![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 5 Number 33 | Sat Sep 9 23:55:04 1995 |
From: rebecca@vt.edu (Rebecca Scheckler) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 16:47:16 -0700 Subject: Binding of Isaac My synagogue is looking for a d'rosh on the binding of Isaac for High Holiday services. Any ideas would be appreciated. [You might consult the following back issues of the digest: v4n32, v4n33, v4n34, v5n24, v5n27, and v5n29. See the end of the digest for information on how to obtain backissues. -- Yr. Mod.] Rebecca Scheckler rebecca@vt.edu (540)231-7216(w) (540)951-0172(h) http://www.isis.vt.edu/~rebecca
From: Tatjana Grom <zgrm@iskratel.si> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 04:12:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Homosexuality This is the first time I am joining the writers in this mailing group. The subject I have something to say about is homosexuality. For me two questions are important: 1. Is homosexuality just a form of behaviour or is it a human characteristic? 2. Is it harmful for the society? Ad 1: It has been said by some writers that it is perhaps "genetic" (if I understand it correctly, in its defence). But what does it really mean if something is genetic? Does it mean that it is passed from one generation to another? Then homosexuality is definetively NOT genetic, because it is not inherited from our parents. Does it just mean, that we are born with it and cannot be changed? Because I think that being homosexual is really impossible to change, that it is a characteristic like race or being for example a music genius, in a word, not a matter of choice. We know homosexuality is as old as the human race (being supressed or tolerated variably during the history). Another argument was that one can choose to behave in one way or another. Obviously it is not something some people are doing to spite the majority. Could Ludwig van Beethoven have not written music? There is a limit to what we can control by our inner discipline. We can live without a person we are passinately in love with, if we try very hard and let time heel our burning wounds. We can restrain from smoking and from eating things we like most, if we know they are bad for us. There is a lot we can do, yes, but if we give up our loved one, that doesnt make us a non-heterosexual, does it? If homosexualy oriented people dont fulfill their need for love, that doesnt make them heterosexual, because they simply are not. Since people who are homosexualy oriented, cannot help it, they should not be in any way segregated or oppressed by law, including religious "laws". This is my oppinion. It is very hard to demand of people, that they should not condemn it privately, if they cant understand it or have been raised in a negative attitude towards it. It is understandable. Ad 2: Of course this is acceptable as long as we presume, that homosexuality is not BAD behaviour, harmful for other people. This is a complicated question, I know.I dont think it is, from the following reasons: - It doesnt impact others than those with the same orientation - It is not threatening to reproduction, being very rare. Not all heterosexuals have children either. On the other hand, homosexuals are capable of giving a child proper care to grow up. Taking all this into consideration, I would like to conclude, that it is not bad, abnormal thing. If so, it must have been given to some people with the same purpose as every other characteristic: to improve their souls as much as they can on this earth. Bye! Tatjana Grom, Kranj, Slovenia.
From: QPDB27A@prodigy.com (Bernard Rotmil) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 06:48:31 -0700 Subject: Homosexuality qI quote Dr Constance Stillinger's response to my recent posting on HOMOSEXUALITY. "Just because the "best fit" between genitalia may seem to occur. This analysis reflects a stark failure in the above writer's (that's me) understanding of: "(a) anatomy, (b) the requirements for successful procreation, and (c) evolutionary theory during heterosexual sex, that obviously does not preclude several other "functions" as well. As with our mouths. Or women's breasts. Indeed much of our general anatomy serves several functions---an efficient evolutionary strategy---and thoughtful common sense hesitates to conclude that our genitalia are one of our few body parts that have only one "natural" function. (Particularly since some people already use them for excretion more often than for procreation anyway.)" "What it takes to procreate *successfully* is not the mere union of sperm with ovum. A human baby, which is extraordinarily helpless in comparison with the young of other species, generally survives to reproductive age only with the long-term cooperation of the parents and the society in which the parents live." I would like to assure Dr. Constance Stillinger that I am a father ( and Grandfather) and well aware of the anatomies and their uses necessary for procreation as well as their other uses. Nor was it my intention, nor is it that of Torah, to preclude parental responsibility after the very pleasurable use of the female and male anatomies for the physical procration of their brood. But, whether we like it or not, the physical procreation of life is a "natural function' which can only be performed by male and female and no matter how much one argues against it; it happens to be a fact of two billions years of evolution. I would urge her to read my entire posting. Let me be emphatic in that I would never be as presumptuous as to offer my moral judgement on an activity that is totally benign when it is an activity that occurs between two consulting adults. I urged compassion and understanding of those homosexuals who wish to be discrete about it; there is a legitimate rationale for it. Everyone should follow their natural instinct and do so with good taste and dignity. Who am I to judge otherwise? You can drop a coin from the Empire State building and it will drop in a place other than that predicted by the law of gravity. That's because of air resistance and wind factor but it would be silly to deny the law of gravity as the overriding factor; unless one wishes to engage in "intellectualismus" otherwise known as "Sophisms". Similarly, one can make a lot of "capillary" argumentation that gets one nowhere (see Steven Weintraub's posting of the same day); but the sheer fact of the jugular remains. Never, I say never, insult one's intelligence when making a point; however well meant. If you'll read my posting carefully, you'll see that I view homosexuality with much respect, equal to that of heterosexuality. (In this regard I may be stretching Torah a bit to conform to modern reality). It is only in terms of procration and family life that it cannot be asserted to be an alternate life style (as defined in my prior posting) and it is silly to claim otherwise or, even worse, to so tell students. To a self confident homosexual, that should be of no relevance; unless he feels a need to imitate heterosexuality and play "house". Bernard Rotmil
From: Marian Henriquez Neudel <gmneudel@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:18:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Homosexuality Constance Stillinger <cas@ockham.stanford.edu> wrote in v5n30: >Since there is more and more evidence to a natural basis for homosexuality >(genetic or not), these are the true questions as Jews we must face. As my >math professors use to say, this is left as an exercise for the student. I am increasingly convinced that *heterosexuality* is at least hard-wired into the genes of those of us who are thus oriented. It sure isn't cultural, given that virtually every human culture raises males to despise females and females to fear males--if heterosexuality were not genetically determined, the human population probably wouldn't include even 10% "straight" people. Which suggests in turn that homosexuality is probably also hard-wired--but not necessarily. The only way we could find out would be to remake our social institutions to make men and women more genuinely equal. Marian Neudel
From: Marian Henriquez Neudel <gmneudel@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:18:48 -0700 Subject: Modern Day Prophet? Martin Feinberg <Marpru@aol.com> wrote: >One of the recent Torah portions addressed the subject of recognizing prophets >and rejecting false prophets. I asked the Rabbi at our local Chabad what >exactly constitutes acceptance as a prophet. His answer was that 100%, not >99.9%, of their prophecy's must have been accurate. I asked him if the late >Rebbe Menachem Schneerson was a true prophet. He explained that the Rebbe was >a prophet, and gave me several examples of predections, or prophecy's come >true. I want to keep an open mind. I want to believe in the coming of >Moshiach, but I need input from outside the Lubavitch. What I want to know is >this - - does anyone have concrete proof that one or more of the Rebbe's >prophecy's did not occur? As I understand it, if even one prediction or >prophecy did not happen, then the 100% rule was not met. As I understand the Tradition, it doesn't take prophecy or miracles all that seriously even where the record *is* 100%--the real litmus test is what the "prophet" or "miracle worker" *teaches* and whether it is consistent with the Tradition. Marian Neudel
From: Rabbi Ian Morris <ravianm@tmxmelb.mhs.oz.au> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 07:16:39 -0700 Subject: Modern Day Prophet? Martin Feinberg asks about the late Lubavicher Rebbe's score at the "Prophecy Bat". While I generally concur with the subsequent replies, they have all fudged Martin's question. So while I tender an example, at the same time, I say "So what?" The Australian context provides a very significant example on a number of levels. The Rebbe predicted that a mineral exploration company owned by a prominent Lubavich supporter would find a major diamond yield in a particular exploration lease. The company's share price went through the roof and led to investigation and inquiries regarding market manipulation. No significant diamond find was forthcoming. 'Nuff said? Ian Rabbi Ian D. Morris P.O. Box 47, Stepney 5069, S.A., Beit Shalom Synagogue AUSTRALIA. Adelaide Tel: +61-8-362 8281 South Australia Fax: +61-8-362 4406 Email: ravianm@tmxmelb.mhs.oz.au
From: Rabbi Bob Kraus <BOB2070@DELPHI.COM> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:11:58 -0700 Subject: Re: Mysticism vs. Tradition With respect to what mysticism offers families when Halachah gives so much comfort in times of mourning, I would just like to reiterate what I posted earlier. In cases where there is *not* a strong link to tradition, one does not have the luxury of developing this in a crisis situation. But the mourner may be spiritually receptive to a gentle, mystical contact with the Source of the Universe. It is a matter of matching the message to the listener. Some people are *doers* (i.e. Halachah) and some people are *feelers* (i.e. Mysticism). Of course they are not mutually exclusive, but why opt for only one tool when you have two equally valuable ones available (probably a lot more)? Shalom, Rabbi Bob Kraus
From: Gary J Rubenstein <FinDoc2550@aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 19:20:55 -0700 Subject: Reference Text for a Non-Traditionalist Many thanks for your adding my name to the liberal-Judaism list. I would like to present a question for anyone to respond. My wife, not of the faith, would like to have Pesach at our home this year for my parents and brother. Are there some easy reference texts that she could consider to increase her knowledge, without hearing it from me. I am a total traditionalist with respect to Pesach and so my explanations may be without biblical sense. I await your response. Take your time.....we've got months! [You might consult the soc.culture.jewish reading lists, available at http://shamash.nysernet.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/rl/hl-index.html or via anonymous FTP from shamash.nysernet.org in the directory israel/lists/scj-faq/READING-LISTS -- Yr. Mod.] Thanks. FinDoc2550 Gary Rubenstein
From: Philip Borenstein <philipb@tiac.net> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 16:48:14 -0700 Subject: Services in a church Our fledgling congregation holds its services in a church. Most of the time we use a very secular room, but from time to time we must use their main sanctuary. Though we remove the Christian objects and drape the immovable emblems, some people feel uncomfortable about praying in a church. I can certainly understand. I prefer to use the meeting hall to the sanctuary, but sometimes logistics doesn't allow it. In the future we'll find another space, but for the time being this is the best we've found. (The church has been very generous to us.) What is the Reform position on using a church as a meeting space? What is the traditional view? What can I say to those who feel that it is wrong? Philip Borenstein philipb@tiac.net
From: karen@hal.com (Karen Muldrow) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 06:55:09 -0700 Subject: Teaching 3-year-old about Kashrut I sent this response to Margorie via e-mail - but have decided to go ahead and send it to the group: We have four kids, ages 8, 7, 4, and 3. What I've noticed is that their commitment to keeping Kosher-style (i.e. we eat only those foods that *could* be Kosher, but we don't yet buy only Kosher meats....we don't mix milk and meat...etc.) ebbs and flows. Our challenges us a little because they are learning about nutrition in school and he is convinced that each meal is supposed to have one of the four food groups: meat, veggie, fruit, dairy. On the other hand, every time a McDonalds or Burger King commercial comes on while we're watching TV, they'll cheer "NOT KOSHER!". Part of what we tell our kids about keeping Kosher is that meat comes from animals, and killing an animal is a very serious thing. Since it's so serious, we have some rules about how to eat meat - that Kosher meat is from an animal that was killed in a way that tried not to hurt the animal. We also talk about how a long time ago some people used to do pretty disgusting things like killing pigs as offerings to statues and drinking blood - and Jews decided then not to do anything like that and made a promise to be very careful about what we eat. We also say that it is special and it is a special way to show that we care about our world. Depending on how religious you want to get in your explanation, you might want to talk about how eating Kosher foods reminds us about how much we love G_d and the world. Wait 'til they go to public school and get to choose between a sausage roll and (meat) lasagna for lunch. Mmmmm. (We've been packing lunches this year). Have a nice day! Karen
From: Bert Steinberg <mate1920@aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 05:36:53 -0700 Subject: Event Announcement: Colloquium '95 (Humanistic Judaism) The weekend beginning Thursday evening, October 12 and concluding Sunday afternoon, October 15 will feature Colloquium '95 - - The topic, "The Unaffiliated Jew." The setting the Pivnick Center for Humanistic Judaism in Metropolitan Detroit. Sixteen famous international scholars, inytellectuals, writers, artists and leaders of the Jewish world will address the most fundamental problem facing the Jewish people. The 16 leaders are not all secular humanistic Jews but represent all sectors of the Jewish community. They are: Yehuda Amichai , Israel's greatest living poet Yehuda Bauer, world famous Holocaust scholar Norman Cantor, provocative and controversial historian Egon Mayer, famous demographer of Jewish life Joel Feinberg, renowned philosopher of huma rights Anne Roiphe, feminist commentator on Jewish life Andre Aciman, poetic commentator on Sephardic life Jenna Joselit, creative observer of American Jewish life Egon Friedler, leading journalist in Latin America Shoshana Cardin, leader of American Jewry Yaakov Malkin, Israeli philosopher of Secular Humanistic Judaism Bernard Reisman, expert of Jewish communal studies Joan Micklin Silver, award winning filmmaker (hester Street, etc.) Charles Silberman, distinguished writer on American and Jewish life Felice Malkin, Israeli creator of new exhibit, Jewish Figurative Art Sherwin Wine, founder of Humanistic Judaism After morning and afternoon discussions, evenings will be a celebration of the Arts--visual arts on Thrsday, poetry on Friday and film on Saturday. Cost for entire weekend only $150. Registration and information--International Institute of Secular Humanistic Judaism, 28611 West Twelve Mile Road, Farmington Center, MI 48334, 810-476-9532. Bert Steinberg
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: v5n32 | Next Issue: v5n34 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |