah freed the Jews may we also be free of this yoke of uh… fighting back and defending ourselves. We suck. Dayeinu!” Well, those Haggadahs are insane. And have nothing to do with Judaism, despite the lofty peace loving sentiment.
But again. Please, do whatever you like. Call it whatever you like. Just do not be insulted or hurl insults at me if I tell you that what you call Judaism, is NOT any kind of Judaism I can practice.
RE: matrilineal decent does that not start at the very very beginning of our religion, for the รขโฌลchosen childรขโฌย had to come through Avrahams union with Sarah. his union with Hagar just didnรขโฌโขt cut it.
RE: other stuff, i guess itรขโฌโขs just that they way you phrase things, it seems as though you are outright dismissing halachot because it is man made. Tell me if I am wrong, but thatรขโฌโขs how it comes through.
Men are fallible, clearly, but that does not in anyway imply that halachot are then wrong and to be disregarded because they MIGHT not be 100% correct.
Again, men are fallible, clearly. But precisely as this is the case, we must look how ourselves and our own fallibility and realize that many times the decisions we make as to what is right or wrong are severely shaped by our own personal desires. This is one of the reasons we put some faith in a higher authority such as rabbiรขโฌโขs and other kinds of spiritual leaders to help us see things that our own ego and self interest would otherwise cloud.
You seem to have the attitude that whatever knowledge you have amassed being a citizen of the modern world is clearly more suited for deciding what is right or holy than people who are รขโฌลspecialistsรขโฌย in the field. I know you are a very smart guy, but religion doesnรขโฌโขt seem to be your forte. Itรขโฌโขs certainly not mine. Plus, don’t knock it till you’ve tried it dude.
I just got a text message from Paris Hilton, and she says that Jews who argue passionately but respectfully are hot.
I hate generalizations. But my issue with many of the “halakhic” issues we struggle with is that they’re not halakhic, they’re minhagic, if that is even a word.
Often, the line between halakhah and minhag blurs in the Orthodox movement, to the extent that the “wrong” (outside the mainstream, a little more modern, Sephardic even, etc) minhag is quickly deemed assur, just because that’s not the way most (North American Ashkenazi) people do it. (“Rice on Pesach? Assur! Beating each other with scallions to symbolize the oppression of the Jews during Egyptian slavery? Assur!”)
It’s easier to condemn a different behavior instead of figuring out why there’s such a different tradition at large, and determining whether or not it actually evolved that way to fit a real spiritual need.
The main example that comes to my mind is liturgical. The liturgy is not Torah miSinai. We add prayers for the State of Israel and the government, but I wish I had a dime for every time an Orthodox woman complained about some of the (let’s call it) gyno-insensitive language. I say quit the bellyaching and just change it. If reconstructing or getting approval to officially change the liturgy seems too daunting, just DON’T SAY IT. Be a conscientious objector and choose passive resistance or stop complaining. That I have no patience for.
The Haggadah’s my ideal model for the union between tradition and modernity. Every year, there are new readings and new opportunities to add to our understanding of the traditional text. New haggadot are printed every year: feminist, Zionist, archeological, artistic, etc. One of my favorite things to do is to look at different translations, different artistic interpretations, etc. It enhances the overall experience to have diversity of opinions and interpretations.
I’m sure there are other examples, and I want to give you all a chance to ream me (from a place of love and respect, undoubtedly), so I’ll call it quits with this example for now.
Ephraim, nobody is backpedalling. The emoticons were there from the beginning irrespective of your aggressive response.
You think your #17 answers my questions when it does nothing of the sort. I’ll keep waiting, but let’s look at #17 anyway, shall we?
You know, TM, if you want to know why Orthodox people have so little respect for the religious opinions of reformers like you, you need look no further than the haphazard and slipshod thinking displayed in your ck&Ephraim=Ratzinger nonsense.
stupid insult. ignore.
First, why do you think that since I am Orthodox I somehow believe that single women should be condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy?
never said any such thing. ignore.
I guess I need to repeat this again since you seem to have completely missed the point of pretty much everything I have said on this subject, which is only to be expected since you obviously have a lot invested in setting up and destroying Orthodox boogey-straw men so you can prove your broad-mindedness to yourself:
more idiotic insult. ignore.
The Torah says what it says. People will make their own decisions about how they want to relate to it. I do not make it my business to spy on single women to see if they are engaging in “illicit” sexual activity any more than I would break down the door to your bathroom so I could catch you in the act of communing with your copy of Penthouse. That is your business. I am not the Sanhedrin or the Saudi “Morality Police”, intent on going around and throwing acid on unveiled women walking around with their boyfriends.
more stupid insults. idiotic assumption I prefer Penthouse to Playboy. moronic non-sequitor about calling you or anybody else morality police. ignore.
The ONLY thing I have said is that every individual Jew has the freedom to relate to Torah however they want to. Everyone will make their own choice about this. There are plenty of people at our Orthodox shul who use baby carriages on Sghabbat even though there is no eruv. Nobody throws them out of shul and nobody shames them publicly about it. It is their decision to make, and I would not dream of taking issue with whatever they choose to do.
straw man and has nothing to do with my statements above. nothing at all. you keep writing and writing and it’s not to the point, dude. ignore.
What I do object to, however, is the tendency of people like you to reject the Torah and then turn around and accuse the Orthodox of being the ones who are causing a schism in the Jewish people because we don’t believe that Shabbat violation, etc., should be enshrined as “mainstream” Judaism. You can drive on Shabbat if you want to, but leave me out of it, OK?
childlike generalization. comment about what I want to happen has no basis in fact. ignore.
And what in the Sam Hill does Cathiolic dogma about divorce and abortion have to do with Jews, Orthodox or otherwise? Are you trying to draw some kind of parallel bewteen the Orthodox position on these issues and the Catholic one?
no!!!!!!!!!! how is it possible you keep missing such a simple point. reread Muffti’s first comment.
But, no, it is notting even that “sophisticated”. All you are saying is that since you mistakenly believe that I think single women who might perhaps indulge in some canoodling are whores that I am just as bad as Ratzinger who, according to you, thinks that women should be raped or abused by their husbands and just lie there and take it.
complete bullshit. I don’t say anything of the kind and you can go back to #30 and #14 to review everything I say. this is where I seriously begin to suspect your insecurities.
I can’t even begin to figure out your thought process, so I think I’ll just stop wasting my time trying to do so.
I wish you had followed your instincts.
Laya, I wasn’t commenting about whether mixing dairy with meat is a good or bad tradition. I was commenting that if it is indeed a man made tradition, then you follow it out of respect for those men and not because it is commanded by god. That makes all the difference in the world.
I am also not disputing that there are learned men who deserve a seat at the table of halachic decision making and they may indeed be very knowledgeable about all things Jewish. They remain men and can make errors, or can make judgements and decisions that reflect their era. Surely, some things might be looked at differently in a different period.
Let’s consider the issue of matrilineal Judaism. I suspect that this tradition came about because it eliminates any doubt about the parentage being Jewish. Now let’s assume that I’m correct and instead of 100 C.E., these decisions are being made in 2005 when conclusive genetic testing is possible so that there can be absolute proof about parentage. Isn’t it possible that the lawmakers would choose a different law?
—————–
Let us just say, then, that I do not like your sense of humor, TM. You say you are joking when you equate ck and I with Ratzinger, but I think that you are being disingenuous. I think that you are quite serious about it but put in the emoticon to cover your butt so that when people take issue with what you say you can back-pedal and say “Jeez, can’t you guys take a joke?” But I really think you mean it.
As for your questions, see my post #17, and ck’s more eloquent response, which reflects my views also. The halacha says what it says and people have free will about what they choose to do in response to it.
If that’s not enogh for you, too bad.
The Truth is, I love Judaism, but i really do not know the evolution of halacha nor does my brain fully understand Talmudic logic (a field unto itself) I have not looked at the sources from the inside, in the original text. I have not broken my teeth over a page of Gomorrah or followed a 12 page discussion back and forth about which direction to light Hanukkah candles. Perhaps you have.
I DO know enough, however, to know that no halacha is arrived at quickly or arbitrarily. So until I do study these things, follow the reasoning and understand why the conclusion is such, I will continue to defer to those throughout our generations who have had greater knowledge of these matters than myself, becuae like i said before, the fact that we’re still around is proof enough to me that we’re doing somethig right.
RE dairy and meat, there are really profound reasons for that, you know. I consider it wisdom, even if it is man made. It is designed to teach us restraint, self control, and most of all consciousness to the fact that this is death, something died here for your enjoyment. Connect to that fact and do not take it lightly. As a reminder that you have just come into contact with death, you must wait a period of time before having milk, this symbol of life. Draw a distinction. Judaism loves teaching us distinctions, between Shabbat and the week, night and day, life and death, men and women. Again, I do not consider this to be a bad or antiquated thing.
RE: traditions, like i said, I am no Talmudic Scholar, nor to I have a burning desire to be one. Just as I defer my own judgment to professionals when it comes to matters of medicine and such, so i defer to “professionals” in the religious realm to help define for me a way of life that will be meaningful to me and approved of by God. Were I to spend as much time studying the texts and evolution of our heritage as these men we call rabbi’s and posik’s did and do, were Torah my area of expertise, i might behave differently.
An example of man-made: dairy and meat (note it’s not only beef even though the verse alludes to cattle).
Now take a look at your last line about “making up” your own rules and consider that if one believes our traditions, heritage and culture are the product of men, this means that in their time, they made it up. That’s not to say they are bad or good traditions, it’s merely to indicate that they are merely men and they were a product of their time. They made choices like you or I make choices. That opens up numerous avenues for discussion and exploration that a person who believes in god given Torah and oral Torah would not challenge. They might discuss and question, but the bare minimum they would “keep” is what they believe god wants of them.
The fact that the premarital sex discussion is being had at all, indicates that many people are “making up” their own rules to “jive with their modern sensibilities.” If you believe our traditions are man made, then some of those traditions are based on exactly that, actions taken at the time to accomodate jiving with their then modern sensibilities.
which other man made developments are you refering to? cause American civilazation has yet to stand any real test of time, but whatever we’ve been doing for the past 5,000 years, man made, God made, or whatever it is, seems to be working for the most part. Therefore I gotta say even when things in Judaism don’t immeadiately jive with my “modern sensibilities” maybe theres something there I’m not seeing at first glance. If they persist, then perhaps there is room for an evolution within the movement, but I cannot simply make up my own rules and screw the system that has allowed me to be here in the first place.
No Ephraim, when I said Ratzinger = Ephraim, I added the smarmy emoticon bit. If you look upstairs next to the Ratzinger = ck, you’ll find a smarmy emoticon that means laughter. If you read Muffti’s original point and the one which led to this discussion, you’ll note that all we’re talking about is being a Jewish reactionary who wishes to keep at a distance changes to the status quo….just like the new pope.
Nobody insulted you, but you did insult me a number of times. Fortunately, I don’t care.
I also note you didn’t address my questions in post #30. I think I know why.
———
Laya, you and I are in complete agreement about honoring our man-made thousands-of-years old traditions. Absolute and complete agreement. In fact, that is precisely how I approach my Judaism, my practice, my faith. I respect these traditions greatly.
But…once you remove god from the equation, in the sense that the writings come from men, men who are not god and are flawed, then it becomes one thing to respect a tradition and another to respect it to the exclusion of other man made developments.
Where did you say it?
Right here:
Ephraim wants women who donรขโฌโขt find a husband to go through life being untouched in any way by a male. Because god said so.
Ratzinger wants women who are raped and impregnated not to have abortions, and wives who are in terrible relationships not to get divorces. Because god said so.
Ephraim = Ratzinger [insert smarmy emoticon here]
You are obviously saying that I believe what Ratzinger believes, or, at the very least, insinuating that in order to score a few cheap rhetorical points. Sort of like the “Nazis put Jews in camps, the Israelis put Arabs in camps, therefore Israelis=Nazis” line of reasoning. Shoddy from top to bottom.
Again, I do not believe what you say I believe, and I do not believe what Ratzinger believes (if I did, I would be a Catholic, obviously). However, you obviously think that because of what you mistakenly think my views are that I should feel some sort of spiritual kinship with a man who holds that women who are raped should not have access to abortions and that women who are abused by their husbands should never be able to get a divorce. I mean, just what is the matter with you?
I can’t believe that you are shocked when ck and I are offended by your cavalier approach to traditional Judaism. Hence my rhetorical question about your conversaton with the hareidi side of your family: if you insulted them as egregiously as you insult traditionlists like ck and I, do you not think they would take offense?
TM, what’s the hang up with something being “man made”? Do we throw out all the great works of philosophy because they too are simply “man made”? Did not man “make” science? Shall I stop believing in genetics or living my life by rules of physics because they come to us through flawed men? Surely you see how science has been an evolution of standing on the shoulders of giants, a process towards something like truth, why do you refuse to give the same benefit to religious thought?
Thousands of years of people spending their entire lives dedicated to religious and spiritual teachings and certain men among them have determined that x, y and z are the best rules to live by for a connected, conscious and meaningful life. I yield to their wisdom on many accounts, for just as I am no physicist, i am no Talmudic scholar. I respect their knowledge, wisdom and expertise. Why do you demean it?
What TM said to Ephraim in this discussion:
Ephraim wants women who don’t find a husband to go through life being untouched in any way by a male. Because god said so.
Please explain how this is false.
Nice Jewish Girl would rather go through life without violating a law of Negiyah and Ephraim supports this and wishes the same upon his daughter if she cannot find a Jewish male partner to marry.
True or false?
Our faith is a panoply of traditions. Where we differ is the part where the Orthodox believe it is all from god and I don’t and that much of it is man made.
7. #6 is what Ratzinger also believes, except for his people. He thinks, like Ephraim, that his efforts toward keeping his faith are god-ordained. Both men will act upon those beliefs, albeit in different ways because their faiths are different.
8. However, that still means that both will reject anything that doesn’t “come from god.” They will view it as a necessity and a part of life, no matter how horrible.
True or false?
Did those comments strike you as a “ridiculous caricature” or an accurate representation of your beliefs.
Ephraim’s comments to TM in this discussion:
However, I think TM’s smarmy little emoticon joke makes it pretty obvious
Are you really that simple-minded, TM?
You know, TM, if you want to know why Orthodox people have so little respect for the religious opinions of reformers like you
you obviously have a lot invested in setting up and destroying Orthodox boogey-straw men so you can prove your broad-mindedness to yourself
the tendency of people like you to reject the Torah and then turn around and accuse the Orthodox of being the ones who are causing a schism in the Jewish people because we don’t believe that Shabbat violation, etc., should be enshrined as “mainstream” Judaism.
Misinterpretations by Ephraim of what TM said in this discussion:
First, why do you think that since I am Orthodox I somehow believe that single women should be condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy?
Where did I say that?
I am not the Sanhedrin or the Saudi “Morality Police”, intent on going around and throwing acid on unveiled women walking around with their boyfriends.
Where did I say that?
you mistakenly believe that I think single women who might perhaps indulge in some canoodling are whores that I am just as bad as Ratzinger who, according to you, thinks that women should be raped or abused by their husbands and just lie there and take it.
Where did I say that? Holy cow, are you reading what you’re saying?
(TM’s imaginary conversation with Haredi family) “oh, BTW, I think you guys would get along with the new Pope, he thinks women should be oppressed too”
Where did I say that?
Armchair psychologist? Not even that, Ephraim. I’m simply stating the obvious about your hostility and aggression. The other day you did a similar thing with Kelly, so I know it’s not just me…
I could be wrong about the insecurity, but you’ll note the responses you give to my comments have nothing to do with what I’ve actually said or suggested.
i also have to refute this notion that somehow orthodox means unchanging. Judaism is now as it has always been dynamic, the need for chage and evolution is built in to the system. Like the American congress though, it is designed to move a little slowly so as to give us time to fully consider things before making rash judgements and throwing out the baby with the bathwater as some movements have done.
I don’t see why this is a bad thing.
See, the stupid thing is that I am not now, nor have I ever been, opposed to reforms and or innovations within Judaism. Judaism is not now, nor has it ever been a monolith. Thus the notion of the Orthodox ordination of female rabbis – doesn’t phase me at all. The notion that Judaism is being failed by the current state of laws relating to agunot is one that sits well with me. I have no problem with normal evolution and Orthodox Judaism has plenty of room for that. In this and many other respects, I am not at all as Muffti and TM seek to portray me.
Some may find solace in comparing me to a reactionary conservative theologian like Ratzinger. You may pooh pooh my objections to casting aside millenia-old halachah for the sake of modern convenience and sensibilities by assuring yourself that your way nonetheless maintains your conveniently self-professed and self-described spirit of Judaism. And hey, THAT’S COOL.
But do not expect me to eat your shrimp encrusted fish sticks because your “Rabbi” said it was ok. Do not expect me to get into my car and drive over on shabbat because we will nonetheless spend a lovely day together. Do not expect me to marry someone whose conversion process involved reading a soft cover novel about Judaism, supervised by a Rabbi who does not even know how to read a blatt of gemarah in aramaic or even string together a sentence in Hebrew. You’re free to do all these things and if your Mom’s Jewish than I will always consider you a fellow Jew. But please don’t get upset with me if all I want is to be left alone to practice the only Judaism I and my forefathers have ever known.
Oh, I forgot to address Yisrael’s early comment about Kerry. You are right, of course, that unless we’re Karaites, Kerry wouldn’t be considered Jewish. However, the Reform position on patrilineal Judaism is clear that you are Jewish if born to a Jewish father and go through some process of Jewish education or confirmation.
Conversion is a different issue, clearly, lets not confuse the two. I was born in America to American parents. I am automatically American, and never will i HAVE to pledge allegence to the flag or country no matter what i believe about America, I am still American. Someone not born here is required to pledge thier allegance to the country and agree to live by its laws and go through a legal process to become a citizen. Now, you could live here and live by American rules and customs but think that the process of nationaliztion is silly and antiquated, so fine, but you’re not a citizen. Is it not more or less the same for Judaism?
Why do you think I’m insecure, TM? Because I take issue with your ridiculous caricature of me?
You’re free to do, say, and think whatever you want. And I am free to take issue with you when you are an unctuous, patronizing armchair psychologist.
Let me ask you: in your conversations with your hareidi family in Israel do you say “Hey, why are you so hearltess to condemn shomer negiah women to a life of torment when they can’t find a husband, and why don’t you guys lighten up, can’t you see how reactionary that is, and oh, BTW, I think you guys would get along with the new Pope, he thinks women sould be oppressed too”?
Just curious.
Ephraim and ck, I believe that in your posts, you make my point for me.
Muffti, I also fail to see how they cannot see what is so obvious here.
Ephraim, your ongoing attacks suggest some heavy insecurities. If I can be a foil that buttresses your faith or confidence, I’m glad you have an outlet. Feel free to go at it all day long.
Laya, I didn’t quite get your point. I could be born to a Jewish mother and never practice Jewishly a day in my life but still be considered Jewish by the Orthodox.
I had a very nice holiday conversation with my haredi family in Israel today. They and I get along swimmingly although we obviously disagree about some matters. They don’t feel I’m on a crusade against their faith and they don’t feel I disrespect them. We think of each other as family. Sorry if that doesn’t jibe with what some of you out there would like to think. [insert smarmy emoticon here]
This pic is an improvement. Definitely balances out the selection a little bit.
Muffti:
Why should you think ck (or I, since TM seems to think we’re in cahoots or something) would spend any time thinking about Ratzinger and his approach to Catholicism?
He’s a Catholic. We’re Jews. Who cares what he thinks? You might as well say “Well, Ephraim and ck are hidebound reactionaries, so they would surely appreciate a how a doctrinaire Bolshevik rejects those namby-pamby Mensheviks” (or whatever).
And ck beat me to the punch. Any G-d fearing shomer mitzvot person who gets a Conservative conversion will, if he/she is really committed to Judaism, will rectify his/her situation by getting an Orthodox conversion at the earliest possible opportunity.
Hey CK, speaking of good things for the Jewish people coming from odd places, did you read about Elton John playing a free show to benefit needy Sephardi schoolchildren in Israel?
CK, you are getting so crotchety these days. *sigh*. Muffti wasn’t insinuating anything bad (for once) about you guys. (Though TM is right about the pontificating). He wasn’t saying that you should care that much about the catholic church. All he meant (thank you TM for being the only person to see this) is that philosophically, Muffti is suprised you guys don’t have a certain affinity for this pope. His take on catholicism is remarkably similar to your take on Judaism: innovation that leads to dropping or modifying bits of doctrine are tantamount to heresy. Muffti thought that you guys would generally appreciate that approach to religion.
TM wrote: Great Pic!!!
I know! I’m starting to like Pope Ratzinger more and more every day.l Especially since if you look at him in a certain way, he really DOES look like Mickey Rooney!
TM wrote:
A person born to a Jewish mother but who never practices Judaism a day in his life … is considered to be more Jewish – and in fact, Jewish – as opposed to the most devout shomer shabbat Jewish person who converted to Judaism under the auspices of a Conservative rabbi.
a devout shomer shabbat Jew who converted under the auspices of a Conservative Rabbi would then go to an Orthodox Rabbi and undergo a quickie 2-3 day Orthodox conversion. Happens all the time when the convert becomes mamash devout. Jews cannot renounce their faith. Even Cardinal Lustiger is a Jew according to the Orthodox.
TM continued:The Orthodox are willing to cut off those people because they are รขโฌลwilling to be less inclusive, even if it means allowing more liberal adherents to fall by the wayside.รขโฌย How is this different from Ratzinger?
Reform/Conservative converts are not considered adherents. But anyone who is Jewish is welcome and encouraged to remain within the fold.
TM continued: However, these reactionary ideas dismissing any innovations or interpretations of faith and practice are similar with the orthodox of both faiths.
Dude there are innovations that fall within acceptable halachic parameters and then there’s my kosher reform hashgachah fish sticks with shrimp LISTED IN THE INGREDIENTS that clearly fall completely out of any halachic anything. Am I a close minded reactionary fuddy duddy for not eating the fish sticks? Well, if you say so, but treiff is treiff, no matter what some Reform Rabbi and his little bo peep hashgachah and smichah say. I mean seriously, yesh gvul!
Anyone who wants to invent some new religion and call it Judaism, please, go right ahead. I never stopped anyone from doing that. But for crying out loud, please try not to be insulted or hurt when I tell you I do not and CAN NOT accept your standards as mine.
As for Nice Frum Girl – no one is putting a gun to her head. She is free to do what she likes, and should she fall off the derech, no one would fault her – as long as she didn’t then turn around and call it Orthodox Judaism. But in any case, you’d be floored at the levels of compassion even the most Orthodox of Rabbis is capable of.
But whatever… we’ve talked this out so many times. You continue to refuse to address the almost coercive nature of your attitude – my way or the highway. I’m telling you go ahead and do whatever you want. Call it whatever you like. I don’t expect you to live like me, please do not get upset when I, with all due respect, refuse to adopt your reforms and modifications, critiques of Jewish doctrine, and shrimp-fortified “kosher” fish sticks.
You know, TM, if you want to know why Orthodox people have so little respect for the religious opinions of reformers like you, you need look no further than the haphazard and slipshod thinking displayed in your ck&Ephraim=Ratzinger nonsense.
First, why do you think that since I am Orthodox I somehow believe that single women should be condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy?
I guess I need to repeat this again since you seem to have completely missed the point of pretty much everything I have said on this subject, which is only to be expected since you obviously have a lot invested in setting up and destroying Orthodox boogey-straw men so you can prove your broad-mindedness to yourself:
The Torah says what it says. People will make their own decisions about how they want to relate to it. I do not make it my business to spy on single women to see if they are engaging in “illicit” sexual activity any more than I would break down the door to your bathroom so I could catch you in the act of communing with your copy of Penthouse. That is your business. I am not the Sanhedrin or the Saudi “Morality Police”, intent on going around and throwing acid on unveiled women walking around with their boyfriends.
The ONLY thing I have said is that every individual Jew has the freedom to relate to Torah however they want to. Everyone will make their own choice about this. There are plenty of people at our Orthodox shul who use baby carriages on Sghabbat even though there is no eruv. Nobody throws them out of shul and nobody shames them publicly about it. It is their decision to make, and I would not dream of taking issue with whatever they choose to do.
What I do object to, however, is the tendency of people like you to reject the Torah and then turn around and accuse the Orthodox of being the ones who are causing a schism in the Jewish people because we don’t believe that Shabbat violation, etc., should be enshrined as “mainstream” Judaism. You can drive on Shabbat if you want to, but leave me out of it, OK?
And what in the Sam Hill does Cathiolic dogma about divorce and abortion have to do with Jews, Orthodox or otherwise? Are you trying to draw some kind of parallel bewteen the Orthodox position on these issues and the Catholic one?
But, no, it is notting even that “sophisticated”. All you are saying is that since you mistakenly believe that I think single women who might perhaps indulge in some canoodling are whores that I am just as bad as Ratzinger who, according to you, thinks that women should be raped or abused by their husbands and just lie there and take it.
I can’t even begin to figure out your thought process, so I think I’ll just stop wasting my time trying to do so.
TM, Being jewish is not a matter of adherence or observance or knowledge. You can be the smartest guy in the world about medicine, stay up for 35 hour shifts and wander around a hospital in a white robe giving orders of 50 CC’s stat, but unless you have the proper certification from a proper institution, sorry my friend, but you are no doctor, even if Community College says you are.
Great pic!!!! ๐
Au contraire mon frere. The concern with Ratzinger is in that rolling back some of the reforms and inclusive sentiment championed by Pope John Paul II, in retrenching a more traditional Catholicism, he is willing to be less inclusive, even if it means allowing more liberal adherents to fall by the wayside.
Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, mon ami, but this is precisely what Orthodox Jews are saying to Conservative and Reform streams.
A person born to a Jewish mother but who never practices Judaism a day in his life but does not renounce his faith or take on another, is considered to be more Jewish – and in fact, Jewish – as opposed to the most devout shomer shabbat Jewish person who converted to Judaism under the auspices of a Conservative rabbi.
The Orthodox are willing to cut off those people because they are “willing to be less inclusive, even if it means allowing more liberal adherents to fall by the wayside.” How is this different from Ratzinger?
With over a billion adherents, Catholics can afford to lose people this way. Jews however, cannot. Its apples and oranges anyway. There is no comparison, except for the facile, totally innaccurate one you made earlier, which I will continue to chalk up to humor …
Numbers are not the issue. The Catholic population in Europe is in steep decline, while the Orthodox communities in Israel and outside of it are increasing in number. Jews are not Catholics, you are right. However, these reactionary ideas dismissing any innovations or interpretations of faith and practice are similar with the orthodox of both faiths.
Nothing facile about that. It is the point Muffti made and I have repeated.
Your comments to Ephraim however …
Judaism permits abortions, Judaism permits divorces …
…Permits divorces when the couple agrees and will not allow a woman to remarry when he disagrees. But that isn’t the point, which you seem to be avoiding. They take a point of faith which affects people’s lives because they believe it is a god-given command, and so do Orthodox Jews like Ephraim. Nice Jewish Girl would rather go through life without violating a law of Negiyah and Ephraim supports this and wishes the same upon his daughter if she cannot find a Jewish male partner to marry.
but above and beyond everything, Judaism is a religion. You say the “God said so” mantra as if it’s a bad thing. Yes. It’s all basically becvause God said so. So what? That’s what our faith dictates. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to share our faith. It’s your call and it’s all good.
1. I’m born Jewish.
2. I remain Jewish by my choice.
3. I reject certain doctrine in Judaism.
4. I share your faith whether you reject my take on it or not.
5. If I weren’t born Jewish, but was more devout than you, and more strict than you, but was converted by a Conservative rabbi, you would reject me as a Jew anyway so it’s not about faith dictating anything, it’s about your choices in what you believe the faith states.
6. Our faith is a panoply of traditions. Where we differ is the part where the Orthodox believe it is all from god and I don’t and that much of it is man made.
7. #6 is what Ratzinger also believes, except for his people. He thinks, like Ephraim, that his efforts toward keeping his faith are god-ordained. Both men will act upon those beliefs, albeit in different ways because their faiths are different.
8. However, that still means that both will reject anything that doesn’t “come from god.” They will view it as a necessity and a part of life, no matter how horrible.
I am sorry that Ephraim thinking that Europe is in danger of being Islamized. Frankly speaking, I prefer moderate Muslims to Christians. Many rabbis in the Middle East used to say “there is nothing like the monotheism of Islam”, and I agree with them.
Once there is peace in the Middle East, it is my fervent hope that we as Jews can work together with our Muslim brothers and sisters to promote monotheism throughout the world. I would also include our other monotheist brothers and sisters the Unitarians, and the Sikhs.
TM wrote: Right, ck, and hitbolelut (assimilation) is not for Ratzinger either.
Au contraire mon frere. The concern with Ratzinger is in that rolling back some of the reforms and inclusive sentiment championed by Pope John Paul II, in retrenching a more traditional Catholicism, he is willing to be less inclusive, even if it means allowing more liberal adherents to fall by the wayside.
With over a billion adherents, Catholics can afford to lose people this way. Jews however, cannot. Its apples and oranges anyway. There is no comparison, except for the facile, totally innaccurate one you made earlier, which I will continue to chalk up to humor …
Your comments to Ephraim however …
Judaism permits abortions, Judaism permits divorces … but above and beyond everything, Judaism is a religion. You say the “God said so” mantra as if it’s a bad thing. Yes. It’s all basically becvause God said so. So what? That’s what our faith dictates. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to share our faith. It’s your call and it’s all good.
Ephraim wants women who don’t find a husband to go through life being untouched in any way by a male. Because god said so.
Ratzinger wants women who are raped and impregnated not to have abortions, and wives who are in terrible relationships not to get divorces. Because god said so.
Ephraim = Ratzinger [insert smarmy emoticon here]
I’m still trying to figure out the thought process behind the assumption that Orthodox Jews should somehow be happy that a traditonalist has been elected Pope.
However, I think TM’s smarmy little emoticon joke makes it pretty obvious:
Ratzinger’s a hide-bound reactionary who is too blind to see that wholesale modernization and the jettisoning of deeply-held beliefs to accomodate people who find tradition restrictive is the answer to all the Chruch’s woes; since the Orthodox are similarly benighted, we should be happy that a spiritual brother has been elected Pope so he can oppress Catholics as the Orthodox dictatorship oppresses Jews.
Are you really that simple-minded, TM? I was looking for some deeper meaning, but I guess it really isn’t there.
This news just in:
Ratzinger is a Catholic. Who the hell cares what goes on in the Catholic Church among Catholics? What has it got to do with us?
The only thing Jews should care about is whether a particular pope is good for the Jews. So far, this pope seems like he won’t be so bad on that score.
Right, ck, and hitbolelut (assimilation) is not for Ratzinger either.
ck = ratzinger ๐
Muffti? TM? After all that talk of bad logic do I even need to discuss why all y’all are such ‘tards?
Let’s just say that while I am a fervent supporter of the separation on Church and State in the US, I do not believe the same ought to apply in the exact same way, in Israel. Why is that? Because Israel is not America and, pay close attention shmendricks, Jews are not Catholics. I’ll just chalk up your comments to residual post Purim silliness and move on.
I think y’all just wanted to to imply that those of us that seek to have an honest discourse with our spirituality and deal with societal changes within an Orthodox context are in fact reactionary and close minded. Well, hitbolelut is simply not an option for me. Orthodoxy is the best way to prevent that. It’s that simple.
My understaning is that Ratzinger joined the Hitler Jugend only after it became compulsory and did his best to avoid involvement, getting out as soon as he could (some kind of seminary deferrment, apparently gotten through the efforts of a Nazi profesor, believe it or not, who was convnced that Ratzinger really was against what the organization stood for). The worst that could be said of him is that he resisted the Nazis passively rather than actively, which would put him with about 99% of Europeans. That he was raised in an anti-Nazi household appears to be beyond dispute.
And if he ever was a Nazi, which appears to be doubtful, he forthrightly supports the right of the Jews to Israel.
What more do you want?
Anyway, he’s the Pope, not the Chief rabbi of Israel. Why should any Jew care that he was the head of the Inquisition?
Ratzinger was elected to be the anti-jihad “Stop the Turk At The Gates of Vienna” pope. This election signals the beginning of the Catholic (and, it is to be hoped, pan-European) resistance to the Islamization of Europe.
Muffti, of course, is right on point. After all the, ahem, pontificating we get in here about sticking to traditions, not wavering, women not allowing men to touch us even if it means they’ll never be touched in their lives, marrying only Jewish women (or Orthodox converts), adhering only to Orthodox conversions, etc., etc., one would think our regulars would be thrilled with this new pope’s reactionary positions.
“This, of course, also bears a message for Christians.รขโฌย
I wonder which message
No outrage over the fact that Ratzinger is a former Hitler Youth and saw Jews being herded to their death in WWII? How come no one is jumping all over this one?
(The story is linked from boing boing)
Muffti is a little surprised. Given all he has read by many of you, he would have thought that philosophically and theologically, Ratzinger is your catholic equivalent (except with way more power). The man has devoted most of a life to ensuring strict interpretations of doctrine and dogma, even to the point of admitting that christianity may have to drop members to protect itself from corruption. The man has crushed all and any attempts at reform or liberalized theology. Where ever a hard line can be taken, he’s taken it. He’s claimed heresy time and time again. (He’s basically inheritor of the inquisition for christ sake!).
Kerry wasn’t Jewish, born or otherwise. His father was born to a born Jewish woman, but his father was baptized and raised Catholic. That means John Kerry was not born Jewish, whether you are Reform or Orthodox.
Sounds like a Nazi who wants to be Pope.