Why Silence Against Anti-Jewish Bigotry is Assent
Dan Kimmel
Jews:
http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
down.
When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it, whether
they want to admit it or not.
J J Levin
news:SM6dnXOzLrTZga_b...@rcn.net...
I saw this in the Israeli press, Dan. Disgraceful.
Jay
maxine in ri
> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> Jews:
>
>
> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> down.
>
> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it, whether
> they want to admit it or not.
What is amazing to me was a bit further down in the article,
'Perhaps the time has come to re-evaluate that shift. Clearly, the
threats which we have focused on since 2000 are not going away soon.
Rising anti-Semitism, denial of Israel's right to exist, physical
assaults on Jews and Israelis continue. Yet, the cancer of internal
intolerance continues to inflict damage while our attention is
elsewhere.'
reflects the words of a Holocaust survivor that were printed in the
Providence Journal yesterday:
'Years after the war, she talked to someone from her home village
about the Holocaust.
"She said, 'We knew it wasn't right, but we did it anyway,' "
Goldstein said.'
http://www.projo.com/ri/bristol/content/EB_BRISALICE25_04-27-07_E55CETC.34c4eb8.html
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/27v96l
if the longer url is broken.
maxine in ri
fla...@verizon.net
One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
if he were telling the truth!!
Susan
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f0tcbt$rgk$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
To pick a nit: The only way to "bear false witness" is to swear to a false
statement in front of a rabbinical court.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
chsw
There is a lot of doctrinal variation among Reform rabbis, imho
and experience (DC, Chicago, NYC). However, if the Reform rabbi
were simply introduced as "Reform Rabbi...," then the audience
members would be allowed to arrive at their own impressions of
character and observance.
chsw
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
Josh
>
> Susan
Fiona Abrahami
"J J Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote
> > Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> > Jews:
> >
> >
http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
> >
> > Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling
Hannah's
> > son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> > down.
> >
> > When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> > whether they want to admit it or not.
>
> I saw this in the Israeli press, Dan. Disgraceful.
You're right, this kind of anti-orthodox incitement is a disgrace.
Fiona
Dan Kimmel
"chsw" <ch...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:IMrYh.310$6l1...@newsfe12.lga...
Would the Orthodox rabbi be introduced as "Orthodox Rabbi....?"
fla...@verizon.net
True, but don't you think he would say the same thing under such
circumstances?
He sounds as tho' he absolutely believes it.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Apr-2007, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
a) define "many"
b) prove that this is true of all of them.
Ergo, NO ONE can say "Reform rabbis belief in Hashem is shaky."
At best, you could say "SOME", and to then say that his guy is
one of them - it's disgraceful.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
"Fiona Abrahami" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f11tgi$6ke$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Can you believe this? She thinks it's the Orthodox who are being victimized
here.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
fla...@verizon.net
On 28-Apr-2007, chsw <ch...@optonline.net> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against
> >> non-Orthodox
> >> Jews:
> >>
> >> http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
> >>
> >> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling
> >> Hannah's
> >> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> >> down.
> >>
> >> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >> whether
> >> they want to admit it or not.
> >
> > One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
> > he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
> > I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
> > if he were telling the truth!!
> >
> > Susan
>
>
> There is a lot of doctrinal variation among Reform rabbis, imho
> and experience (DC, Chicago, NYC).
Which is definitely not the same thing as saying that "reform Rabbis'
belief in HaSHem is shaky."!!
Good grief!!
> However, if the Reform rabbi
> were simply introduced as "Reform Rabbi...," then the audience
> members would be allowed to arrive at their own impressions of
> character and observance.
An audience on the lookout for whether or not someone is
Reform can tell that the person doesn't believe the way they
do just by the way he's dressed, so they could draw their own
conclusions without any help.
Susan
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> In article <f0tcbt$rg...@falcon.steinthal.us>, flav...@verizon.net writes:
>
> > On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> >> Jews:
>
>
> >> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
> >> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> >> down.
>
> >> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >> whether
> >> they want to admit it or not.
>
> > One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
> > he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
> > I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
> > if he were telling the truth!!
>
> There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
> of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
I am sure you are right. But what about those who list themselves as
**O** clergy. Do all of them believe in God? I suspect not. And I
personally know at least two of the O clergy who profess to believe in
God, but they have redefined the concept of God to such extent that
the god they believe in bears little resemblance to the God the rest
of us worship.
Giorgies
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f12bug$htn$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
I don't think he would. Swearing in front of a rabbinical court is not
something someone does lightly.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
Well, I certainly think so. I think it's about time we denounce all these
bigoted newspapers who keep trying to make Orthodox rabbis look bad.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dan Kimmel
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4634bf7b$0$18904$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
By simply reporting what they say? The fault is not the newspapers, it's
the bigoted rabbi mouthing the offensive remarks.
D.M. Procida
> > > > Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling
> > > > Hannah's son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not
> > > > really bowing down.
> > > >
> > > > When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> > > > whether they want to admit it or not..
> > >
> > > I saw this in the Israeli press, Dan. Disgraceful.
> >
> > You're right, this kind of anti-orthodox incitement is a disgrace.
>
> Can you believe this? She thinks it's the Orthodox who are being victimized
> here.
>
> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Do you have some particular reason for wanting to bait Orthodox Jews?
Are Orthodox Jews a special kind of performing parrot, who must jump up
and recite formulas of condemnation when you want them to?
Since you can't seriously imagine that any Orthodox Jew, however they
feel about the issue in question, is likely to respond to your jeering
and baiting by apologising for or denouncing whatever it is has raised
your ire, I can only conclude that you're doing it so that you can crow
about their failure to jump up and put on the performance for you.
In fact you seem to manage pre-emptive crowing, before anyone has even
had a chance to respond.
Daniele
Dan Kimmel
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1hxc9wt.16a0w0k1q311bgN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
Change "Orthodox Jew" to "Muslim" and you've just explained why no Muslim
should ever feel obligated to speak out agaisnt Muslim terrorists and
suicide bombers.
The extent to which people are willing to defend silence in the face of evil
is nothing short of astounding.
cindys
>
snip
> --------
> I don't think he would. Swearing in front of a rabbinical court is not
> something someone does lightly.
To clarify: I think it would have been more appropriate if I had written
that bearing false witness is giving false *testimony* in front of a
rabbinical court. My main point was to distinguish between "bearing false
witness" and just telling garden-variety lies.
Best regards,
---Cindy S .
maxine in ri
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:XNGdna6NhrVAGqnb...@rcn.net...
>
>
>
> > "Fiona Abrahami" <f...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f11tgi$6ke$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> >> "J J Levin" <jjle...@optonline.net> wrote
> >> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote
>
> >> > > Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against
> > non-Orthodox
> >> > > Jews:
>
> >http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in...
>
> >> > > Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling
> >> Hannah's
> >> > > son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really
> > bowing
> >> > > down.
>
> >> > > When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >> > > whether they want to admit it or not.
>
> >> > I saw this in the Israeli press, Dan. Disgraceful.
>
> >> You're right, this kind of anti-orthodox incitement is a disgrace.
>
> > Can you believe this? She thinks it's the Orthodox who are being
> > victimized
> > here.
>
> > There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
>
> --------
> Well, I certainly think so. I think it's about time we denounce all these
> bigoted newspapers who keep trying to make Orthodox rabbis look bad.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
If a rabbi from any branch of Judiasm makes a public pronouncement
that others consider outrageous, it will appear in a newspaper,
weblog, or other media. If an O rabbi makes a disparaging remark
about Reform Judiasm, do you think everyone should just dismiss the
remark, or take it as revealed truth, or what?
If I "blame" Reform Judiasm for my having to explain every year why my
daughter is out for 2 days at Rosh Hashannah rather than the one that
the schools allow, that would not be totally unreasonable. That's a
policy decision based on the the quantity of absences of students and
teachers at that time of year. But to blame someone for what you
believe is God's wrath--there's a serious amount of hubris involved
there. That those who are disparaged by the remark wish to bring it
to the attention of this group, or any other for that matter, is also
not unreasonable.
When it comes to appalling remarks, no group has cornered the
market.
One of the comments following the article read:
As a member of the Orthodox community, I am appalled that some of our
rabbis espouse blatant sinat chinam, lashon hara and public
embarrassment of a fellow Jew.
And the paraphrase of remarks from Ben Gurion truly say it all:
To paraphrase Ben-Gurion's remark on the British White Paper of 1939
which curtailed the immigration of Jewish refugees: In light of what
happened in Hod Hasharon, we must remain resolved to fight the battles
against our external enemies as if there were no internal challenges
to Israel's spiritual integrity. At the same time, [b]we must now
resolve to fight those internal challenges to the unity and decency of
the Jewish people, as if our external threats had been put to rest.[/
b]
maxine in ri
James Kahn
>"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
>message
>news:1hxc9wt.16a0w0k1q311bgN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>
>> Do you have some particular reason for wanting to bait Orthodox Jews?
>> Are Orthodox Jews a special kind of performing parrot, who must jump up
>> and recite formulas of condemnation when you want them to?
>>
>> Since you can't seriously imagine that any Orthodox Jew, however they
>> feel about the issue in question, is likely to respond to your jeering
>> and baiting by apologising for or denouncing whatever it is has raised
>> your ire, I can only conclude that you're doing it so that you can crow
>> about their failure to jump up and put on the performance for you.
>>
>> In fact you seem to manage pre-emptive crowing, before anyone has even
>> had a chance to respond.
>Change "Orthodox Jew" to "Muslim" and you've just explained why no Muslim
>should ever feel obligated to speak out agaisnt Muslim terrorists and
>suicide bombers.
>The extent to which people are willing to defend silence in the face of evil
>is nothing short of astounding.
Wow. The extent to which some people will make ridiculous analogies
to defend their positions is nothing short of astounding. To draw
a parallel between a rabbi's words that rubbed some people the wrong
way and suicide bombers suggests a stunning lack of perspective if
nothing else.
Let me try to put it plainly. It is acceptable for people to have
different opinions, and to express those opinions. It is not acceptable
for people to blow up innocent civilians. Not commenting on someone
else's expression of an opinion is simply not analagous to silence
about suicide bombings in the name of one's religion.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Joel Shurkin
Yes you do. That's not what the survey said.
j
>
> Josh
>
>
>>
>> Susan
--
Joel Shurkin
Baltimore, Maryland
----------------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
Herman Rubin
>>> http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
I have had many rabbis, and met with others. AFAIK, all of
these were Conservative or Reform. All believed in God.
--
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
D.M. Procida
> > Since you can't seriously imagine that any Orthodox Jew, however they
> > feel about the issue in question, is likely to respond to your jeering
> > and baiting by apologising for or denouncing whatever it is has raised
> > your ire, I can only conclude that you're doing it so that you can crow
> > about their failure to jump up and put on the performance for you.
> >
> > In fact you seem to manage pre-emptive crowing, before anyone has even
> > had a chance to respond.
>
> Change "Orthodox Jew" to "Muslim" and you've just explained why no Muslim
> should ever feel obligated to speak out agaisnt Muslim terrorists and
> suicide bombers.
>
> The extent to which people are willing to defend silence in the face of evil
> is nothing short of astounding.
No I haven't. Firstly, we aren't discussing suicide bombers or
terrorists.
More importantly, any Muslim faced with the barrage of jeering that you
are able to mount on these occasions would be quite entitled to think
"Bloody hell, I don't have to put up with this" and to find someone less
aggressive to talk to.
Equally importantly, what makes you think that any time a member of a
community does something nasty that all the other members of the
community need to answer to Dan Kimmel when he stands there demanding
that they speak out?
You can't pretend I'm some stooge of Orthodox Jewry. Why do you suppose
it appears to me that your line on this, with these people on this
newsgroup, is an unreasonable one?
Daniele
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
not mainstream O clergy. Not respected O rabbis. Certainly not the
leading ones. A synagogue with a minister like that , if it were
known, wouldn't ever be "honoured" with the presence of a black hat
attending his synagogue. 'cos they wouldn't accept the rabbi as
orthodox if they knew. What kind of O shul would that be if no right
wing religious jews attend.
In britain, even the left wing modern orthodox synagogues , have a few
VERY religious jews there. They can be quite large, can have a few
rabbis, serious rabbis. A few yeshiva bochers coming in from time to
time.
With Reform, even the leaders are not forthright in their belief in
God.. Or even in being religious.
Some data I found on googling..
Romain suggests that jews don't have to believe in G-d. And Neuberger
says G-d is in you. And one's conscience is G-d.. We know what that
means.
Reform minister Jonathan Romain writes:
"
the saying - somewhat tongue-in-cheek but containing a sizable grain
of truth - that "to be a good Jew, you don't have to believe in God,
just do what He says".
"
Note: Romain wants to rewrite the bible to remove the parts that are
extremist or offensive.
*Non O* woman minister Julia Neuberger writes in an interview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/neuberger.shtml
"I'm very sure of my belief in God........
[later, a shocked interviewer asks: wait a minute - he suggested you
become a rabbi and you said you're not, 'I'm not religious enough' and
he said 'It's not really about that.'
]
later
Q So what is your concept of God?
A It's not personal in the sense of ... I have no picture in my head of
what God looks like or feels like. I have a very strong presence of
'the other', a being that is also deeply innate within me. And I do
think that one's conscience is in a sense the voice of God.
Q An interventionist God? Answers prayers?
A No.
fla...@verizon.net
And my point is that if he isn't willing to swear to it, he has no
business saying it *as a religious remark* - and especially not
as a blanket indictment when it obviously isn't true about this man.
Susan
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> In article <f11d2s$kf...@falcon.steinthal.us>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >In article <f0tcbt$rg...@falcon.steinthal.us>, flav...@verizon.net writes:
> >> On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >>> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> >>> Jews:
> >>> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
> >>> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> >>> down.
> >>> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >>> whether
> >>> they want to admit it or not.
> >> One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
> >> he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
> >> I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
> >> if he were telling the truth!!
> >There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
> >of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
>
> I have had many rabbis, and met with others. AFAIK, all of
> these were Conservative or Reform. All believed in God.
And there we have it. A professor of statistics offers us this
analysis of a survey of 'many' rabbis whom he has 'had' or whom he has
'met' and 'all' believed in God. I would expect to hear this from an
ordinary person on the street, to whom this would seem a reasonable
conclusion. But a professor of Statistics to draw such conclusion from
this data? Are you not embarrassed, Professor Rubin?
Giorgies
DoD
Why does this eerily remind me of posts from Ben Cramer on the unmoderated
group?
cindys
snip
> Equally importantly, what makes you think that any time a member of a
> community does something nasty that all the other members of the
> community
And the double irony is that I don't know of any SCJMers who are members of
the various communities that these chareidi Orthodox rabbis ostensibly
represent. I know I'm certainly not. Since when is it my (or anybody's)
obligation to denounce (on Dan's demand) the words of the leader of a
community of which he/she isn't a member? And to the extent that it was
continued to be pursued in a group e-mail? Personally, I find this control
obsession a lot more disturbing than anything some chareidi rabbi in Israel
has to say.
>need to answer to Dan Kimmel when he stands there demanding
> that they speak out?
>
> You can't pretend I'm some stooge of Orthodox Jewry. Why do you suppose
> it appears to me that your line on this, with these people on this
> newsgroup, is an unreasonable one?
Thank you.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> Daniele
chsw
The discussion is about how non-O rabbis should be treated in the
Israeli context where "Rabbi" implies an O rabbi. Non-O rabbis
are still a debated concept there (and I do not mean to reopen
that debate here on SCJM).
And in certain circumstances, yes, probably introducing someone
as "Orthodox Rabbi" or, even better "Rabbi of the Orthodox
(synagogue or yeshiva name)" might be entirely appropriate, IMHO.
However, the only circumstances I can envisage would be an O
rabbi speaking at a synagogue whose members may have no probable
prior exposure to Orthodox Judaism, or when the O rabbi is a
speaker at a public, secular event (e.g., opening prayer for
daily congressional session, etc.).
chsw
KarenElizabeth
> On 2007-04-29 02:13:48 -0400, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il said:
>
>
> >> On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> >>> Jews:
>
>
> Sure,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
> >>> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> >>> down.
>
> >>> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >>> whether
> >>> they want to admit it or not.
>
> >> One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
> >> he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
> >> I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
> >> if he were telling the truth!!
>
> > There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
> > of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
>
> Yes you do. That's not what the survey said.
>
I could find reference to was the 1972 Lenn Report, which would be 35
years ago. A more recent discussion of it can be found here
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefsandlaw1/f/belief_gd.htm
Karen Elizabeth
chsw
It is also bounded by my experience of only a few congregations
and rabbis. I cannot say anything more general than that.
>
>> However, if the Reform rabbi
>> were simply introduced as "Reform Rabbi...," then the audience
>> members would be allowed to arrive at their own impressions of
>> character and observance.
>
> An audience on the lookout for whether or not someone is
> Reform can tell that the person doesn't believe the way they
> do just by the way he's dressed, so they could draw their own
> conclusions without any help.
Again, in my experience, I've met R rabbis who wear velvet
kippot, have beards, dress in suits, and are not easily
distinguishable from O rabbis at first sight.
I have never met the R rabbi in the article. However, I think
that an appropriate intro would have been both necessary and
respectful.
chsw
>
> Susan
Eliyahu
wrote:
Why? Can't a statistician speak from personal experience when he
labels it as such? How many R or C rabbis do you know well enough to
be able to answer the question about their personal beliefs?
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
>
> >> However, if the Reform rabbi
> >> were simply introduced as "Reform Rabbi...," then the audience
> >> members would be allowed to arrive at their own impressions of
> >> character and observance.
>
> > An audience on the lookout for whether or not someone is
> > Reform can tell that the person doesn't believe the way they
> > do just by the way he's dressed, so they could draw their own
> > conclusions without any help.
>
> Again, in my experience, I've met R rabbis who wear velvet
> kippot, have beards, dress in suits, and are not easily
> distinguishable from O rabbis at first sight.
>
I fully concur. When our community was briefly visited by an O rabbi
recently, he wore a blue and white kippa, brown cordoroy sports coat,
open-collar white shirt and dark brown slacks. A brief conversation
with him would have made it obvious to anyone that he was O, however.
Anyone who tries to guess someone's affiliation or level of observance
by how he dresses would be very surprised. (And I was surprised when
he told me that I looked like a rabbi with my black suit and hat...)
> I have never met the R rabbi in the article. However, I think
> that an appropriate intro would have been both necessary and
> respectful.
>
I would suggest that an appropriate way of introducing a rabbi might
be along the lines of "This is Rabbi Stein of Temple Beth Israel" or
"... who is the rabbi of a nice Reform congregation in Cincinatti" or
something similar which makes his affiliation clear without labeling
him directly. Sometimes indirectness is the best way to go.
Eliyahu
Dan Kimmel
"DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:46358096$0$1396$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Because you obviously didn't understand what I said. I'm deeply insulted by
the comparison.
My point is that we DO expect Muslims to condemn the extremists in their
midst, and are appalled when they don't. Why should it be different for any
other group, including us?
Don Levey
If someone is unwilling to stand behind their statement to the point
where they'd swear by it in a rabbinical court, why are they saying
it in public, as a representative of their group? Is it acceptable
for someone to say something in this fashion? At what point does
this become lachon hara?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Don Levey
> In article <f0tcbt$rgk$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, fla...@verizon.net writes:
> >
> > On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
> >> Jews:
> >>
> >> http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
> >>
> >> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
> >> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
> >> down.
> >>
> >> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
> >> whether
> >> they want to admit it or not.
> >
> > One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
> > he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
> > I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
> > if he were telling the truth!!
>
>
> There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
> of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
>
As you have previously, I believe, pointed out elsewhere, the devil is
in the details. I'd be interested in seeing the survey questions and
the methodology before I were willing to draw any conclusion as to the
validity of the study and its results.
DoD
Sorry about that. I shouldn't have said that, but at the time that did come
to my mind.
> My point is that we DO expect Muslims to condemn the extremists in their
> midst, and are appalled when they don't.
Personally I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.
Why should it be different for any
> other group, including us?
Well, US.. doesn't include me, unless you consider a non-Jew that has no
hatred for Jews in your camp, which would be cool by me, considering some of
the recent writings on this forum.
My point is that what this guy has wrote, whether right or wrong, and as a
goy, I am not placing any value judgement one way or the other, doesn't hold
a candle to homicide bombings and the Muslims not condemning them....
TWO seperate issues, altogether....
If that guy is an idiot, then so be it. Most people can decide for
themselves on those accounts. I think that the vast majority of Jews can
think for themselves. At least that is what I get from the Jews I have met
on the the forums..
I would hope the same is true on this moderated forum.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>> In article <f0tcbt$rgk$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, fla...@verizon.net writes:
>> >
>> > On 27-Apr-2007, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yet another disgraceful action by an Orthodox rabbi against non-Orthodox
>> >> Jews:
>> >>
>> >> http://ajcblog.org/2007/04/26/fighting-for-democracy-and-pluralism-in-the-jewish-world/#more-33
>> >>
>> >> Sure, just don't say you're a rabbi. How like Antiochus telling Hannah's
>> >> son to pretend he was merely picking up the ring, and not really bowing
>> >> down.
>> >>
>> >> When Jews stay silent against such bigotry, they are supporting it,
>> >> whether
>> >> they want to admit it or not.
>> >
>> > One comment stood out in my mind as really disgraceful:
>> > he suggested Reform rabbis don't necessarily believe in G-d.
>> > I don't know which is worse - him bearing false witness, or
>> > if he were telling the truth!!
>>
>>
>> There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
>> of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
>>
> As you have previously, I believe, pointed out elsewhere, the devil is
> in the details. I'd be interested in seeing the survey questions and
> the methodology before I were willing to draw any conclusion as to the
> validity of the study and its results.
Let me quote from a 1972 internal CCAR study of its clergy and one
from 1986:
At the other pole, however, stand those Reform clergy --- as far back as 1972,
the figure stood at 90% in an internal Central Conference of American Rabbis
(CCAR) survey --- who are unable to profess belief in God in "the more or less
traditional Jewish sense," preferring self-descriptions like "agnostic" and
"theological humanist." In 1986, Reform leader Rabbi Paul Menitoff attributed
the sparse attendance at Reform temples to the "sizeable segments of the
[Reform] lay and rabbinic populations [who] do not believe in God." Apparently,
the bon mot about the Reconstructionist movements motto --- "There is no God,
and Mordecai Kaplan is his prophet" --- rings at least partially true for many
in its sister denomination as well.
There was also a study carried out 5-6 years ago among Reform and
Conservative rabbinical students.
There was also a study by Charles Liebman in 1970:
www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1970_3_SpecialArticles.pdf
Josh
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3ps5l6...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>
>> On 29-Apr-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4634bf2b$0$16726$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> > >
>> > snip
>> > > --------
>> > > I don't think he would. Swearing in front of a rabbinical court is
>> > > not
>> > > something someone does lightly.
>> > ----------
>> > To clarify: I think it would have been more appropriate if I had
>> > written
>> > that bearing false witness is giving false *testimony* in front of a
>> > rabbinical court. My main point was to distinguish between "bearing
>> > false
>> > witness" and just telling garden-variety lies.
>>
>> And my point is that if he isn't willing to swear to it, he has no
>> business saying it *as a religious remark* - and especially not
>> as a blanket indictment when it obviously isn't true about this man.
>>
> If someone is unwilling to stand behind their statement to the point
> where they'd swear by it in a rabbinical court, why are they saying
> it in public, as a representative of their group?
Generally, people testify in rabbinical courts regarding legal matters,
i.e., "I was present when Shmuel borrowed the money from Reuven." or "Reuven
couldn't have murdered Shmuel because he was having dinner with us at the
time."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>Is it acceptable
> for someone to say something in this fashion?
>At what point does
> this become lashon hara?
chsw
[lots cut to get to relevant part]
>
> My point is that we DO expect Muslims to condemn the extremists in their
> midst, and are appalled when they don't. Why should it be different for any
> other group, including us?
>
>
It is different. I find few people condemning Arab or Muslim
atrocities committed against other peoples or against other Arabs
and Muslims. It is a "soft bigotry of low expectations" which
allows Arabs and Muslims to act in a barbarous manner. Or, as
one blogger puts it, the world is on Israeli double standard time.
chsw
Don Levey
Not quite my point, though. I'm not talking about the type of testimony,
but whether or not someone is willing to stand behind their words.
Would they be *willing* to say X before a Rabbinical court, even if
such statements would not normally be found there?
Don Levey
> In article <m3lkg96...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >> There was a study that came out 5-6 years ago on the religious beliefs
> >> of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT** believe in God. I kid you not.
> >>
> > As you have previously, I believe, pointed out elsewhere, the devil is
> > in the details. I'd be interested in seeing the survey questions and
> > the methodology before I were willing to draw any conclusion as to the
> > validity of the study and its results.
>
>
> Let me quote from a 1972 internal CCAR study of its clergy and one
> from 1986:
>
> At the other pole, however, stand those Reform clergy --- as far back as 1972,
> the figure stood at 90% in an internal Central Conference of American Rabbis
> (CCAR) survey --- who are unable to profess belief in God in "the more or less
> traditional Jewish sense," preferring self-descriptions like "agnostic" and
> "theological humanist." In 1986, Reform leader Rabbi Paul Menitoff attributed
> the sparse attendance at Reform temples to the "sizeable segments of the
> [Reform] lay and rabbinic populations [who] do not believe in God." Apparently,
> the bon mot about the Reconstructionist movements motto --- "There is no God,
> and Mordecai Kaplan is his prophet" --- rings at least partially true for many
> in its sister denomination as well.
>
That doesn't say quite what you originally said. It does NOT say
that Reform Rabbis don't believe in Gd. It says that they don't
believe in the same way. Not the same thing at all. The rest of
that paragraph is more anectdotal than informative.
> There was also a study carried out 5-6 years ago among Reform and
> Conservative rabbinical students.
>
Do you have a link to that?
> There was also a study by Charles Liebman in 1970:
>
> www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1970_3_SpecialArticles.pdf
>
....Which doesn't address this question either. Interestingly, for
some of the survey questions from that study the Reform Rabbis seemed
closer to the Orthodox Rabbis than did the Conservative. And the
Reform Rabbis were, for some questions, about on par with the Orthodox
congregational presidents (the people who do this because they want to
and not because they're getting paid) - or at least they were almost
40 years ago.
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Apr-2007, chsw <ch...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> There is a lot of doctrinal variation among Reform rabbis, imho
> >> and experience (DC, Chicago, NYC).
> >
> > Which is definitely not the same thing as saying that "reform Rabbis'
> > belief in HaSHem is shaky."!!
> > Good grief!!
> >
>
> It is also bounded by my experience of only a few congregations
> and rabbis. I cannot say anything more general than that.
Yes, that's my point.
The comment to which I objected was indeed extremely general.
Susan
cindys
You're asking such a hypothetical question, that's it difficult to answer.
Rabbinical courts operate in a concrete way, regarding what people actually
see and hear for the purpose of rendering some sort of judgment, i.e.,
"Based on the testimony of Shmuel and Shimon, we have decided that Reuven's
car was damaged because you were negligent, and therefore you are
responsible for paying the damages." You're asking: Would person X be
willing to testify to statement Y in a hypothetical rabbinical court that's
functioning in a completely unconventional way ? How can I possibly answer
that?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-May-2007, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>
> > On 29-Apr-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4634bf2b$0$16726$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> > > >
> > > snip
> > > > --------
> > > > I don't think he would. Swearing in front of a rabbinical court is
> > > > not
> > > > something someone does lightly.
> > > ----------
> > > To clarify: I think it would have been more appropriate if I had
> > > written
> > > that bearing false witness is giving false *testimony* in front of a
> > > rabbinical court. My main point was to distinguish between "bearing
> > > false
> > > witness" and just telling garden-variety lies.
> >
> > And my point is that if he isn't willing to swear to it, he has no
> > business saying it *as a religious remark* - and especially not
> > as a blanket indictment when it obviously isn't true about this man.
> >
> If someone is unwilling to stand behind their statement to the point
> where they'd swear by it in a rabbinical court, why are they saying
> it in public, as a representative of their group?
Yes, this is much more precisely what I meant.
Of course people say all sorts of things in every day conversation -
but I did assume (oh, that word!) that we were solely discussing
what he said in his official capacity.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-May-2007, chsw <ch...@optonline.net> wrote:
> as
> one blogger puts it, the world is on Israeli double standard time
Brilliant.
Unfortunately.
Susan
chsw
And just to be clear on this, it was not me who wrote the
objectionable comment.
chsw
chsw
Eliyahu
> "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46358096$0$1396$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:sfudnb79WZr4YKnb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
The difference is that what we're asking them to condemn is not
extreme viewpoints, but actions taken in response to those extreme
views. They can think whatever they want as long as they don't act on
it. It's sort of like Xtians whose escatalogical views include our
demise prior to the return of their messiah. They're welcome to talk
about it as much as they want as long as they don't do things to hurry
it along. And as long as they're just promoting the idea itself, I
don't expect their religionists who disagree with that to feel a need
to publically condemn them for it.
If O Jews ever started killing non-O Jews or attacking them and their
shuls, I expect that we'd hear a lot of loud condemnation from most
other O Jews, just as we'd have the same response if R Jews decided
they needed to take physical actions against O. There just isn't a
great need for loud counterdemonstrations and such when the issue is
just the promulgation of opinions and ideas.
Eliyahu
Don Levey
> You're asking such a hypothetical question, that's it difficult to answer.
> Rabbinical courts operate in a concrete way, regarding what people actually
> see and hear for the purpose of rendering some sort of judgment, i.e.,
> "Based on the testimony of Shmuel and Shimon, we have decided that Reuven's
> car was damaged because you were negligent, and therefore you are
> responsible for paying the damages." You're asking: Would person X be
> willing to testify to statement Y in a hypothetical rabbinical court that's
> functioning in a completely unconventional way ? How can I possibly answer
> that?
>
>
I'm not sure I'm asking a question - or rather, that this isn't it.
I try very hard to make sure that whatever I say I'm willing to
stand behind. If I'm going to say it at all, I should be prepared
to say it in front of a panel of rabbis. Whether or not the words
would be relevant to any situation in which such a panel would convene
isn't really relevant. If I'm not proud of my words, why should I
ever say them?
It is, perhaps, a modification of my belief in actions: if, at the time
you did it, you knew it was wrong, then why did you continue to do it?
Dan Kimmel
But it isn't different (except the degree of the offense, obviously).
Take a closer example. We are appalled when MEMRI provides translations of
hysterical Islamic rantings against Jews -- not at MEMRI, but at the imams.
Why is the Muslim world silent? Silence is assent. They either agree, or
don't think it's important enough to publicly disagree.
When an Orthodox rabbi rants against non-Orthodox Jews, the silence of the
Orthodox world suggests they eitehr agree or don't think it's important
enough to stand up for their fellow Jews if they're not Orthodox.
cindys
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>> You're asking such a hypothetical question, that's it difficult to
>> answer.
>> Rabbinical courts operate in a concrete way, regarding what people
>> actually
>> see and hear for the purpose of rendering some sort of judgment, i.e.,
>> "Based on the testimony of Shmuel and Shimon, we have decided that
>> Reuven's
>> car was damaged because you were negligent, and therefore you are
>> responsible for paying the damages." You're asking: Would person X be
>> willing to testify to statement Y in a hypothetical rabbinical court
>> that's
>> functioning in a completely unconventional way ? How can I possibly
>> answer
>> that?
>>
>>
> I'm not sure I'm asking a question - or rather, that this isn't it.
> I try very hard to make sure that whatever I say I'm willing to
> stand behind.
Okay.
>If I'm going to say it at all, I should be prepared
> to say it in front of a panel of rabbis.
A rabbinical court functions primarily as a legal decisor. It doesn't
function in the interest of *honesty* for its own sake (I hope I'm saying
that right). What I understand you to be saying is that a person should be
willing to say publicly what he has said privately. If he can't do that,
then perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut in the first place. Point
taken, but this is not connected to the function of a rabbinical court.
> Whether or not the words
> would be relevant to any situation in which such a panel would convene
> isn't really relevant.
In a rabbinical court, the words would need to be relevant to the situation,
so I think perhaps *swearing in front of a rabbinical court* is not a good
example.
> If I'm not proud of my words, why should I
> ever say them?
More or less what I said above.
>
> It is, perhaps, a modification of my belief in actions: if, at the time
> you did it, you knew it was wrong, then why did you continue to do it?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dan Kimmel
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178047792.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> If O Jews ever started killing non-O Jews or attacking them and their
> shuls, I expect that we'd hear a lot of loud condemnation from most
> other O Jews, just as we'd have the same response if R Jews decided
> they needed to take physical actions against O. There just isn't a
> great need for loud counterdemonstrations and such when the issue is
> just the promulgation of opinions and ideas.
When a Reform rabbi is disinvited from an Israeli Memorial Day service
unless he doesn't mind not being called "rabbi" I'd say we're beyond "just
Joel Shurkin
Now compare that to your statement, "There was a study that came out
5-6 years ago on the religious belief of non-O clergy. Many do **NOT**
believe in God. I kid you not."
j
>>>
"
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Don Levey If knowledge is power,
>> Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
>> NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
>> will be used to tune the blocking lists.
--
Joel Shurkin
Baltimore, Maryland
----------------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-May-2007, chsw <ch...@optonline.net> wrote:
Oh, absolutely - I didn't mean YOU, no - not at all.
Susan
chsw
Dan, you are comparing imams calling for or committing murders
(frequently translated by MEMRI) to rabbis ranting against
against the practices of other rabbis or Jews from other sects
within J. Your parallelism fails because the moral levels being
compared are obviously not parallel. Hence, you are holding the
rabbis to a higher standard than you hold the imams.
Moreover, the example you provide begs the question - what does
the lack of response at Muslim/Arab atrocities (except when
something happens within their own borders) from the non-Muslim,
non-Jewish world mean as compared to the outcry when Israel or
the USA captures or kills a terrorist except that there is a
double standard?
chsw
Dan Kimmel
You're making excuses for the rabbis.
> Moreover, the example you provide begs the question - what does
> the lack of response at Muslim/Arab atrocities (except when
> something happens within their own borders) from the non-Muslim,
> non-Jewish world mean as compared to the outcry when Israel or
> the USA captures or kills a terrorist except that there is a
> double standard?
I purposely phrased this so it was reaction to *speech* and not to
atrocities. You still can't bring yourself to criticize Orthodox rabbis who
vilely slander non-Orthodox Jews.
One double standard doesn't excuse another.
chsw
Read an earlier post of mine relating to Reform rabbis. You'll
see that I do not have one. I am in favor of putting out facts
and letting our fellow Jews decide in cases where the rabbinical
frictions get in the way of Jews working together.
Just because you cite that your examples both involve speech does
not make them equivalent. In my knowledge and experience, I've
never heard an O rabbi, or any other rabbi, calling for the
deaths of other Jews. I've heard criticism of practices and
beliefs (principally about R's patrilineal descent policy from O
and C, and Ultra-O's grip on the Israeli religious bureaucracies
from C and R), I've heard of cherems declared (e.g., against the
Neturei Karta ilk) but never a call for murder.
Again, the rabbis are criticizing other rabbis and Jews while the
imams are calling for murder but you are positing that both
groups should be treated in an equally harsh manner. However, I
am impressed that in the last line of your post you will admit to
having a double standard with respect to Jews and Israel. That
is honest.
chsw
Don Levey
> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> news:m3zm4o4...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
>
> >If I'm going to say it at all, I should be prepared
> > to say it in front of a panel of rabbis.
>
> A rabbinical court functions primarily as a legal decisor. It doesn't
> function in the interest of *honesty* for its own sake (I hope I'm saying
> that right). What I understand you to be saying is that a person should be
> willing to say publicly what he has said privately. If he can't do that,
> then perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut in the first place. Point
> taken, but this is not connected to the function of a rabbinical court.
>
OK. Then it looks like the "Rabbinical court" example wasn't really
an applicable one in the first place. You are correct in your
interpretation of my words.
> > Whether or not the words
> > would be relevant to any situation in which such a panel would convene
> > isn't really relevant.
>
> In a rabbinical court, the words would need to be relevant to the situation,
> so I think perhaps *swearing in front of a rabbinical court* is not a good
> example.
>
--
Dan Kimmel
I was pointing out your double standard. To claim otherwise is exceedingly
DIShonest.
chsw
>> never heard an O rabbi, or any other rabbi, calling for the
>> deaths of other Jews. I've heard criticism of practices and
>> beliefs (principally about R's patrilineal descent policy from O
>> and C, and Ultra-O's grip on the Israeli religious bureaucracies
>> from C and R), I've heard of cherems declared (e.g., against the
>> Neturei Karta ilk) but never a call for murder.
>>
>> Again, the rabbis are criticizing other rabbis and Jews while the
>> imams are calling for murder but you are positing that both
>> groups should be treated in an equally harsh manner. However, I
>> am impressed that in the last line of your post you will admit to
>> having a double standard with respect to Jews and Israel. That
>> is honest.
>
> I was pointing out your double standard. To claim otherwise is exceedingly
> DIShonest.
>
>
Point it out again because I missed it.
chsw
chsw
Let's change around the rabbis and the imams in your example. If
a rabbi calls for the murder of Dan Kimmel (and I do NOT advocate
such action), whether directly or indirectly by calling for the
murder of all who are not a member of that rabbi's subset of J,
then I would call for that rabbi's apprehension and whatever
penalties can be brought to bear on the miscreant. If imams from
one sect criticize imams from another sect without calling for
murder, then the action against them should be something less
than the action to be taken against a cleric calling for murder.
I see no double standard by me, because the incitements are
altogether different in object. When the object is the same, the
penalties sought should be the same. So where is the double
standard?
chsw
PS: Example is tweaked for shock value only.