quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, have you seen me say that Conservative Jews are not Jews?
Nope.
But me, I hardly believe in Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Reconstructionist-yadda-yadda-yadda Judaism. I believe in Klal Yisroel.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But me, I hardly believe in Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Reconstructionist-yadda-yadda-yadda Judaism. I believe in Klal Yisroel.
posted
"So, you want to disagree with her? Jump on board, you've got lots of company! But please don't tar Hatrack with the same broad brush."
Of course I can characterize Hatrack with the same broad brush when its common and respected, and one could almost say required, hatrack behavior to tell people when they are out of bounds... and yet, for this exact same sort of behavior on the topic of OTHER religions, gets reigned in. WHen its lisa commenting on judaism, she's not. Why? Either there is something special about lisa, or something special about judaism.
" I have never, ever, ever said, implied or even hinted that a Jew who does things contrary to Jewish law is not a Jew."
I would say, Lisa, that this statement, and this one
"A Jew who is a member of the Conservative movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew. A Jew who is a member of the Reform movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew."
Are contradicted by statements like this one...
"Even if denial of Torah miSinai wasn't a violation of one of the Rambam's 13 principles, which it is,"
Which implies that those jews who reject the notion that the oral torah was given verbatim at sinai are in fact not of the jewish faith, since the 13 principles lay out what it is to be of the jewish faith.
Perhaps you will say "Ahh, but even if you aren't of the faith, you are still Jewish" (I'm not certain this is the track you will take, but its one I can see being taken, to pre-emptively strike against miscommunication) that distinguishes between religious jews, and jews of "race" (for lack of a better term) and my contention is in the area of faith.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, although (from what I understand)Lisa's ideas about Judaism are, by their nature, likely to offend, she has made heroic efforts in this thread to express them in a way that is constructive and as inoffensive as possible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I'm saying. Also that she seems to be trying really hard to be polite and non-confrontational about the way she expresses those beliefs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping. She's stating it as indisputable fact that reform/conservative jews are not of the jewish faith. Thats her interpretation of the matter.
Of course, like all claims telling people they do not belong to a group they claim to belong to, it shouldn't be made in the first place.
Its not polite.
And thats why I'm confused at the lack of LDS jumping on lisa's head, when if Lisa made the statement that members of teh church of later day saints are not of the christian faith, we'd see the whole board jump down her throat.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to speak for her anymore than I already have. Some beliefs are such that to discuss them in a way that is not going to offend someone would be dishonest. Are choices are to do our best or to refrain from discussing them at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
But when we're speaking of our beliefs, presenting them as facts is also dishonest.
And the consensus of the hatrack community, judging from the reactions in regards to other religions, seems to be that discussing why people who claim to be of a certain faith are actually not of that faith is off-limits.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Jew, I would resent anyone on the outside dictating who does and who doesn't belong to my religion.
And as a non-Christian, non-LDS, non-everything except for Jewish religion, I wouldn't presume to dictate that sort of thing to anyone else.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't want to speak for her anymore than I already have. Some beliefs are such that to discuss them in a way that is not going to offend someone would be dishonest. Are choices are to do our best or to refrain from discussing them at all.
Agreed. Probably the same reason we don't see Christians and Jews debating Jesus.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
But when we're speaking of our beliefs, presenting them as facts is also dishonest.
And the consensus of the hatrack community, judging from the reactions in regards to other religions, seems to be that discussing why people who claim to be of a certain faith are actually not of that faith is off-limits.
If one does not believe their beliefs are facts, then does one have much faith in their own beliefs?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume that, in a discussion about faith, the "I believes" are implied. And that for some, adding the "i believes" is a denial that what they believe is true.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm convinced that the analogy is apt. Odd that it comes from the same person who pointed out to me the import of allowing one side of an argument's words to become the official ones. However, since some people are unable to resolve this among themselves, I'm going to have to require that we agree to disagree agreeably. If you are unable to do so here, there are scads of other websites where you can go to debate the issue.
posted
" Odd that it comes from the same person who pointed out to me the import of allowing one side of an argument's words to become the official ones"
Its not odd at all. If certain specific examples of an area are off limits, then the whole area should either be off limits, or you should be willing to have charges leveled at the site of hypocricy. Putting an area off-limits for discussion doesn't give one side or the other official weight in that argument... it does give official weight to the point of view that discussion topics that are inherently uncivil do not belong on a board that prides itself on civility. But I thought that was an official position already staked out.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping.
That's not going to happen, Paul.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: She's stating it as indisputable fact that reform/conservative jews are not of the jewish faith. Thats her interpretation of the matter.
That's your interpretation of what I've said. And it is 180 degrees away from what I've actually said. You are basically calling me a liar. I say that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, and nothing can ever change that, and you claim that I'm saying Conservative Jews aren't Jews.
That is offensive. The irony is that you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. If I say that I do not consider a Jew any less of a Jew just because they practice something other than Judaism, then by damn, that's what I mean.
Some people write vaguely. Some people go out of their way not to be clear about what they say. I don't think there's a solitary person on these forums who will claim that about me. I post what I post with painstaking attention to clarity. With the sole exception of using jargon instead of translations (because translations are often misleading), and I've offered to explain any terms that haven't been understood, I think that what I've said has been crystal clear.
I want you to apologize for claiming that I am lying about what I said. It's dishonest of you, and offensive. I say what I mean, and if you have such a chip on your shoulder that you can't see past your interpretations of what I'm saying to the actual words, you need to address that with a friend or a therapist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I assume that, in a discussion about faith, the "I believes" are implied. And that for some, adding the "i believes" is a denial that what they believe is true.
Exactly. Paul wants me to basically accept everything as a legitimate form of Judaism, and have the only question be which I like better. And that may be how he deals with Judaism himself, but I don't.
I might say that the Many Worlds interpretation of the Schroedinger's Cat thing doesn't seem likely to me. I wouldn't say, because I think that, "The Many Words interpretation is wrong." My level of conviction in this case isn't nearly strong enough for me to state it as fact.
I would, by contrast, say that dinosaurs could never have lived under the current effective gravitational field, because the cube-square law simply wouldn't allow it, and that something must have been different here when dinosaurs were around. I don't say "I believe" at the beginning of that, because I've seen the numbers, and it's just a matter of plain fact.
I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but only informed opinions need be taken seriously.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, Lisa isn't saying that Reform Jews are not Jews; as far as she's concerned, anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, even if they don't want to be. What she's saying is that Reform Jews are BAD Jews.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- For someone who understands language so well, you're missing the point.
Lisa has said that "Surely you know the difference between saying that the movement isn't a form a Judaism and saying that its adherants have stopped being Jewish."
Lisa has characterized reform and conservative judaism as not abiding by Maimonedes' 13 principles, which lay out the minimum that a person needs to believe/do in order to be of the jewish faith.
On the other hand, lisa has also argued that its impossible to go from jew to non-jew.
These two arguments rely on two different usages of the word "Jew." One has to do with the religious observances of a person, the other has to do with, not even the religious affiliation or religious identification, but, I guess, the biological religion, though thats not a great way of putting it, either.
You're a jew if your mother is jewish, and you've been circumsized according to the law, even if you don't practice judaism in any way. But you aren't of the jewish faith if you don't practice judaism, because you don't follow Maimonedes' 13 principles, and that is required to be a jew of the faith.
Its not that we're bad jews. Its that we aren't jews of the faith. Which is why I object so strenuously to her characterization. She's using word games to avoid saying we're not jews, even though, in terms of religious practice, thats exactly what she's saying.
"Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping. That's not going to happen, Paul."
I know its not. The alternative would be to not talk about it.
"That's your interpretation of what I've said. And it is 180 degrees away from what I've actually said. You are basically calling me a liar. I say that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, and nothing can ever change that, and you claim that I'm saying Conservative Jews aren't Jews.'
No, I'm saying that you are writing two different things. One "A jew is a jew and nothing can change that," and "Many jews are not of the jewish faith." The latter is simply, as far as I am concerned, unacceptable behavior on a discussion forum that has made polite discourse its primary rule. Its an INHERENTLY impolite, offensive, and bigoted statement.
"f I say that I do not consider a Jew any less of a Jew just because they practice something other than Judaism, then by damn, that's what I mean.'
See? You ARE saying exactly what I'm saying. You are saying jews do not practice judaism, who themselves say they practice judaism. Its EXACTLY the same as saying that an LDS isn't christian because they don't practice christianity, in terms of politeness.
I am NOT putting words in your mouth, Lisa, or accusing you of lying. I guess what I'm accusing you of, now, is not being able to read your own words.
"I want you to apologize for claiming that I am lying about what I said. It's dishonest of you, and offensive. I say what I mean, and if you have such a chip on your shoulder that you can't see past your interpretations of what I'm saying to the actual words, you need to address that with a friend or a therapist"
I won't apologize, Lisa. In the same post you ask me to apologize, you do exactly what I claim you are doing, and then demand that I apologize for saying that it is, in fact, what you are doing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Exactly. Paul wants me to basically accept everything as a legitimate form of Judaism, and have the only question be which I like better."
Nope. I don't say you have to accept it. I say that you can't tell someone, during polite discourse, that they aren't of the faith they claim to be.
"I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion."
Except it CLEARLY is a matter of opinion. For example, most jews in the world reject your interpretation in this matter.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion."
Except it CLEARLY is a matter of opinion. For example, most jews in the world reject your interpretation in this matter.
"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France
And as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but an uninformed opinion isn't something to be taken seriously.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As I understand it, Lisa isn't saying that Reform Jews are not Jews; as far as she's concerned, anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, even if they don't want to be. What she's saying is that Reform Jews are BAD Jews.
And that in the vast majority of cases, it's not their fault, and blame cannot attach.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference, Lisa, between saying something is not a matter of opinion, and that a certain opinion is an uninformed one.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference, but that doesn't mean that they can't both be true. They overlap almost entirely. If there is only one informed opinion on an issue, then it is not a matter of opinion. And even if there are multiple informed opinions, if the only contrary opinion being offered in a particular context is an uninformed one, then in that context, it is not a matter of opinion.
Do you want to chop logic? Good luck.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My logic, apparently, is just fine relative to yours, since you claim that I am lying when I claim that you are writing things that are exactly what you are writing.
"And even if there are multiple informed opinions, if the only contrary opinion being offered in a particular context is an uninformed one, then in that context, it is not a matter of opinion."
True. But you can't demonstrate that your position is the only informed one, in this particular situation, without starting from the premise that yours is the only informed opinion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its feel weird defending an Orthodox Jew in this argument, but I don't understand why she is under attack for giving her honest answers to questions that were put forth toward her.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You're a jew if your mother is jewish, and you've been circumsized according to the law, even if you don't practice judaism in any way. But you aren't of the jewish faith if you don't practice judaism, because you don't follow Maimonedes' 13 principles, and that is required to be a jew of the faith.
Folks, I give up. I'm going to try really hard not to respond to Paul any more, because he's simply unwilling to hear anything he hasn't already decided is being said.
We don't have any such concept of "Jew of the faith". Not Orthodox Jew and not Conservative Jews. There's no such thing.
Paul is taking advantage of the fact that so many Jatraqueros are Christians to use a Christian conception in a discussion about Judaism.
Papa, I understand now why you accepted his analogy. Please believe me, though, when I say that it is simply not applicable in Judaism.
Tante is absolutely correct when she says there are no Orthodox/Conservative/Reform/Reconstructionst/etc. Jews. There are just Jews. But I will go further and say as well that there is just Judaism. And that what the Reform movement started calling "Orthodoxy" when they broke away (and it was originally intended as a pejorative, though we've adopted it for ourselves now) is just plain Judaism.
These movements do not create a different identity for the Jews who may happen to belong to one or more of their institutions. They are small groups of people who have come up with ideologies that they wish were reflected in Judaism and labeled them as "Judaisms", copying the denominational model prevalent in Christianity.
I've heard advocates/adherants of these movements use the term "denominations" for these divisions, and it's simply an indication of where their heads are at.
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There's a group called the Society for Humanistic Judaism, which is officially atheist. One of their temples is about 15 miles north of where I'm sitting right now, in Deerfield, Illinois. It's called Beth Or. I don't say that they are atheists as a pejorative or to put words into their mouths; it's their own claim.
But just because Sherwin T. Wine, a Reform rabbi, decided one day that using the word "God" wasn't honest, since he didn't really believe in God in any meaningful way, and started this movement, doesn't mean that a Jew who is a member of this movement, or who belongs to Beth Or, can stand up and say that this atheist movement is a form of Judaism.
I use the Humanists as an example that I know is extreme, because I'm hoping that it will make this more clear to some people.
Saying that a no-holds-barred denial of the existence of God is a form of Judaism, regardless of the fact that there are atheist Jews, is insulting and offensive. And I refuse under any circumstances to accept this organization as Judaism. Those atheists who belong to Beth Or, or to any of the other Humanist temples, are Jews, but they are not practicing Judaism. They are not, as Tante might put it, "Humanist Jews", but merely Jews. And they're Jews who are making a big mistake.
From a Jewish point of view, denying that God gave us the Torah at Sinai (for real, and not just figuratively) is on the same level as denying the existence of God. These are core fundamentals. Claiming that Judaism can encompass the denial of Torah miSinai is as absurd as claiming that Christianity can encompass the belief that JC never existed. Or that Islam can accept the idea that Mohammed was a fictional character. It's an oxymoron.
I apologize to those who have not understood this until now. But please understand that Paul's "Jew of faith" concept is an invention that he's using in order to claim that I've said something I've explicitly denied saying. It's dishonest of him, and I have no further interest in anything he has to say until such time as he apologizes and accepts that I mean what I say.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, for one, think that Lisa has helped Hatrack become a lot less polite, less welcoming, and more contentious lately, and I'm saddened that most posters seem to be fine with this.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I understand your point. There are many Christians who believe that a Trinitarian view of God (if that's the proper term) is just as central to Christianity as you state Torah miSinai is to Judaism. Nonetheless, as far as discussion at this board goes, the definition, right or wrong depending on who says so, is the more encompassing one.
I see your difficulty with it. And I see Paul's difficulty with your comments. I'm not discussing who is right or who is wrong. I'm saying for the purposes of discussion here at Hatrack, please use the more encompassing definition.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
