By Gary Konecky
In the United States, we have two forms of marriage.
The first is civil marriage. Civil marriage is a legal contract between the people getting married and it is governed by the laws of the various jurisdictions that make-up the United States. This is the reason that even if you are being married in a house of worship you must first get a marriage license. This is also the reason that in the unfortunate event of divorce (regardless of your religion) you must go to court to be issued a divorce decree.
The second is religious marriage, which is governed by the laws, rules, and traditions of the various faiths. As the Untied States has a separation of church and state, the government allows clergy of all faith traditions to marry people. When a member of the clergy performs a wedding, that couple is wedded in the religious sense and the legal sense.
If a couple decides they want to be civilly married legally only, they have the option of a marriage at city hall or before a justice of the peace. The beauty of this is that those who want a religious marriage can have what they want. Those who want a civil marriage can have what they want. Best of all, no one is forced to do anything that they do not want to do. If a Roman Catholic priest does not want to marry a gay male couple, there is no law that says he has to. If a Unitarian Church minister wants to marry a lesbian couple, she should be allowed to.
Some people have messed with this system. They have acted on their religious, moral, or political beliefs to seek to impose their point of view on all Americans. By doing this, they actively interfere with other people's ability to practice their faith. A similar issue had come up previously, when people of different races where not allowed to marry in certain jurisdictions. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967) ruled this was unconstitutional. Sadly, the issue of whom the government will allow to be married is back again. This time the issue is back in the debate, political campaigns, legislation, constitutional amendments and court battles over same sex marriages.
The argument made by religious people is it is against the bible or that marriage has always been this way. Such an argument is in error. One need only look at Abraham who had a concubine and a wife. In the case of Jacob, he had two wives and two concubines. In the case of Solomon, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Then there are the compromises such as civil union and domestic partners. This brings us back to the segregation of the South, where colored people were treated as separate but equal. Separate but equal turned out to be anything but equal and it took a long, painful and sometimes bloody civil rights movement to fix that. Just as separate but equal did not work then, there is no reason to expect it to work now. Proof of this can be found in the state of New Jersey, which has civil unions. New Jersey had a state commission review the Legal, Medical, Economic and Social Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union Law. The commission’s report catalogs an impressive series of failures of the law to provide the equal benefits of marriage that legislators claimed the law would provide. New Hampshire, which had civil unions for approximately two years, has changed its civil union law into a same sex marriage law and will automatically convert all civil unions to marriages in 2011. Those who wish to convert their civil unions into marriages can do so now without waiting to 2011.
Every faith tradition should be allowed to marry or not marry any couple they choose. Every clergy person should have the right to marry or not marry any couple they choose. For politicians and religious leaders to impose their view and their faith tradition on those not of that belief or faith tradition is just plan un-American.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Brett Harris, Moses, Mickey Marcus, Rich Amato, and Countless Others
By Gary Konecky
On January 1, 2010, the ministers of Friends of B.R.Y.C.E lost a good and dear friend. Most importantly, the gay and lesbian community, especially its youths and young adults lost not only a dear friend, but also a visionary, Rev. Brett Harris.
Over the years, I have become aware of a recurring pattern that I find most disturbing. It seems that people work their entire lives either training for or working toward a specific goal, a goal that stands to help a great many people. Then just as they are about to realize that goal, they pass away. I do not pretend to know the ways of G-d and I do not understand why this is so.
When we read the bible, we learn that just as Moses was about to lead the Jewish people into the Holy Land, the culmination of a lifetime of training and work, he dies.
One of my childhood heroes was Col. David “Mickey” Marcus (US Army). Col. Marcus is the only solider buried at West Point who died fighting under a foreign flag. He was the first Israeli General in 2,000 years and he died at his post in the hills of Jerusalem during Israel’s War of Independence. He was shot mere hours before a truce was about to take effect. He was the last Israeli solider to fall before that truce. He was in those hills working to break the siege of Jerusalem and he died just as that siege was about to be broken. His tombstone reads “A Solider For All Humanity.”
I grew up on Long Island, NY. As I was coming to terms with my sexual orientation, Rich Amato was the gay civil rights movement on Long Island. When I met him (as I was maturing into a self-accepting, confident, adult gay man) Rich was already dying of AIDS. Just as the movement he labored to create was being born, he died. Sadly, tragically, he never got to see the first gay and lesbian rights march on Long Island.
Martin Luther King was killed as his dream was turning into reality. John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert were both men of vision and compassion. Just as they were moving toward making this a better country for all its citizens, they were struck down. Theses three men, men of greatness, men of vision, men who saw a way to make a better world for all people; these men were assassinated in their prime and they let behind a legacy of so many dreams unfilled, and a vision that in many ways has yet to be born.
And so I come to my good and dear friend, Rev. Brett Harris. Brett was a special man. Brett was one of the few truly great people I will have the privilege to know in my lifetime. Brett passed away, like the men I just mentioned, as a lifetime of work was about to turn into reality. Brett’s passion was opposing conversion or reparative therapy, the discredited and dangerous practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation. To that end, Brett had established Friends of B.R.Y.C.E., where I had the honor and privilege to assist him as the Minister of Scriptural Affairs. Brett’s concern and worry was always for others; for the poor child about to be shipped off to some religious run conversion therapy compound, to the gay person being harassed by his neighbors or by the local government. Brett had personally experienced harassment from those religious extremists who took issue with his opposition to conversion therapy. Having experienced that harassment, and knowing how these situations sometimes turn violent, Brett went out of his way to ensure that those who worked with him were kept safe.
Brett was that rare breed of individual who had vision, intelligence, compassion, and was above all a kind and generous soul who was here only to help and protect others. We are all diminished by his loss. We are all left to struggle in a cold, indifferent, and many times hostile world without our beloved champion to help us.
May G-d rest his soul and comfort his mourners. May G-d grant us the wisdom and the strength to fill this man’s shoes and to carry on his work. May we live to see his dream fulfilled. May we see a world where every gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and intersexed child is safe from threats, from intimidation, and from violence. May we all learn to love and care for each other as Brett loved and cared for us.
On January 1, 2010, the ministers of Friends of B.R.Y.C.E lost a good and dear friend. Most importantly, the gay and lesbian community, especially its youths and young adults lost not only a dear friend, but also a visionary, Rev. Brett Harris.
Over the years, I have become aware of a recurring pattern that I find most disturbing. It seems that people work their entire lives either training for or working toward a specific goal, a goal that stands to help a great many people. Then just as they are about to realize that goal, they pass away. I do not pretend to know the ways of G-d and I do not understand why this is so.
When we read the bible, we learn that just as Moses was about to lead the Jewish people into the Holy Land, the culmination of a lifetime of training and work, he dies.
One of my childhood heroes was Col. David “Mickey” Marcus (US Army). Col. Marcus is the only solider buried at West Point who died fighting under a foreign flag. He was the first Israeli General in 2,000 years and he died at his post in the hills of Jerusalem during Israel’s War of Independence. He was shot mere hours before a truce was about to take effect. He was the last Israeli solider to fall before that truce. He was in those hills working to break the siege of Jerusalem and he died just as that siege was about to be broken. His tombstone reads “A Solider For All Humanity.”
I grew up on Long Island, NY. As I was coming to terms with my sexual orientation, Rich Amato was the gay civil rights movement on Long Island. When I met him (as I was maturing into a self-accepting, confident, adult gay man) Rich was already dying of AIDS. Just as the movement he labored to create was being born, he died. Sadly, tragically, he never got to see the first gay and lesbian rights march on Long Island.
Martin Luther King was killed as his dream was turning into reality. John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert were both men of vision and compassion. Just as they were moving toward making this a better country for all its citizens, they were struck down. Theses three men, men of greatness, men of vision, men who saw a way to make a better world for all people; these men were assassinated in their prime and they let behind a legacy of so many dreams unfilled, and a vision that in many ways has yet to be born.
And so I come to my good and dear friend, Rev. Brett Harris. Brett was a special man. Brett was one of the few truly great people I will have the privilege to know in my lifetime. Brett passed away, like the men I just mentioned, as a lifetime of work was about to turn into reality. Brett’s passion was opposing conversion or reparative therapy, the discredited and dangerous practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation. To that end, Brett had established Friends of B.R.Y.C.E., where I had the honor and privilege to assist him as the Minister of Scriptural Affairs. Brett’s concern and worry was always for others; for the poor child about to be shipped off to some religious run conversion therapy compound, to the gay person being harassed by his neighbors or by the local government. Brett had personally experienced harassment from those religious extremists who took issue with his opposition to conversion therapy. Having experienced that harassment, and knowing how these situations sometimes turn violent, Brett went out of his way to ensure that those who worked with him were kept safe.
Brett was that rare breed of individual who had vision, intelligence, compassion, and was above all a kind and generous soul who was here only to help and protect others. We are all diminished by his loss. We are all left to struggle in a cold, indifferent, and many times hostile world without our beloved champion to help us.
May G-d rest his soul and comfort his mourners. May G-d grant us the wisdom and the strength to fill this man’s shoes and to carry on his work. May we live to see his dream fulfilled. May we see a world where every gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and intersexed child is safe from threats, from intimidation, and from violence. May we all learn to love and care for each other as Brett loved and cared for us.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Some Challenges For Bible Literalists
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
