Lucky me
Susan S
district office to do some paperwork and while I was there, the man who
will be my manager came in and we started talking. He asked me how my
Christmas was; I told him I was Jewish and don't celebrate (and said how
I did spend the day) and he replied that his family observes Chanukah
and not Christmas.
I soon realized that he did not say he was Jewish. In fact, I suspect
that he is one of those Messianics. And I get to work with this guy
every day! Am I lucky or what?
Susan Silberstein
sheldonlg
Not to let your guard down, but there is another possible explanation.
He may not be Jewish but his wife is and so they don't celebrate
Christmas (because he doesn't care), but they do celebrate Chanukah
(because his wife does).
Another explanation is that he celebrates nothing, but his family is
Jewish and does. He might be an atheist and was being polite when he
asked you how your Christmas was.
Of course, he could also be a messianic.
Joe Bruno
From what I know of messianics, they like to try and convert people to
their beliefs.
If he is one, expect some pressure to convert.
cindys
Do you have any reason to think he's a messianic (other than the fact
that he says his family celebrates Chanukah not Christmas?) Sometimes,
if someone says to me "How was your Christmas?" I respond "I celebrate
Chanukah" as opposed to saying "I'm Jewish." Don't read into it too
deeply just on that basis (unless there was something else that made
you suspicious).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
Sorry about following up my own follow-up, but:
The Jewish messianics consider themselves to be Jewish, so one of
those most likely would have said he was Jewish and then later on, he
would tell you that he's actually Jewish with a twist. The non-Jewish
messianics (similar to the Jewish messianics but don't actually claim
to be Jewish) oftentimes still celebrate Christmas.
My husband has known two Jewish messianics in his life. One of them
was a guy he used to work with who (as stated above) claimed to be
Jewish, and then later on admitted to being a messianic Jew. The other
person was actually our dog groomer. My husband used to take our dog
to be groomed, and that's why I say he (and not I) knew the Jewish
messianic, and after he had been taking the dog to her for a couple of
years, she told him she was Jewish and messianic. After that, we
didn't feel comfortable doing business with her anymore and found a
new groomer.
I met the guy he used to work with at a pro-Israel rally at one of the
local synagogues. He and his messianic buddies showed up to with their
banners and signs in support of Israel, and he cheerfully introduced
himself and shook my hand. I wanted to puke. But my point is that the
messianics usually do say they're "Jewish." In fact, judging by the
ones I've seen over the years on alt.messy, they get all bent out of
shape when someone (like me) informs them that they're not Jewish.
(tee hee)
I think I have read that statistically approximately 25% or so are
actually halachically born Jewish. The remaining 75% are either
married to Jews or have some other relative who is Jewish or have
"converted to Judaism" under the auspices of a "messianic rabbi."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
Trying to judge favorably? Thanks. There could be all sorts of
possibilites though. Ignorance? Some people just don't know. And of
course there is weirdness. Some people just like to do out of the
ordinary
things.
David
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think I have read that statistically approximately 25% or so are
>actually halachically born Jewish. The remaining 75% are either
>married to Jews or have some other relative who is Jewish or have
>"converted to Judaism" under the auspices of a "messianic rabbi."
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
There's a fourth category, although I don't know who "takes advantage
of it". Some Xians have the theory that all Xians are Jews.
After I had left NY, a friend in NY called me up and told me "I just
found out I'm Jewish". I had liked her and when she said that, I
thought, "I wish I had known that when I lived in NY." I figured she
found out that her mother who died when she was little was a Jew,
hadn't known that before. But that wasn't it. She had "found out"
that because she was a Xian, she was a Jew. She "learned" this from
her Xian friends at church.
I was just silent. I would think she noticed that, but I don't know
how she took it. I was sure nothing I said would change her view on
this, and I didn't want to fight. I was still in occasional contact
with her for years, and she never said anything about it again, and I
don't know what that meant either.
I'm sure she's not alone in this notion, and it would facilitate the
goals of gentile missionaries to Jews if they believed or even thought
it possible that they were Jews. They could say "Hey I'm a Jew too
and a do this" or more likely "I'm Jewish too and I do this." If I
were discussing anything with any messy-jew, I wouldn't consider it
adequate to ask him if he is a Jew or not. If he says yes, even if
he's not intentionally speaking falsely, it doesn't mean it's true.
Maybe asking him to describe his family history would be enough to
tell, or enough to ask questions on so one could tell.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Susan S
<cst...@rochester.rr.com>:
Yes, thinking back on our conversation, I'm pretty sure I remember the
word "church" somewhere. And the phrase "former rabbi" in reference to
his, well, I don't know how he described his *group* but he never said
synagogue, shul, temple or the like. I don't recall anything else
specific, it is just the sense of what he said in general.
My usual experience is that when I identify myself as Jewish, especially
in a small group, if someone else is a Jew, he/she will identify herself
as such. For instance, I had a temporary job with the U.S. Census last
summer. While in a car with two co-workers, we passed a church and I
said something about how many churches there were in that area. One of
the other two women asked which church I attended and I said, "I'm
Jewish." The third woman said, "So am I."
Susan Silberstein
sheldonlg
Please let us know how it turns out after you start your job.
Susan S
<shel...@giganews.com>:
Certainly. I fervently hope this man is professional enough not to bring
it up when we are actually working and never tries to convert me under
any circumstances. I'll let you all know if there is anything worth
discussing or if I need advice.
Susan Silberstein
mm
Odss are he'll be professional. I hope it will go well. If he brings
up the subject, tell him you're converting from analog to digital.
sheldonlg
I met and worked with one J4J in my life. At the time, I knew nothing
about them. I couldn't make out why he was wearing a star of David and
a cross. (He also had a name like Katz). He told me, I backed away, we
worked together and the subject never came up. (I did my best to mask
my disgust and he didn't try converting me).
maxine in ri
He might be, but then he might not. I have a number of coworkers who
are Jewish athiests, Jewish Buddhists, children of Jewish men married
to non-Jewish women, and one woman who just mentioned that she
celebrates Hanukkah but talks more about her differently abled
daughter than religion. And your new manager may have felt that by
mentioning that he celebrates Hanukkah, he has made it clear that he,
too, is a Jew.
Good luck with your new job, and I hope for your sake, the latter is
the actuality.
maxine in ri
cindys
My younger son tells people that his family is Jewish. This statement
sounds very odd, but obviously, what he is saying is that his family
is Jewish, but he is not. Similarly, he could say "My family
celebrates Chanukah," meaning that his family celebrates Chanukah, but
he (technically speaking) does not (even though he still ate plenty of
latkes and got quite a few Chanukah presents). However, he clearly
isn't celebrating some other holiday nor is he a member of a different
religion, so to say "My family is Jewish" is the most accurate way he
can think of to describe his family situation. So, as you say, it may
be that Susan's manager is not Jewish but the rest of his family is.
The other thing I wanted to mention before and forgot (but I'll take
the opportunity now) is that messianics like to take on Hebrew names
(which is another clue). For example, the guy my husband used to work
with was "Elie" (which he pronounced the same as Elie Wiesel). I have
also noticed that some of the so-called messianic Jews on alt.messy
like to go by Hebrew names.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Serious question (because of curiosity): What is your motivation for
spending time there?
cindys
I really don't spend time there now, but I used to. My motivation
used to be to argue with the missionaries. There used to be a number
of really knowledgeable mainstream Jewish posters there too. Hillel
"Saba" Markowitz was a frequent poster, as was Joe Slater, Rob Strom,
and some other people too. I used to really enjoy the group. Then,
because the group wasn't moderated, the trolls and antisemites kind of
took over, and now, the group is pretty much just another Christian
usenet group.
The only Jewish person who continues to post and argue with any
frequency is Rob Strom who mostly just argues with this one particular
poster, the same argument over and over and over again. Every now and
then, I will pop over there and lurk a little bit (a VERY little bit),
but I can't remember the last time I posted anything. It's not worth
my time or bother.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
> On Jan 3, 4:39 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:> cindys wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 3:49 pm, maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have
> > > also noticed that some of the so-called messianic Jews on alt.messy
> > > like to go by Hebrew names.
> > > Best regards,
> > > ---Cindy S.
>
> > Serious question (because of curiosity): What is your motivation for
> > spending time there?
>
> ------
> I really don't spend time there now, but I used to. My motivation
> used to be to argue with the missionaries. There used to be a number
> of really knowledgeable mainstream Jewish posters there too. Hillel
> "Saba" Markowitz was a frequent poster, as was Joe Slater, Rob Strom,
> and some other people too.
The all around class act from down under..... Mordechai
mm
Maybe someone should post every month on the first a formal
announcement, like some groups and lists have. It can be short. It
should just specify that despite the name, no one who practices
Judaism posts to the group, that the group is Christian and that any
authentic Judaism that is posted to the group is by coincidence only.
Well, the last clause has to be rewritten, probably the whole thing,
and it could be longer. But it can be posted without the poster
reading any replies it generates. Like some posts we get here, for
example l'havdil, the photos of Israel and Jewish events in the US.
Okay, here's a handy one to start with. Maybe you can post or email
me improvements. Remove nopsam if you email me.
Subject:
[Periodic Posting] FAQ about soc.culture.jewish
1. Is this a Jewish newsgroup?
No. Almost no Jews post to this newsgroup and those who do are
Christian by religion.
2. Was this once a Jewish newsgroup? A newsgroup for the reasonable
discussion of Judaism and other aspects of Jewish culture?
Yes, but that ended more than a decade ago.
3. Why did it end?
Because anyone can post to this group, when spammers, pornographers,
Christian missionaries, and antisemites posted, there was no way to
stop them. No matter how ill-informed, false, stupid, and/or
hate-filled their posts were. After a while, all the Jews and those
interested in the original subjects left.
4. But some posters say or imply that they practice Judaism? Don't
they?
No. Only one person who sometimes posts here practices Judaism. He
only posts occasionally and when he does, he only argues with one
other poster. The rest of those who claim to practice Judaism don't.
They actually practice Christianity, some of them with Jewish-style
props. Some know that they are Christians, and others may have been
led to believe that one can regard Jesus as a god or a messiah and
still practice Judaism. They are wrong.
[Last revised: $ Date: 2010/01/03 $]
cindys
> On Jan 3, 6:33 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 4:39 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:> cindys wrote:
> > > > On Jan 3, 3:49 pm, maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I have
> > > > also noticed that some of the so-called messianic Jews on alt.messy
> > > > like to go by Hebrew names.
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > ---Cindy S.
>
> > > Serious question (because of curiosity): What is your motivation for
> > > spending time there?
>
> > ------
> > I really don't spend time there now, but I used to. My motivation
> > used to be to argue with the missionaries. There used to be a number
> > of really knowledgeable mainstream Jewish posters there too. Hillel
> > "Saba" Markowitz was a frequent poster, as was Joe Slater, Rob Strom,
> > and some other people too.
>
> The all around class act from down under..... Mordechai
I forgot about Mordechai. Yes, he was a great guy. But I don't think
he's posted there in years.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
That is sad, but because of posters like T.C., I can see why. He was
always respectful of other
peoples beliefs/ religions, even though I could see there were times
that he didn't need to give respect
to other people. I didn't follow that group as closely as you, but I
never seen him lose his temper.He was
always finding common ground yet understanding that Christianity and
Judaism are seperate religions
for seperate people. I always liked his respectful style and
words.....More than what I can say for some
people involved in this thread.
His sig was always cool as well....
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or
reality is wrong, and reality is Never
wrong.
David
cindys
Alt.messianic was never a Jewish newsgroup. Back in the days before
SCJM, missionaries used to post to SCJ unmoderated, and the Jewish
posters found this very annoying. Finally, a group was established,
alt.messianic, where missionaries and mainstream Jews and anybody else
who wanted could come to argue about Jesus and thereby keep
discussions about Jesus/Christianity off SCJ unmoderated. It worked in
the beginning, but then the missionaries continued to post to SCJ
unmoderated. At some point, it no longer mattered, as SCJM had been
established, the bulk of the Jews left SCJ unmoderated, and the trolls
and antisemites on SCJ unmoderated became a much bigger problem than
the missionaries had ever been.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Henry Goodman
news:54j2k51pj3pobk7cj...@4ax.com...
--
Meir
___________________________________________________________________________________________
You could add a note suggesting that posters wishing to discuss Judaism
should move here.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
cindys
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
snip
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> You could add a note suggesting that posters wishing to discuss Judaism
> should move here.
-------
That would be a bad idea. The net result is that you would inevitably
be faced with an onslaught of antisemites and missionaries trying to
post to SCJM and making more work for the moderators. I think the
people on these other groups already know of about SCJM, but inviting
people to post here invariably attracts the ones you don't want.
If Rob Strom wanted to post on SCJM, everyone would love him. His
personality reminds me a lot of Don Levey, knowledegable, low-key,
respectful. But he's apparently not interested in participating on
SCJM at this time. Then there are posters like Morris Oesterly, a
vicious antisemitic troll parading himself around as a talmudic
authority and messianic Jew. He called himself "Moshe." Fortunately,
he's gone from alt.messy now, but he has managed to get posts through
to SCJM in the past, and then I had to "out" him. I think it's better
to leave it alone.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Ken
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from sheldonlg
(Lots and lots snipped)
> >Please let us know how it turns out after you start your job.
>
> Certainly. I fervently hope this man is professional enough not to bring
> it up when we are actually working and never tries to convert me under
> any circumstances. I'll let you all know if there is anything worth
> discussing or if I need advice.
>
> Susan Silberstein- Hide quoted text -
>
Susan,
Several things in no particular order:
1. I too would like to be kept up to date on this.
2. Please don't jump to any conclusions about the guy. As many have
said, maybe he's married to a Jewish woman and was trying to be
friendly and connect with you. Maybe he's Jewish and that's just how
he worded it. And maybe not. Please just wait and see.
3. You mentioned going to a different office to fill out paperwork.
I'm guessing that means it's a big company. And that means there's a
human resources dept. So if he does something he shouldn't, the first
time, politely tell him you object. If he does it a second time, then
go to the HR Dept and tell them he's created a hostile work
environment. Then be professional and let them handle it. That's
their job. Always be professional and polite. (No, I'm not a
lawyer.)
At my job, a new supervisor recently sent out an email saying she and
others are good Christians, and others are not, .... I met with her
and pointed out that was divisive at best, and established a hostile
work environment at worst. I don't expect a repeat performance.
Please keep me posted either on this site or directly.
And may the job be a good one, even if there was a little stumble to
start.
Good luck and happy new year.
Ken
mm
That's roughly why I didn't include it in my first draft. But I'm
not sure I'm right.
>people on these other groups already know of about SCJM, but inviting
>people to post here invariably attracts the ones you don't want.
>
>If Rob Strom wanted to post on SCJM, everyone would love him. His
>personality reminds me a lot of Don Levey, knowledegable, low-key,
Probably because they have the same number of letters in their names.
>respectful. But he's apparently not interested in participating on
>SCJM at this time. Then there are posters like Morris Oesterly, a
>vicious antisemitic troll parading himself around as a talmudic
>authority and messianic Jew. He called himself "Moshe." Fortunately,
>he's gone from alt.messy now, but he has managed to get posts through
>to SCJM in the past, and then I had to "out" him. I think it's better
>to leave it alone.
YOu're saying just not include a sentence about scjm? Or are you
saying the whole faq is a bad idea?
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
cindys
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:36:05 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> >people on these other groups already know of about SCJM, but inviting
> >people to post here invariably attracts the ones you don't want.
>
> >If Rob Strom wanted to post on SCJM, everyone would love him. His
> >personality reminds me a lot of Don Levey, knowledegable, low-key,
>
> Probably because they have the same number of letters in their names.
>
> >respectful. But he's apparently not interested in participating on
> >SCJM at this time. Then there are posters like Morris Oesterly, a
> >vicious antisemitic troll parading himself around as a talmudic
> >authority and messianic Jew. He called himself "Moshe." Fortunately,
> >he's gone from alt.messy now, but he has managed to get posts through
> >to SCJM in the past, and then I had to "out" him. I think it's better
> >to leave it alone.
>
> saying the whole faq is a bad idea?
The former.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Jan-2010, Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Please let us know how it turns out after you start your job.
>
> Certainly. I fervently hope this man is professional enough not to bring
> it up when we are actually working and never tries to convert me under
> any circumstances. I'll let you all know if there is anything worth
> discussing or if I need advice.
I will give you advice, right now, for free: start a
journal of everything he says to you about religion.
He is not allowed to bother you with his beliefs -
he is not allowed to "create a hostile work environment".
Be prepared to have to make a "formal statement" such
as telling him, maybe even in front of witnesses, or
writing him a latter, to the effect that you never want to
discuss religion with him.
I had a potentially severe problem with co-workers in one
place, and that's what did it for me - I said that I would be
hapy to sit & eat lunch with them & talk about anything
but. They never came near me *again*, showing their only
interest in me. Disgusting.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 4-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > You could add a note suggesting that posters wishing to discuss Judaism
> > should move here.
> -------
> That would be a bad idea. The net result is that you would inevitably
> be faced with an onslaught of antisemites and missionaries trying to
> post to SCJM and making more work for the moderators.
Of course, the number of automatic throw-outs would be incredible....
Susan
cindys
FTR, my experience over on alt.messy came in very handy in my own life
a few weeks ago. My younger son wanted to take guitar lessons. So, my
husband went on Craig's List, and he found some guy who was giving
free guitar lessons. He took my son over for the free lesson.
When they returned, my son was looking sort of sad because he couldn't
go to the Christmas concert at the Fellowship Baptist church. (What
the hell?) Apparently, the guy who was giving the free guitar lessons
was affiliated with this Fellowship Baptist church, and he had invited
my son (and husband and the rest of the family and all our friends and
neighbors) to come to this Christmas concert. My husband was kind of
blowing the whole thing off, but to me, the handwriting was on the
wall.
I told my son and my husband that there would not be any more guitar
lessons with this guy and that we would need to look for a different
guitar teacher right away, and that I would personally pay for the
lessons. Neither my husband nor my son could understand what I was so
upset about. The guy wasn't a missionary (of course not). He was just
a nice guy. And the guitar lessons weren't about Christianity (of
course not). And I asked my son if this guy had mentioned God (yes),
and had my son mentioned to this guy that he had been planning to
convert to Judaism but then decided not to? (Of course he had.)
Well, to make a long story short, I went completely ballistic. My son
got hysterical. He couldn't believe that his mother was such a bigot
and "hated" this guy "just because he was a Christian." And hadn't I
always taught him to give other people the benefit of the doubt? My
husband was dumbfounded and thought I was overreacting.
To me, the big issue was not so much my son as my husband who just
couldn't fathom that this very benign-seeming man could be a wolf in
sheep's clothing. But I knew from alt.messy what this was all about.
Missionaries are encouraged to use deception to evangelize. I kept
telling my husband over and over again that while I didn't doubt that
the guy was interested in giving guitar lessons, he certainly wasn't
going to miss an opportunity to bring someone to Jesus, if he could.
My husband just couldn't believe it. He really thought I had gone off
the deep end. "It was only a guitar lesson!!"
I explained to my husband (on the basis of what I learned from all my
years on alt.messy) that evangelicals consider that the Christian
bible mandates them to bring everybody to Jesus, and they don't care
who you are, what is your religion etc. And I also explained to my
husband that missionaries are sometimes encouraged to specifically
seek a job at a certain company or in a certain profession if the
thought is that it will expose them to a lot of potential converts.
Not to sound paranoid, but you never know when your hairstylist or
your handyman has another agenda. And they're not always obvious about
it.
If they're good at their jobs, they don't start talking about
Christianity the first time they meet you. No, they're just nice and
friendly. They invite you to a party. Then, they invite you to another
party or to a Christmas concert at their church and tell you to bring
all your friends! You're sort of eased into the whole thing.
To cut to the chase, I finally went over to the computer, googled for
the name of the church this guy had mentioned, and lo-and-behold, in
black and white, there was the mission statement of the church, and
guess what it said? It said: "We believe that it is the mission of the
Church to go to all the world and make disciples of all nations." My
husband's jaw dropped.
To cut to the chase, my son now has a new guitar teacher whom I pay
handsomely, but his only agenda is teach my son to play the guitar.
So, thank you, alt.messy. At some point, in the not-to-distant future,
I will sit down with my son and explain to him in detail how
missionaries operate.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
Thank G-d you were on the ball, Cindy.
If it had been me, I would have been a ot more
in this guy's face about what he was doing -
you paid him to teach your son guitar,
NOTHING ELSE!
(Then again, I am more fortunate than you - my
husband would have seen the danger a little
faster than yours. Then again, he's got a wife
who's a little more in-your-face about things than
your husband does....)
Susan
cindys
> On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
snip
>
> > To cut to the chase, my son now has a new guitar teacher whom I pay
> > handsomely, but his only agenda is teach my son to play the guitar.
>
> > So, thank you, alt.messy. At some point, in the not-to-distant future,
> > I will sit down with my son and explain to him in detail how
> > missionaries operate.
>
> Thank G-d you were on the ball, Cindy.
> in this guy's face about what he was doing -
But I wasn't there. I never met the guy. My husband took my son for
the lesson. It wasn't until they came home and my son was saying that
the guy had invited him to a Christmas concert at his church that I
got suspicious.
> you paid him to teach your son guitar,
> NOTHING ELSE!
Well, we weren't paying him. The guitar lessons were *free.* He was
ostensibly developing some special method to teach guitar, and he was
giving free lessons for the purpose of test marketing. I do believe
that all of this was 100% true. The missionizing was a separate issue/
pursuit.
>
> (Then again, I am more fortunate than you - my
> husband would have seen the danger a little
> faster than yours. Then again, he's got a wife
> who's a little more in-your-face about things than
> your husband does....)
>
But the point is that the guy hadn't done actually anything yet (other
than give my son a guitar lesson and invite him to a concert). If the
guy had pulled out a bible and said "let's talk about Jesus," that
would have been one thing. But he didn't do anything like that.
What I'm saying is because of my experience on alt.messy, I had
already watched the last reel of the movie to the end. (I love that
expression :-) My husband doesn't know anything about this kind of
stuff. Except for the "messianic Jew" at his workplace or the
occasional JW who comes to our door, my husband has never really been
exposed to evangelicals, so he was caught completely off guard, and it
wasn't until I showed him the mission statement from this guy's church
that my husband believed me.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>To me, the big issue was not so much my son as my husband who just
>couldn't fathom that this very benign-seeming man could be a wolf in
>sheep's clothing. But I knew from alt.messy what this was all about.
>Missionaries are encouraged to use deception to evangelize. I kept
>telling my husband over and over again that while I didn't doubt that
>the guy was interested in giving guitar lessons, he certainly wasn't
>going to miss an opportunity to bring someone to Jesus, if he could.
>My husband just couldn't believe it. He really thought I had gone off
>the deep end. "It was only a guitar lesson!!"
When I was in Dallas a few years ago, there was a story on the radio
news, (and probably on the tv news, but I don't watch tv when I'm
visiting my brother) about a day-care center, probably after-school
care for grammar school students, and a Jewish family had enrolled
their son, about 8, and after a few days found out that those at the
center -- actually I think it was a private house -- were trying to
indoctrinate their son. They were furious and I'm pleased that they
made a big stink about it. (Although in Dallas it's not clear to me if
that will cause more people to refrain from doing something which they
heard was called bad, or give more people ideas about how to
evangelize children.) And they had to pay for the after-school care,
but it might have been a below average charge.
Anyhow, the names of the evangelizers were included in the story, and
I looked them up in the phone book and called and a woman answered,
and the plan was to explain to them what they did wrong. I often have
a different take on what's wrong with something than the standard
criticism. I planned to be stern and noticeably angry about it too.
But in the end, I just said I'd call back, and the plane was leaving
in a couple hours and I knew I wouldn't. If I'd been home and had a
typewriter or computer printer, and had made notes, maybe I would have
said what I intended.
cindys
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:08:13 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
And if you had spoken to her at length, what exactly do you think you
would accomplished? I can tell you from many years of experience on
alt.messy, you would have accomplished absolutely nothing. That
woman's focus is on bringing people to Jesus, which she believes with
all her heart and soul is what God wants her to do and what the
Christian bible mandates she must do. She doesn't care if you (or
anybody else) finds that offensive or thinks she's wrong. As far as
she's concerned, she's doing God's work. So, basically, I think you
saved yourself a lot of wasted time and frustration.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> you paid him to teach your son guitar,
>> NOTHING ELSE!
>
>Well, we weren't paying him. The guitar lessons were *free.* He was
Oh, I thought only the first lesson was free. I think a lot of 1 to 1
music teachers, or maybe tutors in general, do that.
The day-care I mention in the next post was not free, but might have
been quite low-priced.
>ostensibly developing some special method to teach guitar, and he was
>giving free lessons for the purpose of test marketing. I do believe
>that all of this was 100% true.
I believe it was true but not 100% true. That is, he's thinking, How
can I find people to preach to; well, there's my guitar; I could
perform and meet people that way; better yet, I could give lessons and
meet people 1 to 1; hey, no one replied; well, let me make them free;
sure that wouldn't be worth it if I were doing this for money, but
since I'm doing this to evangelize, it's worth it; hey, I'm tired of
doing the same old stuff; let me try to come up with a new method of
teaching, so maybe I can make some money out of this some day, and it
will also explain why I'm giving free lessons. Otherwise people will
be suspicious, and I don't want that.
> The missionizing was a separate issue/
>pursuit.
>>
>> (Then again, I am more fortunate than you - my
>> husband would have seen the danger a little
>> faster than yours. Then again, he's got a wife
>> who's a little more in-your-face about things than
>> your husband does....)
>>
>But the point is that the guy hadn't done actually anything yet (other
>than give my son a guitar lesson and invite him to a concert). If the
>guy had pulled out a bible and said "let's talk about Jesus," that
>would have been one thing. But he didn't do anything like that.
Not the same thing, but it reminds me. I had next door neighbors for
at least 7 years, very nice people**. I knew they went to church every
Sunday morning, but they never tried to pull me in. (They actually
changed churches a couple times, finally endinging up at one 45
minutes from here, because it was more to their liking.) Anyhow they
moved, nearby to a bigger, nicer house, I'm sure, and I wanted to see
it, but I lost their number along with some others and they werent' in
the phone book.
More than 10 years later, 18 months ago, I bump into them at Walmart.
We chat a while and the man shows interest in my religious life and
wants me to come to church with them. (They've changed churches again,
btw). So why the change? IMO, either the new church pushes their
members more, or he's getting old and taking this part of it more
seriously. He wants to have notches on his gun before he meets his
Maker. (He didn't indicate this but they think they get extra points
for enrolling a Jew.)
**He had been an alcoholic, no job probably, or crummy jobs, and
either his own resolution, meeting Janet, or becoming a Xian had
gotten him out of that. I'm sure he'd say it was the latter. One
time in the first few years I knew him, he said to me, "I just moved
in with Janet." Given the college world etc. I knew, I figured he
meant that they werent' married. What it turned out to mean is that
she owned the house before she married him, probably before she met
him, and he was feeling guilty that he'd been an alcoholic and hadn't
had enough money to buy a house himself. No need to point that out to
me, but that's what was on his mind. I told him I thought he had
meant, years earlier, that they weren't married, and he certainly
didn't want me thinking that. (I told him so he could phrase things
more clearly the next time he talked to someone.)
Anyhow, he's been sober for 30 years or more now. And he had a
regular job, though not as good a one as his wife. They're both in
their 60's (or 70's) and retired now.
I lost their number again, and found it a year later in my mother's
papers. (So, when she lived 150 miles away, if she couldn't reach me,
she could call them) and I still havent' seen their house. I have a
shpiel prepared for the next time he tries to suck me in.
On my other side, I had a woman neighbor for 15 years. About 5 years
in she got married and he moved in, but he had a real job and owned
other investment property. He invited me to his church picnic one
time and I think that's about all. Unfortunately his church used to
be a shul, the shul my mother and her husband went to after they moved
here. I said I was busy. I saw them at the funeral for my friend 2
weeks ago. Although she was our neigbhor, they didn't know here, only
her daughter who lives nearby, and works for the FBI in DC.
>What I'm saying is because of my experience on alt.messy, I had
>already watched the last reel of the movie to the end. (I love that
>expression :-) My husband doesn't know anything about this kind of
>stuff. Except for the "messianic Jew" at his workplace or the
>occasional JW who comes to our door, my husband has never really been
>exposed to evangelicals, so he was caught completely off guard, and it
>wasn't until I showed him the mission statement from this guy's church
>that my husband believed me.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
mm
Except one time which had very special circumstances, since I was 18
or younger, I have never let a person make a racist remark in front of
me without saying something to contradict it, whether it was ironic,
sarcastic, in your face, "thoughtful" or even humorous but
contradictory. Depending on which I thought would be most effective
in each case. Why should I treat myself and my own religion less
well? So whether I accomplished something with HER or not, I would
have accomplished something for myself.
Second, I refuse to believe that a Xian can't repent for hir sins.
I don't remember exactly what tack I had planned to take that year,
but it may have been similar to what I would say to her now. The
style would also depend on other factors. She had answered the phone
pleasantly, she's hadn't been attacking Jews or Judaism directly, only
indirectly attacking Judaism by pushing xianity because of their
belief it is better, and she could hang up on me in a second if I
pushed to hard. So if there was a harsh part, it would have to be at
the end.
But something like: that Jews are meant to practice Judaism and not
Xianity, that they're meant to worship God alone and not Jesus, and
that God will punish her for her sins in trying to influence children
to sin, and for doing so behind the backs of their parents. Jews
are commanded to explain to other Jews who don't know they're doing
something wrong what they are doing wrong. We're not commanded wrt to
goyim, but we're not prohibited either.
Of course this couple didn't do this in my presence. And she didn't
know there was a Jew on the other end of the line when I called. If
somehow she did know, I would have had to say something critical.
> I can tell you from many years of experience on
>alt.messy, you would have accomplished absolutely nothing. That
Wackjobs on the net aren't the same as individuals in real life. And
even wrt to the net, you don't know what happens. People who used to
post but don't anymore and lurkers may have started having doubts
about their position, based on what they've read even on alt.messy.
But they need a couple years to digest it.
>woman's focus is on bringing people to Jesus, which she believes with
>all her heart and soul is what God wants her to do and what the
>Christian bible mandates she must do. She doesn't care if you (or
>anybody else) finds that offensive or thinks she's wrong. As far as
>she's concerned, she's doing God's work. So, basically, I think you
>saved yourself a lot of wasted time and frustration.
I might have been at the airport already, which means I had time to
waste. And I don't believe that every Xian is incapable of
repentance.
Frankly, if I had been in your shoes with the guitar teacher, I would
have called him and told him what he did was sinful and God would
punish him, especially if he was ever successful. They've been told
nothing but the opposite, and I think they should be told that
sometimes.
This is one of the points that Jews for Judaism makes. They say that
one of the arguments of xian evangelists is that Jews have nothign to
lose. If Jesus isn't god or the messiah the Jew will be no worse off,
but if he is the Jew had better pray to him. (There's some classic
name for a choice where one choice is good and the other is neutral)
But it's not true. If the Jew prays to Jesus it's a sin and he's
liable for great punishment. Well it goes both ways. Xians believe
there is no possible cost to them. They haven't considered the
possibility that what they're doing is wrong and that they WILL BE
PUNISHED FOR IT. They should.***
And it's not just raciallly or religiously insulting or
problem-causing remarks that get my attention.
Once I saw a guy throw an empty cigarette pack on the grass or parking
lot and then look at me. I said, distinctly and loud enough he woudl
hear me, "Don't look at me for approval."
Before that, I was walking through a parking lot, between parked cars,
when from the open passenger's window came a big bag from a fast-food
restaurant, open at the top, and it fell on the blacktop and lots of
wrappers for the food spilled out. I stopped as a reflex right before
I got to the window. Thought about it a second, then bent down and
looked in, to see a teenage girl in the right seat and a teenage guy
in the driver's seat, and I said, "You really are a pig, aren't you?"
Then I walked straight to the Radio Shack, being sure not to run but
not to waste time either, and I hid, I mean, shopped, in there for 10
or 15 minutes until I figured he wasn't waiting for me outside. The
odds are he didnt' get out of his car, and that he made a sarcastic
vulgar remark about me, but I think one or both of them will have a
hard time thowing trash out the window from then on. Of course they
don't believe that God told them to throw trash out the window, but
it's just a matter of degree afaic.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
***When the Jewish passengers from the plane were being held hostage
in the old terminal at the Entebbe airport, one of the Jews asked one
of the terrorists why he was acting like a nazi. The guy said, No, I'm
not. And the Jew pointed out similarities. And I don't know what the
Arab[?] said, but he didn't agree. Yet, when the time came that the
Israeli commandos entered the terminal, he had time to shoot one or
more hostages, but he hesitated and the Israelis shot and I think
killed him. Was he hesitating because of the conversation. I don't
know but some who were there thought that the reason, or part of it.
cindys
snip
>
> Frankly, if I had been in your shoes with the guitar teacher, I would
> have called him and told him what he did was sinful and God would
> punish him, especially if he was ever successful.
What did he actually do that was sinful? He gave my son a free guitar
lesson and invited him (and our family and all our friends) to come to
a Christmas concert that was also free and open to the general public.
Which of these actions was sinful and for which of them was God going
to punish him?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 6:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Frankly, if I had been in your shoes with the guitar teacher, I would
>> have called him and told him what he did was sinful and God would
>> punish him, especially if he was ever successful.
>------
>What did he actually do that was sinful? He gave my son a free guitar
Good point. In his case, I'd have to preface it with, "I know what
you were planning to do."
>lesson and invited him (and our family and all our friends) to come to
I forgot, the family and friends too.
>a Christmas concert that was also free and open to the general public.
>Which of these actions was sinful and for which of them was God going
>to punish him?
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
Yeah, I was confusing him with the ones in Dallas. It's likely if you
gave him enough rope he would hang himself, but you don't want to make
your kid part of an experiment. I presume you cancelled the next
session without giving a reason. Did he ask why? Or maybe no next
session had been scheduled.
cindys
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:12:20 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> >On Jan 5, 6:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >snip
>
> >> Frankly, if I had been in your shoes with the guitar teacher, I would
> >> have called him and told him what he did was sinful and God would
> >> punish him, especially if he was ever successful.
> >------
> >What did he actually do that was sinful? He gave my son a free guitar
>
> Good point. In his case, I'd have to preface it with, "I know what
> you were planning to do."
>
> >lesson and invited him (and our family and all our friends) to come to
>
> I forgot, the family and friends too.
>
> >a Christmas concert that was also free and open to the general public.
> >Which of these actions was sinful and for which of them was God going
> >to punish him?
> >Best regards,
> >---Cindy S.
>
> Yeah, I was confusing him with the ones in Dallas. It's likely if you
> gave him enough rope he would hang himself, but you don't want to make
> your kid part of an experiment. I presume you cancelled the next
> session without giving a reason. Did he ask why? Or maybe no next
> session had been scheduled.
The lessons were actually being conducted by means of a "meetup
group." For anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's when one person
or several people have a particular interest (like French cooking, for
example), and decide they want to get together with other people who
share that interest. So, they establish an official "meetup group" and
advertise it on meetup.com for a particular city. Typically, they may
hold monthly meetings. You join the group by signing up on-line, and
then you are notified when and where the meetings are held. The
meetings may be in a kitchen someplace to actually cook French food,
or there may be a guest speaker, or a screening of the film _Julie and
Julia_, whatever the group decides to do.
So, the guitar lessons were being given as part of a meetup group. The
guy who was giving the lessons established the group, and anybody who
wanted to take the lessons could just show up at a particular location
(which turned out to be an office building which had been formerly
owned by a car dealership which had folded and the building had been
bought by this church for its youth ministry - but my husband
obviously didn't know any of this at the time), and this guy would
give you a free guitar lesson. The lessons were offered every Monday
evening. I don't think a reservation was required. Anybody who wanted
to learn to play the guitar could just show up. My husband and son
just didn't show up for any more lessons.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
>
> >On Jan 5, 6:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >snip
>
> >> Frankly, if I had been in your shoes with the guitar teacher, I would
> >> have called him and told him what he did was sinful and God would
> >> punish him, especially if he was ever successful.
> >------
> >What did he actually do that was sinful? He gave my son a free guitar
>
> Good point. In his case, I'd have to preface it with, "I know what
> you were planning to do."
How would I *know?* He could say his only interest was in test
marketing his special method for teaching people to play the guitar.
And for all I know, maybe it was. You can't phone somebody and just
start accusing him of something without being able to back up your
accusations.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >ostensibly developing some special method to teach guitar, and he was
> >giving free lessons for the purpose of test marketing. I do believe
> >that all of this was 100% true.
>
> I believe it was true but not 100% true. That is, he's thinking, How
> can I find people to preach to; well, there's my guitar; I could
> perform and meet people that way; better yet, I could give lessons and
> meet people 1 to 1; hey, no one replied; well, let me make them free;
> sure that wouldn't be worth it if I were doing this for money, but
> since I'm doing this to evangelize, it's worth it;
EXACTLY.
It's part & parcel of a technique called "lovebombing".
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, the names of the evangelizers were included in the story, and
> I looked them up in the phone book and called and a woman answered,
> and the plan was to explain to them what they did wrong. I often have
> a different take on what's wrong with something than the standard
> criticism. I planned to be stern and noticeably angry about it too.
> But in the end, I just said I'd call back, and the plane was leaving
> in a couple hours and I knew I wouldn't. If I'd been home and had a
> typewriter or computer printer, and had made notes, maybe I would have
> said what I intended.
They have heads like rocks, but I am proud you even thought of it.
Susan
cindys
The reason I am saying that he was test marketing his special method
for teaching the guitar is because he is/was simultaneously actually
selling his lesson plans on line and was making (or trying to make)
income from it.
I think the guy really was hoping to eventually earn some kind of
living from his guitar-teaching method, and I do think he was offering
the free lessons in order to have guinea pigs to perfect his method. I
don't think the primary goal was to use the guitar lessons as a front
for evangelizing (meaning that I didn't have the impression that he
deliberately set out to be deceptive).
That having been said, I also think that evangelicals by definition
are in a constant missionizing mindset. So, they will try to
missionize anyone they can, in any situation that presents itself.
Since he was teaching the classes in the church's youth ministry
building, I think part of the program was to get the students involved
in the church itself, to increase the church's membership. I would
have been very surprised if the church were charging him rent to use
their building to give guitar lessons.
My son thought it was crazy that I went ballistic. He kept reassuring
me that no one could ever convince him to convert to Christianity,
which he articulated was based on the Hercules myth. He said that if
he couldn't be convinced to convert to Judaism after spending 13 years
in Jewish schools, how could I possibly believe that he would ever
convert to Christianity?
While I agree that he could never be won over by any type of a
theological argument, I think he would be very vulnerable to the
lovebombing. He's 13, and he himself will tell you that his "hormones
are raging." He is rebellious, and there is a lot of conflict going on
in our home right now (on issues completely unrelated to religion). My
husband and I are the mean parents who keep harping on him about doing
his homework, cleaning his room, don't allow him to stay up all night
playing computer games, and place countless other restrictions on this
13-year-old person who is beyond being a boy but isn't quite a man.
Now, along comes this nice, friendly guy who is kind and gentle and
understanding. They develop a nice rapport. The guy provides a good
sounding board, never criticizes, isn't cast in the parental role
which demands that he ensure my son gets to school on time, does his
homework, cleans up his mess, shovels the sidewalk, feeds the cat, or
makes any of the dozens of other unpleasant and sometimes thankless
demands that are part and parcel of the responsibility of being a
parent.
After only one guitar lesson, my son was already getting attached to
this guy, defending him to the hilt, behaving as if my calling him a
"missionary," was akin to my calling him a psychokiller. And this was
after only one guitar lesson, only one! There was no way I was going
to let this guy get anywhere near my son ever again.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:22�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �5-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> snip
> >
> > > To cut to the chase, my son now has a new guitar teacher whom I pay
> > > handsomely, but his only agenda is teach my son to play the guitar.
> >
> > > So, thank you, alt.messy. At some point, in the not-to-distant future,
> > > I will sit down with my son and explain to him in detail how
> > > missionaries operate.
> >
> > Thank G-d you were on the ball, Cindy.
> > If it had been me, I would have been a lot more
> > in this guy's face about what he was doing -
>
> But I wasn't there. I never met the guy. My husband took my son for
> the lesson. It wasn't until they came home and my son was saying that
> the guy had invited him to a Christmas concert at his church that I
> got suspicious.
Oh, I didn't think you had to have even met him.
But you were listening, you paid attention.
> > you paid him to teach your son guitar,
> > NOTHING ELSE!
>
> Well, we weren't paying him. The guitar lessons were *free.* He was
> ostensibly developing some special method to teach guitar, and he was
> giving free lessons for the purpose of test marketing. I do believe
> that all of this was 100% true. The missionizing was a separate issue/
> pursuit.
And that's why the lessons were free!!
> > (Then again, I am more fortunate than you - my
> > husband would have seen the danger a little
> > faster than yours. Then again, he's got a wife
> > who's a little more in-your-face about things than
> > your husband does....)
> >
> But the point is that the guy hadn't done actually anything yet (other
> than give my son a guitar lesson and invite him to a concert). If the
> guy had pulled out a bible and said "let's talk about Jesus," that
> would have been one thing. But he didn't do anything like that.
But the conversations they had were suspicious.
(My husband did ask me what came first, the "I'm-not-
Jewish-conversation" or the invite - I suppose that
was crucial.)
> What I'm saying is because of my experience on alt.messy, I had
> already watched the last reel of the movie to the end.
Exactly.
> (I love that
> expression :-)
I like "cut to the chase", because it is a (largely unrealized
these days) direct referral to silent movies - most
specifically the Keystone Kops stuff.
> My husband doesn't know anything about this kind of
> stuff. Except for the "messianic Jew" at his workplace or the
> occasional JW who comes to our door, my husband has never really been
> exposed to evangelicals, so he was caught completely off guard, and it
> wasn't until I showed him the mission statement from this guy's church
> that my husband believed me.
My husband is almost as fed up with the door-to-door
bigots as I am.
Then again, he was the one who went for the hose....
Susan
cindys
> On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
snip
>
> > ostensibly developing some special method to teach guitar, and he was
> > giving free lessons for the purpose of test marketing. I do believe
> > that all of this was 100% true. The missionizing was a separate issue/
> > pursuit.
>
> And that's why the lessons were free!!
I don't think that was the reason. As I said, he had developed a
unique method for teaching the guitar. I saw the method. It was
unique. He was selling it on the Internet (or trying to).
From a business perspective, if you are developing a new product, part
of test marketing is giving people free samples in order to get their
input and modify your product. Remember when Duncan Hines stopped
producing pareve cake mixes? I decided I was going to try to develop
and market my own pareve cakes mixes. I spent several months
investigating production and marketing, and I also needed to create
the mix. For weeks, I was baking multiple cakes every day, each time
altering my measurements etc to try to produce the best products. Many
of my friends were the happy recipients of my homemade cakes.
My next step would have been producing a sampling of the mixes
themselves, giving mixes away to people for free, and asking them to
bake the cakes themselves and then provide me with input and comments/
suggestions. The reason it never got that far was because Duncan Hines
reinstated its pareve cake mixes. My mixes were far superior (of
course), but there was no way I could compete in terms of pricing or
marketing with Duncan Hines, so I dropped the idea (which was a smart
business decision).
But my point is that I think the free guitar lessons really were about
test marketing his method. The teaching method the guy was using was
something completely unique. So, while I agree that the guy was
certainly looking to missionize and/or increase the church membership,
I don't think the guitar lessons were *only* a front for missionizing.
I do think that the primary focus was test marketing his special
method for teaching the guitar.
>
> > > (Then again, I am more fortunate than you - my
> > > husband would have seen the danger a little
> > > faster than yours. Then again, he's got a wife
> > > who's a little more in-your-face about things than
> > > your husband does....)
>
> > But the point is that the guy hadn't done actually anything yet (other
> > than give my son a guitar lesson and invite him to a concert). If the
> > guy had pulled out a bible and said "let's talk about Jesus," that
> > would have been one thing. But he didn't do anything like that.
>
> But the conversations they had were suspicious.
Yes. I kept questioning my son regarding "Did he ask you about your
religion or were you the one who raised the subject?" to the point
that my son got really upset and kept saying "I don't remember. I
don't remember. Please, just leave me alone."
>
> (My husband did ask me what came first, the "I'm-not-
> Jewish-conversation" or the invite - I suppose that
> was crucial.)
I think everybody who came for the guitar lesson got the invite. It
was a pre-printed flier, and as I said, the concert was open to the
general public.
Truth be told, I didn't really care about the invite. What scared me
the most was the way my son had responded to the guy and how he was
being so defensive of him, and I think the thing that really made my
blood boil was when my son was unable to make the distinction between
"Christian" and "Christian missionary." This is a common canard on
alt.messy, where they claim that anger toward missionizing/
missionaries translates to a *hatred* for all Christians or
Christianity. And it really upset me that my son was accusing me of
the same. And he was sobbing too.
I still don't understand why he was crying, but I suspect it was
because both my husband and son had been claiming that I was
overreacting, and the more they kept poo-pooing the whole thing, the
more frustrated I became to the point that I admit I was practically
hysterical, and I'm normally not like that at all, and I think my son
was frightened because my reaction seemed so out of proportion to what
had happened. (He had a guitar lesson, was invited to a concert, and
his mom is ready for the men in the white coats?)
FTR, after that night, the entire incident was never discussed with or
by my son again. It was like it never happened. The next day, I said
to him very simply: "Your new guitar teacher is Bob Smith. He lives on
Maple Drive, which is two blocks from here. You'll be starting on
Tuesday at 4:00." He said "Okay." And that was the end of it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> My son thought it was crazy that I went ballistic. He kept reassuring
> me that no one could ever convince him to convert to Christianity,
> which he articulated was based on the Hercules myth
Interesting.
I always thought it was closer to Perseus.
Friends of mine who study it more say that it's Mithras.
Susan
Don Levey
Let's see...
"King hears a prophecy that some small child born recently will be his
downfall. Therefore, to prolong his rule, he orders all newborn boys
murdered, but due to some snafu (child survives drowning, child put in
basket to evade murder, something involving water...) the child not only
lives but is brought into the/a royal household to be raised..."
Now where have I heard that one before? Was it Mordred? Or Moshe?
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
cindys
>
> >> My son thought it was crazy that I went ballistic. He kept reassuring
> >> me that no one could ever convince him to convert to Christianity,
> >> which he articulated was based on the Hercules myth
>
> > Interesting.
> > I always thought it was closer to Perseus.
> > Friends of mine who study it more say that it's Mithras.
>
> Let's see...
> "King hears a prophecy that some small child born recently will be his
> downfall. Therefore, to prolong his rule, he orders all newborn boys
> murdered, but due to some snafu (child survives drowning, child put in
> basket to evade murder, something involving water...) the child not only
> lives but is brought into the/a royal household to be raised..."
>
> Now where have I heard that one before? Was it Mordred? Or Moshe?
To me, it's the myth of the half man/half god who died and was
resurrected. Wasn't Perseus the one who slew Medusa?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>------
>To me, it's the myth of the half man/half god who died and was
>resurrected. Wasn't Perseus the one who slew Medusa?
Yeah, but don't think Perseus is associated with resurrection. Dionysus
definitely is, though. Read through the wikipedia entry on Mithras and
doesn't seem to be much connection there.
--s
--
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2010, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 5-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My son thought it was crazy that I went ballistic. He kept reassuring
> >> me that no one could ever convince him to convert to Christianity,
> >> which he articulated was based on the Hercules myth
> >
> > Interesting.
> > I always thought it was closer to Perseus.
> > Friends of mine who study it more say that it's Mithras.
> >
>
> Let's see...
> "King hears a prophecy that some small child born recently will be his
> downfall. Therefore, to prolong his rule, he orders all newborn boys
> murdered, but due to some snafu (child survives drowning, child put in
> basket to evade murder, something involving water...) the child not only
> lives but is brought into the/a royal household to be raised..."
>
> Now where have I heard that one before? Was it Mordred? Or Moshe?
Oedipus.
(But the Arthur twist - love it! Never thought of that!)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
Yes, but his mother was locked away in a tower to prevent her
having a baby - she never had sex, but a god came to her in a
golden cloud...
Susan
Don Levey
I once did a 'drash on Shemot where I discuss the Moshe story as the
basis for both Jesus and Arthur. It was a lot of fun, and raised a few
eyebrows.
Arthur Kamlet
Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>
>> (But the Arthur twist - love it! Never thought of that!)
>>
>
>I once did a 'drash on Shemot where I discuss the Moshe story as the
>basis for both Jesus and Arthur. It was a lot of fun, and raised a few
>eyebrows.
There's a wonderful midrash retold in Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of
the Jews" Vol II Part 4, resembling the Arthurian sword in the stone
legend.
The variation decribed by Ginzberg
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-2-4.htm
Volume II part 4
MOSES MARRIES ZIPPORAH
Tells how Jethro finds a tree growing in Pharaoh's garden, transplanted
from its origins in Gan Eden, and Jethro steals it and goes to Midian
where he plants it and says anyone who can pull it from the ground
can marry one of his daughters.
Naturally Moses is the only one who can pull the rod from the ground.
But instead of immediate reward, Jethro has Moses thrown in a pit
to die. After many years Zipporah who has been caring for Moses
intercedes with her father and finally gets to marry Moses.
That rod becomes the well-known rod of Moses.
I found it fascinating.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
chsw
> I start a new job next week. This afternoon I went to the company
> district office to do some paperwork and while I was there, the man who
> will be my manager came in and we started talking. He asked me how my
> Christmas was; I told him I was Jewish and don't celebrate (and said how
> I did spend the day) and he replied that his family observes Chanukah
> and not Christmas.
>
> I soon realized that he did not say he was Jewish. In fact, I suspect
> that he is one of those Messianics. And I get to work with this guy
> every day! Am I lucky or what?
>
> Susan Silberstein
So... How is it going so far?
chsw
Susan S
<threerive...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jan 2, 3:06 pm, Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from sheldonlg
>
>(Lots and lots snipped)
>
>> >Please let us know how it turns out after you start your job.
>>
>> Certainly. I fervently hope this man is professional enough not to bring
>> it up when we are actually working and never tries to convert me under
>> any circumstances. I'll let you all know if there is anything worth
>> discussing or if I need advice.
>>
>> Susan Silberstein- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Susan,
>
>Several things in no particular order:
>
>1. I too would like to be kept up to date on this.
>
>2. Please don't jump to any conclusions about the guy. As many have
>said, maybe he's married to a Jewish woman and was trying to be
>friendly and connect with you. Maybe he's Jewish and that's just how
>he worded it. And maybe not. Please just wait and see.
[snip]
It occurred to me to look him up in Facebook. He blocks personal info on
his page, but I was able to see the names of some of his FB friends.
Following their info, I found a links to these http://www.mjti.org/,
http://www.galileeofthenations.com/, and a FB page about messianics who
wrap tefillan. That page included a link to Chabad and that seems to be
so the "clueless" can go there for instructions. I also saw a link to a
local International Pentecostal Church and... TA DA - his name is all
over the website.
I am no longer guessing.
Susan Silberstein
cindys
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from Ken
> <threeriversguy_2...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 2, 3:06 pm, Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from sheldonlg
>
> >(Lots and lots snipped)
>
> >> >Please let us know how it turns out after you start your job.
>
> >> Certainly. I fervently hope this man is professional enough not to bring
> >> it up when we are actually working and never tries to convert me under
> >> any circumstances. I'll let you all know if there is anything worth
> >> discussing or if I need advice.
>
> >> Susan Silberstein- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Susan,
>
> >Several things in no particular order:
>
> >1. I too would like to be kept up to date on this.
>
> >2. Please don't jump to any conclusions about the guy. As many have
> >said, maybe he's married to a Jewish woman and was trying to be
> >friendly and connect with you. Maybe he's Jewish and that's just how
> >he worded it. And maybe not. Please just wait and see.
>
> [snip]
>
> It occurred to me to look him up in Facebook. He blocks personal info on
> his page, but I was able to see the names of some of his FB friends.
> wrap tefillan. That page included a link to Chabad and that seems to be
> so the "clueless" can go there for instructions. I also saw a link to a
> local International Pentecostal Church and... TA DA - his name is all
> over the website.
>
> I am no longer guessing.
Oh great :-(
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 8-Jan-2010, Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It occurred to me to look him up in Facebook. He blocks personal info on
> his page, but I was able to see the names of some of his FB friends.
> Following their info, I found a links to these http://www.mjti.org/,
> http://www.galileeofthenations.com/, and a FB page about messianics who
> wrap tefillan. That page included a link to Chabad and that seems to be
> so the "clueless" can go there for instructions. I also saw a link to a
> local International Pentecostal Church and... TA DA - his name is all
> over the website.
>
> I am no longer guessing.
Buy a notebook so you can keep daily records, if necessary.
Susan
Ken
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from Ken
> <threeriversguy_2...@yahoo.com>:
(Snip)
> >2. Please don't jump to any conclusions about the guy. As many have
> >said, maybe he's married to a Jewish woman and was trying to be
> >friendly and connect with you. Maybe he's Jewish and that's just how
> >he worded it. And maybe not. Please just wait and see.
>
> [snip]
>
> It occurred to me to look him up in Facebook. He blocks personal info on
> his page, but I was able to see the names of some of his FB friends.
> Following their info, I found a links to thesehttp://www.mjti.org/,http://www.galileeofthenations.com/, and a FB page about messianics who
> wrap tefillan. That page included a link to Chabad and that seems to be
> so the "clueless" can go there for instructions. I also saw a link to a
> local International Pentecostal Church and... TA DA - his name is all
> over the website.
>
> I am no longer guessing.
>
> Susan Silberstein- Hide quoted text -
Susan,
Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
to HR.
Good luck,
Ken
Don Levey
>
>
> Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
> managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
> enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
> there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
> does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
> hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
> to HR.
>
for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
"non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
cindys
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
> > managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
> > enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
> > there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
> > does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
> > hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
> > to HR.
>
> Good luck with that (seriously). In most of the companies I've worked
> for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
> "non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
> as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
I think what Ken (and Susan C.) are referring to is if the guy
actually starts proselytizing, not Christmas decorations. I'm sure I
don't have to tell you that if a person is going to make an official
HR complaint, the situation better be really bad. Generally, companies
don't like complainers, and making complaints of this nature can come
back to bite you in the butt. The one doing the complaining is the one
who ends up looking like a whiner and is then labeled "difficult to
work with," and "not a team player," etc, and that is reflected on the
employee review, and then along comes a pink slip (on some other
pretext) because the one doing the complaining comes to be viewed as
more trouble than he/she is worth. And to make things worse, this is
the guy Susan S will be reporting to, her boss, so he is the one who
is going to be writing her review. For the sake of Susan S, I really
hope this guy just keeps his mouth shut about religion.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Ken
Cindy,
I agree with what you've written from top to bottom. It's
unfortunate, but true.
Ken
Don Levey
> On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>
>>> Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
>>> managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
>>> enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
>>> there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
>>> does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
>>> hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
>>> to HR.
>> Good luck with that (seriously). In most of the companies I've worked
>> for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
>> "non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
>> as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
> -----
> I think what Ken (and Susan C.) are referring to is if the guy
> actually starts proselytizing, not Christmas decorations.
I understand, and agree. The point I was trying to make is that either
expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
cindys
> cindys wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >> Ken wrote:
>
> >>> Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
> >>> managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
> >>> enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
> >>> there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
> >>> does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
> >>> hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
> >>> to HR.
> >> Good luck with that (seriously). In most of the companies I've worked
> >> for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
> >> "non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
> >> as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
> > -----
> > I think what Ken (and Susan C.) are referring to is if the guy
> > actually starts proselytizing, not Christmas decorations.
>
> I understand, and agree. The point I was trying to make is that either
> expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
That's true, but comparatively, Christmas decorations are easy to
ignore.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
You are both right but:
1 - Given a review by the boss, you have to sign it. At that point you
can enter a written comment -- or refuse to sign it.
2 - If terminated, with sufficient documentation there is grounds for a
civil suit against the company. That is why companies tread lightly in
that area. This is especially true if the employee has multiple backup
from prior employers/co-workers to refute any charges of "difficult to
work with", etc. and lawsuits can wind up with large judgements.
3 - If the company depends upon government contracts, it will tend to
bend over backwards so as not to appear to be discriminatory or in
violation of civil rights by creating a hostile work environment.
The key thing here is documentation.
1 - Document instances in a log book.
2 - Speak privately with the manager at the first occurrence and log
that you spoke with him.
3 - On a second occurrence, privately warn him that you will take it to
HR if it doesn't stop and log that you spoke with him. (You might was
to advise him that you are tape recording the conversaition.)
4 - On a third occurrence, file a formal protest with HR including all
documentation as to what happened, what you said to him (including
private meeting), what he said back and give time, place and length of
conversation.
5 - Should that not stop it, then contact a lawyer and he will probably
advise that you tell HR that you have retained his services or he might
do it himself.
Despite all of this, you still might wind up playing the part of Don
Quixote.
Steve Goldfarb
>> I understand, and agree. =A0The point I was trying to make is that either
>> expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
>------
>That's true, but comparatively, Christmas decorations are easy to
>ignore.
True. And also, although I'm not sure on the exact boundaries here, I do
feel like we should have some sort of free speech rights within the
workplace. People are allowed to have beliefs, and they should, I think,
be allowed to express them to some degree even in the workplace - there's
a point where it's coercive or creates a "hostile workplace" or something,
but I think we've gone too far in that direction.
If a co-worker wants to have a nativity scene on his desk because he's
Christian, well, I don't know that I'd have a problem with that. It'd
different if it's done in some kind of official way - if the company
installs a nativity scene in the lobby. But even then - maybe they're
allowed to do that too, why not? It's a company, not the government. How's
it different from a Jewish-owned business putting up a mezuzah?
I mean, if my boss had his office all decorated with religious symbols -
yeah, it probably would make me uncomfortable, but maybe that's my problem
not his. Not sure.
--s
--
Don Levey
> In <0743a2b4-c08a-48f9...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>> I understand, and agree. =A0The point I was trying to make is that either
>>> expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
>> ------
>> That's true, but comparatively, Christmas decorations are easy to
>> ignore.
>
> True. And also, although I'm not sure on the exact boundaries here, I do
> feel like we should have some sort of free speech rights within the
> workplace. People are allowed to have beliefs, and they should, I think,
> be allowed to express them to some degree even in the workplace - there's
> a point where it's coercive or creates a "hostile workplace" or something,
> but I think we've gone too far in that direction.
>
> If a co-worker wants to have a nativity scene on his desk because he's
> Christian, well, I don't know that I'd have a problem with that. It'd
> different if it's done in some kind of official way - if the company
> installs a nativity scene in the lobby.
That was more my point
> But even then - maybe they're
> allowed to do that too, why not? It's a company, not the government. How's
> it different from a Jewish-owned business putting up a mezuzah?
>
If it's a privately-held company, it's probably easier for them to do
it. But that doesn't make it the right, or considerate, thing to do.
> I mean, if my boss had his office all decorated with religious symbols -
> yeah, it probably would make me uncomfortable, but maybe that's my problem
> not his. Not sure.
>
In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. The
exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
for employee meetings, reviews, etc. At that point, it takes on some of
the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
Steve Goldfarb
>In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. The
>exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
>for employee meetings, reviews, etc. At that point, it takes on some of
>the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
Yeah, I don't know... this is a really really tough issue I think. Say
you've got an O-run company like B&H Photo - should they be allowed to put
big mezuzahs on the doors? How about set up cups for handwashing by the
sinks in the breakroom? Or provide bentschers? I'd say absolutely yes, for
all those things. But then can they prohibit non-kosher food in their
break room? That's a harder one - I could see prohibiting all food, but
OTOH it's their break room, why shouldn't they be allowed to prohibit
anything they want?
After all - the owner of Conde Nast has a problem with garlic, and
therefore the cafeteria there does not use any garlic. That doesn't seem
to be a problem.
But, OTOH, you aren't allowed to prevent me, as a non-believer, from
shopping in your store (as an example) so why should you be allowed to
discriminate against me as an employer? (and I think the answer is you
can't)
There's definitely a rights conflict here, not sure if there's a blanket
way to address it.
--s
--
cindys
snip
I'm not disputing what you've written below, but the idea is to
overlook as much as possible in the hopes of avoiding the scenario
you've outlined below, unless the environment becomes totally
unbearable.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Ken
Okay, something is wrong here. It should be two Jews, three
opinions. But this is four Jews, one opinion. We're all agreeing.
Wow.
To get a bit off-topic: Hasn't there been a court ruling that
Christmas is a secular holiday? I don't understand the ruling. If
you look at the first six letters of Christmas, it seems religious to
me. But since it is now secular, the government can take a day off
and decorations can be in the workplace without any problem.
Ken
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>>
>>
>> Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
Is he a Jew?
>> managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
>> enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
I still think that is most likely, but i'm a cockeyed optimist.
>> there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
>> does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
>> hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
>> to HR.
>>
>Good luck with that (seriously). In most of the companies I've worked
>for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
>"non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
>as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
Well, that's what most Xians think. I wouldn't want the Human
Resources dept., instigated mostly in order to comply with state or
U.S. law, micromanaging how Xians behave. I don't remember there ever
being xmas decorations put up by the boss or the company, but even if
there were, I could surely handle it. And I think some co-workers
decorated their desk, cubicle, or office, and it seems to me that's
there own business. (I think I read a letter to an advice column
where the boss who didn't think so. He wouldn't even let her put
pictures of her kids on her desk, for whatever reason.)
I wouldn't go to HR after only two remarks. I'd keep a diary, like
Susan says, maybe starting after the second thing (or third, depending
on how big the first two were) to look like you wern't excessively
suspicious (even if you have to keep a second private diary so you
don't forget when the first incident was. But they may want to see
that most of your notes were contemperaneous, so start fairly soon,
and don't write everything down at the last minute.
After two remarks or three if the first two were trivial, I'd say
something to the boss about not wanting to discuss religion. And
definitely note, word for word if possible, what you said to him.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
cindys
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> > In <0743a2b4-c08a-48f9-8f27-898ef2162...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> >>> I understand, and agree. =A0The point I was trying to make is that either
> >>> expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
> >> ------
> >> That's true, but comparatively, Christmas decorations are easy to
> >> ignore.
>
> > True. And also, although I'm not sure on the exact boundaries here, I do
> > feel like we should have some sort of free speech rights within the
> > workplace. People are allowed to have beliefs, and they should, I think,
> > be allowed to express them to some degree even in the workplace - there's
> > a point where it's coercive or creates a "hostile workplace" or something,
> > but I think we've gone too far in that direction.
>
> > If a co-worker wants to have a nativity scene on his desk because he's
> > Christian, well, I don't know that I'd have a problem with that. It'd
> > different if it's done in some kind of official way - if the company
> > installs a nativity scene in the lobby.
>
> That was more my point
>
> > But even then - maybe they're
> > allowed to do that too, why not? It's a company, not the government. How's
> > it different from a Jewish-owned business putting up a mezuzah?
>
> If it's a privately-held company, it's probably easier for them to do
> it. But that doesn't make it the right, or considerate, thing to do.
I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
uncomfortable."
>
> > I mean, if my boss had his office all decorated with religious symbols -
> > yeah, it probably would make me uncomfortable, but maybe that's my problem
> > not his. Not sure.
>
> In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. The
> exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
> for employee meetings, reviews, etc. At that point, it takes on some of
> the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point. Before I was self-
employed, I worked in a corporate environment where a huge Christmas
tree graced the lobby, tinsel and decorations and wreaths everywhere.
One of my coworkers was even an evangelical (but happily kept his
religion to himself). None of this bothered me one little bit. Private
corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, and unless someone
is actually proselytizing, I really think there are more important
things to worry about.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>cindys wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>> Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
>>>> managed to be working for one. Hopefully he will be professional
>>>> enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
>>>> there. Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. And if he
>>>> does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
>>>> hostile work environment. And if he repeats his performance, then go
>>>> to HR.
>>> Good luck with that (seriously). In most of the companies I've worked
>>> for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
>>> "non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
>>> as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into work.
>> -----
>> I think what Ken (and Susan C.) are referring to is if the guy
>> actually starts proselytizing, not Christmas decorations.
>
>I understand, and agree. The point I was trying to make is that either
>expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
If I follow you, I ask: Do you think it's bad for non-management
employees to decorate their desks for Xmas? Even if we can't think of
anything analogous that a Jew or others non-x's would ever do.
Steve Goldfarb
>I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
>sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
>decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
>Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
>Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
>decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
>let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
>uncomfortable."
In my view there's definitely nothing wrong with a company doing something
which communicates "many of our employees celebrate Christmas." That's a
different statement from "this is a Christian company," but even there I'm
not absolutely sure that they shouldn't be allowed to say that, especially
if they're a private company. (legally they probably can't - but maybe
that shouldn't be the case)
--s
--
Don Levey
many Christmas-celebrating Christians will attest.
Don Levey
expression, not a corporate statement.
Harry Weiss
> In <hi83kp$u34$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> >In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. The
> >exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
> >for employee meetings, reviews, etc. At that point, it takes on some of
> >the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
> Yeah, I don't know... this is a really really tough issue I think. Say
> you've got an O-run company like B&H Photo - should they be allowed to put
> big mezuzahs on the doors? How about set up cups for handwashing by the
> sinks in the breakroom? Or provide bentschers? I'd say absolutely yes, for
> all those things. But then can they prohibit non-kosher food in their
> break room? That's a harder one - I could see prohibiting all food, but
> OTOH it's their break room, why shouldn't they be allowed to prohibit
> anything they want?
There could be a legal issue on that, but they could ban all outside food
and only allow what is sold/given there.
> After all - the owner of Conde Nast has a problem with garlic, and
> therefore the cafeteria there does not use any garlic. That doesn't seem
> to be a problem.
> But, OTOH, you aren't allowed to prevent me, as a non-believer, from
> shopping in your store (as an example) so why should you be allowed to
> discriminate against me as an employer? (and I think the answer is you
> can't)
> There's definitely a rights conflict here, not sure if there's a blanket
> way to address it.
They can give out disposable place mats and require everyone to use it.
They could also not have a break room.
> --s
> --
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Harry Weiss
They could have rule, especially if they are in areas where the public has
access. I could see a problem if some decorations gave off a different
public image than the place is trying to give.
Imagine a sales person at vegetarian times having an Empire Chicken
calendar or an Empire sales office with a PETA calendar.
> --
> Meir
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
sheldonlg
> In <hi83kp$u34$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>
>> In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. The
>> exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
>> for employee meetings, reviews, etc. At that point, it takes on some of
>> the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
>
> Yeah, I don't know... this is a really really tough issue I think. Say
> you've got an O-run company like B&H Photo - should they be allowed to put
> big mezuzahs on the doors? How about set up cups for handwashing by the
> sinks in the breakroom? Or provide bentschers? I'd say absolutely yes, for
> all those things. But then can they prohibit non-kosher food in their
> break room? That's a harder one - I could see prohibiting all food, but
> OTOH it's their break room, why shouldn't they be allowed to prohibit
> anything they want?
When I taught at the O day school, they had no rules for what we ate.
However, no non-kosher food was allowed to be brought onto the premises.
sheldonlg
> On Jan 8, 2:45 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> I'm not disputing what you've written below, but the idea is to
> overlook as much as possible in the hopes of avoiding the scenario
> you've outlined below, unless the environment becomes totally
I agree completely.
Susan S
<cst...@rochester.rr.com>:
That's how I think, too. Unless this guy insists on "sharing" during
actual work time or tries to convert me, it is not an issue. If it
becomes one, I will document everything and deal with it according to
company rules.
Given what I know, however, I probably need to avoid personal
conversations as much as possible.
Susan Silberstein
mm
I think it's legal to give that impresssion and it's legal to say it,
and I think that's the way it should be. The reason more places
don't is that many owners don't care about Xianity and many others
separate their business and professioal lives, and the rest don't want
to lose more customers than they gain.
But as evidence that it's legal, look in the Yellow Pages and see how
many display ads have the outline of a fish in the ad. Maybe less
than 1% in Baltimore, but still there are quite a few. I've never
heard of any complaint. I think I've seen it on a work truck once,
with the company name etc. also.
This is supposed to be a free country, and they should find someone
being injured that the government has a duty to protect before they
make a law against something.
>--s
cindys
I have never seen a company put up crosses or nativity scenes or
anything overtly religious. Holiday decorations are generally limited
to small, decorated trees, tinsel and ornaments or wreaths. I think
the idea is that these decorations are regarded as a seasonal attempt
to be cheerful and festive (especially in the dark days of December
when it's cold and miserable for those of us who live in the North).
And the truth is that the majority culture looks forward to this and
appreciates this attempt at cheer. Even as a Jew, I enjoy the
festivity. Not only does it bring a degree of cheerfulness to a dull
and dreary time of year, but I think it also enhances productivity at
the workplace, as it helps to put the employees in a happy frame of
mind. This is also a time for employee holiday parties or luncheons,
and people look forward to that, even when the employees themselves
plan a bring-a-dish-to-pass type of event and/or the event is not
being sponsored by the company itself.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Art Werschulz
cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
> sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
> decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
> Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
> Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
> decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
> let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
> uncomfortable."
Given that I teach at Fordham University ("The Jesuit University of New
York") I don't have the least objection to their calling this annual
gathering a Christmas Party, rather than a Holiday Party.
I make a (polite) point of attending neither our Departmental Holiday
Party nor the College party (hosted in the Dean's office, down the hall
from my office).
This year, I was busy grading my final exams during the Dean's Holiday
Party, noticing at one point the sounds of the carolers. (Carolers at a
"holiday party"?!? Anybody out there know any Chanukah or Kwanza
carols? :-)
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
.... insert clever quote here ...
sheldonlg
You see so many "fish" in central Florida that you might think you were
in New England.
mm
<a...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hi.
>
>cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
>> sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
>> decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
>> Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
>> Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
>> decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
>> let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
>> uncomfortable."
>
>Given that I teach at Fordham University ("The Jesuit University of New
Nu, what do you teach?
>York") I don't have the least objection to their calling this annual
>gathering a Christmas Party, rather than a Holiday Party.
>
>I make a (polite) point of attending neither our Departmental Holiday
>Party nor the College party (hosted in the Dean's office, down the hall
>from my office).
>
>This year, I was busy grading my final exams during the Dean's Holiday
>Party, noticing at one point the sounds of the carolers. (Carolers at a
Maybe they were just singers. :)
>"holiday party"?!? Anybody out there know any Chanukah or Kwanza
>carols? :-)
--
Meir
Don Levey
> On Jan 8, 3:56 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <46011bfa-c5d4-4509-b09f-347bdb0f2...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
>>> sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
>>> decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
>>> Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
>>> Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
>>> decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
>>> let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
>>> uncomfortable."
>> In my view there's definitely nothing wrong with a company doing something
>> which communicates "many of our employees celebrate Christmas." That's a
>> different statement from "this is a Christian company," but even there I'm
>> not absolutely sure that they shouldn't be allowed to say that, especially
>> if they're a private company. (legally they probably can't - but maybe
>> that shouldn't be the case)
> -------
> I have never seen a company put up crosses or nativity scenes or
> anything overtly religious.
I have...
> Holiday decorations are generally limited
> to small, decorated trees, tinsel and ornaments or wreaths. I think
> the idea is that these decorations are regarded as a seasonal attempt
> to be cheerful and festive (especially in the dark days of December
> when it's cold and miserable for those of us who live in the North).
>
Unfortunately, many of those decorations are religious in nature even if
the majority are unaware of the religious nature. Wreaths, candy canes,
Santa Claus are all religious symbols.
Don Levey
>
>
> This year, I was busy grading my final exams during the Dean's Holiday
> Party, noticing at one point the sounds of the carolers. (Carolers at a
> "holiday party"?!? Anybody out there know any Chanukah or Kwanza
> carols? :-)
>
>
Actually, I know of a few beautiful arrangements of Maoz Tzur and Mi
Yimalel which work well in 4-part harmony.
Feldman Astronomy
But not of Christianity.
So you are making much ado about nothing. And if they do not **mean*
anything to anyone anymore, then they do not **function** as religious
symbols at all.
Judaism trains the mind to look at the function of symbols, not the
literality of what they once were.
Try it.
Jacko
Abe Kohen
Art Werschulz
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>>Given that I teach at Fordham University ("The Jesuit University of New
>
> Nu, what do you teach?
Computer science.
cindys
Only in the sense that they are associated with Christmas, but they
are not the equivalent of crucifixes or depictions of the baby Jesus.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from cindys
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com>:
> >On Jan 8, 3:24?pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> >> > In <0743a2b4-c08a-48f9-8f27-898ef2162...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >>> I understand, and agree. =A0The point I was trying to make is that either
> >> >>> expression of religion doesn't belong in the workplace.
> >> >> ------
> >> >> That's true, but comparatively, Christmas decorations are easy to
> >> >> ignore.
> >>
> >> > True. And also, although I'm not sure on the exact boundaries here, I do
> >> > feel like we should have some sort of free speech rights within the
> >> > workplace. People are allowed to have beliefs, and they should, I think,
> >> > be allowed to express them to some degree even in the workplace - there's
> >> > a point where it's coercive or creates a "hostile workplace" or something,
> >> > but I think we've gone too far in that direction.
> >>
> >> > If a co-worker wants to have a nativity scene on his desk because he's
> >> > Christian, well, I don't know that I'd have a problem with that. It'd
> >> > different if it's done in some kind of official way - if the company
> >> > installs a nativity scene in the lobby.
> >>
> >> That was more my point
> >>
> >> > But even then - maybe they're
> >> > allowed to do that too, why not? It's a company, not the government. How's
> >> > it different from a Jewish-owned business putting up a mezuzah?
> >>
> >> If it's a privately-held company, it's probably easier for them to do
> >> it. ?But that doesn't make it the right, or considerate, thing to do.
> >
> >I guess I just don't see what's the big deal. And I think it's also
> >sort of unrealistic for a company to tone down the office Christmas
> >decorations just because there are a few non-Christians working there.
> >Usually, a company tries to accommodate by including decorations for
> >Chanukah or Diwali or Kwanzaa in addition to the Christmas
> >decorations, but it's unrealistic to think they're going to say "Okay,
> >let's not have the tree in the lobby because Shmuel's going to feel
> >uncomfortable."
> >>
> >> > I mean, if my boss had his office all decorated with religious symbols -
> >> > yeah, it probably would make me uncomfortable, but maybe that's my problem
> >> > not his. Not sure.
> >>
> >> In his own private office space, it shouldn't be an issue. ?The
> >> exception I can see, though, is that of the boss who uses their office
> >> for employee meetings, reviews, etc. ?At that point, it takes on some of
> >> the use of a conference room, as pseudo-"public" space.
> >
> >I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point. Before I was self-
> >employed, I worked in a corporate environment where a huge Christmas
> >tree graced the lobby, tinsel and decorations and wreaths everywhere.
> >One of my coworkers was even an evangelical (but happily kept his
> >religion to himself). None of this bothered me one little bit. Private
> >corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, and unless someone
> >is actually proselytizing, I really think there are more important
> >things to worry about.
> That's how I think, too. Unless this guy insists on "sharing" during
> actual work time or tries to convert me, it is not an issue. If it
> becomes one, I will document everything and deal with it according to
> company rules.
> Given what I know, however, I probably need to avoid personal
> conversations as much as possible.
> Susan Silberstein
It doesn't bother me either and I work in a Government building.
(Actually what bothers me more is all of the Muslims I see in line for
security going to immigration. I worry that in a few years we may have
the same problems as Europe.)
cindys
Certainly not to the chareidim in Israel who use tinsel and Santa
lights to decorate their sukkahs (they think it's a famous rabbi) or
whose cell phone ringtone is "Jingle Bells."
To me, Christmas tinsel/ornaments/trees, Halloween decorations, Easter
bunnies/eggs and Valentine's day decorations all hold equal status.
Again, I don't think it's fair to expect the majority culture of the
USA to refrain from decorating for their holidays in public places
just because minority cultures exist in the USA as well. Nobody is
being prevented from putting up symbols for other holidays.
In my husband's previous company, the boss' wife asked my husband if
he would be willing to bring some Chanukah decorations for the holiday
party, which we thought was very thoughtful. But there was no reason
for everyone else in the company to be deprived of Christmas
decorations just because we didn't celebrate Christmas.
The holiday party for that company always included a Sunday buffet/
open bar at a nice restaurant and Santa handing out gifts to the
employees' children. The boss' wife (who was making the arrangements)
asked my husband in advance if he would prefer to just give the gifts
to our sons himself (to avoid an uncomfortable situation with Santa),
and the secretary made a special trip to the local kosher bakery and
bought baked goods just for us.
Would you argue that the other children shouldn't have been allowed to
get their gifts from Santa? Would you argue that there shouldn't have
been a holiday party at all since treif food was being served? Do you
think 50 employees and their families (or however many there were)
should have been expected to forego any outward acknowledgement/
celebration of Christmas just because there were a few other employees
(2 or 3?) who didn't celebrate Christmas?
I really don't think that most companies object to Chanukah
decorations amongst the Christmas decorations. At least in my
neighborhood, local places of business generally have both. I really
don't think that realistically you can ask for more than that.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 8-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:10�am, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> > Ken wrote:
> >
> > > Congrats: I don't think I've ever met a Messianiac Jew, and you
> > > managed to be working for one. �Hopefully he will be professional
> > > enough to realize he's at work, and his religion doesn't belong
> > > there. �Let him be the one to break the rules, not you. �And if he
> > > does, just tell him you don't appreciate it and he's creating a
> > > hostile work environment. �And if he repeats his performance, then go
> > > to HR.
> >
> > Good luck with that (seriously). �In most of the companies I've worked
> > for/with, there's usually some religious stuff that's considered
> > "non-coercive" such as various "non-religious" Christmas decorations -
> > as if that Christian holy day is somehow not bringing religion into
> > work.
> -----
> I think what Ken (and Susan C.) are referring to is if the guy
> actually starts proselytizing, not Christmas decorations.
Yes - I was referring specifically to that - I figure Ken
is too, but he gets to say so for himself :-)
[snips]
> For the sake of Susan S, I really
> hope this guy just keeps his mouth shut about religion.
Amen!!
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Jan-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, many of those decorations are religious in nature even if
> > the majority are unaware of the religious nature. �Wreaths, candy canes,
> > Santa Claus are all religious symbols.
> ------
> Only in the sense that they are associated with Christmas, but they
> are not the equivalent of crucifixes or depictions of the baby Jesus.
Only among those with superior religious knowledge :-)
Susan
Henry Goodman
news:7c2a8fbc-5319-4919...@j1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are Chanukah decorations?
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
cindys
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
snip
>
> I really don't think that most companies object to Chanukah
> decorations amongst the Christmas decorations. At least in my
> neighborhood, local places of business generally have both. I really
> don't think that realistically you can ask for more than that.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What are Chanukah decorations?
To rephrase: Local places of business will sometimes include
decorations that depict images related to Chankukah, such as paper
Chanukias or dreidls hanging on the walls. One local bank sets up a
little table with an actual menorah filled with candles (unlit) and
surrounded by a decorative display of dreidls and confetti.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
According to the vatican, wreaths are symbolic of a "crown of thorns"
and candy canes are symbolic of a shepherd's crook. Santa Claus is an
effigy of a Christian saint.
> So you are making much ado about nothing. And if they do not **mean*
> anything to anyone anymore, then they do not **function** as religious
> symbols at all.
>
> Judaism trains the mind to look at the function of symbols, not the
> literality of what they once were.
>
> Try it.
>
Pot. Kettle.
Don Levey
The vatican says they are.
Don Levey
about, Christmas.
> To me, Christmas tinsel/ornaments/trees, Halloween decorations, Easter
> bunnies/eggs and Valentine's day decorations all hold equal status.
> Again, I don't think it's fair to expect the majority culture of the
> USA to refrain from decorating for their holidays in public places
> just because minority cultures exist in the USA as well. Nobody is
> being prevented from putting up symbols for other holidays.
>
That's not why it should be avoided - it should be avoided because
religious symbology doesn't belong on public property.
>...
>
> Would you argue that the other children shouldn't have been allowed to
> get their gifts from Santa? Would you argue that there shouldn't have
> been a holiday party at all since treif food was being served? Do you
> think 50 employees and their families (or however many there were)
> should have been expected to forego any outward acknowledgement/
> celebration of Christmas just because there were a few other employees
> (2 or 3?) who didn't celebrate Christmas?
>
Was it a required event? I enter my place of business every day,
because that is required in order for me to work there. A Christmas
party is generally optional, not necessary for me to do my job.
> I really don't think that most companies object to Chanukah
> decorations amongst the Christmas decorations. At least in my
> neighborhood, local places of business generally have both. I really
> don't think that realistically you can ask for more than that.
>
>
Shooting for an ideal is seldom realistic.
cindys
But you're saying it shouldn't be allowed on private property either.
>
> >...
>
> > Would you argue that the other children shouldn't have been allowed to
> > get their gifts from Santa? Would you argue that there shouldn't have
> > been a holiday party at all since treif food was being served? Do you
> > think 50 employees and their families (or however many there were)
> > should have been expected to forego any outward acknowledgement/
> > celebration of Christmas just because there were a few other employees
> > (2 or 3?) who didn't celebrate Christmas?
>
> Was it a required event?
Technically, no, but essentially yes. It's a really good idea to show
up if you want to be considered a "team player" and hope to get raises
and promotions and climb the corporate ladder. As long as the event
was on Sunday and not on shabbos, our family went to the event, and we
took our children too (who really didn't want to go) because sometimes
that's what you need to do if you want your husband (or wife) to be
successful at his/her place of work. That's how the corporate world
operates.
>I enter my place of business every day,
> because that is required in order for me to work there.
So, who forces you to work there? I understand that you need a job to
support your family, but no one is stopping you from owning your own
business (for example). We don't live in the former USSR where people
were legally prohibited from quitting their jobs. There may be good
reasons for why you stay, but the truth is that every job really is
optional. You applied for the job of your own free will. The company
made you an offer. You accepted the offer. You can give notice at any
time. You *choose* to work there.
>A Christmas
> party is generally optional, not necessary for me to do my job.
As I said above, it all depends. But at any rate, in a private
business which is owned by a non-Jew, why should the entire staff of
dozens or maybe hundreds of employees be deprived of having festive
and (what is to them) secular symbols of the season because the
Vatican says they're religious symbols and you personally don't want
to see them? What if the business were owned by a Jew? Should he
refrain from putting mezuzahs (which everyone agrees are religious
symbols) on the doorposts because non-Jewish employees don't want to
see them?
>
> > I really don't think that most companies object to Chanukah
> > decorations amongst the Christmas decorations. At least in my
> > neighborhood, local places of business generally have both. I really
> > don't think that realistically you can ask for more than that.
>
> Shooting for an ideal is seldom realistic.
It may be your ideal, but I don't think it's what most people consider
ideal. Most people like the decorations. They like to see businesses
decorate for holidays. It's expected. That's why businesses which are
open to the general public (like banks and shops) do that. If a
company refrains from putting up decorations, it seems strange, makes
them look scrooge-like, like they're making a point of being anti-
Christmas, and most people don't like that. At any rate, as I said, I
find the decorations festive and cheerful in the dark days of winter.
And other SCJMers have commented on this forum in the past that they
like forward to seeing the Christmas lights in their neighborhoods
(because they're pretty).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> --
> Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
> (email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
> NOTE: Don't send mail to to sale...@the-leveys.us