posted
I've said that a movement created by Jews doesn't become "Judaism" simply because Jews created it. I've said that people who undergo "conversions" that do not comply with Jewish law regarding conversions are invalid, and that those who go through such "conversions" remain non-Jews.
I have never, ever, even suggested that a Jew somehow stops being a Jew because he doesn't keep the laws of the Torah. In fact, I got taken down once for saying the exact opposite. Which is that a Jew is a Jew until he dies, regardless of what he does. Even Aaron Lustiger is still a Jew.
And Javert Hugo should apologize as well. Saying "I know you said it, but I won't bother to back the accusation up" is cowardly.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this thread would have been better directed at cultural/Reform Jews rather than our Orthodox set, personally.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I apologize to Lisa. She went out of her way on that thread to say that she still considers reform jews to be jews, but that reform judaism (and others) are not judaism. I don't think there's significant difference there (and ela, at least as one orthodox jew weighing in) didn't see it either.
I'm still waiting for the apology from Lisa, though, since I was most definetely not lying. I misremembered exactly what she said, for the reason that the claim she was making, in my mind ( and ela's, and apparently other people's as well), interprets as the claim that I said she made.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept your apology, Paul. Thank you. If that was your misunderstanding, I apologize for calling you a liar.
Edit: I withdraw my apology to Paul, and will not accept his. I looked through that thread and found that he'd made the same accusation at the time. And that I'd called him on it at the time.
quote:Paul, I object to your characterization. I have never, ever, ever said, implied or even hinted that a Jew who does things contrary to Jewish law is not a Jew. And I defy you to show me otherwise. If you do, I will most humbly apologize, but you won't be able to.
I don't accept Paul's excuse that he didn't see the distinction, because I was at pains to point it out to him. No one has a discussion like that and then turns around and repeats the false accusation. No one honest, at any rate.
posted
Sure they do. If your explanation wasn't as convincing as his first impression, it is no surprise that the first impression retained the persistence of memory.
Put your apology in, take your apology out, put your apology in and shake it all about...Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if someone does not meet your personal definition of what constitutes a good Orthodox Jew/LDS Mormon/Evangelical Christian, doesn't mean you cannot accept them as PEOPLE worthy of your notice and respect and toleration. In the final analysis, God is Judge, not any of us. Maybe God can find a way to accept into His eternal favor someone who does not speak all the prescribed shibboleths of our preferred community. I at least hope so, and I think it is good to hope so.
About Jewish wedding traditions--someone did mention something about stomping on a wineglass. Seems like I remember something about that from Fiddler on the Roof. But it seems like an unsafe practice to me. It would be safer to use plastic. Would it be bad luck if the plastic wineglass does not break, just goes "Ga-foong!" around the wedding hall?
I'm sorry. I know some of you are Serious and Concerned. But I'm having fun with this thread.
"Lord, please bless this ham sandwich. You know it needs it."
My bad. (I don't eat swine's flesh either.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record (to avoid confusion), my original post after Ron Lambert's was "Awesome. The one thing that can make this post more useful is a debate as to whether Jews need to be "saved""
I deleted it since the line was no longer there after I posted and I thought I was seeing things. Oh well, guess not...
Edit to add: thats why mph's post looks kind of orphaned.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I posted that I thought of the same thing and revised the line at the same time you were posting. Then when I saw you had deleted your comment, I deleted mine. Which apparently left mr_porteiro_head hanging out to dry.
You see, MPH, how we're just being considerate of you?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ela: The post I was referencing was the last post on page 14 of that thread, if you want to look at it. If not, I understand.
"Some Reform synagogues have also made some positive changes in recent years in terms of making their actual observances look more like Judaism to me and less like Jews trying to be like Christians in church."
This change is actually why I've stopped going to synagogue altogether. I can't find a temple I am comfortable at, in large part because far too many temples have decided that (unsure of the proper phrase? christian revival maybe?) is the appropriate attitude for prayer, and to me, thats the last straw. Oh well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what happens when you decide that Judaism is to be decided by vote of a shul board, and not by what it actually is. I know that slipperly slope arguments are out of fashion, but the problem you've run into was sort of inevitable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow, in regards to your original post, I think it might be useful to consider minimizing the reasons you give for your decision. In some cases, reasons only serve as invitations to argue about it further.
In my opinion, it is a ceremony shared with family and friends, but it is indeed your and your fiance's ceremony. Talk to people you trust and respect to be helpful, talk together, make your decision, and then just carry on with it. The important things (again, IMO) are what your decision is and that you love and want to include your mothers on that day. Those points can be emphasized, but consider not giving excuses or reasons if people involved seem to be looking or points of contention.
It feels odd not to give reasons at first -- at least, it always has to me -- but it has a way of stalling out out arguments. Respectful listening and a kind repetition of what your decision is, coupled with an adroit change of subject if possible, can do wonders.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Uprooted, you're right. I did ask. Even though Lisa and I have had (considerable) disagreements in the past, I do respect her as someone very knowledgable in this particular area.
Though, I will also take her responses with the appropriate grain of salt - meaning, I'm not taking offense to them. I have made it a point not to take anything Lisa says too personally.
Oh, I misunderstood what you meant, sorry! And I think that CT's words about not needing to give reasons for your decision are very wise. This will be a pattern for future interactions with family, no doubt, and it sounds like some boundaries with loved ones may need to be set.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:FlyingCow, in regards to your original post, I think it might be useful to consider minimizing the reasons you give for your decision. In some cases, reasons only serve as invitations to argue about it further.
posted
I'm a Reform Jew that married a Methodist and would be happy to give you a bunch of ideas from our wedding if you would like to email me indcluding a neat twist on the unity candle. stephan_n at yahooDOTcom
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that both CT and dkw had some very good advice.
For your own information, I spoke to the woman who runs our parish's Jewish/Catholic partners program. She, as well as being in a Catholic married to a Jew, mentors couples and families as they negotiate honoring each other's traditions. She will do some double checking, but it has never been her experience that anyone other than clergy join the couple under the chupa. She did suggest that the parents might hold the chupa. There may be a ceremonial way of doing that where they wouldn't have to hold it the whole time? Or her parents could do that (honoring one tradition) and yours could light candles (honoring the other)?
My friend also agreed that the focus is not on proper ceremony, but on negotiating the relationship with your new family.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of the "You get to do this once, do it the way that makes you happy, and if necessary tell the kibitzer to back off" camp. I tend to hope that loved ones recognize that their presence at the ceremony is sufficient sign of respect that they shouldn't feel the need to dictate how the ceremony is performed, but I recognize that may be overly optimistic.
God, I was so fortunate that the most our families wanted to do with regard to my wedding was help out!
While Rabbit has a point, if the bride feels like she has been overruled on her special day, I don't think that resentment is likely to be quick to fade either.
Stick together and be firm.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
