Homosexual marriage, the Mayan calendar, and an Israeli spy bee-eater

Jewish date:  23 ’Iyyar 5772 (Parashath Behar).

Today’s holidays:  Day 38 of the ‘Omer (Judaism), Feast Day of Isidore (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Jagger (Church of the SubGenius), Nakba Day (anti-Semitism).

Greetings.

I have completed reading my collection of LaVeyan Satanism books.  Now I have to get around to working a review…

In the meantime, I would like to note a few items.

1) “Same-sex unions and intermarriage: Against as a Jew, for as a citizen”:  Elli Fischer correctly recognizes that there is a difference between what is morally or theologically correct and political rights.  Governments are not good institutions for determining the truth, and so as a matter of practical policy we aim to keep them religion-neutral, just as we aim to keep the government from interfering with people’s business in general when they are not doing anything to hurt other people.  This is the difference between not approving what one’s neighbor is doing that does not hurt other people and having the government stop him/her from doing it.  Fischer also notes that religion and politics being too closely intertwined can lead to politicization of religion.  For comparison, see Rav Shmuley Boteach’s “Obsession Over Social Sexual Issues Is Destroying America” and “Why American Religion Isn't Refining American Values”, which complain about the politicization of religion objections to homosexual marriages and abortion in the United States; Rav Boteach claims a corresponding lack of emphasis on other moral issues.

2) “Nevermind the Apocalypse: Earliest Mayan Calendar Found”:  And, just as everyone with enough sense has been saying all along, the Mayans did not claim that the World ends on December 21, 2012.

3) I know at times that I have noted religious humor, but the Turks have made an anti-Semitic claim which is probably unintentionally funny:  “Turkey suspects bird of being Israeli spy”.  I suppose it is possible (or will be possible) to cyborgize a bee-eater and use it as a spy drone, but no claims of having pulled any electronics out of the bird are mentioned, and it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, and a human spy is arguably more practical and useful.  Also:  if one is going to make a ridiculous claim, at least one should try to make it awesome.  The Egyptians at least had the sense to make the claim that Israel was using sharks, which are 39 times cooler than bee-eaters.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

The writers for Glee fail exegesis forever

Jewish date:  8 ’Adhar 5772 (Parashath Teṣawweh).

Today’s holidays:  Friday of the First Week of Lent (Roman Catholicism), Bahá’í Month of Fasting (Bahá’í Faith), Feast Day of St. Wonder Woman (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

The goal of this project is the examination of religious fallacies and misinformation.  This happens a lot in popular culture, and one of the shows I am monitoring, Glee, seems particularly prone to this problem whenever it deals with religion.  One of its recent episodes, “Heart”, shows especially bad religious reasoning that is going to annoy me until I report on it.



This is a Valentine’s Day episode.  Among other things, the “God Squad”, a sort of Christian religious club in the high school, decides to raise money by selling “singing Valentines”.  The God Squad has a new member who is a sort of goth until-recently-homeschooled Christian and who notes that Valentine’s Day is a religious holiday.  (It least it was a Catholic holiday.)  Meanwhile, a “Bible thumper” complains to the principal about Santana and Brittany kissing at school, leading him to be paranoid about homosexual public displays of affection.  (Cliché 1:  Thinking one has a right to keep anyone from doing anything which might offend them.)  Santana is understandably annoyed at this, and so she hires the God Squad to give a “singing Valentine” to Brittany.  (Cliché 2:  Petty revenge, the pettiness being that Santana has no evidence that any of the God Squad complained to the principal in the first place.)  The God Squad then discusses among themselves about whether they will actually sing to gay people.  Distressingly, none of them shows any decent understanding of how to interpret the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, jumping immediately into stereotypes and atrocious excuses for reasoning:

1) Mercedes:  Since one in ten people is supposed to be gay, one of the 12 Apostles might have been gay, presumably Simon since he has the “gayest” name.  This assumes that the Apostles were sexually normal, not a foregone assumption.  Also not forgone assumptions are that the incidence of homosexuality in Second Temple Period Israel is the same as in 2012 America and that there is no distinction between having homosexual desires and practicing homosexuality.  Not to mention that the presumed gayness of any Apostle is purely hypothetical, not something actually known.  Thus Mercedes has no argument.

2) Sam:  It is (purportedly) an abomination for a man to lay down with another man.  This is actually a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:22, which prohibits male homosexuality, but a man simply lying next to another man is not prohibited.  Sam, however, grossly misinterprets this as banning sharing a tent in the Cub Scouts.  Thus he starts off with one of the few sources actually relevant to the question of homosexuality in Christianity and then shoots himself in the foot rhetorically when he has no reason to do so.

3) Quinn, trying to counter Sam:  Other abominations (purportedly) include eating lobster, planting different crops in the same field, and giving someone a proud look—but not slavery, and Jesus never mentions slavery.  The prohibition of eating lobster (along with all water-dwelling animals which do not have fins and platelike scales) is Leviticus 11:10, which uses a different term of disapproval, sheqeṣ, than that used for male homosexuality, to‘evah.  The prohibition of planting two different species of seed together is found in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9; in neither verse is it referred a to‘evah or sheqeṣ or any other term of disgust.  I have no idea where Quinn got this alleged prohibition of giving someone a proud look.  Slavery is never called a to‘evah or sheqeṣ by the Hebrew Bible or mentioned by Jesus.  (Paul is a different matter.)  None of this, however, is relevant in the least to question of homosexuality in Christianity.  This is pure rhetoric, not reasoning, and to make things worse, it is clichéd rhetoric.  At best, there is an implied argument that since modern Christians do not think they are bound to keep the Torah, they should not be forbidden to commit homosexuality, which among males is explicitly prohibited by the Torah.  However, none of the characters has the sense to cite even Paul’s specious antinomian arguments.

4) Sam:  Perhaps Jesus was trying no spare Simon’s feelings.  This is just an assumption that there was a gay Apostle.  There could have just as easily been no gay Apostle, so there is no real argument here.

5) Mercedes:  Given that everyone in the God Squad really sucks when it comes to exegesis, Mercedes says she does not want to hurt Santana’s feelings or make anyone do anything they are not comfortable with.  The other members of the God Squad can accept this, but this does not solve the problem of whether to deliver the “singing Valentine” or not.

What do they eventually decide to do?  They deliver the “singing Valentine” on the basis that “Love is love.”  Is there any source for this in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?  No.  The God Squad may have satisfied Santana, but their rationale is poorly justified.  The writers could have done much, much better than this.

Anyone writing about homosexuality, please, please, please do not do anything as lame as what the writers for Glee did.

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

’Aharon/Aaron

Dishonest reporting

Jewish date:  26 ’Av 5771 (evening) (Parashath Re’eh).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of Louis of France and Joseph Calasanz (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Heliogabulus (Church of the SubGenius), Feast Day of Friederich Nietzsche (Thelema).


Greetings.

Recently I came across a short article which struck me as off, and Barry independently asked me to comment on it.  The article is “Rabbis Help Gays Find Sexless Marriages To Procreate For God”.

It starts with this:

Ever wish that you could have a sexless marriage, lots of affairs, and still have the approval of God?  Well, now you can, if you are a homosexual Jew — as long as you promise to procreate in the name of the Lord as well.

It was immediately obvious that something was wrong.  Judaism does not condone affairs by anyone, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, and making children does not excuse such misbehavior.  The rest of the article was also suspicious:

Via Think Progress:

A new Orthodox Jewish service “seeks to help religious homosexuals and lesbians find a partner for procreation purposes – as long as they promise to try to change their sexual orientation,” YNet News reports. An orthodox interpretation of Jewish law forbids homosexual relations, but the match-making website hopes to connect men and women “seeking to start a family in Israel, even without sexual attraction, in order to bring religious children into the world and provide them with traditional education. Thus, a religious gay man will be able to meet a religious lesbian woman through the website and have children with her.”

It’s assumed, of course, that any gay person involved in this sort of arrangement will be having affairs, and according to the service that’s just fine — it’s not cheating if you’re both doing it and your partner knows and approves.  After all, it’s all worth it if it makes more children of the faith.  And the Rabbis themselves believe they are acting under the best of intentions. “Almost everyone understands that there are those who simply cannot change,” [Orthodox Rabbi Arale] Harel admits. “This initiative was designed for them.” 

Still, it’s funny to think, so many religious people are worried that same sex marriage is destroying the “traditional” definition of marriage.

Now, I had already heard about Rav Har’el matchmaking homosexuals (of the opposite sex).  (See “Orthodox Gay Marriage” and “Israeli rabbis launch initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women”.)  However, I had not heard anything about him approving affairs, and when one also takes into account the flippant tone of this article, my suspicions were raised that whoever wrote it did not bother to do any research.

So let us follow the links.  This article refers back to another article in ThinkProgress, “RABBIS MATCH GAYS AND LESBIANS ‘TO BRING RELIGIOUS CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD’”, which was quoted almost in its entirety.  The only part which was not quoted is:

“We are aware of the fact that the man and woman may have extramarital relations according to their sexual inclination, but at least they won’t be cheating on their partners, as it will be done with their consent,” one Orthodox rabbi explained

So far we are still in the midst of suspicious content.  The second article links to a third article on Ynetnews, “Rabbis to match homosexuals, lesbians”:

A new Web initiative seeks to help religious homosexuals and lesbians find a partner for procreation purposes – as long as they promise to try to change their sexual orientation.

Currently, religious gay people are not entitled to use the sector's regular matchmaking service. In the coming days, the Kamoha website for Orthodox homosexuals will introduce a new page resembling leading dating websites. But unlike similar initiatives which have failed in the past, this one enjoys the support of senior Religious Zionism rabbis.

As Jewish Halacha forbids homosexual relations, the initiative will connect between men and women seeking to start a family in Israel, even without sexual attraction, in order to bring religious children into the world and provide them with traditional education. Thus, a religious gay man will be able to meet a religious lesbian woman through the website and have children with her.

The initiative is being led by Orthodox Rabbi Arale Harel, former head of the Shilo hesder yeshiva. According to Harel, the program has the support of additional Religious Zionism rabbis, including Haim Drukman, Yaakov Ariel and Elyakim Levanon.

Harel says he has so far matched more than 10 gay-lesbian couples, and is now seeking to institutionalize the issue.

"There is no rabbi who will approve such a marriage," he explains. "We are aware of the fact that the man and woman may have extramarital relations according to their sexual inclination, but at least they won't be cheating on their partners, as it will be done with their consent."

Nonetheless, Harel has added a condition for the match, which may deter religious homosexuals and lesbians. According to the rabbi, the couple will first have to undergo "psychological conversion therapy aimed at helping the patients change their sexual inclination."

Those seeking to use the website's services will undergo a screening process, and after paying NIS 150 (about $42) in order to prove that they are serious about the issue, they will be able to go out with members of the opposite sex while receiving psychological and rabbinical advice.

"Almost everyone understands that there are those who simply cannot change," Harel admits. "This initiative was designed for them."

This article adds new, unusual details.  First of all, there is the listed requirement of conversion therapy.  Conversion therapy, which aims to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, is not scientifically recognized as actually working and may be harmful.  This requirement is paradoxical, considering that Rav Harel claims that some people cannot change their sexual orientation.  Secondly, there is the obvious contradiction between this matchmaking having rabbinical approval and the claim that no rabbi would approve of such a match.  Also unusual is what is omitted:  a link to this “new Web initiative”.

Given the difficult nature of these three articles, I decided to find Rav Har’el and company and see what they have to say for themselves.  And I did find them.  Their site is Kamokha and their new initiative is ’Anaḥnu.  From the three questionable articles, one might think that rabbis, especially Rav Har’el, were going out their way to get homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex.  They are not.  Kamokha is an organization of Orthodox Jewish homosexual men who wish to live by Orthodox Judaism.  This includes the prohibition on the practice of homosexuality.  If this seems strange to anyone, do note that just because one has a desire to do something does not mean one will actually do it or even wants to have this desire.  ’Anaḥnu is also their initiative; please note that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, often want to get married and have children.  Kamokha approached Rav Har’el to establish this program.  This is something they want, not something anyone is trying to foist upon anyone else.  They also make it clear that this program is experimental, that it is only for those who have come to terms with not being able to change their sexual orientation, and that this is not a program meant to change sexual orientation.  There is no requirement of conversion therapy whatsoever.  Neither is there any permission for affairs.  To put it bluntly, the people behind the questionable articles lied.  At the most generous, one might think they confounded ’Anaḥnu with another Kamokha initiative, one to provide conversion therapy for free for those who want it—with full recognition that it is controversial—but that would be difficult to do accidentally without being amazingly stupid.

As for the whole business of affairs being allegedly OK for married homosexuals, that may be a perversion of something that Rav Har’el said in an interview pulled out of context:

"Most of the couples agree not to have relationships with members of their own sex, but if there are 'lapses' once every few years, they don't see this as a betrayal," he said. "Generally, it's between them and their Creator."

This is not permission to have an affair by any means, only a statement on the psychology and theology.

Sadly, this display of dishonesty is precedented.  (E.g., see my reviews of His Dark Materials, The God Delusion, Religulous, Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed, and Godless:  The Church of Liberalism.)  If one wishes to argue that homosexuals should never marry anyone of the opposite sex, fine.  If one wishes to argue that homosexuals should not resist their sexual desires but instead rejoice in them, fine.  If one wishes to argue that homosexuals should never have children, fine.  If one wishes to argue that no one should ever aid and abet a homosexual in marrying someone of the opposite sex and producing children, even if that is what the homosexual wants, fine.  Argue any position you want, but do it on the basis of the actual facts.  If someone has to lie or quote out of context to “prove” that someone is doing something wrong, then that person has given the perfect reason to believe that nothing wrong is being done.  And this goes double when the result is mockery and not even a pathetic excuse for an argument.  Practically anyone can do better than this.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Why should anyone be opposed to people doing something good?

Greetings.

Jewish date:  Jewish date:  19 Kislew 5771 (Parashath Wayyeshev).

Today’s holidays:  Friday of the Thirty-Fourth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Hugo Ball (Church of the SubGenius), Eid al-Ghadeer (Islam), Day of the Covenant (Bahá’í Faith).

Note:  Currently I am working with an unreliable Internet connection, so I plan on keeping my posts short for the moment to increase the chances that they actually get through.

If you are expecting me to post on religious oddities so soon after moving to Israel, you are going to be disappointed.  Ra‘ananah is not a major religious center, and so far what I have seen in what might be called “aberrations” have not been spectacular.

Given this situation, today’s topic is an article by Rav Shmuely Boteach, “The Morality of Gay Adoption”.  Just about anything concerning homosexuals is a controversial topic in the United States, as the practice of homosexuality is forbidden in many religions.  The immorality of homosexuality itself is not questioned or discussed in this article.  Rather there is an excellent point which merits attention:  doing one thing which is wrong does mean one should not do something else which is right.  Nothing about being a homosexual prevents one from being an upstanding moral person in all other matters.  And it is in the best interests of children to have loving homes.  One may not consider homosexuals to be the best role models for children, but let’s face it:  none of us is truly ideal.  We are all imperfect, even the most virtuous among us, yet no one suggests that people should not raise children due to being imperfect.  Why should we be opposed to people doing anything good in this world?

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

Aaron

Who is stupid enough to worship a grilled cheese sandwich?

Image via Wikipedia

Greetings.

Jewish date:  2 Marḥeshwan 5771 (Parashath Lekh-Lekha).

Today’s holidays:  Navratri (Hinduism), Twenty-Eighth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Madeline Murray O’Hair (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Tell the DOJ: Investigate the Chamber of Commerce's campaign spending”.

Today’s topic:  The latest episode of Glee, “Grilled Cheezus”.



I have been busy getting ready to move to Israel, but this episode has been weighing on my mind.  (And it is a miracle I watched it as all.  The episode before it, “Britney/Brittany”, was unbelievably morally incompetently written.)  “Grilled Cheesus” is a train-wreck theologically.  There is a lot of talk about religion and spirituality, including the issue of freedom of religion in public schools, but most of it was on a petty level.

There are three main religion-related plots in this episode.  In the first plot, a football-playing teenager named Finn makes a grilled cheese sandwich and is surprised to see what he interprets as the image of Jesus on it.  He eats the half of the sandwich without the Jesus image on it, but he prays to the other half of the sandwich (“Grilled Cheesus”) to win a football game.  Now, being inspired by an unusual event is one thing, but Finn actually prays to the half-sandwich, as if it were Jesus himself.  This is a flagrant act of idolatry of a very shallow sort.  After all, it just a half-sandwich, not a god.  Nevertheless, his team still wins the game.

Finn prays to the half-sandwich a second time, this time asking that he be allowed to touch his girlfriend Rachel’s breasts.  (He does not seem to be a deep person by any means.)  Soon afterwards Rachel comes to talk with him, noting that she is aiming for a long-term relationship, including eventual marriage, and she wants their children to be raised Jewish.  She appears totally assimilated and disconnected from Judaism, and wanting to raise Jewish children even while committing the blatant transgression of intermarriage is severely inconsistent—and her reasons for this lapse of logic are not explained.  Finn agrees, even though this is grossly inconsistent with his own belief in Jesus, as shallow as it is.  After all, truth is not something one can compromise on.  Nevertheless, his agreement pleases Rachel, and she allows him to grope her breasts.

Finn prays yet again to the half-sandwich, this time asking to become quarterback, which he claims will better let him spread the message of Jesus.  (I cannot make this up.)  Soon afterwards, the current quarterback is injured, and Finn is chosen to take his place.  This disturbs Finn greatly, and he believes that he is responsible.  He is then counseled by a teacher that he is not really responsible.  However, any real discussion of the nature of prayer and how any god which exists responds to them is omitted.  Finn gets to sing the song “Losing My Religion”, and he reluctantly eats the half-sandwich.  Yes, he eventually reaches the truth that the half-sandwich is not a deity, but not particularly well, and this journey is one he should have had enough active brain cells to know not to take in the first place.

The second main religious plot centers on Kurt, stereotypical homosexual teenager.  Kurt dislikes church because much of Christianity is opposed to homosexuality.  In other words, “I do not like the message.  Therefore the message is wrong.”  This is a blatantly childish and illogical sentiment, as reality does not bend to accommodate how we want it to be.  Kurt’s father gets sick and is hospitalized.  Many of Kurt’s fellow glee club members want to pray for Kurt’s father, putting them at odds with Kurt, who is offended.  (Quick side note:  Kurt’s irrationality also extends to medicine, as he has someone perform acupuncture on his father.)  Eventually Kurt is mollified enough to let his fellow glee club member to take him to church.  He does not become a believer, but learns not to be offended by others seeking supernatural aid.  Tolerance is a good message, but Kurt still gets an F in theology.  (Not to mention song choice.  He twists “I Want to Hold Your Hand” out of its original context, and it comes out somewhat creepy.)

The third main religious plot centers on the song choices of the glee club, prompted by Finn’s declaration of having gotten religion.  They want to sing religious songs, which Will Schuester wants to moderate down to just “spiritual”.  Evil cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is opposed, ostensibly because it would be a violation of separation of church and state.  Frankly, I am not clear it would be.  For teachers to demand that students subscribe to particular religious views or engage in particular religious activity in public school would definitely be a violation.  However, separation of church and state is not a ban on religion in public schools, and students are free to initiate and participate in their own religious activities. Thus if they chose to sing blatantly religious songs at glee club, they might well be able to get away with it.  Sue reveals to Will that she lost her faith long ago when her big sister became ill (apparently referring to her suffering from Down syndrome) and her prayers that she be healed went unanswered.  This is a naïve view of prayer.  Prayer is fundamentally talking to a deity.  Now, what sort of deity worth anything would be shallow enough to just pay attention to prayer, weighing it above and beyond all other behavior He/She demands?  And why should Sue’s prayer be weighed so heavily above and beyond any other factor?  And why should Sue’s sister be exempt from illness, which we all are subject to?  Why should not getting what one wants from a god mean that the god does not exist?  Later in the episode, Sue’s sister Janey tells Sue that she does believe in God and that He does not make mistakes—a position which she does not explain.  Nevertheless, it is enough for Sue to soften her position, and she does object to the glee club’s ultimate choice of a song, “(What If God Was) One of Us”.

In short, this episode handles religious belief with next to no depth.  This is disappointing since most humans have enough brain cells to do better than this.

Peace.

Aaron

Freedom of religion is not freedom from offense

Greetings.

Jewish date:  27 Tishri 5771 (Parashath Noaḥ).

Today’s holidays:  Tuesday of the Twenty-Seventh Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Pope Benedict IX (Church of the SubGenius).

Topic 1:  “Are war crimes caused by bad apples or bad barrels?”.  This article deals with the causes of war crimes, specifically whether there is specifically something wrong with the people who commit them (such as psychopathy) or whether the situation of being in a war leads to war crimes.  People often like to trace problems to a single cause (e.g., “Money is the root of all evil”), but guess what:  there is evidence that war crimes are caused by “bad apples” and “bad barrels”.  Humans are frightfully complex beings; there is no reason to assume our behavior is necessarily simple.  This should be kept in mind with dealing with the causes of evil in general:  people do things we consider wrong for all sorts of reasons, ranging from immediate gratification to greed to indifference to curiosity to zeal to jealousy to the noblest intentions.  (That last one is due to not everyone agreeing on what is evil.  What one person considers wickedness, another person may consider completely righteous.)

Image of Jim DeMint via Wikipedia

Topic 2:  “DeMint: Sexually Active Unmarried Women And Gay Teachers Should Be Barred From 
Classrooms”.  I heard about this one indirectly due to Josh.  Let me quote the start of the article:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that even though "no one" came to his defense in 2004 after he said that gay people and unwed mothers should be banned from teaching, "everyone" quietly told him that he shouldn't back down from his position.

He also implied that not banning gay people and women who have sex before marriage from teaching would be an attack on Christians, and defended his position on banning gay teachers because he holds the same position on women who have sex outside of marriage.

"[When I said those things,] no one came to my defense," he said, the Spartanberg Herald-Journal reported. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

Exactly what legal right or aspect of freedom of religion would be violated by being taught by a homosexual or a woman who has non-marital sex?  I freely acknowledge that Christianity (at least certain branches) is fond of neither.  And I can easily understand that a Christian (at least of the DeMintian variety) might consider such a teacher a poor role model for his/her students and thus be offended.  But permitting such people to teach is not an attack on Christianity per se; not all Christians are so opposed to homosexuals or fornicators as DeMint.  Furthermore, while there is a constitutional right in the United States to practice one’s religion, there is no right to impose one’s religion on others.  In fact, since belief in one religion frequently requires belief that something certain other people believe or do is offensive, freedom of religion effectively requires that people be allowed to do things which offend other people.  And freedom of speech, also a constitutional right, includes being able to say and do things which other people do not approve of.  So DeMint does not approve of homosexuals and fornicators teaching others?  That is his prerogative.  But freedom of religion is not a case for a ban on homosexuals and fornicators from teaching.

Topic 3:  Update on yesterday’s post “It was not just the Temple Mount which the Muslims stole”:  “India less tense after court verdict on holy site”.  The court divided the land between the Hindus and the Muslims.  The Muslims get ⅓ of the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Mosque site, while the Hindus get ⅔ of the site, including the place where the mosque—and previously a Hindu temple—once stood.  I call this a triumph against Islamic supremacism.  Now we get to wait to see what happens next.

Peace.

Aaron

Pros and cons of organized religion

Greetings.

Jewish date:  2 ’Elul 5770 (Parashath Shofeṭim).

Note:  For information on ’Elul, see the Orthodox Union’s ’Elul page.

Today’s holidays:  Ramadan (Islam), Thursday of the Nineteenth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Francisco Franco (Church of the SubGenius), Feast Day of William Blake/Feast for the First Night of the Prophet and His Bride/Feast of Heracles (Thelema), Sea Org Day (Scientology), Zaraday (Discordianism)

Worthy cause of the day:  “ColorOfChange.org:  FCC: Say NO to Google and Verizon / Demand the FCC do its job and protect the open Internet”.

Topic 1:  Yesterday on the news they reported that author Anne Rice has “quit being a Christian”.  I’m going to let her speak for herself before commenting on this:



To be technically correct, Rice has not quit being a Christian or religious, but rather has separated herself from all organized Christian groups.  Organized religion has the great advantage that it allows people to pull together and more easily do worthwhile things that they could not do easily or at all on their own.  E.g., it is much easier for a house of worship to start and manage a soup kitchen than an individual, as the house of worship can pool resources and spread effort among many people, while an individual would probably not be able to manage alone except maybe on a very small scale.  Organized religion, like any form of human organization, has a downside:  politics.  There is a lot of quarreling and bickering which goes on, both within groups and between groups.  Religions also tend to place a premium on beliefs and practices, so a lot of the politics may deal with beliefs and practices.  I am fortunate that I am currently a member of a group, the West Ashley Minyan, in which the politics have been kept under control (thank YHWH; we are what I have termed a “volunteerocracy”).  Unfortunately, in some groups the politics get to the point where members feel the problems of that organization outweigh the benefits.  Often this results in a schism if enough people feel the same way, allowing for maintaining organization but with a rejection of the old politics.  If there are not enough people, the result can be exactly what Rice is doing:  leaving organization behind completely and going alone.  This is a drastic measure, but organization is (usually) supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in itself; thus if the means is counterproductive, another means has to be employed.  I hope for her sake that she finds going it alone a sufficiently productive means towards the search for truth, and if not, that she find or form a group in which she can feel comfortable enough to enjoy the benefits of organization.

Topic 2:  For today’s religious humor (submitted by Barry): “Prop 8 Overturned! Here's Some Anti-Gay Protesters Getting Owned (PHOTOS)”.  Next to no one likes the Westboro Baptist Church, as they seem to do nothing other than protest with hate-filled signs.  The photographs are of one of their recent protests, in which counter-protestors managed to get the last laugh.

Peace.

Aaron

Yes, there is such a thing as a gay Orthodox rabbi

Greetings.

Jewish date:  20 Shevaṭ 5770 (Parashath Yithro).

Today’s holidays:  Thursday of the Fourth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Imbolc (Wicca).

Worthy causes of the day:  “Take Action | Oceana North America:  Tell President Obama: No More Offshore Oil Drilling!”, “Save BioGems: Take Action: Protect Grizzly Bears”, “Include Children in HIV Vaccine Research - The Petition Site”, and “Take Action: TrueMajority.org:  Fix the Budget, Fix America”.

Topic 1:  More updates on anti-Semitism:  “NPR's Self-Examination” and “Israel Releases Goldstone Response”.

Topic 2:  This ought to shock some people:  “Gay orthodox rabbi nudging Judaism”.  This article is a bit misleading.  First of all, rabbinical ordination can and has been revoked.  When I was an Yeshiva University, they taught that rabbis who took positions at “Conservative” congregations and did not turn them around or leave in a specific period of time would have their ordinations revoked.  Ordination is certification that the bearer knows what he/she is talking about and is competent; those who prove otherwise can be decertified.  Secondly, no one, including the man under discussion, Rav Steven Greenberg, is endorsing homosexual activity; such is quite unjustifiable within the boundaries of Orthodox Judaism.  Last I heard, no one really knows how anyone ends up with their sexual orientation and there is no reliable way to change it.  As such, Rav Greenberg, struggling with and exploring his situation, promotes tolerance and understanding.  This is entirely appropriate and justified; all of us are subject to temptations and desires not of our conscious choice, and it is senseless to condemn anyone simply because of what they feel.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor:  “the battle of good and evil gose on...... by winrar333”:


Peace.

Aaron