By Gary Konecky
On Saturday, December 26, 2009 / Tevet 9, 5770, Jews across the world read the Torah portion of Vayigash during morning services. Vayigash consists of Genesis 44:18 – 47:26. Among other things it recounts Jacob’s family moving to Egypt. Starting in Genesis 46:8, we are given a name by name account of who in Jacob’s family went to Egypt. It is interesting to note that wives of Jacob’s son’s mentioned as going to Egypt in Genesis 46:5 are not named nor counted in this lengthy list.
As bible literalists insist that the plain, literal meaning of the text is all that matters as it is G-d’s word, why this significant omission? Surely, the infallible, all knowing G-d, did not slip up in editing; so my first challenge to you is to explain the literal meaning of this apparent contradiction.
We now come to Genesis 46:26-27: “All the souls coming to Egypt with Jacob, those descended from him, excluding the wives of Jacob's sons, all the souls were sixty six. And Joseph's sons, who were born to him in Egypt, two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy.” - http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8241
All the souls were sixty-six plus Joseph’s two sons equals sixty-eight, yet we are told “all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy.” Since 68 does not equal 70, and an all knowing, infallible G-d would know basic arithmetic, your second challenge is to explain this math error using a literal meaning of the text. As you are restricted to a literal reading of the text, as it is your position that only a literal meaning of the text is the appropriate way to understand scripture, you cannot use names or people other than the sixty-eight mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.
For those who do not believe in the bible literalism, there are extensive commentaries by learned Jewish sages that explain these seeming contradictions. Such explanations draw on the oral Torah, and the Jewish tradition to search for meaning in the word of G-d. For we are taught in:
· Leviticus Rabbah 22:1: “He who loves the study of G-d’s words will not be satisfied with the written Torah, but will go on to the Mishnah and Talmud.”
· Baba Metzia 33: “The Rabbis have taught: ‘Those who study Scripture are scholars of degree, but not a high degree. Those who study Mishnah are scholars of higher degree. Those who study Talmud are scholars of the highest degree.’”
· Sopherim 16: “We read: ‘The L-rd spoke with you faces to faces.’ (Deut. 5:4) The passage does not read ‘pan to pan,’ face to face, but ‘panim le-panim,’ faces to faces. This teaches there are four faces or kinds of Torah: Scripture, Mishnah, Halakah, and Aggadah.” (note 1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The source of the quotes from Leviticus Rabbah, Baba Metzia, and Sopherim is page 467 of The Talmudic Anthology, Tales & Teachings of the Rabbis, edited by Louis I. Newman in collaboration with Samuel Spitz, copyright 1945, published by Behrman House, Inc.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Poverty
By Gary Konecky
Recently, there was an Associated Press story out of London. (note 1) According to the news report, Rev. Tim Jones told parishioners in a recent sermon “that shoplifting can be justified if a person in real need is not greedy and does not take more than he or she really needs to get by. “
The Priest was wrong to say theft is okay. Having said that stealing is wrong, it is a damning indictment of our society when it so reduces the poor to needing to steal to stay alive. Not only should we be ashamed, but also our leaders in business and government who do not give one whit that things have come to this should be ashamed.
For we are taught that: "Just as G-d clothes the naked... so must you clothe the ...naked. The Holy Blessed One visits the sick... so you must also visit the sick. The Holy Blessed One comforts mourners... so must you comfort mourners. The Holy Blessed One buries the dead... so must you bury the dead." - Talmud (Sotah 14a)
Let us also remember: "If all the sufferings and pain in the world were gathered (on one side of the scale) and poverty was on the other side, poverty would outweigh them all." - Exodus Rabbah 31:14
Note 1: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTjAbr5r-50aYmMXrtHSC4I2jjngD9COI1T00
Recently, there was an Associated Press story out of London. (note 1) According to the news report, Rev. Tim Jones told parishioners in a recent sermon “that shoplifting can be justified if a person in real need is not greedy and does not take more than he or she really needs to get by. “
The Priest was wrong to say theft is okay. Having said that stealing is wrong, it is a damning indictment of our society when it so reduces the poor to needing to steal to stay alive. Not only should we be ashamed, but also our leaders in business and government who do not give one whit that things have come to this should be ashamed.
For we are taught that: "Just as G-d clothes the naked... so must you clothe the ...naked. The Holy Blessed One visits the sick... so you must also visit the sick. The Holy Blessed One comforts mourners... so must you comfort mourners. The Holy Blessed One buries the dead... so must you bury the dead." - Talmud (Sotah 14a)
Let us also remember: "If all the sufferings and pain in the world were gathered (on one side of the scale) and poverty was on the other side, poverty would outweigh them all." - Exodus Rabbah 31:14
Note 1: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTjAbr5r-50aYmMXrtHSC4I2jjngD9COI1T00
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Bible: The Word of G-d?
By Gary Konecky
There are those who believe the bible is the word of G-d. There is no doubt in my mind that the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is the word of G-d. That said, I believe Joshua may have written the account of Moses’ death at the end of Deuteronomy.
The problem is that many of those who say the bible is the word of G-d, then cite a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the bible as authority for their beliefs and prejudices. They then act on those beliefs and prejudices to impose their will upon others. There are several scriptural problems with this approach, in addition to the lack of respect for those of differing faith traditions.
The first scriptural problem is that G-d no longer sends us prophets. No one today can speak for G-d, as no one today is a prophet.
Second, I have yet to see an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. The reason for this is very simple. It is impossible to translate Hebrew into English accurately. Hebrew is a very nuanced language in regard to scriptural matters. For example, there are different names for G-d used in the Hebrew Bible. These different names all indicate different attributes of G-d. If we are to properly understand the Almighty and his intent, it would be useful to know what attribute the original Hebrew text is mentioning; just as it is useful to understand the difference between a drizzle and a thunderstorm if one has to go out in the rain.
Another example involves the Hebrew word “et” (also transliterated as “es” or “eth”). Et appears many times in the Hebrew Bible. Et is a word that has no meaning. Yet every time et appears, it alludes to something important, something important yet unspoken. Et is so important it is discussed in the Talmud (Kiddushin 57a). The Talmud is second only to the Bible in the Jewish tradition. This important word, this word so full of meaning that it appears numerous times in the bible as well as being discussed in the Talmud, is not translated into English. How can one know the will of G-d when not all the words of G-d are present?
Third, is the issue of mistranslation. An example of this can be found in the English name for one of the books of the bible, Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy comes from ancient Greek via Latin, with the Greek being a mistranslation of the original Hebrew (note 1). Deuteronomy “literally means 'second law' coming from the Greek words nomos (law) and deutero (second).” (note 2) The problem is not only is this word mistranslated, but its meaning is incorrect as Moses did not merely retell the law in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, Moses also discussed commandments that are given only in Deuteronomy (and that are not given in any of the other books of the Hebrew Bible). If you are giving additional commandments, then you are not merely retelling the law, which is what the name Deuteronomy means.
The Hebrew name for Deuteronomy is “Devarim” meaning “events” and “which can also be translated as ‘words.’” (note 3) It is interesting to note that the Hebrew name provides a very accurate insight into the content of this book of the bible, as this book consists of Moses’ final address to the Jewish people (words); with the address consisting of Moses; explaining the law, recounting the wondering in the desert (events), and providing final instructions for the Jewish people as they enter the Land of Israel upon his passing.
Fourth, there are three different versions of the Ten Commandments. There is the Jewish version, the Protestant version, and the Catholic version. Surely, if the English translation of the bible that is being used were an accurate translation of the word of G-d there would be only one version. It is also worth noting that there are subtle differences in the text of the Hebrew Bible, as the two sets of tablets were slightly different. This raises the question; what is G-d telling us with these two slightly different versions?
Lastly, the Hebrew Bible is filled with instances that cry out for explanation. For example in the account of creation; day and night is created on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. We also have the example of chapter one of Genesis telling us that G-d created man and woman. Yet chapter two of Genesis seemingly contradicts this when the account of the creation of woman is given, thereby implying that woman was not created as stated in chapter one. Another example would be the unusual word choice in Genesis 1:26 which states: “And G-d said: ‘Let us make man.’” Who is the us? Did G-d create man or was it a group undertaking? If creating man was a group undertaking, who are the other members of the group? If G-d created man, why is us used? These few examples are all from the biblical account of creation. In addition to these examples, there are numerous other examples like this throughout the Hebrew Bible.
In conclusion, I believe that part of the Bible is the word of G-d. I also believe only an arrogant fool would think that he or she has the knowledge and the wisdom of the Almighty, and can therefore state with absolute certainty G-d’s intent based upon a literalist reading of a text filled with ambiguity, mistranslations, missing words, and seeming contradictions.
Note 1: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Deuteronomy&gwp=13
Note 2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_Bible_word_Deuteronomy
Note 3: Page 319 of The Torah Anthology / Me’Am Lo’Ez, Book Two, The Patriarchs by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publishing Corp., copyright 1989
There are those who believe the bible is the word of G-d. There is no doubt in my mind that the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is the word of G-d. That said, I believe Joshua may have written the account of Moses’ death at the end of Deuteronomy.
The problem is that many of those who say the bible is the word of G-d, then cite a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the bible as authority for their beliefs and prejudices. They then act on those beliefs and prejudices to impose their will upon others. There are several scriptural problems with this approach, in addition to the lack of respect for those of differing faith traditions.
The first scriptural problem is that G-d no longer sends us prophets. No one today can speak for G-d, as no one today is a prophet.
Second, I have yet to see an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. The reason for this is very simple. It is impossible to translate Hebrew into English accurately. Hebrew is a very nuanced language in regard to scriptural matters. For example, there are different names for G-d used in the Hebrew Bible. These different names all indicate different attributes of G-d. If we are to properly understand the Almighty and his intent, it would be useful to know what attribute the original Hebrew text is mentioning; just as it is useful to understand the difference between a drizzle and a thunderstorm if one has to go out in the rain.
Another example involves the Hebrew word “et” (also transliterated as “es” or “eth”). Et appears many times in the Hebrew Bible. Et is a word that has no meaning. Yet every time et appears, it alludes to something important, something important yet unspoken. Et is so important it is discussed in the Talmud (Kiddushin 57a). The Talmud is second only to the Bible in the Jewish tradition. This important word, this word so full of meaning that it appears numerous times in the bible as well as being discussed in the Talmud, is not translated into English. How can one know the will of G-d when not all the words of G-d are present?
Third, is the issue of mistranslation. An example of this can be found in the English name for one of the books of the bible, Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy comes from ancient Greek via Latin, with the Greek being a mistranslation of the original Hebrew (note 1). Deuteronomy “literally means 'second law' coming from the Greek words nomos (law) and deutero (second).” (note 2) The problem is not only is this word mistranslated, but its meaning is incorrect as Moses did not merely retell the law in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, Moses also discussed commandments that are given only in Deuteronomy (and that are not given in any of the other books of the Hebrew Bible). If you are giving additional commandments, then you are not merely retelling the law, which is what the name Deuteronomy means.
The Hebrew name for Deuteronomy is “Devarim” meaning “events” and “which can also be translated as ‘words.’” (note 3) It is interesting to note that the Hebrew name provides a very accurate insight into the content of this book of the bible, as this book consists of Moses’ final address to the Jewish people (words); with the address consisting of Moses; explaining the law, recounting the wondering in the desert (events), and providing final instructions for the Jewish people as they enter the Land of Israel upon his passing.
Fourth, there are three different versions of the Ten Commandments. There is the Jewish version, the Protestant version, and the Catholic version. Surely, if the English translation of the bible that is being used were an accurate translation of the word of G-d there would be only one version. It is also worth noting that there are subtle differences in the text of the Hebrew Bible, as the two sets of tablets were slightly different. This raises the question; what is G-d telling us with these two slightly different versions?
Lastly, the Hebrew Bible is filled with instances that cry out for explanation. For example in the account of creation; day and night is created on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. We also have the example of chapter one of Genesis telling us that G-d created man and woman. Yet chapter two of Genesis seemingly contradicts this when the account of the creation of woman is given, thereby implying that woman was not created as stated in chapter one. Another example would be the unusual word choice in Genesis 1:26 which states: “And G-d said: ‘Let us make man.’” Who is the us? Did G-d create man or was it a group undertaking? If creating man was a group undertaking, who are the other members of the group? If G-d created man, why is us used? These few examples are all from the biblical account of creation. In addition to these examples, there are numerous other examples like this throughout the Hebrew Bible.
In conclusion, I believe that part of the Bible is the word of G-d. I also believe only an arrogant fool would think that he or she has the knowledge and the wisdom of the Almighty, and can therefore state with absolute certainty G-d’s intent based upon a literalist reading of a text filled with ambiguity, mistranslations, missing words, and seeming contradictions.
Note 1: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Deuteronomy&gwp=13
Note 2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_Bible_word_Deuteronomy
Note 3: Page 319 of The Torah Anthology / Me’Am Lo’Ez, Book Two, The Patriarchs by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publishing Corp., copyright 1989
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Talking Nonsense
By Gary Konecky
"Not everything that is thought should be said. And not everything that is said should be repeated. And not everything that is repeated should be remembered." - Rabbi Israel Salanter
We recently had extensive coverage of Tiger Woods and his extramarital affairs. What good was done by all this talk? Do we really need to know his intimate affairs? Does whom he slept with or details of his marriage affect our lives? Would we have been better off if something useful was discussed instead?
Several months ago Bernie Madoff was in the news and we again had extensive media coverage of details involving him and his family. Yet the larger issue of how the government has repeatedly failed to protect the American public from financial fraud after financial fraud (Enron, TYCO, MCI WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, et. al.) was not reported nor discussed. Wouldn’t reporting about the government turning a blind eye to financial fraud been more useful?
Recently, in comments on one of my blogs, I was attacked by so called religious people. I was called a sinner. I had bible verses thrown at me. Did this do anyone any good? What is fueling their hate and anger and what gives them the right to lash out at others? How does any of this benefit society? Whatever happened to: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)?
Nor is the problem of inappropriate speech a new problem. In chapter 22 of Samuel I, we learn the Doeg the Edomite told Saul about Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. Ahimelech was the priest who was unaware of Saul’s hatred of David and who innocently aided David. Doeg’s tale baring resulted not only in the death of Ahimelech, but it also resulted in Nob, the city of the priests, being smote with the sharp edge of the sword, both man and woman, infant and suckling, and ox and ass, and lamb. The lesson for us is that people sometimes die when we say things we should not say. Least anyone think I am exaggerating, let us remember not so many years ago when those so-called religious people opposed any funding of AIDS research saying; “AIDS was G-d’s wrath.”
We also have some interesting teachings from the Talmud. In Sukkah 49b we are taught that performing charity and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than offering sacrifices. In Shekalim 15a, we learn: "Everyone was gossiping about Zecharyah, the son-in-law of R’ Levi, saying that he does not need to take charity, but he nevertheless takes. When he died, they investigated, and found that he was distributing it all to others, who were needy, but were too embarrassed to take themselves."
How much harm does our needless talk cause? How many times do we open our mouths because we are absolutely convinced we know something, only to find out that we knew nothing, as in the case of those who gossiped about Zecharyah?
In Pirkei Avot 1:17, we are taught: “Shimon his son said: All my days have I grown up among the wise and I have not found anything better for a man than silence.” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Talmud/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin_Damages_/Pirkei_Avot/Chapter_One.shtml
How much of our talk serves no useful purpose? How many times would our silence be wiser than our speech? Perhaps we should think before we open our mouths. Perhaps we should weigh our words with care. Perhaps we should speak only when we have something, something truly useful, to say.
"Not everything that is thought should be said. And not everything that is said should be repeated. And not everything that is repeated should be remembered." - Rabbi Israel Salanter
We recently had extensive coverage of Tiger Woods and his extramarital affairs. What good was done by all this talk? Do we really need to know his intimate affairs? Does whom he slept with or details of his marriage affect our lives? Would we have been better off if something useful was discussed instead?
Several months ago Bernie Madoff was in the news and we again had extensive media coverage of details involving him and his family. Yet the larger issue of how the government has repeatedly failed to protect the American public from financial fraud after financial fraud (Enron, TYCO, MCI WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, et. al.) was not reported nor discussed. Wouldn’t reporting about the government turning a blind eye to financial fraud been more useful?
Recently, in comments on one of my blogs, I was attacked by so called religious people. I was called a sinner. I had bible verses thrown at me. Did this do anyone any good? What is fueling their hate and anger and what gives them the right to lash out at others? How does any of this benefit society? Whatever happened to: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)?
Nor is the problem of inappropriate speech a new problem. In chapter 22 of Samuel I, we learn the Doeg the Edomite told Saul about Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. Ahimelech was the priest who was unaware of Saul’s hatred of David and who innocently aided David. Doeg’s tale baring resulted not only in the death of Ahimelech, but it also resulted in Nob, the city of the priests, being smote with the sharp edge of the sword, both man and woman, infant and suckling, and ox and ass, and lamb. The lesson for us is that people sometimes die when we say things we should not say. Least anyone think I am exaggerating, let us remember not so many years ago when those so-called religious people opposed any funding of AIDS research saying; “AIDS was G-d’s wrath.”
We also have some interesting teachings from the Talmud. In Sukkah 49b we are taught that performing charity and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than offering sacrifices. In Shekalim 15a, we learn: "Everyone was gossiping about Zecharyah, the son-in-law of R’ Levi, saying that he does not need to take charity, but he nevertheless takes. When he died, they investigated, and found that he was distributing it all to others, who were needy, but were too embarrassed to take themselves."
How much harm does our needless talk cause? How many times do we open our mouths because we are absolutely convinced we know something, only to find out that we knew nothing, as in the case of those who gossiped about Zecharyah?
In Pirkei Avot 1:17, we are taught: “Shimon his son said: All my days have I grown up among the wise and I have not found anything better for a man than silence.” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Talmud/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin_Damages_/Pirkei_Avot/Chapter_One.shtml
How much of our talk serves no useful purpose? How many times would our silence be wiser than our speech? Perhaps we should think before we open our mouths. Perhaps we should weigh our words with care. Perhaps we should speak only when we have something, something truly useful, to say.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Same Sex Marriage
By Gary Konecky
I recently had the wonderful privilege to participate on a very distinguished panel of clergy that discussed the issue of sexual orientation and scripture. One of the audience members asked a question that attempted to link the ban in Leviticus on homosexuality to the ban in Leviticus on bestiality. Several panel members addressed this question. Then the audience member asked it again, which I take as unwillingness to listen or to accept the pro-gay explanation that was offered.
This brings up several issues, one of which is why deliberately misinterpret scripture? The ban in Leviticus is not a ban on all homosexual expression. A literal reading of scripture clearly indicates that it is referring to male homosexuality (not lesbianism) and it appears to not be banning all male homosexual sex acts. Therefore, we can already conclude these two verses are not the ban that this person was claiming which leaves us with the question of why deliberately misinterpret scripture?
The next issue is the ridiculous argument against same sex marriage that the religious right and bible thumping bigots make. This is the slippery slope argument that somehow marriage is so fragile that it needs to be an excusive club for heterosexuals only. Implied in this argument is the premise that only heterosexuals are capable of loving each other and that homosexuals do not form loving relationships but only rut around like farm animals. I would like to point out that I have never heard of any cleric who was approached by two farm animals that wanted to be married. Furthermore, an approximately 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals seems to indicate that heterosexuals have done far more harm to marriage than any gay or lesbian person could ever do.
Another problem with this argument by religious fundamentalists and bigots is that it equates a committed relationship between two consenting adults to a sex act involving sheep. Recently, my lover of 19 years and I went for a walk in a local park. This was the first time that we had walked in that park in many years without our pet dog (who had died earlier this year). How can any sane individual equate 19 years of for richer and poorer, in sickness and in health, to sex with a pet dog? Much as we loved the dog, no one ever had sex with her. How does one equate the worry about a sick lover who is in the hospital with a sex act involving an animal? What type of sick individual would equate 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years of two adults in a committed relationship to a sex act involving an a cow? How could anyone in their right mind equate an intimate loving walk in a park by two adults with a sex act involving a donkey? Yet that is what this audience member did and that is what members of the clergy taught him.
Why is that when two heterosexuals walk in public with their children, children that are the product of heterosexual sexual intercourse, they are not flaunting their sexuality; yet if two men walk down the street holding hands they are flaunting their sexuality? Why is it that those who oppose equality for gays and lesbians can only think of gays and lesbians in terms of what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? Does anyone think that gays and lesbians have such great sex that they would go through all the trials and tribulations of a committed relationship for a quickie?
Those who oppose same sex marriage are at best uneducated and are blatant hate mongering bigots at worst. In either event, they use ridiculous, completely bogus arguments to oppose same sex marriage. Same sex marriage will not lead to incest any more than heterosexual marriage does. Same sex marriage will not lead to people marrying their pets. Same sex marriage will not lead to pedophilia. There is no way that two loving adults in a committed relationship can be a threat to anyone’s marriage. To say any of these other things is to tell a lie. All these arguments against same sex marriage are bogus, they are all red herrings designed to distract people from the real issue.
As for the pedophilia argument, I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, that has spent millions of dollars opposing any civil rights for gays and lesbians, is known for a worldwide series of pedophilia scandals.
The there are those who claim that same sex relationships are unnatural. They make this argument despite a massive body of scientific evidence that proves that homosexuality is a natural behavior common to all mammals.
Then there is the bible literalist interpretation that says homosexuality is a sin. To which Rev. Mel White replies: “Even when we believe the Scriptures are ‘infallible’ or ‘without error,’ it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words -- with tragic results.”
Leviticus Rabbah 22:1 teaches us: “He who loves the study of G-d’s words will not be satisfied with the written Torah, but will go on to the Mishnah and Talmud.” In Baba Metzia 33, we are told: “The Rabbis have taught: ‘Those who study Scripture are scholars of degree, but not a high degree. Those who study Mishnah are scholars of higher degree. Those who study Talmud are scholars of the highest degree.’” Lastly, according to Sopherim 16; “We read: ‘The L-rd spoke with you faces to faces.’ (Deut. 5:4) The passage does not read ‘pan to pan,’ face to face, but ‘panim le-panim,’ faces to faces. This teaches there are four faces or kinds of Torah: Scripture, Mishnah, Halakah, and Aggadah.” In Pirkei Avot 5:21, we are taught: “HE USED TO SAY: FIVE YEARS [IS THE AGE] FOR [THE STUDY OF] SCRIPTURE, TEN-FOR [THE STUDY OF] MISHNAH, THIRTEEN-FOR [BECOMING SUBJECT TO] COMMANDMENTS, FIFTEEN-FOR [THE STUDY OF] TALMUD…” (see note)
The real issue of same sex marriage is about love, as in two adults who care for each other more than they care for life itself. It is about giving two people (who love and want to care for each other) the tools needed so that they can love and care for each other. Such a love should be cherished and strengthened by society. Such a love should not be open to public debate. Such a love should not be the subject of political campaigns. Such a love should not be subjected to being voted on. Such a love should not be subjected to the whims of a “majority”. Such a love should not be made contingent on the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, nor the approval of the Mormons, nor the approval of fundamentalist “Christians,” nor the approval of Muslims, nor the approval of Orthodox Jews. Such a commitment should be the providence of the two people who G-d has blessed so that they were able to find each other and to love each other. Let us remember that one of the greatest curses is that of loneliness and that one of the greatest tragedies is to die alone and unloved.
Civil marriage is about strengthening the bonds of love and giving two adults in a committed relationship the tools needed to take care of each other. Those tools being health insurance (which many employers provide for married employees and their spouses), hospital visitation rights (which are frequently restricted to family members), immigration rights (so as not to break up a loving relationship because one person was not born here), the right to bury ones spouse (which does not include mere lovers or mere domestic partners) and finally the right to inherit property (which again does not include lovers or domestic partners). How dare anyone attempt to interfere in such a personal and intimate relationship? How dare anyone interfere in such a loving relationship with the goal of destroying such a relationship? How dare anyone liken such a caring relationship to a sex act with an animal? How dare anyone call loving and caring for another person a sin?
----------------
Note: The quote from Pirkei Avot is in all caps as the quote is a mishnah, To distinguish mishnah from gemara, some publishers print the mishnah in all caps when it is printed in English. The source of the quote is The Soncino Talmud , Judaic Classics by David Kantrowitz, Version 3.0.8, Copyright 1991-2004.
I recently had the wonderful privilege to participate on a very distinguished panel of clergy that discussed the issue of sexual orientation and scripture. One of the audience members asked a question that attempted to link the ban in Leviticus on homosexuality to the ban in Leviticus on bestiality. Several panel members addressed this question. Then the audience member asked it again, which I take as unwillingness to listen or to accept the pro-gay explanation that was offered.
This brings up several issues, one of which is why deliberately misinterpret scripture? The ban in Leviticus is not a ban on all homosexual expression. A literal reading of scripture clearly indicates that it is referring to male homosexuality (not lesbianism) and it appears to not be banning all male homosexual sex acts. Therefore, we can already conclude these two verses are not the ban that this person was claiming which leaves us with the question of why deliberately misinterpret scripture?
The next issue is the ridiculous argument against same sex marriage that the religious right and bible thumping bigots make. This is the slippery slope argument that somehow marriage is so fragile that it needs to be an excusive club for heterosexuals only. Implied in this argument is the premise that only heterosexuals are capable of loving each other and that homosexuals do not form loving relationships but only rut around like farm animals. I would like to point out that I have never heard of any cleric who was approached by two farm animals that wanted to be married. Furthermore, an approximately 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals seems to indicate that heterosexuals have done far more harm to marriage than any gay or lesbian person could ever do.
Another problem with this argument by religious fundamentalists and bigots is that it equates a committed relationship between two consenting adults to a sex act involving sheep. Recently, my lover of 19 years and I went for a walk in a local park. This was the first time that we had walked in that park in many years without our pet dog (who had died earlier this year). How can any sane individual equate 19 years of for richer and poorer, in sickness and in health, to sex with a pet dog? Much as we loved the dog, no one ever had sex with her. How does one equate the worry about a sick lover who is in the hospital with a sex act involving an animal? What type of sick individual would equate 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years of two adults in a committed relationship to a sex act involving an a cow? How could anyone in their right mind equate an intimate loving walk in a park by two adults with a sex act involving a donkey? Yet that is what this audience member did and that is what members of the clergy taught him.
Why is that when two heterosexuals walk in public with their children, children that are the product of heterosexual sexual intercourse, they are not flaunting their sexuality; yet if two men walk down the street holding hands they are flaunting their sexuality? Why is it that those who oppose equality for gays and lesbians can only think of gays and lesbians in terms of what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? Does anyone think that gays and lesbians have such great sex that they would go through all the trials and tribulations of a committed relationship for a quickie?
Those who oppose same sex marriage are at best uneducated and are blatant hate mongering bigots at worst. In either event, they use ridiculous, completely bogus arguments to oppose same sex marriage. Same sex marriage will not lead to incest any more than heterosexual marriage does. Same sex marriage will not lead to people marrying their pets. Same sex marriage will not lead to pedophilia. There is no way that two loving adults in a committed relationship can be a threat to anyone’s marriage. To say any of these other things is to tell a lie. All these arguments against same sex marriage are bogus, they are all red herrings designed to distract people from the real issue.
As for the pedophilia argument, I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, that has spent millions of dollars opposing any civil rights for gays and lesbians, is known for a worldwide series of pedophilia scandals.
The there are those who claim that same sex relationships are unnatural. They make this argument despite a massive body of scientific evidence that proves that homosexuality is a natural behavior common to all mammals.
Then there is the bible literalist interpretation that says homosexuality is a sin. To which Rev. Mel White replies: “Even when we believe the Scriptures are ‘infallible’ or ‘without error,’ it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words -- with tragic results.”
Leviticus Rabbah 22:1 teaches us: “He who loves the study of G-d’s words will not be satisfied with the written Torah, but will go on to the Mishnah and Talmud.” In Baba Metzia 33, we are told: “The Rabbis have taught: ‘Those who study Scripture are scholars of degree, but not a high degree. Those who study Mishnah are scholars of higher degree. Those who study Talmud are scholars of the highest degree.’” Lastly, according to Sopherim 16; “We read: ‘The L-rd spoke with you faces to faces.’ (Deut. 5:4) The passage does not read ‘pan to pan,’ face to face, but ‘panim le-panim,’ faces to faces. This teaches there are four faces or kinds of Torah: Scripture, Mishnah, Halakah, and Aggadah.” In Pirkei Avot 5:21, we are taught: “HE USED TO SAY: FIVE YEARS [IS THE AGE] FOR [THE STUDY OF] SCRIPTURE, TEN-FOR [THE STUDY OF] MISHNAH, THIRTEEN-FOR [BECOMING SUBJECT TO] COMMANDMENTS, FIFTEEN-FOR [THE STUDY OF] TALMUD…” (see note)
The real issue of same sex marriage is about love, as in two adults who care for each other more than they care for life itself. It is about giving two people (who love and want to care for each other) the tools needed so that they can love and care for each other. Such a love should be cherished and strengthened by society. Such a love should not be open to public debate. Such a love should not be the subject of political campaigns. Such a love should not be subjected to being voted on. Such a love should not be subjected to the whims of a “majority”. Such a love should not be made contingent on the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, nor the approval of the Mormons, nor the approval of fundamentalist “Christians,” nor the approval of Muslims, nor the approval of Orthodox Jews. Such a commitment should be the providence of the two people who G-d has blessed so that they were able to find each other and to love each other. Let us remember that one of the greatest curses is that of loneliness and that one of the greatest tragedies is to die alone and unloved.
Civil marriage is about strengthening the bonds of love and giving two adults in a committed relationship the tools needed to take care of each other. Those tools being health insurance (which many employers provide for married employees and their spouses), hospital visitation rights (which are frequently restricted to family members), immigration rights (so as not to break up a loving relationship because one person was not born here), the right to bury ones spouse (which does not include mere lovers or mere domestic partners) and finally the right to inherit property (which again does not include lovers or domestic partners). How dare anyone attempt to interfere in such a personal and intimate relationship? How dare anyone interfere in such a loving relationship with the goal of destroying such a relationship? How dare anyone liken such a caring relationship to a sex act with an animal? How dare anyone call loving and caring for another person a sin?
----------------
Note: The quote from Pirkei Avot is in all caps as the quote is a mishnah, To distinguish mishnah from gemara, some publishers print the mishnah in all caps when it is printed in English. The source of the quote is The Soncino Talmud , Judaic Classics by David Kantrowitz, Version 3.0.8, Copyright 1991-2004.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sermon: The Burning Palace
By Gary Konecky
In Genesis 12:1, G-d tells Abraham to leave his father’s house and journey to a destination that G-d will show him. In the Midrash of the Burning Palace (Genesis Rabbah 39:10), we learn that as Abraham journeys, he passes a burning palace. Abraham wonders is it possible that the palace does not have an owner? Is it possible that the owner built a beautiful palace, only to abandon it and let it be consumed by fire? Abraham then sees someone in a palace window. Abraham asks if he owns the palace. The owner says that he is the owner of the palace. The owner does not make any attempt to flee the fire nor to put out the flames. He merely states that he is the owner of the palace. What does this mean?
The meaning of this midrash is that as Abraham contemplated the world, G-d’s creation, a creation rich in miracles and wonders; from childbirth, to crops and food to eat, to spectacular sunrises and sunsets, to beautiful flowers, to the miracle of life itself; it is as if G-d built a palace. Yet the palace is in flames; the flames of injustice, war, terrorism, greed, rape, looting, plunder and murder. Abraham wonders, as do many of us, did G-d create all this only to abandon it? G-d answers from the burning palace that he is the owner.
What does G-d mean by this? G-d’s answer is: “ I am the ruler, Sovereign of the universe.” While this is a factual statement, the meaning is not clear to us, nor was it clear to Abraham. Remember the palace is in flames; G-d’s creation is being destroyed by man.
Abraham wonders how this could be happening. Why did G-d let man destroy His creation? Why would G-d abandon His creation, the palace? G-d replies, “I am the owner of the palace, I am Sovereign of the universe.”
Abraham is asking G-d why He abandoned his creation. G-d replies by asking Abraham why did we abandon G-d? G-d gave us free will, and we used that free will to set fire to G-d’s palace. Because of G-d giving us free will, G-d cannot put out the fire consuming His palace. Therefore, G-d is asking Abraham, and us, to help Him by putting out the fire.
And so we come to our mission; to extinguish the fires of immorality and injustice. It is our mission to be appalled by evil man has wrought upon G-d’s creation. To help guide us in the fulfillment of our mission, we come to this teaching from the Talmud (Sotah 14a ): “Just as G-d clothes the naked... so must you clothe the naked. The Holy Blessed One visits the sick... so you must also visit the sick. The Holy Blessed One comforts mourners... so must you comfort mourners. The Holy Blessed One buries the dead... so must you bury the dead.” Let us also remember what we are told in Micah 6:8: “…what the L-rd demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your G-d.”
May we all have the wisdom to use our free will to choose wisely and compassionately. May we use our lives to help to put out the fire of the burning palace.
I am indebted to Rabbi Yosef Y. Jacobson for his keen insights into this important midrash.
In Genesis 12:1, G-d tells Abraham to leave his father’s house and journey to a destination that G-d will show him. In the Midrash of the Burning Palace (Genesis Rabbah 39:10), we learn that as Abraham journeys, he passes a burning palace. Abraham wonders is it possible that the palace does not have an owner? Is it possible that the owner built a beautiful palace, only to abandon it and let it be consumed by fire? Abraham then sees someone in a palace window. Abraham asks if he owns the palace. The owner says that he is the owner of the palace. The owner does not make any attempt to flee the fire nor to put out the flames. He merely states that he is the owner of the palace. What does this mean?
The meaning of this midrash is that as Abraham contemplated the world, G-d’s creation, a creation rich in miracles and wonders; from childbirth, to crops and food to eat, to spectacular sunrises and sunsets, to beautiful flowers, to the miracle of life itself; it is as if G-d built a palace. Yet the palace is in flames; the flames of injustice, war, terrorism, greed, rape, looting, plunder and murder. Abraham wonders, as do many of us, did G-d create all this only to abandon it? G-d answers from the burning palace that he is the owner.
What does G-d mean by this? G-d’s answer is: “ I am the ruler, Sovereign of the universe.” While this is a factual statement, the meaning is not clear to us, nor was it clear to Abraham. Remember the palace is in flames; G-d’s creation is being destroyed by man.
Abraham wonders how this could be happening. Why did G-d let man destroy His creation? Why would G-d abandon His creation, the palace? G-d replies, “I am the owner of the palace, I am Sovereign of the universe.”
Abraham is asking G-d why He abandoned his creation. G-d replies by asking Abraham why did we abandon G-d? G-d gave us free will, and we used that free will to set fire to G-d’s palace. Because of G-d giving us free will, G-d cannot put out the fire consuming His palace. Therefore, G-d is asking Abraham, and us, to help Him by putting out the fire.
And so we come to our mission; to extinguish the fires of immorality and injustice. It is our mission to be appalled by evil man has wrought upon G-d’s creation. To help guide us in the fulfillment of our mission, we come to this teaching from the Talmud (Sotah 14a ): “Just as G-d clothes the naked... so must you clothe the naked. The Holy Blessed One visits the sick... so you must also visit the sick. The Holy Blessed One comforts mourners... so must you comfort mourners. The Holy Blessed One buries the dead... so must you bury the dead.” Let us also remember what we are told in Micah 6:8: “…what the L-rd demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your G-d.”
May we all have the wisdom to use our free will to choose wisely and compassionately. May we use our lives to help to put out the fire of the burning palace.
I am indebted to Rabbi Yosef Y. Jacobson for his keen insights into this important midrash.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Shame On These Rabbis
By Gary Konecky
I am appalled that Jews who would team up with world class Jew haters to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It is stunts like this (baseless hatred) that is the reason we still do not have the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
Additionally, there is something fundamentally immoral about victims of
discrimination demanding that the government practice discrimination.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and his fellow travelers (including Orthodox Union and the Jewish ghetto in Monsey, NY), need to explain to me, a fellow Jew, how economic insecurity resulting from not having adequate health insurance, not having the right to inherit property (G-d forbid my lover predeceases me), and so on strengthens the Jewish community.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and all his fellow travelers need to explain to me
how economically hurting people, how discriminating against the stranger, how demanding the government enforce social policies akin to those of Sodom is in accordance with Jewish teaching.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and his fellow travelers have decided to live in
a ghetto of their own making in Lakewood, and now these bigots need to go back to their ghetto in Lakewood and get out of my house and my intimate relationships.
However, as they have raised the issue of public policy, I feel it is now appropriate to ask how many Jews reproduce like rabbits and have so many children that they cannot afford to support them resulting in these families being on welfare? How many of these Jews have families so large that they do not pay income taxes on six figure incomes? If you are on the public dole, or if you do not pay income taxes, you have a huge amount of chutzpah telling us, the gays and lesbians who pay the taxes that support your irresponsible sex lives and resulting children, that we should be denied their civil rights.
Furthermore, “'This really hurts us,' said Rabbi Osher Lieberman." How does it hurt you? How does my having a mature, monogamous, loving relationship with a consenting adult hurt you? How?
Speaking on the subject of hurt, how many gays and lesbians will be the victims of hate crimes because of your bigotry. How much blood will you and all your fellow travelers be responsible for spilling when the Hebrew Bible tells you that you should not stand by while your fellow's blood is being shed. The Misnah teaches us “Whoever saves one life, it is as if he saved the entire world.” We also know the converse of this is true. So I ask you as bigoted Jews, how many worlds are you destroying to enshrine your bigotry into law?
Lastly, Rabbi Osher Lieberman, you and your fellow travelers owe every single gay and lesbian an apology for holding their personal lives up to public ridicule and name-calling.
Rabbis, heterosexuals join NJ gay marriage debate
By GEOFF MULVIHILL (AP) – December 1, 2009
LAKEWOOD, N.J. — The leaders in the local large Orthodox Jewish community go to great lengths to keep out the outside world, discouraging nonbusiness use of the Internet and encouraging strict filters to keep the ungodly out when members must use the Web.
But last month, several rabbis and other elders did something astounding for them: They took a public stand on a political issue, declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage in the state.
"This really hurts us," said Rabbi Osher Lieberman, a key figure in the community in the suburbs about 30 miles east of Trenton. "To say (it's) immoral is not enough."
He said community members are being encouraged to do whatever they can to make sure lawmakers don't vote to recognize gay marriage.
In a state that leans a bit left, the conservative rabbis are one of a handful of groups taking a passionate — and maybe surprising — role in a debate that's likely to be decided by January. The newly political rabbis have joined a coalition including Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals and some black and Latino leaders.
The other side of the debate, anchored by a well-organized, well-connected gay rights group, is getting a boost from heterosexual liberals.
When Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial election last month, it gave gay-rights activists more urgency to try to achieve their long-held goal of getting a same-sex marriage bill through the Legislature before Christie takes office Jan. 19.
The reason is simple: Corzine supports the bill. Christie says he would veto it.
If it's not passed by the end of the legislative session, that means the window will close for now on New Jersey joining Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut as the only states to recognize gay marriage.
Democratic lawmakers have been wrangling over whether the matter will get a debate in the Legislature. Most party leaders say they won't bring it up unless it looks as though it will pass.
Gay-rights supporters and social conservatives alike have been lobbying lawmakers, though it's a debate that doesn't seem to be enrapturing the state as a whole. Two polls last month found the public is divided over the issue. One found narrow support, the other narrow opposition.
But the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, which found support, also showed that most residents think the issue is not a big deal.
It is a big deal to Betty Wyka, a museum employee from Parsippany who has long supported same-sex marriage. In February, she started volunteering for Garden State Equality, the state's main gay-rights group. Steven Goldstein, the chairman of the group, says that as a straight woman Wyka is typical of a new volunteer.
Wyka said she joined partly to counter a claim that gay-marriage opponents often make: that allowing gay couples to wed will make society value traditional marriages less.
"I got sick of hearing that same-sex marriage is going to impact my marriage. That's a bunch of hooey," she said. "It's a civil rights issue."
Lakewood's Orthodox community is mostly isolated from the rest of society. The men wear long beards, white shirts, black suits and black hats, and women are not nearly as visible as men. The community was founded in 1942 by a rabbinic leader who fled Poland and the Holocaust. It's now home to some 10,000 Orthodox families and the rabbinical school, which has more than 5,000 students.
Before last month's election, rabbis allowed distribution of a voting guide from the socially conservative New Jersey Family Policy Council. While religious institutions would not be required to marry gay couples, some say their religious freedom could be squeezed by permitting something they say runs against their beliefs.
Orthodox Jews, like many Christians, look to the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, which many interpret as saying that homosexuality is immoral.
A group of Lakewood community leaders granted an interview with an Associated Press reporter — a rarity and part of the effort to become involved in the push against gay marriage. The leaders said they're taking their position public because in the Internet age more information about the broader world is flowing into their community.
The large Orthodox community is not the first to speak out against the prospect of gay marriage. Last year, the New York-based Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America made a public statement in favor of California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage there months after a court allowed it.
And leaders in Lakewood say they received political guidance from some in the Orthodox Jewish community in Monsey, N.Y. In New York, the state Assembly already has passed a law to allow gay marriage, and the Senate is considering whether to follow.
Orthodox Jews traditionally have been regular voters who oppose candidates who support abortion rights and gay rights, said Yaakov S. Ariel, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"The visible part is what's new," Ariel said. "The opinions and the support of candidates is not new."
What's especially troubling to some in Lakewood is not just that New Jersey might recognize same-sex marriages but that Orthodox Jews would be more likely now than in the past to know about it — and think that it's OK to be gay.
"These type of laws bring an exposure to our community," Rabbi Aaron Sarscher said.
And that's why there's a new voice in the debate.
"I really don't believe in getting involved in government," said another community leader, David Sofer. "But when an issue is so dangerous, you have to stop it."
I am appalled that Jews who would team up with world class Jew haters to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It is stunts like this (baseless hatred) that is the reason we still do not have the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
Additionally, there is something fundamentally immoral about victims of
discrimination demanding that the government practice discrimination.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and his fellow travelers (including Orthodox Union and the Jewish ghetto in Monsey, NY), need to explain to me, a fellow Jew, how economic insecurity resulting from not having adequate health insurance, not having the right to inherit property (G-d forbid my lover predeceases me), and so on strengthens the Jewish community.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and all his fellow travelers need to explain to me
how economically hurting people, how discriminating against the stranger, how demanding the government enforce social policies akin to those of Sodom is in accordance with Jewish teaching.
Rabbi Osher Lieberman and his fellow travelers have decided to live in
a ghetto of their own making in Lakewood, and now these bigots need to go back to their ghetto in Lakewood and get out of my house and my intimate relationships.
However, as they have raised the issue of public policy, I feel it is now appropriate to ask how many Jews reproduce like rabbits and have so many children that they cannot afford to support them resulting in these families being on welfare? How many of these Jews have families so large that they do not pay income taxes on six figure incomes? If you are on the public dole, or if you do not pay income taxes, you have a huge amount of chutzpah telling us, the gays and lesbians who pay the taxes that support your irresponsible sex lives and resulting children, that we should be denied their civil rights.
Furthermore, “'This really hurts us,' said Rabbi Osher Lieberman." How does it hurt you? How does my having a mature, monogamous, loving relationship with a consenting adult hurt you? How?
Speaking on the subject of hurt, how many gays and lesbians will be the victims of hate crimes because of your bigotry. How much blood will you and all your fellow travelers be responsible for spilling when the Hebrew Bible tells you that you should not stand by while your fellow's blood is being shed. The Misnah teaches us “Whoever saves one life, it is as if he saved the entire world.” We also know the converse of this is true. So I ask you as bigoted Jews, how many worlds are you destroying to enshrine your bigotry into law?
Lastly, Rabbi Osher Lieberman, you and your fellow travelers owe every single gay and lesbian an apology for holding their personal lives up to public ridicule and name-calling.
Rabbis, heterosexuals join NJ gay marriage debate
By GEOFF MULVIHILL (AP) – December 1, 2009
LAKEWOOD, N.J. — The leaders in the local large Orthodox Jewish community go to great lengths to keep out the outside world, discouraging nonbusiness use of the Internet and encouraging strict filters to keep the ungodly out when members must use the Web.
But last month, several rabbis and other elders did something astounding for them: They took a public stand on a political issue, declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage in the state.
"This really hurts us," said Rabbi Osher Lieberman, a key figure in the community in the suburbs about 30 miles east of Trenton. "To say (it's) immoral is not enough."
He said community members are being encouraged to do whatever they can to make sure lawmakers don't vote to recognize gay marriage.
In a state that leans a bit left, the conservative rabbis are one of a handful of groups taking a passionate — and maybe surprising — role in a debate that's likely to be decided by January. The newly political rabbis have joined a coalition including Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals and some black and Latino leaders.
The other side of the debate, anchored by a well-organized, well-connected gay rights group, is getting a boost from heterosexual liberals.
When Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial election last month, it gave gay-rights activists more urgency to try to achieve their long-held goal of getting a same-sex marriage bill through the Legislature before Christie takes office Jan. 19.
The reason is simple: Corzine supports the bill. Christie says he would veto it.
If it's not passed by the end of the legislative session, that means the window will close for now on New Jersey joining Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut as the only states to recognize gay marriage.
Democratic lawmakers have been wrangling over whether the matter will get a debate in the Legislature. Most party leaders say they won't bring it up unless it looks as though it will pass.
Gay-rights supporters and social conservatives alike have been lobbying lawmakers, though it's a debate that doesn't seem to be enrapturing the state as a whole. Two polls last month found the public is divided over the issue. One found narrow support, the other narrow opposition.
But the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, which found support, also showed that most residents think the issue is not a big deal.
It is a big deal to Betty Wyka, a museum employee from Parsippany who has long supported same-sex marriage. In February, she started volunteering for Garden State Equality, the state's main gay-rights group. Steven Goldstein, the chairman of the group, says that as a straight woman Wyka is typical of a new volunteer.
Wyka said she joined partly to counter a claim that gay-marriage opponents often make: that allowing gay couples to wed will make society value traditional marriages less.
"I got sick of hearing that same-sex marriage is going to impact my marriage. That's a bunch of hooey," she said. "It's a civil rights issue."
Lakewood's Orthodox community is mostly isolated from the rest of society. The men wear long beards, white shirts, black suits and black hats, and women are not nearly as visible as men. The community was founded in 1942 by a rabbinic leader who fled Poland and the Holocaust. It's now home to some 10,000 Orthodox families and the rabbinical school, which has more than 5,000 students.
Before last month's election, rabbis allowed distribution of a voting guide from the socially conservative New Jersey Family Policy Council. While religious institutions would not be required to marry gay couples, some say their religious freedom could be squeezed by permitting something they say runs against their beliefs.
Orthodox Jews, like many Christians, look to the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, which many interpret as saying that homosexuality is immoral.
A group of Lakewood community leaders granted an interview with an Associated Press reporter — a rarity and part of the effort to become involved in the push against gay marriage. The leaders said they're taking their position public because in the Internet age more information about the broader world is flowing into their community.
The large Orthodox community is not the first to speak out against the prospect of gay marriage. Last year, the New York-based Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America made a public statement in favor of California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage there months after a court allowed it.
And leaders in Lakewood say they received political guidance from some in the Orthodox Jewish community in Monsey, N.Y. In New York, the state Assembly already has passed a law to allow gay marriage, and the Senate is considering whether to follow.
Orthodox Jews traditionally have been regular voters who oppose candidates who support abortion rights and gay rights, said Yaakov S. Ariel, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"The visible part is what's new," Ariel said. "The opinions and the support of candidates is not new."
What's especially troubling to some in Lakewood is not just that New Jersey might recognize same-sex marriages but that Orthodox Jews would be more likely now than in the past to know about it — and think that it's OK to be gay.
"These type of laws bring an exposure to our community," Rabbi Aaron Sarscher said.
And that's why there's a new voice in the debate.
"I really don't believe in getting involved in government," said another community leader, David Sofer. "But when an issue is so dangerous, you have to stop it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
