![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 10 Number 128 | Wed Jun 6 23:55:02 US/Pacific 2001 |
From: Your Moderator <moderator@mljewish.org> Date: Wed Jun 6 14:07:39 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Administrivia: Slowness of Responses over 6/8-10 Note: I will not be processing submissions from noon-ish Friday until late Sunday. I'm going to be going on a camping trip (Indian Princesses) with my daughter (yes, I'll bring Shabbat Candles ;-)) Daniel
From: BerRotm@aol.com Date: Wed Jun 6 13:57:14 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Re: Halakha In a message dated 6/6/2001 3:14:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rav Arthur Waskow writes: > As for the first: Rabbi Hershel Matt, may the memory of the tzaddik be for a > blessing, who was a Conservative rabbi and a serious scholar and an adherent > of halakha, wrote a major article in 1980 or thereabouts, followed by > others, arguing that in regard to those gay persons whose sexual orientation > was "compelled" by deep and unchangeable factors, the halahic doctrine that > no one can be held halakhically accountable for [most] behavior to which he > was... It seems to me that this leaves room to excuse "compelled" drives such as pedophilia, and worse. As a liberal Jew I find this statement to be a good example of moral relativism and, quite frankly, one of the prime example of concepts that fall off the edge, not only of Hallakah, but of any semblance of a moral standard which is the very foundation of Judaic beliefs and ethics. As much as I deplore the excesses of rigid Orthodoxy as outside the Judaic construct, I find simillar problems in the convenient and well intentioned tolerance praticed at the other end of the spectrum which similarly loses the essence. At the very least, I would not use this points to justify fairness to homosexuality. One can accept homosexuality as an aberration if only to preserve some rationality on the issue -- stay away from moral or clinical judgements -- and still allow respect to the homosexual on the basis of how he conducts himself -- as would be the case for heterosexuals as well. However, it is foolish to dance around the rather explicit prohibition of male homosexuality of Hallakah. Bernard Rotmil
From: PDZ99@aol.com Date: Wed Jun 6 13:55:40 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Re: HIV/AIDS Harriet Meyer writes: > Let's be accurate. HIV IS a notifiable disease and has been for many years, > under the auspices of the CDC's National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance > System. Also, the correct name is Centers [note plural] for Disease Control > and Prevention (it is still abbreviated CDC). Yes it is notifiable. But, does the infected homosexual also have to report to the CDC the names of his sexual partners, so that the disease can be tracked? AIDS is not a gay disease. It is a sexually transmitted or bloodborne viral illness. According to the CDC, worldwide risk factors "include migration, economic instability, drug use, STDs [sexually transmitted diseases], low levels of literacy, and poverty." In the US "[t]he greatest impact of the epidemic is among men who have sex with men (MSM) and among racial/ethnic minorities, with increases in the number of cases among women and of cases attributed to heterosexual transmission," and risk factors include "[s]ocioeconomic factors (e.g., homophobia, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and lack of access to health care)..." (source: MMWR, June 1, 2001). Is this not a call for social justice? What volume of the MMWR are you speaking about? Is the [eg.....] your interpretation? Homophobia spreading AIDS? This statement is unreal. But here is the proof that AIDS was introduced in this country through male homosexuals. I found this report in the MMWR, June 1, 2001/50(21);249 "First Report of AIDS" it says: Twenty years ago, on June 5, 1981, MMWR published a report of five cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) among previously healthy young men in Los Angeles (1). All of the men were described as "homosexuals"; two had died. Local clinicians and the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Officer stationed at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, prepared the report and submitted it for MMWR publication in early May 1981. Before publication, MMWR editorial staff sent the submission to CDC experts in parasitic and sexually transmitted diseases. The editorial note that accompanied the published report stated that the case histories suggested a "cellular-immune dysfunction related to a common exposure" and a "disease acquired through sexual contact." The report prompted additional case reports from New York City, San Francisco, and other cities. At about the same time, CDC's investigation drug unit, the sole distributor of pentamidine, the therapy for PCP, began to receive requests for the drug from physicians also to treat young men. In June 1981, CDC developed an investigative team to identify risk factors and to develop a case definition for national surveillance. Within 18 months, epidemiologists conducted studies and prepared MMWR reports that identified all of the major risks factors for acquired immnodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In March 1983, CDC issued recommendations for prevention of sexual, drug-related, and occupational transmission based on these early epidemiologic studies and before the cause of the new, unexplained illness was known. Also, please note that initial transmission of AIDS to heterosexuals was via three avenues predominantly: 1)sharing needles with infected parties 2)having sex with bisexual males 3)having sex with infected sex-workers As to your comment: "World-wide more heterosexuals than homosexuals are infected with HIV." This is true only because there are more heterosexuals in the world. I think if you were to quote percentage-wise, you'd find this argument to be incorrect. > Why is AIDS even coming up in a discussion of homosexuality? I think the above is self-explanatory. > The vast majority of gays are not infected with HIV. While this may be true, and I'm not sure of your source for this knowledge, HIV is again on the rise within the homosexual population. Just listen to the news of this last week. > But since it has come up, let's consider that same-sex marriage would cut the > risk. I'll consider this argument as long as you consider the other side. I quote from "Homosexuality, A Freedom Too Far" by Charles W. Socarides, MD, pg.113. He is refuting a study done by Dr. David McWhirtier and Andrew Mattison, who wrote about monogamous gay unions. Dr. Socarides states that even in their study, these authors had to report that of the 156 couples studied, only 7 couples ""considered themselves to have been consistently sexually monogamous throughout the years of their relationships,"" and these couples had been together less than 5 years. ""Stated another way,"" the authors write, "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated come provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."" I think that the finding of McWhirtier and Mattison, who have been a same-sex couple for over 20 years themselves, speaks for itself. While they may be ""living out their lives quietly and productively in the mainstream of American life,"" they did not find the same for their gay brothers, even though that was one of their goals. Patricia
From: Awaskow@aol.com Date: Wed Jun 6 13:52:07 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Reform literature Martin Graffman writes that he has concluded homosexuality is a disease because: > 1) It prevents procreation and the continued existence of the species. 2) > There may be a hereditary factor. 3) It produces great emotional, social, > and often economic pain among homosexuals. 4) It is extremely difficult if > not impossible to modify homosexuality with psychotherapeutic and behavioral > techniques. 5) There is no indication that homosexuality can be acquired. 1. It doesn't prevent procreation; plenty of gay men and lesbians have had children. It decreases the chance. And it is laughable to think it "prevents the continued existence of the species." Indeed, any choice to limit procreation is more likely at this stage of history to ADVANCE the likelihood of the survival of homo sapiens. Moreover, applying this criterion would mean that priests and nuns in a number of religions are diseased. Really? 2. "There may be a hereditary factor" in being Jewish, too. Does this make it a disease? 3. Living in Mt Airy, a neighborhood of Philadelphia where there is an unusually large number of lesbians, a number of whom are rabbis, I can testify that most of them bear no greater "emotional, social, and often economic pain" than most human beings. Those gay men or lesbians who do bear more pain because of their sexuality will tell you that this results from persecution by the social system, which tries to prevent them from experiencing the pleasure in life they otherwise would. Two generations ago, in Germany and many other places, many Jews bore great emotional, social, and often economic pain. Was that because they were diseased? Or because their societies were? As for (4) and (5), they apply to having blue eyes, big noses, small genitals, Type A personalities, and -- what's mopre -- HETEROsexualitgy. All diseases, obviously. It is easy for a society to define a specific life-path as dis-eased, perverted, immoral, or other bad things -- and then to make its path-walkers feel ill at ease -- "dis-eased." The correct medical prescription in such cases is to say to the society. "Heal thyself." Shalom, Arthur Rabbi Arthur Waskow Director, The Shalom Center <www.shalomctr.org> <www.FreeOurTime.org>
From: Rebbezev@aol.com Date: Wed Jun 6 13:53:55 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Reform literature B"H Martin Graffman defines homosexuality as a "disease" because: > 1) It prevents procreation and the continued existence of the species. 2) > There may be a hereditary factor. 3) It produces great emotional, social, > and often economic pain among homosexuals. 4) It is extremely difficult if > not impossible to modify homosexuality with psychotherapeutic and behavioral > techniques. 5) There is no indication that homosexuality can be acquired. A. Items 1 and 2 cannot both be true. If it PREVENTS procreation, then there cannot be a hereditary factor. As a physician, Dr. Graffman is surely aware that anything which PREVENTS procreation also necessarily prevents passing on any hereditary factors. B. It is not homosexuality, but societal attitudes toward homosexuality that result in "emotional, social, and often economic pain among homosexuals." Perhaps it is the societal attitude toward homosexuality which should be characterized as a disease. C. The difficulty of "modifying" homosexuality with psychotherapeutic and behavioral techniques is irrelevant to whether it is a "disease." One cannot modify chicken pox with psychotherapeutic and behavioral techniques, but there is no doubt that chicken pox is a disease. And it seems more and more that even some psychological disorders -- schizophrenia, for example--cannot be modified through psychotherapeutic or behavioral techniques. When the psych disorder is organic, it is often controllable only through medication. D. The possibility of "acquiring" homosexuality is also irrelevant to its whether it is a disease. Diseases have a wide variety of etiologies. Many congenital illnesses are not "acquired;" many diseases are "acquired" or contagious. E. To categorize homosexuality as a "disease" is arrogant and offensive. Would we accept a Ku Klux Klan member's categorization of "being black" as a disease? With the exception of Dr. Graffman's #1 above (which, as I have pointed out, is in utter contradiction to his #2), all the statements could be equally applied to being African-American (or to being Euro-American, for that matter, or to having red hair or brown eyes). F. It is not homosexuality which has been viewed as forbidden by Orthodox (and some Conservative) Halachic sources, but sexual relations between men. It is my assertion that this prohibition (and the characterization of homosexual sexual relations as "to'evah," "abomination") is applicable only to heterosexuals, but that is a subject for another discussion. I could continue, but this will be sufficient. Shalom, R. Zev-Hayyim Feyer
From: Adam Jessel <sz@technologist.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:38:36 +0200 Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Reform literature Martin wrote: > The sages have either arbitrarily or in the name of humanism delegalized law > that is derived from the Torah. An example is the elimination of the > requirement of stoning children who are disrespectful to parents. Not a good example, I'm afraid. The sages never delegalized the requirement of stoning children who are disrespectful to parents. The law to which you referred is still in effect. It's just that the definition of a "rebellious child" is very specific, and the conditions necessary for stoning are absent (e.g., a Sanhedrin capable of dealing with capital offenses), so that it is currently impossible to implement. Lucky thing for my kids. Adam
From: Jessel <sz@technologist.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:38:54 +0200 Subject: Re: Homosexuality, Judaism, and Halakha Arthur Waskow wrote: > Hershel Matt, who was a Conservative rabbi and a serious scholar and an > adherent of halakha, wrote a major article in 1980 or thereabouts, followed > by others, arguing that in regard to those gay persons whose sexual > orientation was "compelled" by deep and unchangeable factors, the halahic > doctrine that no one can be held halakhically accountable for [most] > behavior to which he was compelled, applies. Let's assume for the moment that there are indeed people whose homosexual *orientation* is "compelled" by unchangeable factors. That doesn't necessarily mean that they can't reduce or eradicate their same-gender sexual *behavior*. There is a wide range of orientations in human sexuality, but we all (it is hoped) control our sexual urges to some extent. There are people who definitely feel compelled toward extramarital relations, toward illegal sexual activities, and toward all kinds of habits that have some unwanted or undesirable consequences. There are also alcoholics, chain-smokers, chocolate addicts, etc. The list is endless. Nevertheless, a person who wants to regulate his behavior can do so, even to a small extent. The traditional view is that only G-d has complete free will; the rest of us are compelled to some degree. The task of the Jew is to continually strive for ever greater control over his compulsions to make his life consistent with the Torah appraoch. This is considered part one's obligation to emulate G-d. The idea that no one can be held accountable for behavior to which he was compelled makes sense. But there are always some aspects over which one does have some control. There is some degree of volition in every behavior. As an acquaintance struggling with same-sex orientation wrote: > HaShem does not expect - or even want - an ounce more than we are capable of > giving. But He won't accept an ounce less than that either. And the catch is > that only He knows where that limit is. Adam
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net> Date: Wed Jun 6 13:59:16 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Reform Policy on Israel Michael Horowitz wrote (v10n126): >>I am disgusted by Eric Yoffie's, head of the Reform movement in the US >>decision to attack the decision of the democratically elected government of >>Israel not to give in to PLO terrorism and freeze construction of Jewish >>homes in Yesha. Ed Nikow responded: >I am disgusted by Michael Horowitz's decision to distort Rabbi Yoffie's >comments by taking them out of context. I think both have quoted selectively. Let's go to a third party. Here is what today's (June 6) Jerusalem Post editorial column said: "Speaking at a national board meeting of the Reform movement's Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), union president Rabbi Eric Yoffie became the first American Jewish leader to publicly criticize the Israel since the start of the intifada. Yoffie reportedly accused Israel of committing 'acts of degradation and cruelty' against the Palestinians, called Israel's settlement policies 'fanatic' and blamed Israel for 'demonizing' its enemies. At a time when Israel is fighting an uphill struggle in the war over public opinion in the US, Yoffie's impetuous remarks were especially harmful and regrettable." And there's more. The title of the editorial is called: "A Reform blow to Jewish unity" See <http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/06/06/Opinion/Editorial.27590.html> Eric
From: Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org> Date: Wed Jun 6 14:00:11 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Reform Policy on Israel I disagree with Michael Horowitz's assessment of Rabbi Eric Yoffie's recent speech about Israel. In many aspects, what Rabbi Yoffie said was incredibly brave and deserves kudos. Please read the URL Emily Grotta posted, http://www.uahc.org/yoffie/israelpeace.html , or at least read this portion: "First and foremost, we have been wrong about Palestinian intentions. We have believed, along with our allies in the peace camp, that if an Israeli prime minister would be brave enough to say that Israel must choose peace over territories, the Palestinian Authority would also choose peace... Ehud Barak bravely offered a Palestinian state on 96 percent of the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem... But the offer was not accepted. The voices of reason and moderation on which we had counted did not appear. And the PLO showed itself, once again, to be one of the most stupid, murderous, and bloodthirsty national liberation movements in all of human history... Rabin had misjudged his enemies... Yasser Arafat... cast aside his commitment at Oslo not to use force and launched a second intifada... And we were wrong about something else as well. We did not pay nearly enough attention to the culture of hatred created and nourished by Palestinian leaders." Yes, the speech was not entirely positive. True, his criticism of Israel earned him a blistering critique from the Jerusalem Post ("A Reform blow to Jewish Unity," June 6). Yes, to freeze settlements _now_ would reward violence (the Oslo Accords explicitly allowed settlement activity to continue). Yes, referring to the "peace camp" implies that those outside it were not in favor of peace (Rabbi Yoffie, we didn't oppose peace -- we paid attention to the culture of hatred!). And, yes, it goes without saying that I cannot fathom blaming the Orthodox for decades of deliberately-inculcated Israeli ignorance of Judaism. Even so, I think those are minor points. Given the totality of his speech, I think the JPost _and_ Michael could afford to give him some -- no, a lot -- of credit. Do you realize that he refers to having been wrong _ten_ _times_ in that one speech? I, for one, was impressed. Yaakov Menken
From: Michael Horowitz <michaelh1@hotmail.com> Date: Wed Jun 6 14:01:40 US/Pacific 2001 Subject: Reform Policy on Israel > I am disgusted by Michael Horowitz's decision to distort Rabbi Yoffie's > comments by taking them out of context. I did not take anything out of context. Rabbi Yoffie used the occasion of another terrorist attack on Israel to attack the policy of the government of Israel regarding settlements. Remember, Rabbi Yoffie knows that the Israeli government will ignore his demands. If one studies the laws of reproach, one limitation of criticising anothers behavior, is whether the person will listen. If they won't we don't criticise them. The only purpose in attacking Israel's settlement policies is to try and encourage gentile governments like the US to use political pressure against Israel. If one reads the press release of Rabbi Yoffie's speech their is a much stronger emphasis on the need for Israel to stop supporting the settlements. The press release brags "...Yoffie is the first major American Jewish leader to call on Israel to end settlement expansion since the recent outbreak of Palestinian violence..." The reform movement militant support of Israel's withdrawal from the territories liberated in 1967 have played a major part in encouraging the current violence. Pro PLO organizations regularly trumpet statements by groups like the UAHC and more so by Arthur's Shalom Center as proof American Jews will stop supporting Israel's continued existance as a Jewish state. This break in Jewish unity, they believe is an important step in the total destruction of Israel. UAHC official poster stated > he said that we could not let politics or ideology dictate the decisions we > make concerning the safety of children entrusted to our care. It was a > courageous decision. It is far from clear if this was not about politics. AS a columnist for a paper I have been contacted by individuals who have stated it was a political decision. Unfortunately they will not yet let their names be used. I am hoping they find new jobs soon and will publicly speak to the issue. Still even if it was about safety it shows how American Jews have no right to ask Israel's Jewish population to take more risks for peace. If it is too dangerous for Jews to visit our homeland, then certainly we should allow support and decision those Jews who live there decide to take for their own security, even if it violates our own liberal ideas and preferences.
Submissions should be mailed to either submit@mljewish.org or mlj@shamash.org. Please clearly mark your submission as a submission, and include either a relevant subject line or a reference to the issue to which you are replying.
If you would like to subscribe to MLJ, please complete the Subscription Request Form, or send a message to the moderator (listmgt@mljewish.org) requesting to be added to the list. Please include your first and last names in your request.
Backissues may be obtained by Email by completing a Backissue by Email Request Form. A specific backissue may be retrieved interactively by completing a Request Form.
Publishing any of the mail.liberal-judaism digests or portions thereof on any other medium including soc.culture.jewish without consulting the moderator and/or the originator of the article represents a breach of trust. Please remember why this list was created and that contributers may not want to discuss the "correctness" of their beliefs from your point of view. Also note that many of the people who write in wish their privacy preserved. Thank you for your cooperation with these restrictions.
"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)
| Previous Issue: v10n127 | Next Issue: v10n129 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |