posted
In today's news the Israeli courts approved a Gay Pride march in Jerusalem which has now been postponed twice. Orthodox Jews have been rioting in the streets of Jerusalem to protest this march. In this context, I have read several comments by the chief rabbinate referring to homosexuality as "the most abominable of acts" and homosexuals as “the lowest of people.”
Is this a fair representation of the orthodox Jewish position or is it a position held solely by extremely conservative sects like the Chasidim? What is the orthodox Jewish position on homosexuality? Does this position arise from the Torah, the Talmud or is it purely an oral tradition? How much controversy is there among orthodox Jews on this subject?
I was going to post these questions in Q/A Judaisim thread but decide to start a new thread instead. I'd hate to see that one shut down if this one turns nasty. Hopefully that won't happen but the question I have certainly has the potential for it
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Orthodox Jewish community is up in arms about this parade, and they have a right to be. It's horrible that their opposition to the parade is being expressed so viciously, and there's absolutely no excuse for it.
This is a case of "a pox on both their houses". There is absolutely nothing in Judaism or Jewish law to justify this kind of vile bigotry and hatred towards people who are gay.
That said, having this parade in Jerusalem is either a deliberate provocation or the most incredibly ignorant move possible. I suspect that it's both, on the parts of different people.
There've been gay pride parades in Tel Aviv. But Tel Aviv is barely Jewish in character. From what I've heard, there've been gay pride parades in Jerusalem as well, though these were after I left in early 2001. But the people in these parades had the presence of mind to show more decorum than is usually shown in gay pride parades. Havah and I stopped going to parades after the one we went to in Santa Cruz in 2001. Tova was barely more than a year old, but we just couldn't do it. There was just too much stuff that was not family friendly. Too much risque lewdness, for the sake of lewdness.
From what I understand, that kind of stuff has been left out of the pride parades in Jerusalem. But this isn't a normal pride parade. This is WorldPride. Which means that people from all over the world are coming. Which means that anything that's ever been done in a pride parade can be expected to be done here. That means Dykes on Bikes. That means drag performers and half naked dancing. It's beyond inappropriate. It's a desecration.
I'm sure there are people who aren't really aware, or weren't, at least, of how much of a powderkeg this would be. But I'm also sure that there were people who knew exactly how incindiary having WorldPride in Jerusalem would be, and planned it for just that reason.
At the first pride parade in Israel, in 1998, I went to Tel Aviv. We got to Independence Park at the end of the parade, and I sat there while some jacka** got up and boomed into the microphone about "culture war against the dosim". The term dos is a very derogatory term for religious Jews. It's on the level of "kike".
The next year, I went again, and carried a sign that said, "Don't hate me because I'm religious. Don't hate me because I'm a lesbian."
WorldPride was cancelled last year because it was going to happen at the same time that Sharon was busy deporting 9000 Jews from their homes, and they needed almost the entire army to commit that abomination. This year, it was cancelled because of the Lebanon war. It should have stayed cancelled. This is a really, really, really bad idea. The utterly blind stupidity of having this parade in Jerusalem has "let loose the hounds of hell" in a very real way. I will not be at all surprised if people are killed. And again, I suspect that some of the organizers are hoping for martyrs.
All that said, you're going to get a very different answer from me and from Rivka on this subject. In the past, Rivka has declined to back her views up in any way, preferring not to get into it. She'll probably do that again.
Jewish law is clear that anal sex between men is absolutely forbidden. It's forbidden at one of the highest degrees that anything can be forbidden in Jewish law. On the level of idolatry and murder and incest. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do it, you still aren't allowed to.
Other types of intimacy between men are also forbidden, but to a lesser extent, and there are some rabbis (few, but they exist) who have held that if engaging in those acts will keep a guy from committing anal sex with another man, better that he should do that.
There is nothing whatsoever barring two men from being in love and living together as partners.
When it comes to women, it's far more lenient. The verses in the Torah that refer to anal sex between men are utterly irrelevant to women. Instead, there are two Talmudic sources that refer to women engaging in an act that's imitative of heterosexual intercourse. This act is forbidden. No other acts of intimacy between women are forbidden, and there is no prohibition of two women being in love and living together as partners.
That said, it's not the norm in the Orthodox community, and there is a degree of homophobia in the Orthodox community that is not justified by Jewish law. For example, it is forbidden to assume that a Jew you know to be observant is doing something forbidden behind closed doors. Even if your "common sense" tells you that it's so.
It's interesting that this homophobic attitude is far more common among Ashkenazi Jews, who lived among Christians, than it is among Sephardi Jews, who lived among Muslims.
Less than 1000 years ago, famous and well established rabbis wrote poetry that was strongly homoerotic. It's likely that in most cases they did this simply because it was a common poetic form in Arab lands, and they used it as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. Nevertheless, the modern Orthodox community would go absolutely insane if a major rabbi today were to write poetry of that sort. While Jewish law has not changed, Orthodox culture, in some ways, has.
I read Arutz-7 for my news of Israel, and they refer to WorldPride as "the homosexhibitionist parade", or "the abomination parade". As bad as WorldPride is going to be, and for all that it's inexcusable that it's going to happen in Jerusalem, that sort of venom is equally inexcusable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:there is a degree of homophobia in the Orthodox community that is not justified by Jewish law. For example, it is forbidden to assume that a Jew you know to be observant is doing something forbidden behind closed doors. Even if your "common sense" tells you that it's so.
If anal sex between men is forbidden as strongly as murder, why is it worse to worry that your otherwise observant neighbor is having anal sex than it would be to worry that your otherwise observant neighbor is burying his victims in the back yard? Is there a distinction made between unpardonable sins with victims vs. unpardonable sins with willing participants?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are different categories of sins, yes. And there is an issue of preventing harm to others. The concept is called "bor birshut harabbim", or "a pit in a public place". If you see a pit that people can fall into in a public place and it's Shabbat, when you aren't allowed to dig or fill in holes, you still have to remove the danger, even if it means shoveling dirt into the hole.
Similarly, if you have cause to suspect that someone is harming someone else, your obligation to protect others has to be balanced against your obligation to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Not to mention the fact that we're talking about religious law here, and the fact that the court is as constrained as it is when it comes to punishing people for violations has to do with the fact that you can't escape God, and you'll be punished one way or the other.
Also, there's an issue of making assumptions about people when it has no benefit. If there's circumstantial cause to think that someone is killing people, investigating that makes sense, because something can be done about it if it's true. Since nothing can be done about it if two men are engaging in anal sex, then speculating about it has no benefit, and is only forbidden.
None of this has anything to do with threatening to kill or commit violence against people who are gay. That's just animalistic hatred.
But again, lest the point be lost, this parade is still Wrong and a Bad Thing. It just doesn't justify Wrong and Bad behavior on the part of its opponents.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is forbidden to assume that a Jew you know to be observant is doing something forbidden behind closed doors. Even if your "common sense" tells you that it's so.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but something seems inherently circular in the way its worded. If I believe that someone is breaking a law behind closed doors, then how can it be said that I know them to be law abiding. Is it possible to know something which you assume to be untrue?
Perhaps what is meant is that when all the behavior and words you have personally witnessed indicate that they are law abiding, it is forbidden to assume that they engage in unlawful behavior in private. If this is a correct interpretation, then I wish it were more widely practiced by all people. It implies that you give people whose character you know the benefit of a doubt when their actions seem to deviate from that character.
I am curious if there is anything similar regarding persons who are nonobservant Jews or non-Jews. For example, if a Jew drives a car on the Shabbot but follows Kosher laws (in public), is it forbidden to assume that they break Kosher behind closed doors or does the fact that they violate the Sabbath obviate any obligation on your part. If a non-Jew has always been fully honest with you is it a violation of Jewish laws if you assume that they are dishonest in other circumstance?
[ November 07, 2006, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's probably a valid interpretation of the concept in general, Icarus, but seeing as this is Lisa and Jewish Law, I'd really be interested in her response to The Rabbit's questions.
(NOTE: No slight against Lisa (or Jewish Law) intended. I just mean that she has a very strongly thought-out opinion on the minutiae of Jewish Law, and her responses to specifics like this surprise me enough to not take anything for granted.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is forbidden to assume that a Jew you know to be observant is doing something forbidden behind closed doors. Even if your "common sense" tells you that it's so.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but something seems inherently circular in the way its worded. If I believe that someone is breaking a law behind closed doors, then how can it be said that I know them to be law abiding.
Define "believe". That's just the thing. If I don't know, I'm not allowed to believe such a thing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is it possible to know something which you assume to be untrue?
Define "know". You switched from "believe" in the first sentence to "know" in this one. And that's not a criticism. That's the common way of looking at things in our society. But Jewish law, while counterintuitive in this way, is pretty clear about it.
This is a link to a book by Rebbetzin Yehudis Samet. The entire book is about this concept, and it's full of one vignette after another showing how it'd be easy to make the wrong assumption. Stories where it might seem obvious that someone is doing something wrong... until you find out the full story.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Perhaps what is meant is that when all the behavior and words you have personally witnessed indicate that they are law abiding, it is forbidden to assume that they engage in unlawful behavior in private..
That's probably a good rephrasing.
One thing I hear a lot from other Orthodox Jews is accusations against gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews based on the behavior of the general GLBT community. And they're missing this very important point. Imagine assuming that American Orthodox Jews, because they're American, approve of premarital sex and think adultery is no big deal, the way so many Americans (generally speaking) do. The fact that someone is an Orthodox Jew who is committed to obeying God's commandments says that despite being American, and despite being gay, they are careful not to violate other commandments as well.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If this is a correct interpretation, then I wish it were more widely practiced by all people. It implies that you give people whose character you know the benefit of a doubt when their actions seem to deviate from that character..
I also wish it were more widely practiced. Particularly by the people who are specifically obligated by their religion to practice it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I am curious if there is anything similar regarding persons who are nonobservant Jews or non-Jews. For example, if a Jew drives a car on the Shabbot but follows Kosher laws (in public), is it forbidden to assume that they break Kosher behind closed doors or does the fact that they violate the Sabbath obviate any obligation on your part..
Generally speaking, the kashrut of a person who violates Shabbat publically is not to be trusted. In practice, you may or may not trust them in this area, but you aren't obligated to. Shabbat in particular is relevant here, because a person who violates Shabbat is considered as though he violates all of the commandments.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If a non-Jew has always been fully honest with you is it a violation of Jewish laws if you assume that they are dishonest in other circumstance?
The obligation of giving the benefit of the doubt, to the best of my knowledge (and I know this is going to irk you) doesn't apply to non-Jews. That said, it's considered appropriate to apply such rules to non-Jews even though they aren't technically applicable, because it's good to stay in the habit of being that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is forbidden to assume that a Jew you know to be observant is doing something forbidden behind closed doors. Even if your "common sense" tells you that it's so.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but something seems inherently circular in the way its worded. If I believe that someone is breaking a law behind closed doors, then how can it be said that I know them to be law abiding.
Define "believe". That's just the thing. If I don't know, I'm not allowed to believe such a thing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is it possible to know something which you assume to be untrue?
Define "know". You switched from "believe" in the first sentence to "know" in this one. And that's not a criticism. That's the common way of looking at things in our society. But Jewish law, while counterintuitive in this way, is pretty clear about it.
It's not a criticism, it's a misreading of the two quotes. "Know" was used in both. I switched from "believe" to "assume" which I used as synonyms. Simple logic says that it is self contradictory to either "believe" or "assume" something to be false which you know to be true which is why I asked you for a clarification of what is meant. How does knowledge differ from a common sense assumption?
For example, imagine that you were appointed to a jury for a case where an observant Jew was accused of stealing. Assuming that all the witnesses confirm that the accused in an observant Jew, what evidence would be necessary for you to find him guilty of stealing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an issue when it comes to serving on juries. It's not that simple, and an Orthodox Jew who gets a jury summons should consult his or her local Orthodox rabbi about it.
It's forbidden to go to a secular court against a fellow Jew (and that generally extends to using a secular court against a fellow Jew, which serving on the jury could end up turning into), so the case you hypothesize would be really complicated. I'd probably ask to be excused from the jury.
If I see an Orthodox Jew walk into a McDonalds, I'm going to assume that they need to use the bathroom, or that they're getting a Coke. Not that they're buying non-kosher food. If I see them buying a hamburger, I'm going to assume that they're getting it for a non-Jewish coworker or friend. If I see them eating the hamburger, I'm going to be shocked. Rebbetzin Samet would probably say that I should assume that there's more to the story that I don't know, but that would probably cross a line for me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find it at the moment, but there is a report that Muslim Imams are getting together with Jewish Rabbis and Christian Priests and planning to do more than counter demonstrating. The gays might march, but it cound turn bloody. Nothing like a common enemy to bring enemies together.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For someone living in Jerusalem, and someone who sees the filth of humankind (and I mean the ultra-Orthodoxy in its current approach), I can only say that I hope that this does not end with murder.
It's not even a week since the Rabin memorial day, and there's already a threat of some other hot-headed sod killing in the name of bigotry, as if today's artillery shelling in Gaza wasn't enough. Except this time we're talking about a communal protest by a dangerously zealous, group of people, at least by the way they're behaving.
Even if God wills it abominable, shouldn't HE be the person in charge of deciding what is to be done with the gays? If God created the gays, maybe he created them for a reason?
I find myself growing more and more distant from Judaism because of these things. With this behaviour done in the name of God, I just find myself wondering more and more often "with gods like this, who needs religion?"...
Eheu. I just hope nobody dies and that the ultra-Orthodox will get back to their quiet studying of talmud. As a group, they rarely cause such a fuss, even when a busload of UO children was blown up by a suicide bomber... There was no communal hate towards the Arabs or Palestinians; so why homosexuality yes but mass-murder no?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
In light of dozens of terrorist warnings and hundreds of thousands of expected protestors, the homosexual parade scheduled for Friday has been replaced by a rally. Only minor protests are expected.
Following deliberations within the haredi community concerning a compromise proposal offered by the gay community on Thursday, it was decided that the gay parade will not take place in its original format.
===================
The damage has been done, though. The pride parade that's been happening peacefully in Jerusalem for the past 4-5 years will probably never be able to happen again. And all because some people decided to push the envelope too far.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so. They could have done it in Jerusalem. They could have done it the way it's been done for the past few years. But they needed to make a point and piss on people. Believe me, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing more fun than watching two people on the same side talk right past each other. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the thing is, you know, that we aren't entirely on the same side. I'm against both the organizers of the parade and the rabble who were protesting them. I suspect that Occasional and I are only on the same side of one of those issues.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm . . . it is possible we are talking about different "they's." I am talking about the anti-gay group doing what they did.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
