Attacked Congresswoman identifies herself as Jewish
Yussel
the first Jew elected to national office from Arizona.
According to JTA, her mother was Christian Scientist, her father
Jewish. In 2001, she went to Israel and came back having decided from
then on she was Jewish. She belongs to a Reform synagogue in Tuscon
and was married by the rabbi there to her (presumably non-Jewish)
husband, an astronaut and Navy officer. During her election campaign
she boasted that it takes a "Jewish woman" to solve the country's
problems and she is listed among the 44 Jews in the U.S. Congress. (13
Senators, 31 Congresspeople) There is no record of a conversion, but
her Reform synagogue probably does not require one.
(She was a Fulbright scholar; graduate of Scripps, one of the elite
Clairmont Colleges; rides a motorcycle without a helmet; is an
equestrienne, and plays a French horn. Even the guy she defeated for
her seat admires her and is openly distraught at what happened.}
Joel
Yussel
yzk
My sympathies to the Congresswoman, and I pray she survives and
recovers fully, but
would it help if I "identified as" a Martian? :-\
Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
sheldonlg
>
> My sympathies to the Congresswoman, and I pray she survives and
> recovers fully, but
> would it help if I "identified as" a Martian? :-\
>
> Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
You aren't?
--
Shelly
Dennis
Would it help if she identified as a French horn player? ("Gee, I bet
she plays in the Phoenix Symphony!") Or as someone who drives a
motorcycle withouth a helmet? ("Gee, I bet she rode in a "finger-to-the-
helmet-law rally!")
Ah, stereotypes... :-(
> Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
How's St. Petersburg these days?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot yesterday in Tuscon is listed as
> the first Jew elected to national office from Arizona.
Does anyone kow the motive for the shooting.
>
> According to JTA, her mother was Christian Scientist, her father
> Jewish. In 2001, she went to Israel and came back having decided
> from then on she was Jewish.
Her situation reminde me of Julie. (Anybody remember her?). Her
father was Jewish but not her mother. Julie realized she was not
Jewish, even as she practiced many rules. I wonder what ever happened
to her. She used to be a regular poster, then suddenly stopped.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
sheldonlg
Dennis, you missed what he was saying. He was making an OCR war
statement. He was presenting the party line that only people born of a
Jewish mother or being a convert via an Orthodox rabbi are Jews.
BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since no one
here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. She does not satisfy the
conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_ (b) having one
Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. She was not raised as a Jew.
--
Shelly
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
yzk
Pity, Mr. Glickler, that you have decided to not take my advice,
given in the "Double Standard" thread
(Actually, it is time, if not overdue, for you to think carefully
before producing more verbal rubbish, or to just go away.)
Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
Yussel
I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
delighted I don't have to worry about it.
Joel
Q
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
as Jewish. Her
Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace, except on SCJM.
-- Q
lee
Was she shot cos she is Jewish (or of Jewish parentage)? If not what
difference does it make?
cindys
What you wrote above suggests to me that you think the SCJMers are
being petty. After all, how dare we, as Jews have the audacity to
question the Jewishness of anyone who says "I'm Jewish."? And it's not
the responsibility of the non-Jewish world to be accurate about
halacha. In the media, anybody can be Jewish! But when it comes to
halacha, the secular media doesn't get a vote.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
wrote:
>> I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
>> assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
>> write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
>> wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
>> readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
>> story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
>> delighted I don't have to worry about it.
>>
>> Joel
>
>Was she shot cos she is Jewish (or of Jewish parentage)?
Maybe. "Shooter of Jewish Congresswoman listed 'Mein Kampf' as
favorite book"
This is haaretz, but I heard the tail end of the same thing on
American radio, probably NPR:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/shooter-of-jewish-congresswoman-listed-mein-kampf-as-favorite-book-1.336025
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248692/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-strange-internet-trail-of-loner-Jared-Lee-Loughner-the-alleged-Tucson-gunman.html
> If not what
>difference does it make?
The choice is not usually between yes and no. It's between yes and
maybe. Eventually it might become clear that the answer is no, but
not this quickly. If he didn't publish a list of his favorite books,
mein kampf would still have been one of them. Some killers leave no
evidence of their motives, but that doesn't mean they don't have
motives.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
wrote:
>Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
>as Jewish.
That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
confirmation before reporting it, but if so they get two sources.
They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
checking out whether it is really true. This is how most stories are
reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
already knows more than they do.
> Her
>Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace,
I'm sure it has been.
>except on SCJM.
If there were a radiology newsgroup, the posters would be focusing on
the difficulties of getting a good radiological image of an injury of
this kind.
> -- Q
My participation is not meant to say I find the whole thread pleasing,
given her health at the moment. If the OP had been made only to say
she's not a Jew, when no one had said she was, that would have been
most unseemly. But that was not the case here and once her Jewish
affiliation is mentioned, a fair presentation requires that the rest
be said as well.
mm
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote: [Everything snipped]
I think this means 3:07 PM EST. But it was actuallay 2:07.
I've notiiced that for the last few days, everything I post is stamped
an hour later than I posted it. No big deal, but it is interesting
technically.
Susan S
<jshu...@gmail.com>:
In a magazine interview with one of Jared Loughner's (the shooter)
friends, someone he has known since high school, the friend mentioned
that Loughner's mother is Jewish.
Susan Silberstein
cindys
Q wrote:
>>Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
>>as Jewish.
>
> That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
> reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
> I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
> confirmation before reporting it, but if so they get two sources.
> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
> checking out whether it is really true. This is how most stories are
> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
---
Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with Jews on a Jewish newsgroup
saying that someone who claims to be Jewish isn't really Jewish. And
there's no shame in being a non-Jew, which Giffords is.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Q
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000 (UTC), Q <quond...@yahoo.com>
Most news stories are fact-checked, but since Giffords lists herself
as Jewish, and is an active member of a temple, that would be good
enough for any newspaper that I know of. Investigative reporting
reporting doesn't usually encompass probing into the extent of
somebody's religious purity. It seems that some of the people who
insist that halacha determines one's religion are applying a sort of
"one drop rule" to this.
>but if so they get two sources.
> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
> checking out whether it is really true.
I'm a reporter. I know what reporters do.
>This is how most stories are
> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
Sometimes they don't. Ir depends on whether the person's birthplace
is of any importance.
>
> And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
> least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
> she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
> spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
It would be beside the point, even if Giffords were not
"authentically" (for want of a better word) Jewish, because Louchner
believed her to be Jewish, and if antisemitism made her a target, it
matters not what the facts are.
>
> It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
> watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
> example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
> likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
> non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
>
> But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
> already knows more than they do.
He knows more about science than they do. Is he also an expert on
who's Jewish in Tucson, and who isn't?
>
> > Her
> >Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace,
>
> I'm sure it has been.
Show me.
>
> >except on SCJM.
>
> If there were a radiology newsgroup, the posters would be focusing on
> the difficulties of getting a good radiological image of an injury of
> this kind.
>
The relevance of Giffords's Jewishness is related to whether the
shooter's motives were antisemitic.
> My participation is not meant to say I find the whole thread pleasing,
> given her health at the moment. If the OP had been made only to say
> she's not a Jew, when no one had said she was, that would have been
> most unseemly. But that was not the case here and once her Jewish
> affiliation is mentioned, a fair presentation requires that the rest
> be said as well.
People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
lee
otherwise, might list mein kampf as a favourite book. Doesnt the fact
that this particular wacko, listed the book as one of his, place the
Jewish ancestry of his victim under a whole new light? Also correct me
if I'm wrong but wouldn't she have been eligible to make aliyah under
the original 'Right of Return', if not the current rules, due to her
Jewish ancestry?
cindys
snip
> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
> job of any of the news media to refute that.
I agree that it's irrelevant as far as the media is concerned.
>And maybe the kindly
> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
halacha at all? Maybe if someone says pork is kosher, we should
consider pork to be kosher too. Maybe the kindly folks at SCJM need to
consider that in the eyes of G-d pork may be kosher. There may be more
than one kind of Jew, but non-Jews do not magically turn into Jews
just because they say so. And it's a horrible thing that this woman
was targeted because someone thought she was Jewish, but the last time
I checked, there was no halacha that read, "If someone is mistaken for
a Jew and an attempt is made on the person's life because of it, the
person becomes a Jew."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
She may have been eligible for Right of Return, but Right of Return is
not a basis for defining "who is a Jew," (nor has anyone ever claimed
that it is, including the Israeli government). Nor is Right of Return
limited to halachic Jews. The point of Right of Return is to provide
sanctuary for anyone who would have been a victim in the Third Reich
on the basis of Hitler's definition of "who is a Jew" which was anyone
who has at least one Jewish grandparent. But we don't base halacha on
Hitler's definition.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dennis
> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my ancestors
were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've occassionally
considered doing, and actively participated in an R or C temple,
halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by Israel's Law of
Return, I would be. Correct?
Dennis
Yussel
We actually don't know that yet though there has been on report saying
so.
Joel
Yussel
If her Jewishness has nothing to do with the attack than i would agree
it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
sentence saying no, she isn't?
Joel
JJ
Pretty much. In the US, you would be considered a Jew by C and R if
you converted C, and you'd be considered a Jew by R if you were
converted by a R rabbi.
In Israel, you would be a Jew according to the State, and the Ministry
of Interior would have to register you as a Jew. But the Chief
Rabbinate would not recognize your conversion for purposes of marriage
or, le'havdil, a funeral.
Le'havdil means "to distinguish, to differentiate". It's a kind of
separation between the two items, so as to distinguish that one is
fortuitous (most of the time) and one is not.
Jay
cindys
Not correct. As I said before, the Law of Return is not and never has
been about "who is a Jew." The purpose of the Law of Return is provide
a safe haven for people who (if they had been alive then) would have
been persecuted by the Nazis during WWII for being Jewish according to
Hitler's definition. The Israeli government does not determine "who is
a Jew," (nor do they claim to). If you converted C or R, you could
move to Israel under Law of Return, but your conversion would not be
recognized by the Rabbanut, and if you wanted to marry in Israel (for
example), you would need to undergo a halachic conversion.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
snip
>
> If her Jewishness has nothing to do with the attack than i would agree
> it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
> attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
> sentence saying no, she isn't?
Even if she was attacked because her attacker considered her to be
Jewish, I don't think accuracy demands a sentence in the media
refuting her Jewishness, no. But I also don't think that it's
appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and berate the SCJMers for not
accepting that this woman was "Jewish" just because she went to Israel
and decided for herself that she was and then someone tried to kill
her.
Nor do I think it is appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and
suggest that SCJMers don't have any business saying that this woman
isn't Jewish on the basis that *God would probably say otherwise*.
Yup, it's always so convenient to project our personal positions to
God and suggest that if God's voice came down from the heavens, He
would undoubtedly insist Ms. Giffords was Jewish, and that anyone who
insists on defining "who is a Jew" in accordance with halacha is
simply being vindictive and petty.
What happened to this woman was tragic, and I don't see how saying
this woman wasn't halachically Jewish makes the situation any less
tragic.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> On Jan 10, 6:14 pm, Dennis <tsalagi18NOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Q wrote:
> > > People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> > > very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> > > Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> > > She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
> > > job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> > > folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> > > there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> > I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my ancestors
> > were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've occassionally
> > considered doing, and actively participated in an R or C temple,
> > halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by Israel's Law of
> > Return, I would be. Correct?
>
> Pretty much. In the US, you would be considered a Jew by C and R if
> you converted C, and you'd be considered a Jew by R if you were
> converted by a R rabbi.
>
> In Israel, you would be a Jew according to the State, and the Ministry
> of Interior would have to register you as a Jew.
That's news to me.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
>halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
>halacha at all?
Who says you need to consider her Jewish? The reports I read say that she
identifies herself as Jewish. Whether or not you consider her Jewish is
irrelevant, isn't it?
--s
--
Henry Goodman
news:d2d0741c-1bb1-444e...@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
But the murderer, whose favourite reading was Mein Kampf, would go by
Hitler's definition.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Henry Goodman
news:tkmmi6pjk69a3vo7c...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:07:17 +0000 (UTC), mm
> <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote: [Everything snipped]
>
>
> I think this means 3:07 PM EST. But it was actuallay 2:07.
>
> I've notiiced that for the last few days, everything I post is stamped
> an hour later than I posted it. No big deal, but it is interesting
> technically.
>
>
it is rebooted which very rarely happens.
sheldonlg
One man's jewel is another man's rubbish. If you don't like what I
post, you can either ignore me or killfile me. Frankly, I don't care,
but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>> On 1/10/2011 1:25 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>> yzk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 6:25 pm, Yussel<jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot yesterday in Tuscon is listed as
>>>>> the first Jew elected to national office from Arizona.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to JTA, her mother was Christian Scientist, her father
>>>>> Jewish. In 2001, she went to Israel and came back having decided from
>>>>> then on she was Jewish. She belongs to a Reform synagogue in Tuscon
>>>>> and was married by the rabbi there to her (presumably non-Jewish)
>>>>> husband, an astronaut and Navy officer. During her election campaign
>>>>> she boasted that it takes a "Jewish woman" to solve the country's
>>>>> problems and she is listed among the 44 Jews in the U.S. Congress. (13
>>>>> Senators, 31 Congresspeople) There is no record of a conversion, but
>>>>> her Reform synagogue probably does not require one.
>>>>>
>>>>> (She was a Fulbright scholar; graduate of Scripps, one of the elite
>>>>> Clairmont Colleges; rides a motorcycle without a helmet; is an
>>>>> equestrienne, and plays a French horn. Even the guy she defeated for
>>>>> her seat admires her and is openly distraught at what happened.}
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> recovers fully, but
>>>> would it help if I "identified as" a Martian? :-\
>>>
>>> she plays in the Phoenix Symphony!") Or as someone who drives a
>>> motorcycle withouth a helmet? ("Gee, I bet she rode in a "finger-to-the-
>>> helmet-law rally!")
>>>
>>> Ah, stereotypes... :-(
>>>
>>>> Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
>>>
>>> How's St. Petersburg these days?
>>
>> Dennis, you missed what he was saying. He was making an OCR war
>> statement. He was presenting the party line that only people born of a
>> Jewish mother or being a convert via an Orthodox rabbi are Jews.
>>
>> BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since no one
>> here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. She does not satisfy the
>> conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_ (b) having one
>> Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. She was not raised as a Jew.
>
> But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
Some R rabbis will perform interfaith marriages and some won't. Mine up
north wouldn't. She found one that would. All I did was state the
official R position, and according to that position she is not Jewish.
--
Shelly
cindys
> In <db1fc886-8c4a-4d91-897c-3ef766455...@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com> cindys <cindys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
> >halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
> >halacha at all?
>
> Who says you need to consider her Jewish?
The poster to whom I was responding.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
...and I agree that unless she converted (by any denomination), she is
not Jewish.
--
Shelly
cindys
> On 1/10/2011 9:31 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>
>
But AIUI, her husband is clearly not Jewish, so the R rabbi must have
been considering that *she* was the Jew, which is not so hard to
believe (that the R rabbi would consider her Jewish, that is). She did
have a Jewish father, and after spending time in Israel, she did count
herself as being "Jewish." While you may have cited the official R
position, I suspect that facts on the ground, there is a great deal of
individual R rabbis using their own discretion in terms of who they
will accept as being Jewish or not.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate would not
consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children would be able to
marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate controls Jewish marriage
there and there is no civil marriage. You would also have trouble being
buried in a Jewish cemetery. You would have to go to Cyprus or
someplace like that.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> But I also don't think that it's
> appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and berate the SCJMers for not
> accepting that this woman was "Jewish" just because she went to Israel
> and decided for herself that she was and then someone tried to kill
> her.
Did I miss something? I didn't notice anyone doing that?
--
Shelly
Q
> On Jan 10, 9:42 am, Q <quond...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 12:07 pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Moshe Schorr
> > > > It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> > > > The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> > > > May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> > > > btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> > > > Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
>
> > > I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
> > > assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
> > > write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
> > > wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
> > > readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
> > > story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
> > > delighted I don't have to worry about it.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
> > Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace, except on SCJM.
> > -- Q
>
> ----
> What you wrote above suggests to me that you think the SCJMers are
> being petty.
Kindly don't tell me what I think.
>After all, how dare we, as Jews have the audacity to
> question the Jewishness of anyone who says "I'm Jewish."?
She's not quite just "anyone." Half of her ancestry is Jewish. And
before you get started, I already know how halacha is supposed to
work. .
> And it's not
> the responsibility of the non-Jewish world to be accurate about
> halacha. In the media, anybody can be Jewish! But when it comes to
> halacha, the secular media doesn't get a vote.
How about Giffords's membership in her temple? Do you and your SCJM
friends get to vote on that? -- Q
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sheldonlg
Yes.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
--
Shelly
cindys
Then you didn't read all the posts in this thread.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
JJ
The Supreme Court decided on this years ago. They said that the
Ministry clerks, although they may be O themselves and controlled by
an O political party, cannot decide to "recognize" or "not recognize"
a conversion certificatre from abroad. It is their job to enter
information as given, not debate it. So the Ministry of Interior
changed the ID cards, I understand, and as of recent times they no
longer include a "religion" line. I have not seen thiese new ID cards,
but this is what I gather from some of what Israelis have posted here.
Nevertheless, for Law of Return (i.e., citizenship) purposes the State
recognizes a R or C conversion from abroad. The rabbinate does not
recognize it for rabbinic services (funeral or marriage purposes). The
lawsuits continue. Today Bibi shelved the new conversion law for 6
months.
Jay
cindys
Great.
>
> > And it's not
> > the responsibility of the non-Jewish world to be accurate about
> > halacha. In the media, anybody can be Jewish! But when it comes to
> > halacha, the secular media doesn't get a vote.
>
> How about Giffords's membership in her temple? Do you and your SCJM
> friends get to vote on that? -- Q
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why would
*my SCJM friends* and I care what she is a member of? She can be a
member of anything she wants, but it doesn't change the fact that she
is not halachically Jewish.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
I thought I did.
sheldonlg
Which one. The original or the IDF one?
>
> Jay
>
>
--
Shelly
cindys
No, you didn't.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> information as given, not debate it. So the Ministry of Interior
> changed the ID cards, I understand, and as of recent times they no
> but this is what I gather from some of what Israelis have posted here.
>
> Nevertheless, for Law of Return (i.e., citizenship) purposes the State
> recognizes a R or C conversion from abroad.
Right, which is what I said: The government will grant Israeli
citizenship to someone who has converted R or C abroad, but I don't
think that granting Israeli citizenship is intended to be an
acknowledgment of whether a person is Jewish or not (no matter who the
person is). AFAIK, in the past, someone who had undergone a halachic
conversion in the Diaspora would have his Israeli identity card
stamped "Jewish," and someone who had undergone a C or R conversion
would have his identity card stamped "Convert." But then someone sued
the Israeli government over this, and so the government resolved the
issue by eliminating the religion line entirely. I think if the
government were acknowledging C and R conversions abroad as valid
conversions to Judaism, they would have eliminated the "Convert" stamp
and just stamped everybody's ID card "Jewish."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
Thanks.
My DVDR has three options for time,
Manual, where it keeps gaining time and then starts late;
Automatic, which jumps around, sometimes being 90 seconds late.
Something else which is a lot like automatic and I don't know the
difference.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Herman Rubin
>>>> Joel
>> Ah, stereotypes... :-(
>>> Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
For adults, affiliation with Judaism can be shown in other
ways. She has satisfied those requirements.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
> On Jan 10, 12:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Q wrote:
>>>Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
>>>as Jewish.
>> That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
>> reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
>> I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
>> confirmation before reporting it, but if so they get two sources.
>> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
>> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
>> checking out whether it is really true. This is how most stories are
>> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
>> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
> ---
> Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with Jews on a Jewish newsgroup
> saying that someone who claims to be Jewish isn't really Jewish. And
> there's no shame in being a non-Jew, which Giffords is.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
Your claim of not being a Jew is just that, a claim by someone
who does not understand Reform Judaism.
Q
> On Jan 10, 5:10 pm, Q <quond...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 3:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000 (UTC), Q <quond...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Jan 10, 12:07 pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jan 10, 9:31 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> > > >> > sheldonlg <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Moshe Schorr
> > > >> > It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> > > >> > The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> > > >> > May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> > > >> > btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> > > >> > Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
>
> > > >> I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
> > > >> assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
> > > >> write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
> > > >> wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
> > > >> readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
> > > >> story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
> > > >> delighted I don't have to worry about it.
>
> > > >> Joel
>
> > > >as Jewish.
>
> > > That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
> > > reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
> > > I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
> > > confirmation before reporting it,
>
> > as Jewish, and is an active member of a temple, that would be good
> > enough for any newspaper that I know of. Investigative reporting
> > reporting doesn't usually encompass probing into the extent of
> > somebody's religious purity. It seems that some of the people who
> > insist that halacha determines one's religion are applying a sort of
> > "one drop rule" to this.
>
> > >but if so they get two sources.
> > > They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
> > > have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
> > > checking out whether it is really true.
>
>
> > >This is how most stories are
> > > reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
> > > Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
>
> > is of any importance.
>
> > > And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
> > > least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
> > > she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
> > > spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
>
> > It would be beside the point, even if Giffords were not
> > "authentically" (for want of a better word) Jewish, because Louchner
> > believed her to be Jewish, and if antisemitism made her a target, it
> > matters not what the facts are.
>
> > > It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
> > > watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
> > > example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
> > > likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
> > > non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
>
> > > But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
> > > already knows more than they do.
>
> > He knows more about science than they do. Is he also an expert on
> > who's Jewish in Tucson, and who isn't?
>
> > > > Her
> > > >Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace,
>
>
> > Show me.
>
> > > >except on SCJM.
>
> > > If there were a radiology newsgroup, the posters would be focusing on
> > > the difficulties of getting a good radiological image of an injury of
> > > this kind.
>
> > The relevance of Giffords's Jewishness is related to whether the
> > shooter's motives were antisemitic.
>
> > > My participation is not meant to say I find the whole thread pleasing,
> > > given her health at the moment. If the OP had been made only to say
> > > she's not a Jew, when no one had said she was, that would have been
> > > most unseemly. But that was not the case here and once her Jewish
> > > affiliation is mentioned, a fair presentation requires that the rest
> > > be said as well.
>
> > People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> > very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> > Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> > She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
> > job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> > folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> > there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
> attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
> sentence saying no, she isn't?
>
>
needed to make the story more accurate. -- Q
mm
<cind...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 10, 2:13 pm, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well despite the fact that I reckon a good many wackos, homicidal or
>> otherwise, might list mein kampf as a favourite book. Doesnt the fact
>> that this particular wacko, listed the book as one of his, place the
>> Jewish ancestry of his victim under a whole new light? Also correct me
>> if I'm wrong but wouldn't she have been eligible to make aliyah under
>> the original 'Right of Return', if not the current rules, due to her
>> Jewish ancestry?
>----
>She may have been eligible for Right of Return, but Right of Return is
>not a basis for defining "who is a Jew," (nor has anyone ever claimed
>that it is, including the Israeli government). Nor is Right of Return
>limited to halachic Jews. The point of Right of Return is to provide
>sanctuary for anyone who would have been a victim in the Third Reich
>on the basis of Hitler's definition of "who is a Jew" which was anyone
>who has at least one Jewish grandparent.
I don't know if that's what they said or not, but they didn't go by
such a rule, did they? If one was known to have any Jewish ancestors
(or even cousins or friends) werent' they arrested and worked to death
or murdered directly?
> But we don't base halacha on
>Hitler's definition.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
mm
wrote:
----------
>> >> I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
>> >> assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
>> >> write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
>> >> wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
>> >> readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
>> >> story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
>> >> delighted I don't have to worry about it.
>>
>> >> Joel
>>
>> >Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
>> >as Jewish.
>>
>> That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
>> reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
>> I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
>> confirmation before reporting it,
>
>Most news stories are fact-checked, but since Giffords lists herself
>as Jewish, and is an active member of a temple, that would be good
>enough for any newspaper that I know of.
Exactly.
(Other than the fact that there is only one Jewish temple and it's in
Jerusalem)
> Investigative reporting
>
>reporting doesn't usually encompass probing into the extent of
>somebody's religious purity.
This has nothing to do with her religious purity. Whether she is a
Jew or not is about nationality.
>It seems that some of the people who
>insist that halacha determines one's religion are applying a sort of
>"one drop rule" to this.
This *really* has nothing to do with any one-drop rule. This is the
same discussion that has been held several times before, between those
who believe who is a Jew is determined by halacha, and those who have
heterodox standards or who think anyone who calls himself a Jew is a
Jew.
>>but if so they get two sources.
>> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
>> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
>> checking out whether it is really true.
>
>I'm a reporter. I know what reporters do.
>
>>This is how most stories are
>> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
>> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
>
>Sometimes they don't. Ir depends on whether the person's birthplace
>is of any importance.
That was the point I made in my very next sentence, which you quote
here. You must have written the two sentences above befory you got to
my next three lines.
See:
>> And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
>> least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
>> she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
>> spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
>
>It would be beside the point, even if Giffords were not
>"authentically" (for want of a better word) Jewish, because Louchner
>believed her to be Jewish, and if antisemitism made her a target, it
>matters not what the facts are.
It might not be enough to have influenced the murderer in this case,
in which case, it wouldn't important to this story, no.
But I think it would matter some. They certainly pointed out that one
of the two men murdered during the Crown Heights Riots was Italian,
and was only murdered because he looked like a Jew. I think such
points are meant to remind people before they go off and murder
someone because of something about him, they should at least verify
they're killing someone they intend to kill. I think this is throught
in the long run to lessen the total number of murders.
>> It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
>> watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
>> example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
>> likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
>> non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
>>
>> But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
>> already knows more than they do.
>
>He knows more about science than they do. Is he also an expert on
>who's Jewish in Tucson, and who isn't?
He doesn't need to be an expert on Tucson. He knows more details
about this woman than the other reporters do.
>
>>
>> > Her
>> >Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace,
>>
>> I'm sure it has been.
>
>Show me.
When you said "not been questioned anyplace" you didn't say "on the
net", but that must have been what you meant. Not everything is on
the net, and not eveything that is on the net or off is known to me.
>> >except on SCJM.
>>
>> If there were a radiology newsgroup, the posters would be focusing on
>> the difficulties of getting a good radiological image of an injury of
>> this kind.
>>
>The relevance of Giffords's Jewishness is related to whether the
>shooter's motives were antisemitic.
That's not it's only relevance. People here discuss things of Jewish
interest even if they have no criminal, legal, or news value.
Furthermore, as I said, "once her Jewish affiliation is mentioned, a
fair presentation requires that the rest be said as well."
Say other reporters were as background only describing someone as a
Communist, but you knew he had only been a Communist for a year 30
years ago, or had only gone to two meetings and did nothing else.
Would you base your decision on how to describe him on what other
reporters were saying, and not include the additional things that you
knew? Not even a couple words like "for a short while"?
If yes, I'm speechless.
If not, I don't understand your sentence above that prompted my reply
to your first post (two posts ago), "Reporters whose job it is to
write about it are referring to Giffords as Jewish." Weren't you
telling Joel that's what he should do, refer to her as Jewish, with no
qualifications?
>> My participation is not meant to say I find the whole thread pleasing,
>> given her health at the moment. If the OP had been made only to say
>> she's not a Jew, when no one had said she was, that would have been
>> most unseemly. But that was not the case here and once her Jewish
>> affiliation is mentioned, a fair presentation requires that the rest
>> be said as well.
>
>
>People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
>very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
>Giffords's Jewishness.
I didnt' suggest they investigate, because so far, it's not essential
to the story. You were repsonding to Joel who already knew things.
>In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
>She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
>job of any of the news media to refute that.
On the other hand, they don't have to pronounce her a Jew when she's
not. They don't have to go beyond describing the facts, that she is
a member of a Jewish congretion. There are congregations that take
spouses of Jews as members, without considering them Jews. Perhaps
this congregation accepted both of them as members without considering
either of them Jews.
A reporter could just say that she belongs to a Jewish congretation,
and not say that she herself is a Jew. Most reporters don't know
there might be a difference, but someone who knows there is a
difference shouldn't ignore what he knows.
> And maybe the kindly
>folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
>there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
Are you speaking for G-d now? If not you then who?
Being a Jew is binary. Either one is or one isn't. That doesn't
mean everything about it is simple. One can be a Jew without
Jewishness, and can have Jewish beliefs, traits, and/or family members
without being a Jew.
BTW, I heard the story just once but I believe NPR managed to get all
the way through a story about Debbie Friedman but which started out
about Gabrielle Giffords without ever saying Ms. Giffords was a Jew. I
don't know if that was on purpose or not. If it was on purpose, it
was done seamlessly. It did say she belonged to a Jewish congregation
in Tucson and they said Mi Sheberach for her.
Harry Weiss
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000 (UTC), Q <quon...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 12:07?pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 10, 9:31?am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > sheldonlg <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
> >> > > On 1/10/2011 1:25 AM, Dennis wrote:
> >> > >> yzk wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>> On Jan 9, 6:25 pm, Yussel<jshur...@gmail.com> ?wrote:
> >> > >>>> Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot yesterday in Tuscon is listed as
> >> > >>>> the first Jew elected to national office from Arizona.
> >>
> >> > >>>> According to JTA, her mother was Christian Scientist, her father
> >> > >>>> Jewish. In 2001, she went to Israel and came back having decided from
> >> > >>>> then on she was Jewish. She belongs to a Reform synagogue in Tuscon
> >> > >>>> and was married by the rabbi there to her (presumably non-Jewish)
> >> > >>>> husband, an astronaut and Navy officer. During her election campaign
> >> > >>>> she boasted that it takes a "Jewish woman" to solve the country's
> >> > >>>> problems and she is listed among the 44 Jews in the U.S. Congress. (13
> >> > >>>> Senators, 31 Congresspeople) There is no record of a conversion, but
> >> > >>>> her Reform synagogue probably does not require one.
> >>
> >> > >>>> (She was a Fulbright scholar; graduate of Scripps, one of the elite
> >> > >>>> Clairmont Colleges; rides a motorcycle without a helmet; is an
> >> > >>>> equestrienne, and plays a French horn. Even the guy she defeated for
> >> > >>>> her seat admires her and is openly distraught at what happened.}
> >>
> >> > >>>> Joel
> >>
> >> > >>> My sympathies to the Congresswoman, and I pray she survives and
> >> > >>> recovers fully, but
> >> > >>> would it help if I "identified as" a Martian? :-\
> >>
> >> > >> Would it help if she identified as a French horn player? ?("Gee, I bet
> >> > >> she plays in the Phoenix Symphony!") Or as someone who drives a
> >> > >> motorcycle withouth a helmet? ?("Gee, I bet she rode in a "finger-to-the-
> >> > >> helmet-law rally!")
> >>
> >> > >> Ah, stereotypes... :-(
> >>
> >> > >>> Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
> >>
> >> > >> How's St. Petersburg these days?
> >>
> >> > > Dennis, you missed what he was saying. ?He was making an OCR war
> >> > > statement. ?He was presenting the party line that only people born of a
> >> > > Jewish mother or being a convert via an Orthodox rabbi are Jews.
> >>
> >> > > BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since no one
> >> > > here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. ?She does not satisfy the
> >> > > conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_ (b) having one
> >> > > Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. ?She was not raised as a Jew.
> >>
> >> > But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > Moshe Schorr
> >> > It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> >> > The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> >> > May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
> >> > btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
> >> > Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
> >>
> >> I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
> >> assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
> >> write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
> >> wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
> >> readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
> >> story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
> >> delighted I don't have to worry about it.
> >>
> >> Joel
> >
> >Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to Giffords
> >as Jewish.
> That's because not all reporting is investigative reporting. The
> reporters reads something or talk to one person who says she's a Jew.
> I don't know if this is the sort of thing that normally requires
> confirmation before reporting it, but if so they get two sources.
> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
> checking out whether it is really true. This is how most stories are
> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
> And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
> least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
> she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
> spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
> It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
> watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
> example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
> likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
> non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
> But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
> already knows more than they do.
> > Her
> >Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace,
> I'm sure it has been.
> >except on SCJM.
> If there were a radiology newsgroup, the posters would be focusing on
> the difficulties of getting a good radiological image of an injury of
> this kind.
> > -- Q
> My participation is not meant to say I find the whole thread pleasing,
> given her health at the moment. If the OP had been made only to say
> she's not a Jew, when no one had said she was, that would have been
> most unseemly. But that was not the case here and once her Jewish
> affiliation is mentioned, a fair presentation requires that the rest
> be said as well.
> --
If it is relevant to the issues. We have two senators. Both are reported
as being Jewish. One is not halachically Jewish. That did not stop me
for supporting her as a senator.
> Meir
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Q
You shouldn't. That's the point.
>She can be a
> member of anything she wants, but it doesn't change the fact that she
> is not halachically Jewish.
OK. I don't think she claims to be "halachically Jewish." -- Q
Abe Kohen
> On Jan 10, 3:23 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000 (UTC), Q <quond...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 12:07 pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 9:31 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
>>>>> sheldonlg <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2011 1:25 AM, Dennis wrote:
>>>>>>> yzk wrote:
>
> as Jewish, and is an active member of a temple, that would be good
> reporting doesn't usually encompass probing into the extent of
> insist that halacha determines one's religion are applying a sort of
> "one drop rule" to this.
Fact is that it's bad enough that Giffords was shot - no matter what her
religion is. But accuracy was never the strong suit of rags like the NY
Slimes.
>
>
>> but if so they get two sources.
>> They come across no one who says otherwise, and they report what they
>> have found, often as if it is fact. They don't spend an hour or two
>> checking out whether it is really true.
>
> I'm a reporter. I know what reporters do.
Fabricate? Play loose and sloppy?
>
>> This is how most stories are
>> reported, When they interview anyone and he says he was born in
>> Springfield, Michigan, they take his word for it.
>
> Sometimes they don't. Ir depends on whether the person's birthplace
> is of any importance.
>>
>> And her other nationality is not the essence of the story anyhow. At
>> least so far, it's only background. The essence of the story is that
>> she's a Congresswoman who was targeted and shot. I presume they are
>> spending extra time getting the details of that correct.
>
> It would be beside the point, even if Giffords were not
> "authentically" (for want of a better word) Jewish, because Louchner
> believed her to be Jewish, and if antisemitism made her a target, it
> matters not what the facts are.
The facts always matter. The bearded Italian Catholic murdered in Crown
Heights after the Dinkins/Brown Crown Heights riots was shot because of
Black anti-semitism, but that didn't make the victim Jewish.
"On September 5, two weeks after the riot had been controlled, Anthony
Graziosi, an Italian sales representative with a white beard dressed in dark
business attire, was driving in the neighborhood. As he stopped at a traffic
light at 11 p.m., six blocks away from where Yankel Rosenbaum had been
murdered, a group of four black men surrounded his car and one of them shot
and killed him. It was alleged by Graziosi's family and their attorney, as
well as Senator Al D'Amato, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, State Attorney
General Robert Abrams, former Mayor Ed Koch, and a number of advocacy
organizations, that Graziosi's resemblance to a hasidic Jew precipitated his
murder. The New York police department, Mayor Dinkins, newspaper columnist
Mike McAlary, and the U.S. Justice Department did not agree. The murder was
not treated as a bias crime."
>>
>> It's by far not just on this topic that one has to read, listen, or
>> watch the news bearing in mind that it is not *always* accurate. For
>> example, the last line of many local and national tv news stories is
>> likely to be opinion, mistaken opinion, an exaggeration, a
>> non-sequitur that may or may not be true, or outright false.
>>
>> But Joel is not in the same situation as these other reporters. He
>> already knows more than they do.
>
>
> He knows more about science than they do. Is he also an expert on
> who's Jewish in Tucson, and who isn't?
That implies that none of them "know" science.
>>
> The relevance of Giffords's Jewishness is related to whether the
> shooter's motives were antisemitic.
Just like Graziosi's Jewishness?
Abe
Dennis
>> I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my
>> ancestors were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've
>> occassionally considered doing, and actively participated in an R or
>> C temple, halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by
>> Israel's Law of Return, I would be. Correct?
>
> You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate would
> not consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children would be able
> to marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate controls Jewish
> marriage there and there is no civil marriage. You would also have
> trouble being buried in a Jewish cemetery. You would have to go to
> Cyprus or someplace like that.
So, If I wanted to marry a Jew, I'd have to go somewhere else and have a
civil ceremony or an R or C one. To be buried in Israel, I'd wind up in a
Christian or Muslim one, if they'd have me - or I'd have to have my remains
shipped somewhere else. Ugh!
As someone noted, the Nazi regime persecuted people who weren't halachic
Jews (with one Jewish grandparent, eg.), and the Israeli Law of Return let
them into Israel. SO - this means that there were some Holocaust survivors
had to go through all this???
Dennis
cindys
> sheldonlg wrote:
> >> I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my
> >> ancestors were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've
> >> occassionally considered doing, and actively participated in an R or
> >> C temple, halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by
> >> Israel's Law of Return, I would be. Correct?
>
> > You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate would
> > not consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children would be able
> > to marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate controls Jewish
> > marriage there and there is no civil marriage. You would also have
> > trouble being buried in a Jewish cemetery. You would have to go to
> > Cyprus or someplace like that.
>
> So, If I wanted to marry a Jew, I'd have to go somewhere else and have a
> civil ceremony or an R or C one.
Yes.
>To be buried in Israel, I'd wind up in a
> Christian or Muslim one, if they'd have me - or I'd have to have my remains
> shipped somewhere else. Ugh!
I don't know where you would be buried, but I don't think it would be
in a Jewish cemetery.
>
> As someone noted, the Nazi regime persecuted people who weren't halachic
> Jews (with one Jewish grandparent, eg.), and the Israeli Law of Return let
> them into Israel. SO - this means that there were some Holocaust survivors
> had to go through all this???
>
Doubtful for the following reason: I don't think the question of "who
is a Jew" was a big issue in 1946. I suspect that the vast majority of
the Holocaust survivors who wanted to come to Israel under the Law of
Return were unequivocally born Jews, the offspring of two Jewish
parents. I also suspect that any non-Jewish Holocaust survivors (let's
say the spouses of Jewish survivors, for example) unequivocally did
not consider themselves Jewish, but I doubt there were very many
Holocaust survivors who considered themselves Jewish as a result of
having converted R or C.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fattush
> Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot yesterday in Tuscon is listed as
> > the first Jew elected to national office from Arizona.
>
Based on what I've read in the press, the shooter has serious mental
problems and is an anti government nut. He is now being defended by
an attorney who also represented Timothy McVeigh, the anti government
creep who blew up that building in Oklahoma City.
Some people report that he targeted Ms. Giffords because he had asked
her a nutty question at some public meeting three years and she did
not answer him. Supposedly this evil man was stewing over it.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> > I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
>> > assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
>> > write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
>> > wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
>> > readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
>> > story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
>> > delighted I don't have to worry about it.
Understandable.
>> Reporters whose job it is to write about it are referring to
>> Giffords as Jewish.
We know that. Joel was wondering what _he_ would do.
>> Her Jewishness has not been questioned anyplace, except on SCJM.
Why do you think the media might question it? What do they know?
> What you wrote above suggests to me that you think the SCJMers are
> being petty. After all, how dare we, as Jews have the audacity to
> question the Jewishness of anyone who says "I'm Jewish."? And it's
> not the responsibility of the non-Jewish world to be accurate about
> halacha. In the media, anybody can be Jewish! But when it comes to
> halacha, the secular media doesn't get a vote.
Agreed Cindy. I just don't know why you used the word "and" in the
paragraph. To me, it makes more sense without it.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
>>assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
>>write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
>>wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
>>readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
>>story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
>>delighted I don't have to worry about it.
>>
> In a magazine interview with one of Jared Loughner's (the shooter)
> friends, someone he has known since high school, the friend
> mentioned that Loughner's mother is Jewish.
If that's true, and if there is a connectiion with Gifford's avowed
Jewishness, can we say we have a textbook case of "self-hating Jew"?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew.=A0It is not the
> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
Change that word "acknowledge" to "claim", and it might be up for
discussion.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Q <quond...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>> The relevance of Giffords's Jewishness is related to whether the
>> shooter's motives were antisemitic.
>>
>> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
>> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
>> Giffords's Jewishness. =A0In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
>> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew.=A0It is not the
>> job of any of the news media to refute that. =A0And maybe the kindly
>> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
>> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> If her Jewishness has nothing to do with the attack than i would agree
> it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
> attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
> sentence saying no, she isn't?
I don't think so. If she was attacked for what she _claimed_, it's
true, she _did claim it. _Perhaps_ a comment of the irony involved,
that not all Jews would accept her as a Jew, would be warranted.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
>>> BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since
>>> no one here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. She does not
>>> satisfy the conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_
>>> (b) having one Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. She was
>>> not raised as a Jew.
>>
>> But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
>
> state the official R position, and according to that position she
> is not Jewish.
You missed my point. According to what _you_ said, it was _not_ an
"interfaith" marriage, it was a marriage of _two_ non-Jews. So why
was the R rabbi officiating?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>> sheldonlg<sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
snip
>>>>> BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since no one
>>>>> here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. She does not satisfy the
>>>>> conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_ (b) having one
>>>>> Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. She was not raised as a Jew.
>>>
>>>> But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
>>>
>>> Some R rabbis will perform interfaith marriages and some won't. Mine up
>>> north wouldn't. She found one that would. All I did was state the
>>> official R position, and according to that position she is not Jewish.
>> ----
>> But AIUI, her husband is clearly not Jewish, so the R rabbi must have
>> been considering that *she* was the Jew, which is not so hard to
>> believe (that the R rabbi would consider her Jewish, that is). She did
>> have a Jewish father, and after spending time in Israel, she did count
>> herself as being "Jewish." While you may have cited the official R
>> position, I suspect that facts on the ground, there is a great deal of
>> individual R rabbis using their own discretion in terms of who they
>> will accept as being Jewish or not.
>
> Yes.
While you responded with a monosylable, Cindy raises an important
point. If every R rabbi has the discretion to decide "who is a Jew"
without even the backing of the official R position, then evev _R_
Jews should be leery of marrying someone without checking their
backgrond. <VERY BIG SIGH>
Q
> On Jan 10, 3:21 pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > If her Jewishness has nothing to do with the attack than i would agree
> > it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
> > attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
> > sentence saying no, she isn't?
>
> Even if she was attacked because her attacker considered her to be
> Jewish, I don't think accuracy demands a sentence in the media
> refuting her Jewishness, no. But I also don't think that it's
> appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and berate the SCJMers for not
> accepting that this woman was "Jewish" just because she went to Israel
> and decided for herself that she was and then someone tried to kill
> her.
If you're talking about me, that's not what I just did.
>
> Nor do I think it is appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and
> suggest that SCJMers don't have any business saying that this woman
> isn't Jewish on the basis that *God would probably say otherwise*.
It's not appropriate for *any* person to speak for God. It is
extremely presumptuous for anybody to do so, or pretend he's doing so.
> Yup, it's always so convenient to project our personal positions to
> God and suggest that if God's voice came down from the heavens, He
> would undoubtedly insist Ms. Giffords was Jewish, and that anyone who
> insists on defining "who is a Jew" in accordance with halacha is
> simply being vindictive and petty.
Is that what you think? You can insist anything you like, but what
practical effect will all of your insisting have? Giffords is a
member of a temple and was married by a rabbi. Will she be forced to
discontinue her life as a Jew by the Halacha Police?
>
> What happened to this woman was tragic, and I don't see how saying
> this woman wasn't halachically Jewish makes the situation any less
> tragic.
At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference at all. But it
will be interesting to see whether some body feels impelled to
identify her has a non-Jew, if it turns out that the motive for
shooting her was actually antisemitic. -- Q
Q
>
> >And maybe the kindly
> > folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> > there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
> halacha at all?
I don't know. You tell me. There are plenty of nonobservant people
in all religions, who still consider themselves members of those
religions.
>Maybe if someone says pork is kosher, we should
> consider pork to be kosher too. Maybe the kindly folks at SCJM need to
> consider that in the eyes of G-d pork may be kosher.
It runs against a very well-known tradition, but lots of Jews actually
do eat pork.
>There may be more
> than one kind of Jew, but non-Jews do not magically turn into Jews
> just because they say so.
Maybe not, but Giffords's rabbi apparently regards her as Jewish, so
that gives her more cred I'd imagine.
>And it's a horrible thing that this woman
> was targeted because someone thought she was Jewish, but the last time
> I checked, there was no halacha that read, "If someone is mistaken for
> a Jew and an attempt is made on the person's life because of it, the
> person becomes a Jew."
Nobody has said that's the case. But to many people here, only one
form of conversion is acceptable, and that's a type of Judaism that
many less observant people find to be totally incompatible. You of
all people should know that religion does have its personal aspects
and we are not necessarily in lockstep with what the outside world
things we are doing, what we have done, or what we should be doing. --
Q
Amitai
> On 1/10/2011 6:14 PM, Dennis wrote:
>
> > Q wrote:
>
> >> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> >> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> >> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
> >> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> >> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> >> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> > were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've occassionally
> > considered doing, and actively participated in an R or C temple,
> > halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by Israel's Law of
> > Return, I would be. Correct?
>
> You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate would not
> consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children would be able to
> marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate controls Jewish marriage
> there and there is no civil marriage. You would also have trouble being
> buried in a Jewish cemetery. You would have to go to Cyprus or
> someplace like that.
>
For the record, there are Jewish cemeteries (in the sense that they
are run by Jews for Jews) that are not under rabbinic supervision. An
R or C convert - as well as any halakhically certified Jew who so
desires - can purchase a burial plot in one of them.
> --
> Shelly
lee
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>I was thinking about that this morning. What if I, as a reporter, were
> >>assigned to write a story and the Jewish identity came up? Would I
> >>write she was Jewish because she said she is? Do I write that she
> >>wasn't despite the fact she said she was? And do any non-Jewish
> >>readers (not to mention non-Jewish editors) care? Do I clutter up the
> >>story with any of this? I have no idea what I would do and am
> >>delighted I don't have to worry about it.
> >>
> > In a magazine interview with one of Jared Loughner's (the shooter)
> > friends, someone he has known since high school, the friend
> > mentioned that Loughner's mother is Jewish.
>
> If that's true, and if there is a connectiion with Gifford's avowed
> Jewishness, can we say we have a textbook case of "self-hating Jew"?
>
Jewish, he was presumably Halachically Jewish, so perhaps he shot
Gifford for the audacity of claiming to be Jewish when she wasnt.
cindys
> On Jan 10, 6:58 pm, cindys <cindys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 3:21 pm, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > If her Jewishness has nothing to do with the attack than i would agree
> > > it has no place in a news story. But what if we find out she was
> > > attacked because she says she is Jewish? Does accuracy demand a
> > > sentence saying no, she isn't?
>
> > ----
> > Even if she was attacked because her attacker considered her to be
> > Jewish, I don't think accuracy demands a sentence in the media
> > refuting her Jewishness, no. But I also don't think that it's
> > appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and berate the SCJMers for not
> > accepting that this woman was "Jewish" just because she went to Israel
> > and decided for herself that she was and then someone tried to kill
> > her.
>
> If you're talking about me, that's not what I just did.
>
>
>
> > Nor do I think it is appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and
> > suggest that SCJMers don't have any business saying that this woman
> > isn't Jewish on the basis that *God would probably say otherwise*.
>
> It's not appropriate for *any* person to speak for God. It is
> extremely presumptuous for anybody to do so, or pretend he's doing so.
Right. So, why are *you* telling us that we need to "acknowledge" that
*God* considers there is more than one kind of Jew? Are you God's
spokesperson? FTR, the only person who mentioned *God* here was you.
>
> > Yup, it's always so convenient to project our personal positions to
> > God and suggest that if God's voice came down from the heavens, He
> > would undoubtedly insist Ms. Giffords was Jewish, and that anyone who
> > insists on defining "who is a Jew" in accordance with halacha is
> > simply being vindictive and petty.
>
> Is that what you think? You can insist anything you like, but what
> practical effect will all of your insisting have?
No effect at all. The purpose of SCJM is provide a forum for people to
engage in discussion of topics of Jewish culture and interest. I
thought that was what we were doing here. Or is the topic of Giffords'
Jewishness or lack thereof now disallowed since someone shot her?
>Giffords is a
> member of a temple and was married by a rabbi.
So?
>Will she be forced to
> discontinue her life as a Jew by the Halacha Police?
I would call this comment a classic strawman.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dennis
The Wall Street Journal has the fullest account I've seen yet. They
interviewed a fellow who used to be his closest friend. Originally he was
a good high-school kid, but seems to have gone into a downward spiral after
a breakup with a girlfriend. He got into drugs, dropped out of school, and
things he tried didn't work out, he keeped going downward.
Not that that's an excuse.
Dennis
sheldonlg
> Q<quon...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> snip
>
>> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
>> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
>> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
>> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew.=A0It is not the
>> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
>> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
>> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> Change that word "acknowledge" to "claim", and it might be up for
> discussion.
>
(OK Cindy, I see it now.)
No, Moshe, that substitution makes no sense. Wny would they need to
"claim" that _perhaps_ in the eyes of God there more than one kind of
Jew? That is already being done. In fact, isn't that the basis of the
OCR wars?
No, Moshe, Q is right. We here on SCJM need to/should _acknowledge_
that _perhaps_ in the eyes of God there is more than one kind of Jew --
unless you claim to _know_ exactly what God thinks [<sarc> from your
last two-way conversation with God, I presume </sarc>].
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>> On 1/10/2011 9:31 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>
>>>> BTW, for yzk's benefit, that was not necessary here on SCJM since
>>>> no one here, from O to R, would consider her Jewish. She does not
>>>> satisfy the conditiona of R of (a) having two Jewish parents _OR_
>>>> (b) having one Jewish parent _AND_ being raised as a Jew. She was
>>>> not raised as a Jew.
>>>
>>> But the R rabbi had no trouble officiating at her wedding.
>>
>> Some R rabbis will perform interfaith marriages and some won't.
>> Mine up north wouldn't. She found one that would. All I did was
>> state the official R position, and according to that position she
>> is not Jewish.
>
> You missed my point. According to what _you_ said, it was _not_ an
> "interfaith" marriage, it was a marriage of _two_ non-Jews. So why
> was the R rabbi officiating?
Money? _S/He_ accepted her as Jewish and _would_ perform interfaith
marriages?
I don't know the rabbis motives/reasoning.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
Why? That makes no sense to me. Suppose I were young, single, and
looking to get married. Suppose then I married someone who claimed to
be Jewish. We then raised our children as Jews, since we both believe
ourselves to be Jewish. According to R, which I am, our children would
be Jewish. So, Moshe, what is your point?
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
>> Nor do I think it is appropriate for someone to come to SCJM and
>> suggest that SCJMers don't have any business saying that this woman
>> isn't Jewish on the basis that*God would probably say otherwise*.
I finally saw the post. That is NOT what Q said. There is a vast
difference between "probably" and "perhaps". He said (WTTE) "that
perhaps, in the eyes of God, there is more than one kind of Jew."
BIG difference.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
Q didn't. You misread what Q wrote. Q wrote (WTTE) "that _perhaps_, in
the eyes of God, there is more than one kind of Jew". Q didn't say God
considers.
Side note to Q: Being a journalist you must be able to appreciate the
difficulty in avoiding a gender pronoun. Since I do not know if you are
male or female, I had to keep saying Q rather than he or she. Would you
be kind enough to specify so as to make it easier for people like me?
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> On Jan 11, 2:52 am, sheldonlg<sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2011 6:14 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> Q wrote:
>>
>>>> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
>>>> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
>>>> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
>>>> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
>>>> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
>>>> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
>>>> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>>
>>> I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my ancestors
>>> were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've occassionally
>>> considered doing, and actively participated in an R or C temple,
>>> halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct? Yet by Israel's Law of
>>> Return, I would be. Correct?
>>
>> You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate would not
>> consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children would be able to
>> marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate controls Jewish marriage
>> there and there is no civil marriage. You would also have trouble being
>> buried in a Jewish cemetery. You would have to go to Cyprus or
>> someplace like that.
>>
> Go to Cyprus to be buriied? Woludn't that be rather difficult. :-)
Poor use of English on my part. I appreciate the smiley.
> For the record, there are Jewish cemeteries (in the sense that they
> are run by Jews for Jews) that are not under rabbinic supervision. An
> R or C convert - as well as any halakhically certified Jew who so
> desires - can purchase a burial plot in one of them.
Good to know.
>> --
>> Shelly
>
--
Shelly
Q
What I actually wrote was: " People can --and do --say whatever they
want, but I think it would be
very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew. It is not the
job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
there is more than one kind of Jew."
That statement was full of qualifiers, such as "maybe" and "perhaps".
Maybe and perhaps you need to think about why you need to distort the
words you reply to. We all know -- or at least many of us accept --
the notion that the is more than one kind of Jew. Nothing new there.
And we also know that some segments of Judaism want to keep the
frachise -- so to speak -- exclusively to themselves.
>
>
>
> > > Yup, it's always so convenient to project our personal positions to
> > > God and suggest that if God's voice came down from the heavens, He
> > > would undoubtedly insist Ms. Giffords was Jewish, and that anyone who
> > > insists on defining "who is a Jew" in accordance with halacha is
> > > simply being vindictive and petty.
>
> > Is that what you think? You can insist anything you like, but what
> > practical effect will all of your insisting have?
>
> No effect at all. The purpose of SCJM is provide a forum for people to
> engage in discussion of topics of Jewish culture and interest. I
> thought that was what we were doing here. Or is the topic of Giffords'
> Jewishness or lack thereof now disallowed since someone shot her?
Sorry, but you've lost me here. Maybe you should rephrase that. As I
see it, the question is what consquences should there be -- or might
be -- if Giffords calls herself a Jew, but is not halachically Jewish,
even if she remains a member of long standing in the Jewish community.
>
> >Giffords is a
> > member of a temple and was married by a rabbi.
>
> So?
>
> >Will she be forced to
> > discontinue her life as a Jew by the Halacha Police?
>
> I would call this comment a classic strawman.
You can call it anything you like, but I think it's at the heart of
this discussion. Moshe raises this issue elsewhere in the thread but
in the future, will Jews need to be issued certificates of
authenticity that they can display when challenged? -- Q
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
snip
>>>> But AIUI, her husband is clearly not Jewish, so the R rabbi must have
>>>> been considering that *she* was the Jew, which is not so hard to
>>>> believe (that the R rabbi would consider her Jewish, that is). She did
>>>> have a Jewish father, and after spending time in Israel, she did count
>>>> herself as being "Jewish." While you may have cited the official R
>>>> position, I suspect that facts on the ground, there is a great deal of
>>>> individual R rabbis using their own discretion in terms of who they
>>>> will accept as being Jewish or not.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> While you responded with a monosylable, Cindy raises an important
>> point. If every R rabbi has the discretion to decide "who is a Jew"
>> without even the backing of the official R position, then evev _R_
>> Jews should be leery of marrying someone without checking their
>> backgrond.<VERY BIG SIGH>
>
> Why? That makes no sense to me. Suppose I were young, single, and
> looking to get married. Suppose then I married someone who claimed to
> be Jewish. We then raised our children as Jews, since we both believe
> ourselves to be Jewish. According to R, which I am, our children would
> be Jewish. So, Moshe, what is your point?
I'm not talking about the children. I'm talking about marrying "in".
In your scenario, would it not bother you if the person who claimed
to be Jewish wasn't, even according to R standards? That you were in
fact entering, unwittingly, into an intermarriage?
Dennis
> On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, Dennis wrote:
>> sheldonlg wrote:
>> >> I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my
>> >> ancestors were. If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've
>> >> occassionally considered doing, and actively participated in an R
>> >> or C temple, halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. Correct?
>> >> Yet by
>> >> Israel's Law of Return, I would be. Correct?
>>
>> > You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate
>> > would not consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children
>> > would be able to marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate
>> > controls Jewish marriage there and there is no civil marriage. You
>> > would also have trouble being buried in a Jewish cemetery. You
>> > would have to go to Cyprus or someplace like that.
>>
>> So, If I wanted to marry a Jew, I'd have to go somewhere else and
>> have a civil ceremony or an R or C one.
>
> Yes.
>
>>To be buried in Israel, I'd wind up in a
>> Christian or Muslim one, if they'd have me - or I'd have to have my
>> remains
>> shipped somewhere else. Ugh!
>
> I don't know where you would be buried, but I don't think it would be
> in a Jewish cemetery.
OK. However, am I the only one who sees some irony here?
>> As someone noted, the Nazi regime persecuted people who weren't
>> halachic Jews (with one Jewish grandparent, eg.), and the Israeli Law
>> of Return let
>> them into Israel. SO - this means that there were some Holocaust
>> survivors had to go through all this???
>
> Doubtful for the following reason: I don't think the question of "who
> is a Jew" was a big issue in 1946. I suspect that the vast majority of
> the Holocaust survivors who wanted to come to Israel under the Law of
> Return were unequivocally born Jews, the offspring of two Jewish
> parents. I also suspect that any non-Jewish Holocaust survivors (let's
> say the spouses of Jewish survivors, for example) unequivocally did
> not consider themselves Jewish, but I doubt there were very many
> Holocaust survivors who considered themselves Jewish as a result of
> having converted R or C.
> Best regards,
I agree that there were probably few R or C converts who were Holocaust
survivors. However, I suspect there were a fair number who had one
Jewish grandparent. If the Nazis had said I was Jewish, and wanted to
kill me for it, I suspect I might come to feel I was one!
The US PBS TV Movie "G_d on Trial" has such a case.
Dennis
lee
want to be buried in Jerusalem is that when the Messiah comes, we will
all have to roll to Jerusalem to be resurrected. Obviously rolling
over continents & under oceans is less than desirable. I always found
this image to rather disturbing.I dont really know if this is true or
not though.
Harry Weiss
> cindys wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 9:11?pm, Dennis wrote:
> >> sheldonlg wrote:
> >> >> I'm not a Jew, neither of my parents were, and AFAIK none of my
> >> >> ancestors were. ?If I were to convert to R or C Judaism, as I've
> >> >> occassionally considered doing, and actively participated in an R
> >> >> or C temple, halachically I still wouldn't be a Jew. ?Correct?
> >> >> ?Yet by
> >> >> Israel's Law of Return, I would be. ?Correct?
> >>
> >> > You would be eligible for right of return, but the O rabbinate
> >> > would not consider you a Jew and neither you nor your children
> >> > would be able to marry Jews _in Israel_ because the O rabbinate
> >> > controls Jewish marriage there and there is no civil marriage. ?You
> >> > would also have trouble being buried in a Jewish cemetery. ?You
> >> > would have to go to Cyprus or someplace like that.
> >>
> >> So, If I wanted to marry a Jew, I'd have to go somewhere else and
> >> have a civil ceremony or an R or C one. ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >>To be buried in Israel, I'd wind up in a
> >> Christian or Muslim one, if they'd have me - or I'd have to have my
> >> remains
> >> shipped somewhere else. ?Ugh! ?
> >
> > I don't know where you would be buried, but I don't think it would be
> > in a Jewish cemetery.
> OK. However, am I the only one who sees some irony here?
> >> As someone noted, the Nazi regime persecuted people who weren't
> >> halachic Jews (with one Jewish grandparent, eg.), and the Israeli Law
> >> of Return let
> >> them into Israel. ?SO - this means that there were some Holocaust
> >> survivors had to go through all this??? ?
> >
> > Doubtful for the following reason: I don't think the question of "who
> > is a Jew" was a big issue in 1946. I suspect that the vast majority of
> > the Holocaust survivors who wanted to come to Israel under the Law of
> > Return were unequivocally born Jews, the offspring of two Jewish
> > parents. I also suspect that any non-Jewish Holocaust survivors (let's
> > say the spouses of Jewish survivors, for example) unequivocally did
> > not consider themselves Jewish, but I doubt there were very many
> > Holocaust survivors who considered themselves Jewish as a result of
> > having converted R or C.
> > Best regards,
> I agree that there were probably few R or C converts who were Holocaust
> survivors. However, I suspect there were a fair number who had one
> Jewish grandparent. If the Nazis had said I was Jewish, and wanted to
> kill me for it, I suspect I might come to feel I was one!
Only a Jew can be buried in a Jewish cematary. Only a competent Rabbi
can rule on who is Jew. Hitler YMS is not my Rabbi and does not decide
who is a Jew.
> The US PBS TV Movie "G_d on Trial" has such a case.
> Dennis
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
sheldonlg
Since I wouldn't have done a background test, and she would have passed
the duck test, ignorance is bliss. Should I have found out somehow, I
would have asked her to have the R rabbi convert her (which would have
been very easy since she would have been practicing Judaism all along).
If she didn't understand my need for that, then the marriage wouldn't
have worked out anyhow.
So, is simple terms, it is a non-issue.
....and BTW, Moshe, at _this_ stage of my life (69 and no more children
in the future), if God forbid anything should happen to my wife,
choosing tat a woman be Jewish for a future wife would be extremely low
on my qualifier list. There are _so_ many more important things in a
wife at my age.
Finally, why do you use the word "even" as a qualifier above? Those are
the _only_ standards of importance to _me_.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
No. However, Amitai pointed out that there are Jewish cemeteries in
Israel not under the control of the rabbinate. You could be buried there.
>
>>> As someone noted, the Nazi regime persecuted people who weren't
>>> halachic Jews (with one Jewish grandparent, eg.), and the Israeli Law
>>> of Return let
>>> them into Israel. SO - this means that there were some Holocaust
>>> survivors had to go through all this???
>>
>> Doubtful for the following reason: I don't think the question of "who
>> is a Jew" was a big issue in 1946. I suspect that the vast majority of
>> the Holocaust survivors who wanted to come to Israel under the Law of
>> Return were unequivocally born Jews, the offspring of two Jewish
>> parents. I also suspect that any non-Jewish Holocaust survivors (let's
>> say the spouses of Jewish survivors, for example) unequivocally did
>> not consider themselves Jewish, but I doubt there were very many
>> Holocaust survivors who considered themselves Jewish as a result of
>> having converted R or C.
>> Best regards,
>
> I agree that there were probably few R or C converts who were Holocaust
> survivors. However, I suspect there were a fair number who had one
> Jewish grandparent. If the Nazis had said I was Jewish, and wanted to
> kill me for it, I suspect I might come to feel I was one!
>
> The US PBS TV Movie "G_d on Trial" has such a case.
>
> Dennis
--
Shelly
Art Werschulz
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
> Her situation reminde me of Julie. (Anybody remember her?). Her
> father was Jewish but not her mother. Julie realized she was not
> Jewish, even as she practiced many rules. I wonder what ever happened
> to her. She used to be a regular poster, then suddenly stopped.
Julie Haugh is on Facebook.
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
... insert clever quote here ...
Art Werschulz
... trimming the post a bit ...
Q <quon...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> She can be a member of anything she wants, but it doesn't change the
>> fact that she is not halachically Jewish.
>
> OK. I don't think she claims to be "halachically Jewish." -- Q
Simple end to the argument: According to R, she's Jewish. According to
C and O, she isn't. I have no idea what Recon would say.
Personally, I wouldn't use a Hebrew name for her in the mi-shebeirach
for cholim, but I *have* added her name in English.
BTW, at least some O would consider her as "zera Yisrael". Exactly
what this means in practical terms, I don't know.
Steve Goldfarb
>On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <db1fc886-8c4a-4d91-897c-3ef766455...@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com> ci=
>ndys <cindys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
>> >halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
>> >halacha at all?
>>
>> Who says you need to consider her Jewish?
>---
>The poster to whom I was responding.
Sorry but I'm not seeing any such post.
Joel posted the facts without making any editorial statement (that she's
"listed as the first Jew," and that her mother was a Christian Scientist,
etc.)
Yaakov then responded by mocking a critically injured woman (clearly a
mensch). He and Shelly went at it a little, then Shelly pointed out for
Dennis's benefit that halachically she would not be considered Jewish even
by R standards.
Moshe then mocked the R rabbi who married her.
Joel then started wondering if it was necessary for a reporter to go into
that level of detail about halacha - just considering the issue, to which
Q responded that the only place anyone's questioning her Jewishness is
here on SCJM.
That's when you jumped in.
To me, the question isn't whether or not she's halachically Jewish -
that's not even what Q was asking I don't think. The question is WHY
DISCUSS IT? What difference does it make?
We know you don't think she's Jewish. So what? No one - including Q -
suggested that you ought to be required to give her an aliyah, or let your
son marry her daughter. Nobody's making you do anything.
But why belabor it? The woman's lying in a hospital bed with a hole in her
brain - why the need to jump on a soapbox and declare "I reject any
affiation with this woman, she is clearly NOT ONE OF US!!!"
What's the point of that? What does it achieve?
I appreciate that you don't really mean it that way, that you're simply
reacting to the posts and to your feelings about Q, but that's how it's
coming across. I know you well enough to know you aren't like that, but as
you yourself have pointed out us long-timers aren't the only ones who read
this group.
--s
--
sheldonlg
> In<8bc7bfe5-b53c-4724...@m7g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> cindys<cind...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb"<s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In<db1fc886-8c4a-4d91-897c-3ef766455...@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com> ci=
>> ndys<cindys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
>>>> halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
>>>> halacha at all?
>>>
>>> Who says you need to consider her Jewish?
>> ---
>> The poster to whom I was responding.
>
> Sorry but I'm not seeing any such post.
>
> Joel posted the facts without making any editorial statement (that she's
> "listed as the first Jew," and that her mother was a Christian Scientist,
> etc.)
>
> Yaakov then responded by mocking a critically injured woman (clearly a
> mensch). He and Shelly went at it a little, then Shelly pointed out for
> Dennis's benefit that halachically she would not be considered Jewish even
> by R standards.
Correction: I never used the word "halachically".
--
Shelly
Q
In my own family there was a problem like that. One of my father's
brothers -- who had become a Catholic, for social convenience -- told
some of his siblings that their mother -- who died when they were
children -- had "confided" to ;him that she was actually a Polish
Catholic. This uncle was something of a wag -- and I guess he thought
he was being funny. My grandmother -- to all appearances -- was an
observant O Jew, who belonged to a synagogue and is buried in a Jewish
cemetery. She died in 1925, when my uncle was ten years old.
Nevertheless, this rumor nearly created a problem when my aunt's
daughter's son wanted to marry an woman from a very religious
family. There was a question about whether her son would have to
convert in order for a rabbi to perform the marriage.
I don't know what "proofs" were offered, but I know my cousin's son
was not required to convert. In any case it caused a bit of a stir,
especially for the cousins who descend from my paternal aunts. -- Q
Q
Sure. I'm a woman. -- Q
>
Steve Goldfarb
>> Yaakov then responded by mocking a critically injured woman (clearly a
>> mensch). He and Shelly went at it a little, then Shelly pointed out for
>> Dennis's benefit that halachically she would not be considered Jewish even
>> by R standards.
>Correction: I never used the word "halachically".
You're right of course, I think you implied something like "according to
the rules of each movement," which would be "halacha" for O at least but
something else for R. Sorry.
--
--
cindys
> On 1/11/2011 3:06 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>
> > snip
>
> >> People can --and do --say whatever they want, but I think it would be
> >> very inappropriate for a reporter to "investigate" the extent of
> >> Giffords's Jewishness. In fact, doing so would be downright crass.
> >> She belongs to a temple that has accepted her as a Jew.=A0It is not the
> >> job of any of the news media to refute that. And maybe the kindly
> >> folks at SCJM need to acknowledge that perhaps, in the eyes of G-d,
> >> there is more than one kind of Jew. -- Q
>
> > Change that word "acknowledge" to "claim", and it might be up for
> > discussion.
>
> (OK Cindy, I see it now.)
>
> "claim" that _perhaps_ in the eyes of God there more than one kind of
> Jew? That is already being done. In fact, isn't that the basis of the
> OCR wars?
>
> No, Moshe, Q is right. We here on SCJM need to/should _acknowledge_
> that _perhaps_ in the eyes of God there is more than one kind of Jew --
Who is *we?* So, now, you want the O posters to validate R and C? It's
not going to happen.
For one thing, I think it's very presumptuous for anybody to be
projecting anything about what God is thinking at all. Secondly, the
only thing anybody on SCJM needs to do or should do is to not say
things in this regard that are deliberately provocative or offensive.
When my older son was in kindergarten at the Community Jewish Day
School, some C or R parents were insistent that the O parents should
teach their children that it was "okay" for some Jews to drive on
shabbos, and the parents refused. They (the O parents) said they were
willing (and did) teach their children to mind their own business and
not comment on other people's level of observance, but they would not
teach their children that it was "okay" for some Jews to drive on
shabbos. Same here.
You can expect the O posters to avoid saying things like "R isn't
really a form of Judaism," but no, the O posters are not under any
obligation to say "R Judaism is a valid expression of Judaism" or
"Maybe God acknowledges that R Judaism is a valid expression of
Judaism." For starters, as I said, I think we really need to not
project what "God" is thinking here. This is not about God.
Secondly, you can expect O posters to keep their opinions to
themselves, but they do not have to "acknowledge" anything at all
about what "God may be thinking," nor do they have to acknowledge as
being valid, a belief system which runs contrary to his own.
> unless you claim to _know_ exactly what God thinks [<sarc> from your
> last two-way conversation with God, I presume </sarc>].
This is not about what "God" thinks or doesn't think. And I find it
interesting that whenever a poster on SCJM makes references to what
God "thinks" or "wants," it's never one of the O posters. It find it
interesting that "Q" and "Morris" seemingly have a better
understanding of what God thinks than anybody else.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
What she said was that perhaps [the O] posters should acknowledge that
in the eyes of God, there is more than one kind of Jew. So, my
question is: Why? The O posters have never said "There's only one kind
of Jew," or "God only acknowledges one kind of Jew." The O posters
never bring God into this equation. They never say anything at all
about what God is thinking, so why would they say something now?
(Because somebody tried to kill a woman who declared herself to be
Jewish?)
A lot of posters have had enough of this, and that's why they left.
The OCR war is over, Shelly. It was dead and buried until you
returned, and every time you post, I hear this stuff just simmering
under the surface, like you're just waiting for your opportunity to
start up again. All it took was this comment by Q, and you're off to
the races. Get over it already.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Morris Goodman
I go by what the Torah says. Perhaps you know better?
sheldonlg
> You can expect the O posters to avoid saying things like "R isn't
> really a form of Judaism," but no, the O posters are not under any
> obligation to say "R Judaism is a valid expression of Judaism" or
> "Maybe God acknowledges that R Judaism is a valid expression of
> Judaism." For starters, as I said, I think we really need to not
> project what "God" is thinking here. This is not about God.
>
> Secondly, you can expect O posters to keep their opinions to
> themselves, but they do not have to "acknowledge" anything at all
> about what "God may be thinking," nor do they have to acknowledge as
> being valid, a belief system which runs contrary to his own.
>
You miss the point entirely. No one is saying that O has to say that R
is a valid form of Judaism -- nor should they.
What is being said here is that NO ONE knows the mind of God (with which
you agree as you have stated so above). As such, it is only logical
that there is a possibility that _PERHAPS_ in the eyes of God there is
more than one valid expression of Judaism. That is simple logic. If
you cannot say for certain, then there is a possibility of the opposite.
Again, and with emphasis, NO ONE is saying that O need -- or even SHOULD
-- say that R is a valid form of Judaism. All that is being said that
in the absence of certainty, simple logic dictates that it is a possibility.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> interesting that whenever a poster on SCJM makes references to what
> God "thinks" or "wants," it's never one of the O posters. It find it
> interesting that "Q" and "Morris" seemingly have a better
> understanding of what God thinks than anybody else.
But she didn't! More to the point, why do you continually avoid
admitting that you missed her qualifier "perhaps"? That one qualifier
destroys your entire argument.
--
Shelly
cindys
> In <8bc7bfe5-b53c-4724-b45b-17bf542ae...@m7g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> cindys <cindys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In <db1fc886-8c4a-4d91-897c-3ef766455...@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com> ci=
> >ndys <cindys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >If we need to consider anybody Jewish who says "I am a Jew," even if
> >> >halacha says otherwise, then what's the point of bothering with any
> >> >halacha at all?
>
> >> Who says you need to consider her Jewish?
> >---
> >The poster to whom I was responding.
>
> Sorry but I'm not seeing any such post.
>
> Joel posted the facts without making any editorial statement (that she's
> "listed as the first Jew," and that her mother was a Christian Scientist,
> etc.)
>
> Yaakov then responded by mocking a critically injured woman (clearly a
> mensch). He and Shelly went at it a little, then Shelly pointed out for
> Dennis's benefit that halachically she would not be considered Jewish even
> by R standards.
>
> Moshe then mocked the R rabbi who married her.
>
> Joel then started wondering if it was necessary for a reporter to go into
> that level of detail about halacha - just considering the issue, to which
> Q responded that the only place anyone's questioning her Jewishness is
> here on SCJM.
>
> That's when you jumped in.
Steve, Joel was the OP. And he was talking about the fact that the
media had taken at face value that Giffords was Jewish, and it wasn't
so simple, and he was glad that he wasn't a reporter covering the
story. I thought that all of the other stuff you wrote above came
later. The only question that was being asked (in my mind) was whether
or not (for the purposes of this story) it really mattered if Giffords
was halachically Jewish or not, and I clearly said no (it didn't
matter).
>
> To me, the question isn't whether or not she's halachically Jewish -
> that's not even what Q was asking I don't think. The question is WHY
> DISCUSS IT? What difference does it make?
Why discuss anything on SCJM? The reason for the discussion is that
this is SCJM, and this is what SCJMers do and have been doing for
years. Nothing new here.
>
> We know you don't think she's Jewish.
I don't care if Giffords is Jewish or not. That's totally tangential
to my issue here.
>So what? No one - including Q -
> suggested that you ought to be required to give her an aliyah, or let your
> son marry her daughter. Nobody's making you do anything.
That's not the issue.
>
> But why belabor it? The woman's lying in a hospital bed with a hole in her
> brain - why the need to jump on a soapbox and declare "I reject any
> affiation with this woman, she is clearly NOT ONE OF US!!!"
If you think that's what my comments were about, you totally missed my
point.
The topic, as I understood it, was that Joel was saying he was glad
that he wasn't a reporter covering the story because the media was
saying that Giffords was Jewish, but not everyone would agree with
that, and he was glad not to be caught between a rock and a hard
place. I agreed that for the purposes of this news story, it was
irrelevant if this woman was halachically Jewish or not. And that was
really where it would have ended for me. And then there was some
discussion regarding how this woman came to be Jewish or if she was
really Jewish etc. Big deal. We talk about that kind of stuff on SCJM
all the time. But here is what burned my butt:
I really took issue with Q's statement that perhaps some people need
to acknowledge that in the eyes of God there is more than one kind of
Jew. It was condescending and arrogant and the message was that
anybody who considers the definition of who is a Jew to be the
halachic definition, is being arrogant. And that's what I found
offensive.
FTR, I have never seen anybody on SCJM (other than Morris perhaps)
make statements about what God is thinking. As I have said before,
making statements about what God is thinking is more characteristic of
Christian newsgroups. And therefore, I found her statement doubly
condescending and offensive. I resented the implication that Jews who
follow halacha are arrogant and think they have a pipeline to God. I
don't know of anybody on SCJM (other than Morris, perhaps) who has
ever claimed to know what God is thinking.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Abe Kohen
That might explain why O don't see R as a valid strain of Judaism. From an O
vantage point, I would guess, that some R are Jewish and some that are not.
If you believe you are a genius, does that make you a genius? Not!
Abe
cindys
snip
>
> What is being said here is that NO ONE knows the mind of God (with which
> you agree as you have stated so above).
Agreed. So why did Q need to mention it at all? Her implication was
that O posters are arrogant and think they know what God is thinking
and that perhaps they should acknowledge that they don't know what God
is thinking. It was a slam at O and anyone who holds by halacha. It
was implying that anybody who goes by halacha is arrogant and thinks
he or she has a hotline to what God is thinking.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.