Wise words to the Religious Right from a Rabbi about Gay Rights

  • JayDT

    Posts: 390

    Oct 22, 2010 6:05 PM GMT
    This is a beautifully written article about gay rights that I found. It's written by a Rabbi and attacks the Religious Rights insistence that gays are "ruining the institution of marriage".

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=191923

    I'm not pushing a religious agenda here so please don't let this turn into a shit storm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 8:16 PM GMT
    Thank you Jay.
  • Hokenshi

    Posts: 387

    Oct 22, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
    Lovin' the Jewsicon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 11:22 PM GMT
    Wow!



    Massive arms. icon_redface.gif

    ShowImage.ashx?ID=151298
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 12:09 AM GMT
    Nice article, but the guy is still a fucking bigot, as he thinks he's entitled to an opinion on the matter at all.

    But then again, what can you possibly expect from people who believe religious hogwash.
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Oct 23, 2010 12:29 AM GMT
    "For the record, I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage."

    How does he reconcile the above with the many revisions of marriage that have occurred since since Biblical times, making the modern institution unrecognizable (thankfully) from the one defined in the Bible?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:38 AM GMT
    While I appreciate the sentiment, this paragraph is troubling to me:

    The mistake of so many well-meaning people of faith is to believe that homosexuality is a moral rather than a religious sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.

    Basically this is saying that humans shouldn't be troubled by gays, even though it troubles the Lord. Either A) humans have greater capacity for compassion than this god, or B) humans might as well punt on the whole divine will thing, seeing as how nobody's heard hide nor hair from this god in millennia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:18 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidWhile I appreciate the sentiment, this paragraph is troubling to me:

    The mistake of so many well-meaning people of faith is to believe that homosexuality is a moral rather than a religious sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.

    Basically this is saying that humans shouldn't be troubled by gays, even though it troubles the Lord. Either A) humans have greater capacity for compassion than this god, or B) humans might as well punt on the whole divine will thing, seeing as how nobody's heard hide nor hair from this god in millennia.


    Coming from an ORTHODOX RABBI this is far more accepting towards homosexuality than the Muslim or Christian equivalent.

    Just saying....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:24 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidComing from an ORTHODOX RABBI this is far more accepting towards homosexuality than the Muslim or Christian equivalent.

    Just saying....


    I wonder how an orthodox atheist feels about this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:31 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    JAKEBENSON saidComing from an ORTHODOX RABBI this is far more accepting towards homosexuality than the Muslim or Christian equivalent.

    Just saying....


    I wonder how an orthodox atheist feels about this.


    Atheism is defined as having a lack of religious beliefs, therefore it is:

    A. Not a religion and therefore is irrelevant to the comparison
    B. Does no vary in intensity (i.e. reform, conservative, orthodox) as the definition itself is the disbelief in a god
    C. An oxymoron to use the words "orthodox" and "atheist" together
    D. Barbara Streisand
    E. All of the above

    The correct answer is E.

    Here's an analogy. That's like me saying, "Well a gregarious Canadian is more entertaining than a gregarious Icelander," and then you say, "I wonder how a gregarious misanthrope feels about this?" A misanthrope by definition is a person who hates mankind, which automatically discredits the word "gregarious" since that means outgoing and fond of company. A misanthrope may be more entertaining, but it cannot compare to the Canadian or Icelander because they have been qualified by the term "gregarious" which does not exist with a misanthrope. Going back to your point, an "Orthodox atheist" does not exist beyond theory, although an atheist is likely more pro-gay than most conservative religions.

    Of course you can be captious and counter-argue that a definition of orthodox means adhering to an ideology, which atheism is one of. But really? How many atheists do you know that claim to be "orthodox atheist." That's right bitch Jake Benson is right. None.

    snap snap
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:40 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    Atheism is defined as having a lack of religious beliefs, therefore it is:
    A. Not a religion and therefore is irrelevant to the comparison
    B. Does no vary in intensity (i.e. reform, conservative, orthodox) as the definition itself is the disbelief in a god
    C. An oxymoron to use the words "orthodox" and "atheist" together
    D. Barbara Streisand
    E. All of the above
    The correct answer is E.


    I don't know... I believe atheism, like everything else, has several varying "intensities."
    For example...
    I am a hardcore atheist that refuses to celebrate anything that has been contaminated by religion- e.g. christ-mas- i.e. the "festival of christ." while there are several others out there still engage in such festivities. I also refuse to say "bless you" "god bless you" "etc." when someone sneezes and do not say "thank you" after someone does that for me- instead I say, "No thanks, I'm not religious." Hardcore atheism. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:51 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidAtheism is defined as having a lack of religious beliefs, therefore it is: E. All of the above...snap snap


    Not getting that paper done, are we?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 7:49 AM GMT
    A1EX said
    JAKEBENSON said
    Atheism is defined as having a lack of religious beliefs, therefore it is:
    A. Not a religion and therefore is irrelevant to the comparison
    B. Does no vary in intensity (i.e. reform, conservative, orthodox) as the definition itself is the disbelief in a god
    C. An oxymoron to use the words "orthodox" and "atheist" together
    D. Barbara Streisand
    E. All of the above
    The correct answer is E.


    I don't know... I believe atheism, like everything else, has several varying "intensities."
    For example...
    I am a hardcore atheist that refuses to celebrate anything that has been contaminated by religion- e.g. christ-mas- i.e. the "festival of christ." while there are several others out there still engage in such festivities. I also refuse to say "bless you" "god bless you" "etc." when someone sneezes and do not say "thank you" after someone does that for me- instead I say, "No thanks, I'm not religious." Hardcore atheism. icon_twisted.gif


    I LOVE the hardcore approach!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 8:48 AM GMT
    A1EX said
    JAKEBENSON said
    Atheism is defined as having a lack of religious beliefs, therefore it is:
    A. Not a religion and therefore is irrelevant to the comparison
    B. Does no vary in intensity (i.e. reform, conservative, orthodox) as the definition itself is the disbelief in a god
    C. An oxymoron to use the words "orthodox" and "atheist" together
    D. Barbara Streisand
    E. All of the above
    The correct answer is E.


    I don't know... I believe atheism, like everything else, has several varying "intensities."
    For example...
    I am a hardcore atheist that refuses to celebrate anything that has been contaminated by religion- e.g. christ-mas- i.e. the "festival of christ." while there are several others out there still engage in such festivities. I also refuse to say "bless you" "god bless you" "etc." when someone sneezes and do not say "thank you" after someone does that for me- instead I say, "No thanks, I'm not religious." Hardcore atheism. icon_twisted.gif


    I say "cheers" when somebody sneezes.

    and christmas (not to be capitalzed) these days is more like the fest of gluttony and overindulgence. So no problem rhyming that with hardcore/militant atheism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 10:00 AM GMT
    I still dislike scripture
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 12:25 PM GMT
    I'm not entirely impressed by the article--the rabbi almost seems to be playing Rick Warren's role of pandering to both sides of the debate.

    For some reason, this reminded me of this clip:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 12:40 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidI'm not entirely impressed by the article--the rabbi almost seems to be playing Rick Warren's role of pandering to both sides of the debate.

    For some reason, this reminded me of this clip:



    thanks! brilliant
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2010 1:38 AM GMT
    Yes, Maher is great.

    OutdoorAdventurist said"For the record, I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage."

    How does he reconcile the above with the many revisions of marriage that have occurred since since Biblical times, making the modern institution unrecognizable (thankfully) from the one defined in the Bible?


    That is a particularly relevant question in Judaism, where it was a rabbinical edict (by Rabbi Gershom) 1,000 years ago which forbade polygamy and limited the husband's right to divorce.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    Tazo995 saidNice article, but the guy is still a fucking bigot, as he thinks he's entitled to an opinion on the matter at all.

    But then again, what can you possibly expect from people who believe religious hogwash.


    Everyone is entitled to opinions. Why would you think otherwise?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2010 5:17 PM GMT
    I find the title "THE" Jewish view of Homosexuality to be a profoundly arrogant assertion. I know very many Jewish people who would disagree with this person.

    Why should we listen to the views of a bigot?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 4:02 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Why should we listen to the views of a bigot?


    He is not a bigot. He is someone genuinely trying to reconcile his religious ideas with the moral imperative to treat others with respect and dignity. You are welcome to disagree with him (and believe me, there's a lot in the article that I too disagree with), but you shouldn't expect him to disavow his views just because you find them objectionable. That would be a symptom of real bigotry and intolerance, no?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 5:12 AM GMT
    open_minded10 said
    TigerTim said
    Why should we listen to the views of a bigot?


    He is not a bigot. He is someone genuinely trying to reconcile his religious ideas with the moral imperative to treat others with respect and dignity. You are welcome to disagree with him (and believe me, there's a lot in the article that I too disagree with), but you shouldn't expect him to disavow his views just because you find them objectionable. That would be a symptom of real bigotry and intolerance, no?


    It has always seemed to me that if one's religious views are not consistent with the moral imperative to treat others with respect and dignity, then one ought to discard them.

    But I do not expect him to do anything. I merely point out that his inflexibility makes him a bigot!

    Perhaps in contrast to you, I think that religious figures earn respect not through their status as Priest or Rabbi or Imam, but by their demonstrated moral wisdom: I see for example Desmond Tutu as an extremely enlightened man, but it is because of the immense wisdom of his words and his love of humanity that I do so.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 2:25 AM GMT
    Gay Rabbi Seeks Recognition
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yermi-brenner/israeli-orthodox-rabbi-se_b_581098.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 3:46 AM GMT
    TigerTim said



    It has always seemed to me that if one's religious views are not consistent with the moral imperative to treat others with respect and dignity, then one ought to discard them.

    But I do not expect him to do anything. I merely point out that his inflexibility makes him a bigot!

    Perhaps in contrast to you, I think that religious figures earn respect not through their status as Priest or Rabbi or Imam, but by their demonstrated moral wisdom: I see for example Desmond Tutu as an extremely enlightened man, but it is because of the immense wisdom of his words and his love of humanity that I do so.





    To me, this man seems genuinely troubled by the homophobia he sees in his own community. He is thoughtful about the moral weaknesses of his religious ideas, and seems open to reevaluate his priorities. He is respectful of those who think differently (his gay friends, in this case) and sensitive to their predicament. Honestly, I think you are being a little too inflexible in your judgement. Calling this man a bigot, simply because he holds on to his religious ideas, strikes me as intolerant. Just an impression--no offense icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    God is great. icon_biggrin.gif