Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• J. Yudelson <jeybbu@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>

• Awaskow@aol.com

• Adam Jessel <sz@technologist.com>

From: J. Yudelson <jeybbu@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>
Date: Thu Dec 14 20:47:44 US/Pacific 2000
Subject: Re: Action Item

> I have received notification from trusted sources that the anti Israel globe
> at Wal-mart is a fabrication or hoax.  The person I forwarded the notice to
> related it to an invalid call for a boycott of McDonald's as well.  I would
> ask Rabbi Sherwood to verify from Leon Weissberg exactly where the globes
> were on sale. We need to be very active in support of Israel, but it is
> important to determine that there is really somesmoke before we shout fire. 
> If any readers of this list have actually seen the globes I would liketo
> know where they were on sale.

PS.  What exactly is JEC and who specifically is Leon Weissberg?  I know who
Rabbi Sherwood is and some the things he stands for.

Julian Yudelson

Return to Table of Contents

From: Awaskow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:48:16 EST
Subject: Ethical sexuality, ethical discussionn of sexuality

Dear Chevra,

Adam Jessel wrote:

> A homosexual friend of the family recently lamented that his steady partner
> had been unfaithful. For our friend, his partner's affair represented not
> just a betrayal of his trust; it also posed a serious threat to his life.

> Realistically, we cannot deny that homosexual behavior is very dangerous. .
> ."

Which "homosexual behavior"? His friend's "lament" about unfaithfulness?

Please notice that "unfaithful behavior" by one gay man, which is condemned by
another gay man, is turned into "homosexual behavior." One of these people is
identified with "homosexual behavior"; the other is not, though both are gay.

What if this were a passage about Jews -- describing two different behaviors
by two different Jews and then naming one, the one not liked, as "Jewish
behavior"?  What labels would we attach to this way of thinking?  I am sorry
that we do not see  more quickly what this way of talking is when it is
applied to gay men.

In the Reform, renewal, and Reconstructionist communities the affirmation of
the full and open presence and participation of gay men and women  and the
celebration of gay life-cycle moments, including marriage, does not legitimate
any and all behavior by any conceivable gay person. 

The celebration of marriage is precisely a celebration of a decision (by gay
or hetero persons) NOT to undertake promiscuous sexual behavior. Of course we
know that for a sizeable proportion of hetero people, this commitment is
violated. Should that prevent us (a) from celebrating the decision for
commitment; (b) from celebrating sexual relationships that adhere to the
standards the Jewish community defines; (c) from offering to all hetero people
the opportunity to celebrate such sacred sexual relationships?

In my own writings (esp *Down-to-Earth Judaism,* ) and in the writings of most
of those who uphold the gay presence in Jewish life, we call for applying the
SAME standards of sexual ethics and celebration to gay & lesbian sexuality as
we do to hetero sexuality. 

Those standards include "Thou shalt not"s as well as "Thou shalt"s.  The same
ones.

Shalom, Arthur  

Return to Table of Contents

From: Adam Jessel <sz@technologist.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:56:25 +0200
Subject: Submission for Debate: The Temple Mount

A statement about Jerusalem's Temple Mount by a group of rabbis has been
condemned by a national Orthodox organization as "seriously misrepresenting" a
verse in Isaiah.

The statement, signed last week by an ad-hoc group of 101 Conservative, Reform
and Reconstructionist clergy, declared that there is no religious reason to
require exclusive Jewish sovereignty over the Mount, the site of the first
Holy Jewish Temple of the post-biblical era and the second Holy Temple, which
was destroyed nearly 2000 years ago.

To bolster their position, the non-Orthodox rabbis cited a scriptural passage
in Isaiah 55 that refers to the Temple as "a house of prayer for all nations."
In light of the verse, one signatory, Rabbi Arthur Green, asserted, "the
Jewish people should welcome the Muslim presence" on the Mount.

The Orthodox response was voiced by Agudath Israel of America, whose
spokesman, Rabbi Avi Shafran, decried what he called the "radical revisionist"
use of the biblical verse.

"The phrase immediately preceding "a house of prayer," he noted, is "'for My
house is' - a clear reference to the Jewish Temple.

"Thus, the intent of the verse is that, with the arrival of the Messiah, the
Jewish Holy Temple will, as its previous incarnations did, serve as a place
for all of humankind to worship the one and only Creator."

In a letter published in The New York Times Monday, the Agudath Israel
representative sought to disabuse readers of the paper, which had reported on
the non-Orthodox statement, of the notion that Isaiah's prophecy envisions
some sort of "spiritual strip mall on the Temple Mount."

Turning to the political stance of the 101 rabbis' statement, the contention
that Israel should share sovereignty over the Temple Mount with Islamic Arabs,
Shafran noted that "de facto, Islam is given fairly free reign over the Mount,
on which there are only two edifices, both mosques."

That being the case, he continued, "this statement does a disservice to the
cause of Middle East peace by giving credence to the patently false propaganda
that those Islamic shrines are not at present adequately protected by Israel."
 "They most certainly are," he asserted, "unlike some holy Jewish shrines that
have fallen into Moslem hands."

Return to Table of Contents

"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: v10n67		Next Issue: v10n69
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form