![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 6 Number 75 | Mon Nov 18 23:55:22 US/Pacific 1996 |
From: David Lilienthal <ravdav@xs4all.nl> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:15:09 +0100 Subject: British Reform Synagogues and Same-Sex Ceremonies A week ago Rabbi Arthur Waskow appealed for understanding about same-sex-marriages from other rabbis and asked them to sign an appeal to the British Reform Synagogues to allow these ceremonies. The Moderator's feeling that > This one, however, could provoke some interesting discussion, as the subject > has in the past. has not proven to be the case. I don't want to provoke that discussion here, just to correct the impression Arthur gives of how "liberal" the non-orthodox movements in the US are in this regard. In the letter to Rabbi Tony Bayfield, he writes > Here in the United States, such ceremonies are becoming more and more > frequent, and no sanctions have been imposed by the Reform, > Reconstructionist, or Conservative rabbinical associations, or by their > related synagogue organizations, against such ceremonies hallowing same-sex > marriages. Indeed, the Reconstructionist movement has encouraged its Rabbis > to officiate, and the Reform rabbinical association - while it has not yet > taken a formal institutional position in that question - has formally > resolved to urge the civil authorities to provide same-sex marriages as a > civil right and has left its rabbis free to officiate at same-sex marriages. > Although the Conservative rabbis' Committee on Law and Standards has ruled > that such marriages violate halakha, it has not taken any action to sanction > rabbis who officiate at such weddings, and some Conservative rabbis have in > fact done so. It sounds as if the Rabbinic organizations approve of same-sex marriages. This is not the case. The problem, as I feel it from the European perspective, is that the rabbinic organizations in the US have no powers to impose sanctions. In other countries, if the organization decides on a policy, a rabbi not towing the line may be expelled from the organization and can thereafter not serve any synagogue in the organization associated with the rabbinic one. This is also the situation in Great Britain, which means that the rabbi who announced in her Kol Nidre sermon (guest-preaching in the congregation of another woman rabbi who had asked her not to talk on this subject!) was violating the code of her own professional organization. In the US, rabbis are autonomous in quite a different way, and there the rabbinical organizations cannot impose sanctions of this kind. This is sometimes problematic, since the rabbi who e.g. does not want to perform mixed marriages, cannot tell those in his/her congregation putting on the pressure, that the professional organization does not allow it. It lays the rabbi open to all kinds of pressure which we do not have here. The decision of the CCAR to call upon the civil authorities to allow same-sex marriages was just that, a call upon the civil authorities. The CCAR tried to make it very clear that this did not in any way mean that they would religiously sanction such unions. The CCAR Responsa Committee, of which I am a member, have struggled with this issue for almost a year now. The committee is divided; for the first time it has not been possible to come to a joint Teshuva. There is a good majority against same-sex-ceremonies, and a minority therefore, accepting them. The two opinions are irreconcilable; the majority and the minority speak different languages. The Teshuva -or "Position paper" as some of us prefer to call it - should be ready within the coming days. I recommend those interested in the subject to ask for a copy, it puts both positions very clearly next to each other in an exhaustive way. Thus it does not seem likely that the CCAR will endorse same-sex-ceremonies, at least for the time being, even if some rabbis chose to exert their autonomy and perform such ceremonies anyway. For a copy, write to Mark Washofsky, the chair of the committee, at MWashofsky@wow.com. David Lilienthal Rabbijn David Lilienthal Liberaal Joodse Gemeeente ravdav@xs4all.nl Jacob Soetendorpstr.8 tel.: +31-20-641.2580 1079 RM Amsterdam, Holland fax.:+31-20-640.2458 tel.: +31-20-644.2619 "The decrees of the Eternal are enduring, making wise the simple ... "
From: Winston Weilheimer <taxrelief@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 22:08:11 -0800 Subject: Children's Services: Maintaining Decorum > In structuring children's services in the context of a large traditional > Conservative congregation we are faced with the issue of maintaining decorum > in a variety of services. Children between ages 10-12 are especially > challenging. There are those who join the services presenting attitudinal > and discipline problems thus ruining the atmosphere for others. Has anyone > experimented with solutions that have proved to be effective such as: unique > and different services or options of not attending a service at all but > where the children are, at least, supervised. With all due respects, Rabbi, how can we NOT have our children attend services and expect them to learn and to love our traditions. To push the children aside for the sake of the decorum of the service may be short sighted, for we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we look around in 20 years and ask where is the next generation. Certainly there must be some decorum for the sanctity of the service to survive...but for the service to survive we MUST pass on the service to the next generation. Sometimes the balance is difficult. The answer almost always lies with the parents. If these are children of congregants, the parents should be advised what is acceptable. If they are guests, then unruly behavior is certainly rude at the very least unless the children are taking their cues from others in the congregation. In some of our services, the children (little ones) are allowed to wonder between the isles, but when we get to the ameda, or Torah reading, I announce that it is time for the parents to gather their children so that the family can daven together. I believe that if you set an atmosphere where children are welcome, they will actually begin to enjoy the service and participate in it. If at the same time you make plain your expectations for decorum, (without shushing) the children will learn to behave. If the children feel unwelcome now, they will feel unwelcome when they are 25, and 50. You may be able to teach the Shimah in a class room but if you do not allow the children to exerperience it during a service, it is just lip service. I encourage the all of the children to come up several times during MOST services especially on Friday nights to do parts as a group. The Shimah for instance. Then all of the children are invited up to the Bimah for Kiddush. Then again for the closing benediction. This gives them a feeling of being a part of the service without interfering or disturbing the service. The Yomim Noraim are different. We publish a statement that while all children are welcome to experience the holiday service, we realize that their sitzfleish may not allow them to be perfect for the entire time and we ask that parents take their children for a short "timeout" when necessary so that others will be able to pray and to concentrate. Winston Weilheimer Spiritual Leader Temple Israel of DeLand (Fl.)
From: Susan Allen <Surfing17@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:46:49 -0800 Subject: Re: Children's Services: Maintaining Decorum Emily Grotta wrote: >How to maintain decorum at children's services is not just a High Holy Day >issue...in Larchmont, we're struggling with how to maintain decorum at >Bar/Bat Mitzvah worship. Usually, we have 20 or more seventh graders sitting >in the back of the sanctuary, chatting, giggling etc. without even a thought >of listening or participating. Any one have luck with this? Several suggestions: At our congregation in NJ ushers are instructed to seat no more than three teens together unless an adult is sitting with them. In one Bar Mitzvah invitation my son received there was a card outlining proper ettiquette when attending a service at that congregation. Obviously what is most important is that children should have been accompanied by there parents and taught over the years how to behave in synagogue...but since this is a less than perfect world, the first two suggestions seem to help. Susan Allen surfing17@aol.com
From: Julius Lester <lester@judnea.umass.edu> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:42:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Jewish-Black relations > One possible historic condition that contributes to the difficulties between > black and Jewish people is that Jewish people showed more willingness in this > country to help the lesser wanted minorities, such as black people and the > Irish, by being among the first to hire them when few other wanted them. > However, when the Irish and other minorities vaulted over the black people in > socioeconomic class, for whatever reasons, it was a case of dashing rising > expectations. These dashed hopes were then vented against the blacks' Jewish > employers. I am not sure what the above refers to but in 1929, Jewish merchants on Harlem's 125th Street refused to hire blacks as clerks in their stores. The black residents organized a boycott of Jewish-owned stores without result. Eventually there was a riot and only then did Jewish merchants hire blacks to work as clerks. The same series of events took place in Chicago in 1931. What Andy Plotkin writes may be historically accurate, but if so, it does not represent the complete historical picture. Jewish liberalism is real and important but it is not the only political stream in American Jewish history and its importance should not be exaggerated. Perhaps the best books on the history of black-Jewish relations are Robert Weisbord's "Blacks and Jews: The Bittersweet Encounter" and Hasia Diner's "In the Almost Promised Land:American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935." Julius Lester lester@judnea.umass.edu
From: Lewis Reich <lbr@sprynet.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:39:11 +0000 Subject: Problems with a Bookstore Rabbi Arthur Waskow on Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:35:28 -0500 rasied an interesting related question: > I have just received (for possible review) a new book from a reputable > American publisher, which I imagine may be carried in many mainstream > bookstores. It is written by an Israeli (formerly American) Jew who was > convicted of and who celebrates his commission of what I would call a > terrorist act [...]He celebrates this act as required by Judaism as he > understands it. To my reading, his book is filled with racism, hatred of > Palestinians, false statements about their history, etc. What criteria > would other members of this list apply, to the question whether a bookstore > should or should not be discouraged from carrying this book? Any expression by the Jewish comunity against carrying this book would, it seems to me, run the risk of being perceived as trying to hide some rather unpleasant manifestations. Yet at the same time I think we are all rightly offended by the prospect of criminals making money as a result of the notoriety their crimes bring them. On that basis alone, publishing and distributing such a book seems to me an ethically dubious proposition. Nevertheless, if the book does not attract much attention, I would say that it might better to simply ignore it; if it does, then it ought to be denounced. But whether one ought to advocate banning it seems to me to turn on the question of whether the bookstore's carrying it would seem to lend it additional credence. I feel that since this book, however morally repugnant, is in effect a statement of (reprehensible and misguided) opinion, and clearly recognizable as such, it is in a different category that the Nation of Islam book, which represents itself not as opinion but as historical fact. The latter is, it seems to me, afforded greater credence by being carried in a reputable store than the former. Jan Theodore Galkowski <jtgalkowski@worldnet.att.net> responded to my comments, suggesting that: > There isn't any right for people to have their book carried, but there is a > right to not be blacklisted. If comparable trefe is available at Borders, > then should the author-publisher see their book as not carried, particularly > in response to protest from some minority in the general public, then they > have a legitimate gripe, maybe even a civil case. First, it is quite a distance from asking a store not to carry a book to a blacklist. I would be very curious to know on what theory one imagines such a case could be sustained. Concern is also expressed about the increasing concenetration of channels of distribution, and while this is certainly a real and worrisome phenomenon, it does not justify the acceptance of hate literature into the mainstream. Should we say that Klan publications ought to have a right to be distributed at Borders because there are so few channels of distribution for them> Lewis B. Reich (413) 567-9460 LBR@sprynet.com Fax: (413) 565-2507
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 96 5:09:07 CST Subject: Re: Problems with a Bookstore This is a troublesome issue in our secular free-speech society. Lashon hara laws of Judaism unequivocally restricts speech of even true and accurate facts in some circumstances and slander of all sorts in most any circumstance, but it equally clearly is incompatible with the U.S. constitution and is not the governing law in our pluralistic society. So then, what standards does one make, or should we be free speech absolutists? It seems to me that knowing, intentionally hurtful expression of falsehoods goes beyond expression of opinion. 1+1=3 is not a matter of opinion, it is false. Now, we supposedly have laws to take care of this, people can sue for defamation of character, for instance. Could we make a class action lawsuit on behalf of Jews, against Farakhan and those who publish his garbage? We'd have to be able to prove some damages, difficult to do. If The_Bell_Curve promotes racist attitudes increasing discrimination in employment, housing, banking, educational opportunity and classroom placement, well -- how can it be proven that this discrimination is caused by The_Bell_Curve, even if to some degree it is? Public discourse largely comes from an aggregation of well-publicized opinions and statements from a relatively small portion of the population, those whose ideas are promulgated by the mass media and to a lesser extent those whose ideas are widely available such as in chain bookstores like Borders. In turn, public discourse plays a profound role in how society functions on a daily basis -- the attitudes people carry with them and how they both knowingly and unknowingly act on those attitudes. An example of this seems to be the rightward political drift of the country since Reagan removed the fairness doctrine requiring equal airtime of opposing views on the airwaves, and Limbaugh and cohorts then got vast amounts of unopposed media play -- again, we run into trouble in proving cause and effect, but it is at least strongly suggestive. Free speech absolutistism has several shortcomings: 1) Opposing "bad" speech with "good" speech requires those who make "good" speech to have as loud a megaphone as those they oppose-- usually means as much money and influence. While this is not a problem for us against Farakhan, it is a problem in many other circumstances when this free speech dilemna comes up. 2) Opposing "bad" speech with "good" speech requires constant vigilence -- if there's more of them than of us, they can more easily put out more damaging materials than we can counter against. Efforts we expend in defending ourselves against slanderous lies are efforts we have diverted from expending in positive ways. 3) Independent political speech cannot legally be restricted (it can be required to be registered). This is the new big-money loophole being increasingly exploited as our political system goes to those who have the most money to make the most "speech" (TV commercials). 4) Corporations have been granted rights of individuals under the constitution, thus they too have equal free speech "rights". Clinton's new FDA advertising restrictions on tobacco will probably be declared unconstitutional -- present bans on TV tobacco ads were agreed to by the tobacco companies when threatened with Congress setting up a fund to have equal airtime for ads against smoking. I think a reasonable standard for media and large publishers and booksellers is to require that the material they disseminate not be inaccurate at least in its unarguable factual content. Items found to have inaccurate statements can remain available and promoted provided they include (not as a separate item, but comes together with the inaccurate item) corrigenda, indicating the errors and corrections. This would still allow for all sorts of harmful misleading portrayal of facts (by developing misleading contexts) and all sorts of harmful opinions, but it would mean that folks like Farakhan and Limbaugh would have corrections as lengthy as their pieces, and people would know in some cases whom they could not trust, reducing the credibility of those opinions. This should work well also for the case Arthur Waskow is dealing with in his review of a book "filled with racism, hatred of Palestinians, false statements about their history, etc." Given that such an accuracy standard is not going to be created by those who profit from the present system and can't be created by law, do we take individual or community action or no action? My sense of Jewish ethics impels me to not support those who profit from injustice, whether it's Shell Oil, Pepsico (Pepsi, Taco Bell, Frito Lay, KFC, Pizza Hut), Phillip Morris (Miller, Kraft, Post, Oscar Mayer, etc) or too many others. I'll admit my application of this principle is not perfect. I think in the context of various levels of injustice, Borders selling vile anti-semitic literature in the U.S. is relatively minor (though doing the same in eastern europe would be serious), so if you think this is important enough to boycott Borders for, I hope you consider the broader issue of support of injustice seriously and do as little business as you can with other companies committing worse abuses. Stephen Jascourt stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
From: David M. Snyderman <dms@howdy.wustl.edu> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 14:16:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Southern Baptist Resolution > [... Southern Baptists resolve to bring the gospel to the Jews...] End of > resolution; I find this the utmost chutzpah and arrogance, It completely > appalls me. How about the rest of you? Joan Downing Whatever else you think of it, it is refreshingly honest when compared to the Messianic Jewish organizations, who go about the conversion process in an underhanded manner. As far as chutzpah and arrogance, the religion probably (I don't know much about Southern Baptists, other than what I hear in the media) has as its basis a belief that it and it alone is correct. Any non-believers are damned. So attempting to convert the Jews is merely consistent with the basic beliefs of the religion (and, in their belief structure, a humanitarian act). The chutzpah and arrogance come from the self-belief that they-- and they alone-- have Truth. Am I for it? No. Do I think it is a threat? No. Anyone who has made it through college in this country and has not converted is probably pretty immune to conversion attempts by organized religious bodies (or else they would have converted when approached by the many people who attempt to convert Jewish college students). Dave
From: Robin Cohen Anderson <robin@crocker.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:25:50 -0800 Subject: Re: Southern Baptist Resolution I heard about this resolution a few months ago, and felt deeply disturbed by it, on two levels. The first is simply theological and philosophical--the idea that any group of people could be "right" and everyone else absolutely "wrong" about so mysterious and vast an entity/process as God is just ludicrous; the idea that Jews who originated the whole notion of God now need to be saved in the name of God is even more laughable. My husband, who was raised a Christian, remembers his own awakening in this regard. As a child, he was listening to a sermon about how wrong the Pharisees were, how arrogant, how blind, but of course the preacher said "But now we know better. We're right." And Greg thought, wait a minute, you're just a person, just like they were. How do you know you're right? To him, it was this kind of arrogance that God warns us against. From that point on, he couldn't possibly accept the idea of selective salvation. The second level is much more emotional, and has simply to do with a baseline fear--that Jewish people ignorant of their religion will buy into the Christian caricature of it and be lost to Judaism. As others have commented in the "Farrhakhan/Bookstore" thread, the best response may not be protest, but Jewish education. Someone raised with both knowledge and pride in Judaism as a living, comforting, beautiful faith is much less likely to be fooled by a missionary than someone without any knowledge. It's not enough to say "Just say no to Christianity," any more than it's enough to say "Just say no to drugs." People often come to religion out of a thirst for spiritual comfort, and we have to be providing our children with sustenance. They have to see ritual, practice, joy, and knowledge of Judaism; they have to see it sustaining and ennobling us. Otherwise, they are very much at risk. B'shalom, Robin Anderson
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: v6n74 | Next Issue: v6n76 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |