Smuley Boteach Talks Libertarian On Being Gay
The rabbi writes in the WSJ:
I once asked Pat Robertson, "Why can't you simply announce to all gay men and women, 'Come to Church. Whatever relationship you're in, God wants you to pray. He wants you to give charity. He wants you to lead a godly life." He answered to the effect that homosexuality is too important to overlook, as it is the greatest threat to marriage and the family. Other evangelical leaders have told me the same.But with one of every two heterosexual marriages failing, much of the Internet dedicated to degrading women through pornography, and a culture that is materially insatiable while all-too spiritually content, can we straight people really say that gays are ruining our families? We've done a mighty fine job of it ourselves, thank you very much.
The excessive concern about homosexuality that is found among many of my religious brothers and sisters--in many Muslim countries being gay is basically a death sentence--stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of sin. The Ten Commandments were given on two tablets to connote two different kinds of transgression: religious and moral. The first tablet discussed religious transgressions between God and man, such as the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy and desecration of the Sabbath. The second tablet contained moral sins between man and his fellow man, like adultery, theft and murder.
Homosexuality is a religious, not a moral, sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. Who is harmed when two unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Homosexuality is akin to the prohibition against lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover; there is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.
I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage. But gay marriage doesn't represent the end of Western civilization. The real killer is the tsunami of divorce and the untold disruption to children who become yo-yos going from house to house on weekends.
"I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage."
Why? Honestly, when people write that, I usually read it as "I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I have a lot of conservative family and friends."
Sh!t or get off the pot -- "separate but equal" just isn't just, or equal.
Hiding behind semantics is craven. Are lesbian couples forbidden from using the term "wife" as well? Do you insist they use the more prosaic "partner" instead?
If you were a lesbian (but otherwise held the same quasi-Libertarian views you've espoused), do you think you'd be in favor of civil unions rather than marriage?
franko at October 15, 2010 12:06 AM
> Hiding behind semantics is craven. Are
> lesbian couples forbidden from using
> the term "wife" as well?
Well, they've always struck me as silly and maybe a little aspirational... 'Look, I have a 'wife', just like real marriage!'
A big component of marriage, and the reason it's to be admired and worthy of special language, is that people are crossing over the Big Divide. The "prosaic" part isn't just the language we give to it... These terms aren't pats on the head to make the participants feel grown-up.
No one in the world is that concerned with what's in your private little heart.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 15, 2010 12:14 AM
IOW— Boteach, of whom I know nothing but that he used to be a Close Personal Friend of the popular rhythm and blues singer Michael Jackson, is hardly being a retrograde thinker here. He's got nuthin' against the gays.
OTOH, Franko, you're correct to be sensitive to language in this instance.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 15, 2010 12:17 AM
Boteach long ago got a reputation as a confused individual - with some sexual scandals in his own past.
When he writes:
Homosexuality is a religious, not a moral, sin.
- - - - - - - - - - -
This is Oprah talking, not Judaism.
Similarly, gay civil unions are expressly cited by the Talmud as evidence of a decadent, sinful society.
So please don't understand any of this as reflecting Jewish opinion just because the word Rabbi is in there.
Ben David at October 15, 2010 4:11 AM
The Talmud also prohibits wearing two different fabrics:
According to modern biblical scholars, the rules against mixtures are survivals of ancient magical taboos,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez
Time to modernize, Ben David! (We know you're uncomfortable about homosexuality -- get over it.)
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 5:38 AM
Amy, the phrase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez
shows the weakness of wikipedia and the ignorance of modern biblical "scholars". There are a number of laws that are not understood via "modern" thought
Just because we do not understand the "reason" behind the rules against mixing linen and wool does not mean that we are entitled to arbitrarily abolish them.
Another example would be the laws of kosher food. Just because "modern scholars" pretend that they are some form of "health" legislation does not mean that we are allowed to drop those laws.
In fact the talmud explicitly points out that non-Jews who eat non-Kosher food remain healthy and do not suffer from the "health" problems that are thoght to be the "reason" for the laws.
Actually, marriage is a religious connection of two people via G0d. The government should not be involved in that and should only be involved in the civil contract relationship, just as between two business partners.
Sabba Hillel at October 15, 2010 6:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1766688">comment from Sabba HillelThere's no evidence there's a god, yet you believe in god and go with all sorts of stuff in these antique books based on the notion there's a god...despite the utter lack of evidence. Might it be time to join the evidence-based modern age?
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 6:49 AM
God or no God (and I happen to believe in the existance of God), I agree with the author. We shouldn't focus on what two consenting adults do if it isn't harming other people. We should focus on how to provide the best environment to raise healthy, happy, and productive kids.
That said, I am in the "domestic partnership" camp. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. I'm all for the same legal rights for gay couples, but it isn't marriage. I can move to Harlem, read "The Autobiography of Malcom X", listen to JayZ, and wear my hair in dreadlocks. I should have the right to do all those things. Doesn't make me black.
If the gay community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
UW Girl at October 15, 2010 6:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1766703">comment from UW GirlMarriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Used to be between a man and woman of the same race.
So, if gays aren't allowed to marry, should they pay fewer taxes?
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1766704">comment from Amy AlkonHere's another Imaginary Friend believer making it up as he goes along: ("AIDS is a kind of justice"). When evidence is not required for belief, evidence is not required for belief.
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/101014_AIDS
The Archbishop who is seen as a conservative does not pull his punches. Speaking about AIDS he says that this is a kind "immanent justice".
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 7:30 AM
So, if gays aren't allowed to marry, should they pay fewer taxes?
They don't get hit with the marriage penalty...
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that some of the drive behind "gay marriage" are people looking to attack the various churches.
Of course, now that Islam is the defacto state religion of the US, gay marriage is dead in the water.
Might it be time to join the evidence-based modern age?
When the evidence-based modern age can explain the inexplicable, I'll give it some thought. Empiricism can take you only so far. Sorry, I'm too well educated and too experienced for that.
To put it in perspective, I caught this while flipping by a tv show last night. A man and woman walking down a street, something about him being a "freegan" and the dude says if Al Gore believed what he says, he'd be living out of a dumpster.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 15, 2010 7:55 AM
I'm still stumped as to how this is redefining marriage. If gays are allowed to marry, how is our neighbor's heterosexual marriage redefined?
Patrick at October 15, 2010 8:15 AM
SO just to be clear, we cant discount the law against mixing fabrics and foods, but we can discount the law punishing those who do?
Also why do all of the religiously observent jews who claim the torah is a fountain of wisdom which must be followed, refuse to explain the rational behind scapegoating?
lujlp at October 15, 2010 8:22 AM
If the gay community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
Posted by: UW Girl
If the Inter-racial community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
If the Inter-faith community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
If the peon community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
If the monogamus community is really concerned with getting legal rights, they should focus on one step at a time. Get the domestic partnership rights. Once you've gotten that, it'll be easier if you really want to change the whole idea of "marriage".
Shall I continue?
lujlp at October 15, 2010 8:25 AM
What do you find inexplicable IRA Darth?
lujlp at October 15, 2010 8:32 AM
lujlp: What do you find inexplicable IRA Darth?
If he could explain that, it wouldn't be explicable, now would it?
Patrick at October 15, 2010 8:48 AM
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that some of the drive behind "gay marriage" are people looking to attack the various churches.
Yes, that sure describes the church-going lesbian Republican social conservative mother I'm friends with.
Great post, luj, and hilarious, Patrick.
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 8:56 AM
Just because we do not understand the "reason" behind the rules against mixing linen and wool does not mean that we are entitled to arbitrarily abolish them.
-----------------
So you also believe that menstruating women should be ostracized by the community? After all, the Jewish scriptures are quite clear that a menstruating woman is unclean and a man cannot touch anything that she has touched. There is a movement in Israel to force women to sit at the back of the bus because they might be on their period and might taint a man. By your logic that is acceptable and right.
Religion was created by man to make it easier for people to live in a community and to explain the unexplainable. If everyone has the same beliefs and follows the rules set out by those beliefs there will be less conflict between individuals. We have laws and social codes of conduct that replace the purpose of religion.
If God actually exists then why are there so many religions that claim to follow the direct words of god? If there really was a god/gods/goddess wouldn't all cultures have the same religion? Take monotheism for example, all these religions believe in one god yet they all have different rules and beliefs. How can that be if there really is a god. Why would god not inform all people equally? Or are some people more worthy of salvation than others? If someone believes that their religion is the direct word of god they also must believe that their people are more worthy than all other people because god spoke to their people only, whereas, every other people on the planet (throughout time) pulled their religion out of the butts (which of course they did).
As for believing in religion just because we are unable to explain everything, people used to believe that an eclipse had some deep spirtual meaning (angry gods) but the reality is simply that they did not have the knowledge to understand why an eclipse occurs, it does not mean that there is a god(s), rather, it means the people lacked the tools to discover the truth. Using ignorance as an excuse for justifying a belief in a god, religion or a religious taboo is moronic.
If all people believed that we don't need to understand the 'reason' something is the way it is we would all still be living in caves.
Ingrid at October 15, 2010 9:01 AM
A few things:
1. Billy Graham disagrees re homosexuality being extra important. Quoting Graham from memory: "I believe homosexuality is a sin. But I don't believe it any greater of a sin than the many sins I commit every day. We Christians put too much emphasis on it."
2. There is tendency, amongst some atheists, to believe the numerous (thousands?) of different religious belief systems equates to another reason for which religious persons are fools. The thinking of atheists is: You fools ... if there are thousands of belief systems, what chance has your one single belief system of being correct?
Religious persons understand statistical probability. We are standing against the odds, and we know it, and we do it anyway. One could respect this, even as one disagrees with our belief system.
3. It is simply untrue that support for traditional marriage equates to bigotry against gay persons. [A goodly number of gay persons oppose gay marriage. That, alone, ought set the assertion to rest.]
Principled argument for traditional marriage is based in principles of Western Civilization and constitutional law from which the United States draws its vibrant greatness.
This principled traditional marriage argument may be misguided, i.e. may be based on misguided interpretation of principles of Western Civ, of the American Constitution, and of what the best of America is properly about. However, any misguided aspects of this principled argument do not spring from bigotry about sexual orientation.
No one disagrees that bigotry does exist. However, such bigotry is not all encompassing. There exists principled argument which does not depend upon bigotry.
Traditional marriage persons define marriage as something beyond mere legal status.
Marriage is something for which human beings are uniquely designed – and not merely in terms of body parts, but in terms of emotional design which includes evolutionary emotional development.
Partially b/c of this unique design, marriage is a block upon which societies and cultures and nations build and thrive and move forward. No institution could be more deeply embedded in the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Marriage' exalted status as part of what drives the success of Western Civilization, as part of what drives the success of cultures and nations: is part of its appeal. For many people, getting married equates to putting down a marker which says: I believe in this culture, society, nation, community; I choose to be part of it and contribute to it.
Is the above true for everyone? Of course not. Yet, the above is true for enough people as to be significant beyond a mere question of legal status, as to be a significant part of the success of our culture. If we expand the man + woman definition of marriage: we unavoidably dilute the precision and uniqueness of "marriage"; we punish those who consider marriage to be a special status which deserves to be revered and highly desired; thus we potentially take a step closer to societal oblivion (insofar as marriage - which a] produces more children, and b] rears them more effectively - is a foundational block upon which our society is built).
Could traditional marriage advocates be misguided in our reasoning? Yes, we could be. But we are not bigoted, and F U to anyone who says we are.
gcotharn at October 15, 2010 9:11 AM
So you also believe that menstruating women should be ostracized by the community?
I recall Ben-David, writing in a porn thread, stating that he was forbidden for touching his wife for 10 days each month due to this taboo.
Christopher at October 15, 2010 9:20 AM
Just because someone finds something inexplicable, doesnt mean its indescribable
lujlp at October 15, 2010 9:21 AM
Could traditional marriage advocates be misguided in our reasoning? Yes, we could be. But we are not bigoted, and F U to anyone who says we are.
First off the tradition you are defending is less than 50 yrs old
Were those defending the illegality of balcks and whites just as adamant about their lack of bigotry? Yes, yes they were
lujlp at October 15, 2010 9:23 AM
@luljp
First: F.U. Hard, painfully, and up the butt, as deliciously appropriate in light of this subject.
Second: re a "50 year tradition"
Anthropologically, men and women are innately drawn to make a contract with each other which facilitates optimal environment for breeding and rearing of children, and for survival of the DNA line. http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/monogamy-polygyny-and-the-well-tended-garden-18752:
gcotharn at October 15, 2010 9:48 AM
there is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.
For the religious folks I'm acquainted with, this is a contradiction in terms. To them, "It violates the divine will" is the definition of immoral.
Rex Little at October 15, 2010 9:53 AM
> with some sexual scandals in his own past.
A brief Google shows nothing.
Deets?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 15, 2010 10:02 AM
@lujlp
Apples and oranges, baby. Interfaith and interracial couples are still a MAN and WOMAN.
And I stand by what I posted. I support domestic partnerships, and always have. But I've come face to face with gay activits who have told me because I belong to a denomination (Catholic) that does not recognize gay marriage IN THE CHURCH, that I'm a bigot. Well, guess what? My church also doesn't allow women to be priests, and yet I still go because I believe that there are some traditional definitions and beliefs that are correct. I am not asserting that the Church is always right. Should gays people be allowed to serve openly in the military? Yes. Should they have every legal right that I do? Yes. Should they be allowed to get married inside my church? Nope. Not until the Vatican changes their mind, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
And here's where the fun starts. Just because I say that I don't agree with gay couples being allowed to marry in my church suddenly I'm a racist bigot. Excuse me. It is possible to believe that people have civil rights that aren't religious rights. I agree with women's right to vote, but I don't think they should be ordained as priests. If that bothers you, that's your problem, not mine. We have separation of church and state for a reason.
UW Girl at October 15, 2010 10:26 AM
Religious persons understand statistical probability.
--------
Is this a joke?
Ingrid at October 15, 2010 10:31 AM
Sin is sin. The fatass down the pew is as offensive to god as the gay on the other pew, as am I. I'm as against "rights" (special rights, is to be understood but not spoken) for fatasses too. Does that make me bigoted?
Gays in the military essentially makes 2 new genders. On bases, gender housing is not mixed. Which logically means gay and hetero men (or women) should not be mixed either. To effect this, you would have to declare your sexual orientation at enlistment (just like you do gender now). Do you really want the military REQUIRING you tell? Because if you lied to preserve your privacy, and were found out later, that's a court-marshall (or, at least, dishonorable discharge). It's not so simple as some would make it. Does that mean gay people shouldn't be able to serve? Probably not. But it would be really refreshing if just once an activist admitted that things weren't as cut and dried as they want them to be.
momof4 at October 15, 2010 10:36 AM
"Religious persons understand statistical probability.
--------
Is this a joke?"
Once you factor in all of the fine-tuning nessecary to have the universe exist in a fashion that can support life (plenty of heavy metals, no collapsing in on itself, etc) you're essentially left with one chance in 10^10^29 that the universe would be capable of supporting life. Once you factor in a planet that can support life and life evolving, the odds get smaller. Not to mention that niggling question of why did the universe explode into being at all?
Given the sheer improbability of existence some people choose to believe that science will eventually have the answers. Others choose to believe that this suggests an entity outside of the universe acting on it. Both options take a certain amount of faith, whether in the logic of man or the existence of a deity. Some of course, choose to ignore all the science and math and stick to stories about man coexsisting with dinosaurs.
------
I'm religious, but I try to focus on the plank in my eye before turning to the speck in another's. And I am especially against using laws to enforce a moral code, even if it happens to be my moral code. If gay people want to get married that's fantastic. If people want polyamorous/ polygimist/ polyandrous marriages, that's fine with me too. If it goes against the code I have chosen to follow then all that means is that I personally better just marry one guy.
Elle at October 15, 2010 11:00 AM
momof4 I have seen mixed sex housing on military bases.
But even in situations where gender based housing is strictly enforsed people still manage to sneak off and fuck - get over it
lujlp at October 15, 2010 11:52 AM
gcotharn -
50 yrs ago it was illegal for blacks an white to marry
70 yrs ago many marriges were still arranged, or at the very least had to be approved of by the couples parents
100 yrs ago it was illegal for people of differnt faiths to marry
500 - 1500 yrs ago the catholic church did not offically recognise the marriges of peons as they owned no property and had no need for offically recognised heirs
2000+ - 6000+ yrs ago polygamy was the norm for those who could afford it.
Infact most of the bibles most god favored figures were regularly sticking their dicks into slaves as well as multipule wives.
According to the bible Solomon was one of gods most favortie people EVER - he has over 300 wives and another 700 sex slaves.
So yes gcotharn, while monogamy popped up near the begining of civilzation the "tradition" you are defending is less than 50 years old.
lujlp at October 15, 2010 12:06 PM
menstruating women should be ostracized by the community ... a man cannot touch anything that she has touched
Neither of the above is part of traditional Jewish belief.
There is a movement in Israel to force women to sit at the back of the bus because they might be on their period and might taint a man
Nonsense.
kishke at October 15, 2010 12:17 PM
"Nonsense" because you're saying it's crapthink, or nonsense because you don't believe there is such a movement?
If it's the latter, see here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1200440362.shtml
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 12:24 PM
Oh, and PS I remember that women aren't allowed to touch the toral in case they're on the rag (ie, "unclean").
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 12:25 PM
Nasty, backward stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 12:26 PM
@lujlp
My focus is not really on shifting your opinion re gay marriage, but rather on shifting your opinion that supporters of traditional marriage are bigots.
Separately: your timeline is a fallacious mess.
gcotharn at October 15, 2010 12:28 PM
"When the evidence-based modern age can explain the inexplicable, I'll give it some thought."
And how does religion deal with the inexplicable? By inventing an all-knowing, all-powerful super-being who has always existed. Who created the heavens, Earth and people as his playthings. And we should take it on "faith" that such a being exists. This is a plausible explanation? Sounds more like a DC comic book to me.
Granted, man doesn't yet know the answers to the universe. But inventing a myth to deal with insecurity about your ignorance seems irrational to me.
AllenS at October 15, 2010 12:45 PM
It's nonsense b/c there is no such movement. Yes, the bus company does provide gender-separated buses for those of the religious who request it, but it has to do with modesty, not menstruation.
Yes, menstruating women are unclean until they menstruation ends and they immerse. So are men who ejaculated semen or who experienced any kind of urethral emission. So is anyone who touched or carried the carcass of an animal that died without ritual slaughter. So is anyone with certain types of skin condition. The condition is not limited to menstruation.
A menstruating woman is not ostracized. She carries on normal social intercourse with both men and women. Her husband may eat the food she touched and touch items that she touches (contrary to someone's comment above). They are Biblically forbidden only to have sex, and Rabbinically forbidden to touch one another. I know what I'm talking about, b/c I live the life.
kishke at October 15, 2010 1:02 PM
gcotharn if you'd like to offer a critique, feel free, if your gonna go with the "Nuh uh, you are wrong, and thats it" then go play elsewhere.
lujlp at October 15, 2010 1:31 PM
Kishke,
you may live the life but apparently you have not read the book and choose to ignore the treatment and beliefs about women.
Ingrid at October 15, 2010 1:58 PM
"A man who shares the same bed with a niddah and thereby comes into contact with her menstrual blood is rendered ritually impure for seven days, rather than just one"
And what happens if you have sex with her in the shower?
Steve Daniels at October 15, 2010 2:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1766838">comment from Steve DanielsHah - great, Steve.
Amy Alkon at October 15, 2010 2:23 PM
...and they're off to the races...
anybody notice that no matter how many time we argue this, nobody changes their mind? The question for me is what would it take to change minds? And if you couldn't do that, what thing would most people NOT disagree with?
is marriage a right? This seems to be the important Q? In the US anyway.
SwissArmyD at October 15, 2010 3:15 PM
Well, first of all, Boteach has always struck me as a holier-than-thou scold. Not to mention a hypocrite. And a clueless liberation-theology leftist. But enough about him...
Look, gays, you're making a tactical mistake here. Trying to change the minds of people who are convinced that homosexual marriage is a sin isn't going to work. It just isn't. After 30+ years of trying, that should be evident. Nor is it necessary. The mistake being made here, on both sides, is the fallacy that holds that law dictates morality. It does no such thing, and it can't possibly do so. Law is just a minimum set of rules to prevent civil disorder.
Ergo, it isn't necessary to convince people that they should like gay marriage. It's only necessary to convince them that (1) it does no harm to society, and therefore (2) libertarian principles require that the government not restrict it. Of course, you still won't get the hard-core social conservatives, but why do you care what they think? The people you need to convince are the independent voters, the Tea Partiers, the small-government advocates. Convince them it would be nice to see an area where liberty is growing instead of shrinking. Who knows, it might even set a precedent. I claim that the Tea Party is the most suitable political home for gays. Certainly, being in the pocket of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be working out too well these days.
Now, here's where I get to be a curmudgeon: Gays, I will happily support your quest for legal marriage, if you'll do one thing for me -- shut the hell up about how "special" you are because you're gay.
Cousin Dave at October 15, 2010 4:27 PM
@Cousin Dave
But they kinda are special. I dare you to find a straight guy that will give a woman an honest opinion about how big her ass looks in her jeans. Or that her hair is henious.
:-)
UW Girl at October 15, 2010 5:42 PM
They hate you for it, but I figure at least I'm helping make the word a more visually pleasing enviornment
lujlp at October 15, 2010 6:51 PM
UW Girl, you're right. You sure as hell aren't going to get it from me!
Cousin Dave at October 15, 2010 7:05 PM
Just read a new book/bedtime story to my two boys, five and eight. I like to read them kids' international tales, this one was from El Salvador. turns out the special 'elf' appeared to help young girls with their first period. My older one sorta got it, loved it, and the the younger one was fascinated.
Little one may be gay (or a future player), who gives a shit. I have an expectation that everyone will treat them equally. They certainly both deserve the same and I will fight for it. Either way for him, who gives a shit.
BTW, little one will tell anyone an honest opinion. last meal out, he asked the waitress why her 'breasts' were bigger than mine? Did she eat more?
Bottom line. Try working with a younger generation. My parents, pathetically, don't get it.
Really, move it forward. It works.
Cindy at October 15, 2010 8:14 PM
> Boteach long ago got a reputation as a
> confused individual - with some sexual
> scandals in his own past.
Still looking for evidence of a sex scandal in Boteach's background... Still haven't found it. (I tried the "Bing" search engine this time.)
Would you care to offer some specifics for this accusation, Ben David?
---------------------------
Boteach is somewhat misleading here:
It's a safe bet that the "excessive concern about homosexuality" from religious people isn't any different than anyone else's "excessive concern". It's probably the same small-minded, erotically provincial fear that you'd find in an atheist. Religious people will always say they believe and feel things because their religion tells them to.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 15, 2010 11:46 PM
> Little one may be gay (or a future
> player), who gives a shit.
Cindy, I mean no great mockery here, but it cracks me up when people make these guesses about children who are barely old enough to pee... Or when mothers worry that four-year-old boys (!!) aren't as masculine and and commanding in their bearing as they'd like...
...Always followed by an assurance that (naturally) they're going to love the kid no matter what.
(Meanwhile, they're taking odds at Vegas that kid's gonna wear satin and waft lilac for his junior year at college... Because he's sometimes afraid of the dark.)
Americans have a memorized a VERY SHORT LIST of sexual identities. For this effort, they demand to be admired as erotic sophisticates... Even when considering the feelings of kids who haven't learned to EAT, let alone peer into the diaper of the applesauce-reeking brat seated next to them.
(We imagine the kid, who's who just learned the difference between blue and green, or between birds and turtles, being quizzed: Well, which way ya gonna go, ya little fart? Choose! CHOOOSE!!)
(It's not that anyone's being judgmental ... No! Perish the thought!)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 12:00 AM
> Little one may be gay (or a future
> player), who gives a shit.
>>Cindy, I mean no great mockery here, but it cracks me up when people make these guesses about children who are barely old enough to pee...
Nah, Crid.
That's a non-parent reading of Cindy's comment. No need at all for even a small amount of mockery. We love them and we wonder about their future & we get cross with them and we wonder about their future & we smile and we wonder... & we watch them and we wonder... It starts when they're born and it goes on & on.
Also, Cindy wrote: "Bottom line. Try working with a younger generation. My parents, pathetically, don't get it. Really, move it forward. It works."
I loved that.
Jody Tresidder at October 16, 2010 5:42 AM
Something this discussion seems to be missing is the distinction between marriage as a government social institution and marriage as a religious sacrament in the Judeo Christian religious tradition. The reason why the majority of traditional religions are not accepting of gay "marriages" is the same reason that they are not in favor of masturbation, pornography, drunkenness, and other forms of self indulgence. It is because gay sex is by definition a hedonistic activity (no matter how stable the relationship between the two parties practicing it) entirely separate from the biological and social function of reproduction. Religion generally sees most hedonistic activity as "sin" because it leads to people focusing their life on themselves( the epicurean philosophy) rather than a life of service, to God, their fellow man, and raising the next generation of the faithful. Gay marriage is no more a "sacrement" to the traditional Christian of Jew than an wino sitting under a bridge with a loaf of wonder bread and a gallon of Thunderbird is taking communion.
For the last several hundred years, there has been a philosophical split between those denominations who believed that you were Christian if you believed in God and accepted Jesus Christ as devine, and those who insist that you will not be saved by belief alone but must live your life in accordance with Christian principles,recognizing hedonistic behavior for what it is, "sin" and attempting to correct it and suppress it.
As an atheist I can see see the point of the traditionalists and believe that without enforceable values, religion is both meaningless and valueless. Professing a belief in God and/or Jesus Christ while living a life not in accordance with Christian doctrine is like waving your "I believe in Global Warming banner" as your private Lear Jet takes off down the runway.
Isabel1130 at October 16, 2010 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1767100">comment from Isabel1130Gay marriage is no more a "sacrement" to the traditional Christian of Jew than an wino sitting under a bridge with a loaf of wonder bread and a gallon of Thunderbird is taking communion.
Too bad! Jews and Christians should feel utterly free to refuse to marry homos in their places of worship, but the state has no business denying it.
Amy Alkon at October 16, 2010 7:32 AM
"Gay marriage is no more a "sacrament" to the traditional Christian of Jew than an wino sitting under a bridge with a loaf of wonder bread and a gallon of Thunderbird is taking communion.
Too bad! Jews and Christians should feel utterly free to refuse to marry homos in their places of worship, but the state has no business denying it."
I thought this thread was about a pronouncement by a rabbi that a homosexual lifestyle should not be considered "sin". and not about whether the state should or should not chose to recognize "civil unions" which is an entirely separate question.
Isabel1130 at October 16, 2010 7:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1767114">comment from Isabel1130This blog isn't like others, which have some stern matron with a ruler ready to slap those who take off on a side road from somebody else's comment.
Amy Alkon at October 16, 2010 8:11 AM
> Also, Cindy wrote: "Bottom line. Try....
Yes yes yes, each generation is the first one to truly understand feelings. All before us were brutes and savages... The witless dears never knew any better. How could they have known that we're actually equipped with emotions? Consider Isabel's rant... She agrees with you!... Turns out there *is* something new under the sun!
But I too am equipped with space-age components! More than just a man.... My carbon-fibre superstructure undergirds a hyooge array of high-speed processors running the latest software releases of compassion and intuition: Version 11.NOW, bay-bee! And with this hypercontemporary insight, I'm blessedly undistracted by the flowery distortions to which regular mortals, fleshly units such as yourself, fall victim—
> we wonder about their future & we get
> cross with them and we wonder about
> their future & we smile and
I'm all, like, riiiiiight. Consider her exact words:
> Little one may be gay (or a future
> player)
There's a reason those are the loci by which she described the probable arc of Junior's socialization, and that the other points on the arc weren't worth populating with speculation.
It's like a football dad smirking at his toddler waddling through his first mud puddle on an autumn afternoon: 'Maybe he'll be the commanding, eagle-eyed, rifle-armed quarterback, the leader of men in battle, or maybe he'll just be a tight end with the gait of a gazelle: But that will be his choice to make."
Or a Hollywood stage mom, grimmace-grinning as her daughter mugs for the grandparents for the first time: "Maybe she'll be an internationally respected romantic ingenue, like Julia Roberts, or maybe merely an intellectually honored method-y type, always jetting over to the Continent for prestige projects, like Dewhurst or or Burstyn. But that will be her choice to make."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 8:39 AM
Going back to touch on something that Elle wrote up-thread, because it's an interesting question: "Once you factor in all of the fine-tuning nessecary to have the universe exist in a fashion that can support life (plenty of heavy metals, no collapsing in on itself, etc) you're essentially left with one chance in 10^10^29 that the universe would be capable of supporting life."
I'm not sure where that number comes from, but qualitatively, the above statement actually over-estimates a bit. "Heavy" metals, from a physics standpoint, includes all elements with atomic numbers higher than iron. Included in this are several elements that are essential for Earth-bound life, notably iodine and zinc. Here's the thing about that: heavy metals are actually pretty rare in the universe. Current physics holds that ordinary stellar processes cannot create elements heavier than iron; those elements are only created in a supernova, and only one star in a thousand or so is large enough to produce a supernova. To show how rare they are, there hasn't been one within optical-observation distance of the Earth since 1987, and even that one wasn't in the Milky Way; it was in the Large Magellanic Cloud, 160,000 light-years away.
Since Earth obviously has heavy metals, it stands to reason that our solar system formed from the remnants of a supernova, probably 4-5 billion years ago. How many solar systems with Sun-like stars form from the remnants of supernovas? Probably not many. And remember, those are the only solar systems that can support Earth-type life, without technological assistance. So, out of all of the planets that exist in the universe, the number on which Earth-like life could evolve is actually a very small percentage.
So yes, when world-class physicists get drunk at parties, they do ask "How is it that all of these factors are just right for human beings to exist?" Some resort to the anthropomorphic principle: it is that way because if it wasn't, we would not be here to observe it. This is obviously more of a philosophical answer than a scientific one, and there are physicists who regard it as a self-licking ice cream code that dodges the real question. However, it could be understood if one assumed that our universe is only one of a very large number that exists, or has existed in the past (assuming that the word "past" has any meaning in this context); then it can be assumed that this universe with this combination of physical constants and factors is simply a product of random chance.
There's an opposite view that holds all possible universes are necessarily like this one, due to fundamental physical principles that we haven't discovered yet. This is sort of the "viable fetus" view of universes; any universe that arises with a bad combination of factors cannot continue to exist and it immediately implodes or collapses or destroys itself somehow. There are some hints of this in the process of vacuum fluctuation, in which pairs of particles and antiparticles arise out of nothing, but the vast majority of them immediately recombine and disappear again.
And this is where I stick my toes into the pool of controversial speculation: I don't think the possibility of intelligent design can be discounted at this point. However, it's quite possible that our religious notion of "God" as the creator is totally wrong -- that whatever entity actually did create our universe has none of the characteristics that any human religion associates with its deity, and that we are being "kept" as a farming crop or as pets or for some purpose that we do not comprehend. There are analogies within our own experience; we create environments that are viable for certain forms of life all the time. Does the goldfish comprehend why he is in the bowl? Now, as far as we know, we are not being fed by an external entity, and there is no goldfish food in the universe; but perhaps there is and we just don't recognize it as such. If a future generation starts harvesting asteroids and comets, wouldn't that be sort of analogous?
It's actually a pretty cool time to be interested in astronomy and cosmology. Every time a question is answered, the answer produces a cascade of new questions. I've noticed a feeling among a lot of people in the field that we're closing in on something really big, although no one knows what yet.
Cousin Dave at October 16, 2010 9:02 AM
>>It's like a football dad smirking at his toddler waddling through his first mud puddle on an autumn afternoon: 'Maybe he'll be the commanding, eagle-eyed, rifle-armed quarterback, the leader of men in battle, or maybe he'll just be a tight end with the gait of a gazelle: But that will be his choice to make."
Super dialog, Crid!
Your point...is?
(Who - or what you are getting at here - escapes!)
Jody Tresidder at October 16, 2010 11:57 AM
> Jews and Christians should feel utterly
> free to refuse to marry homos in their
> places of worship, but the state has
> no business denying it.
As long as the state isn't asked to consecrate it, or observe its boundaries in any way, you got a deal.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 12:02 PM
Jody REREAD. It cant be any plainer.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 12:03 PM
Pisses me off. If you can't see the sinister, hidden intent, you can't see anything at all.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 12:16 PM
Grrr.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 12:25 PM
Crid:
Still looking for evidence of a sex scandal in Boteach's background... Still haven't found it. (I tried the "Bing" search engine this time.)
Would you care to offer some specifics for this accusation, Ben David?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes.
Boteach began as a charismatic "outreach" Rabbi in England. There were accusations of inappropriate behavior with young people attending his weekends and other programs - don't remember the sex of the accusers.
In any event, he's a loose cannon who long ago threw over received Jewish opinion in his public pronouncements, and in his "ministry" to the rich and famous. His stuff has become more generic Oprah as he's reached out to non-Jews.
Ben David at October 16, 2010 1:04 PM
> There were accusations of inappropriate behavior
Cite?
After an accusation like that, it's far too early to be scooting off to "In any event...."
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 1:08 PM
So you also believe that menstruating women should be ostracized by the community?
I recall Ben-David, writing in a porn thread, stating that he was forbidden for touching his wife for 10 days each month due to this taboo.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, and it works wonders in keeping a marriage fresh - and several modern family therapists have looked into it, and reported on its positive effects.
And no, my wife is not "ostracized from the community" - sheesh, let's just pile on our puerile, anti-religious bile.
"but it says so in Wikipedia" - in an article probably written by another adolescent ignoramus.
Ben David at October 16, 2010 1:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1767201">comment from Ben David"but it says so in Wikipedia" - in an article probably written by another adolescent ignoramus.
My mom's a biblical scholar -- she's been studying pretty seriously since I was a kid -- probably about 40 years. There's all sorts of ridiculous crap like this, and I just happened to pull a Wikipedia link. My copy of Telushkin on all this stuff is a little inconveniently shelved, but I can look it up there, too.
"Puerile, anti-religious bile"? Way to justify primitive and often ugly and offensive beliefs.
Living separately helps keep a relationship alive, and nobody has to be dubbed "unclean."
Amy Alkon at October 16, 2010 1:31 PM
It just seems to me that "There were accusations" is not a "specific".
But I have much to learn about Hebrew faith.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 16, 2010 3:01 PM
My mom's a biblical scholar
- - - - - - - - - -
Good - they she can confirm that use of words like "unclean" and "ostracize" are deliberate mistranslations/misreadings of the original texts.
The word translated as "unclean" has nothing to do with cleanliness or sanitation - it's a ritual/spiritual distinction. The most accurate translation of the word "tameh" is "preoccupied with physicality". It's related to the word meaning "embedded" (same root is used in modern Hebrew when you laminate your driver's license in plastic.)
Men are also "tameh" after ejaculating.
So?
The real kicker is when you write:
Living separately helps keep a relationship alive, and nobody has to be dubbed "unclean."
- - - - - - - - - -
So after decrying traditional Jewish practice - which amounts to nothing more than a few days without sleeping together - you endorse the more extreme separation of living apart as *better* for a relationship than actually marrying and living together.
Amazing.
I think you should introduce the two halves of your brain to each other...
Ben David at October 17, 2010 11:36 PM
It just seems to me that "There were accusations" is not a "specific".
- - - - - - - - - - - -
But despite the horns on my head, I have no special Google powers that you don't.
These rumors circulated the Orthodox community early in Boteach's career. That's all I know.
When I said "in any event" - I meant that the rumors are incidental to Boteach's obvious split with mainstream Jewish opinion.
Ben David at October 17, 2010 11:43 PM
Believe what you like, but if you are going to hang your belief in God and intelligent design on modern science, you should have better knowledge on the subject than Elle and CD do. Elle makes up random numbers on the likelihood of Earth forming an environment friendly to life with an apparent ignorance about the size of the universe and the fact that in 10 years we have gone from finding the first extrasolar planet to discovering one in the habitable zone (where liquid water can exist), announced just two weeks ago. CD talks about the rarity of supernovae, again ignoring the sheer size of the universe as well as the facts about star formation, including the seeding of star-forming interstellar clouds by massive stars that form and explode before the next generation of stars is born and the transport of metals, not only throughout galaxies but out into the voids between galaxies, where metals can be found hundreds of kiloparsecs from the nearest galaxy.
The need to view ourselves as the center of the universe and a loving creator is obviously compelling but that doesn't make it true.
Astra at October 18, 2010 12:41 AM
Ben David,
Just to be clear, I am not sure if your comment "but it says so in Wikipedia" was directed at me so I will just add that my information is not from the internet but from the religious studies courses I took in university. In this instance, specifically, Women in the Hebrew scriptures.
Ingrid at October 18, 2010 9:17 AM
Ingrid:
I am not sure if your comment "but it says so in Wikipedia" was directed at me
- - - - - - - - - - - -
It wasn't - I think Amy herself linked to Wikipedia.
But since you've posted:
1) The notion of women being "ostracized" comes from your post - and it's way off. The same restrictions applied in Temple times to men who ejaculated, or people who came in contact with carrion.
So these laws were never specifically misogynist in intent. Did your professor put the laws in their full context - or take them out of context to make a (false) feminist point?
2) None of these are applied as strictly since the Temple was destroyed - like a lot in Judaism which has changed over time. My wife and I sit on the same chairs and eat from the same dishes during her period. So much for ostracization.
3) You write:
Religion was created by man to make it easier for people to live in a community and to explain the unexplainable.
- - - - - - - - - - -
These self-assured statements are just as ludicrous - and inadequate - as similar statements from religious absolutists.
Only the young and foolish speak with such certainty of things unknowable, things that have already informed millions of human lives around the world.
Ben David at October 18, 2010 9:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/15/smuley_boteach.html#comment-1767785">comment from Ben DavidI think Amy herself linked to Wikipedia.
I have Telushkin, but he was at home and I was out.
Amy Alkon at October 18, 2010 10:04 AM
It is a form of ostracism when a whole group of people are treated as unclean and are forbidden to touch items that a man might touch for fear he will be tainted. Feminist sources are unnecessary when you have the scriptures themselves to prove the point.
Not misogynist? I think you need to back that statement up. Anyone who has ever glanced at the scriptures knows that to be an untruth. Read about JOb or Lot and then tell me the scriptures are not written by MEN with a hate on for women.
"young and foolish"
Name calling is an unsophisticated attempt to discredit a person rather than the idea they put forth. I get it, you have chosen to live according to what some men said thousands of years ago and any comment that does not agree with your way of life you feel the need to attack. The fact that you are unable to do more than insult a person who does not conform to your viewpoint shows that there is no point in engaging in a debate with you because you are incapable of participating.
Ingrid at October 18, 2010 11:09 AM
It is a form of ostracism when a whole group of people ... are forbidden to touch items that a man might touch for fear he will be tainted.
Are you slow? There is no such thing in Orthodox Jewish life, no matter what your professor might have told you.
kishke at October 19, 2010 8:27 AM
It is a form of ostracism when a whole group of people ... are forbidden to touch items that a man might touch for fear he will be tainted.
- - - - - - - - - - -
but I just told you that:
1) Similar laws applied to men who were "impure"
2) These laws only applied 2000 years ago.
But hey - if there's one thing you've probably learned from your leftie professors, it's not to let facts intrude on your pet political theories...
Ben David at October 19, 2010 10:02 AM
And even 2000 years ago, these laws applied only to the few who held themselves to a higher standard of ritual purity. This group included both men and women. They avoided all forms of ritual impurity, not only that of a menstruating woman. Most of the populace, however, did not take care to avoid becoming ritually impure.
kishke at October 19, 2010 11:59 AM
Only the young and foolish speak with such certainty of things unknowable, things that have already informed millions of human lives around the world.
Posted by: Ben David
By that logic I can expect you to support my religious rights to scarifice my children on the fiery alter of Molech?
After all given the relativly small size of juedaism throught history more people have historically worshiped that baby eating god then the penis cutting diety that you worship.
And one can speak of things which have influend millions, right?
Or does that only apply to your god?
lujlp at October 19, 2010 2:29 PM
Leave a comment