Not Comfortable with the Jewish Far-Left
November 23, 2008 Far-left, Liberal Judaism, Politics
They can be just as obnoxious as the far-right!
I am not terribly comfortable at how Jews have taken such a strident position in favor of gay marriage. I think if Jews are so convinced that this is a universal human right, then maybe they should first agitate to enact this in the Jewish state. But I don’t see them demanding gay marriage in Israel. Rather, they are screaming that they need gay marriage in the U.S.
Jews should take a back seat on this one. Our own civilization and culture hardly dictates this as normative, despite changes enacted five minutes ago. The Reconstructionists, who pride themselves in being eccentric, have decried a democratic referendum against gay marriage in the strongest terms.
Look at how these arrogant Jews dismiss the democratic referendums!
We are saddened and deeply disturbed by the denial of fundamental human rights—to marry, to adopt and care for foster children—to thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the United States. We are particularly dismayed by the passage of initiatives that have reversed previously recognized equality for same-sex unions.
Oh, you’re dismayed, are you? A “fundamental” right for gays to marry? Based on what history? Based on which civilization?
I would remind these far-Left Jews that it is not their place to push around the American population for the sake of their Tikkun Olam fantasies. The American population is allowed to disagree with the arrogant and privileged Jew in her unremitting quest for a new civil rights war to wage against her country.
The U.S. and her population do not have to line up in-synch with the agenda of the Jewish Reconstructionist movement. I’m so, so, so, so sorry if that hurts Lefty Jews’ feeling. But Americans are allowed to think differently than you. Yes. Yes they are. Now run to the courts and tantrum.
How annoyed am I? Enough to give Rabbi Shafran of Agudath Israel the last word, because this haredi leader actually makes more sense than the pushy Jewish left whom he effectively stuffs.
Rebecca Kaplan, a newly elected Oakland, California city council member, told those gathered outside City Hall how upset she was with the passage of Proposition 8. According to a news report, she “roused the crowd by blowing a shofar, a ram’s horn blown as a wind instrument in Biblical times. She said it represented a call for solidarity.”
Only it doesn’t. It represents a call for teshuva, the Hebrew word for repentance, literally “return” – to the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.
22 comments
You can bark about this stuff all you like – they still think you’re one of us. You’re tarred for life, m’boy!
they still think you’re one of us
They know the difference, and they know the moderate-Lefties are much more of a threat. If they listed all of the bloggers they were most concerned about, none of them would be from the “tikkun olam” crowd.
“Now run to the courts and tantrum.”
Brilliant.
“Oh, you’re dismayed, are you? A “fundamental” right for gays to marry? Based on what history? Based on which civilization?”
On two thousand years of history, DK. Have you forgotton the debate within the People’s Front of Judea as recorded in the Monty Python’s Life of Brian (scene 7)? -
JUDITH:
I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG:
Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS:
Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
FRANCIS:
Or woman… to rid himself–
STAN:
Or herself.
FRANCIS:
Or herself.
REG:
Agreed.
FRANCIS:
Thank you, brother.
STAN:
Or sister.
FRANCIS:
Or sister. Where was I?
REG:
I think you’d finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?!
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG:
What?!
STAN/LORETTA:
It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
STAN/LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
STAN/LORETTA:
It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But… you can’t have babies!!
STAN/LORETTA:
Don’t you oppress me!
REG:
I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! Are you going to keep it in a box?!
STAN/LORETTA:
[sobbing]
JUDITH:
Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother – er – sister. Sorry.
REG:
What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality!
I don’t know. If I want to have a deeper commitment to, say, my toaster, why don’t I just make it? Why mix in the government?
You’re presenting anti-Prop 8 activity within the Jewish community as primarily reconstructionist. Rather, the Jewish groups aligned with anti-Prop 8 activity have been reform, conservative, and reconstructionist combined. On the other hand, it’s difficult to find non-Orthodox Jewish groups on the pro-Prop 8 side.
“Fundamental rights” aren’t a product of history; they’re a product of careful philosophical and political consideration. From a historical perspective, racial, ethnic, gender, and religious discrimination (in both de jure and de facto forms) have been the norm. Do you think women have a right to the same means of civic participation as men? History would not agree.
“Democratic referendums” sound like embodiments of the highest American ideals, but we too often forget that America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Constitutional republics often include democratic influences, but they fundamentally rest on the steadfast values written in their constitutions. (Now, you could say that Prop 8 did amend the California constitution, but the question of whether that happened with due process is currently under review by California’s supreme court.)
The idea that people “run to the courts and tantrum” betrays your lack of understanding of the role of courts in the American (common) law system. Courts have long served to protect minority interests from majority oppression. We should not forget that it was the courts that overturned laws preventing interracial marriage, and it was against massive public opinion to the contrary.
As for the state of same-sex marriage in Israel, you seem to forget that such marriages are recognized if they were performed outside Israel. Before you say that that’s insufficient to counter your statement, remember that there is no civil marriage in Israel: Christians cannot marry Jews, opposite-sex or not.
Finally, your closing quotation about Kaplan’s ill-advised rallying call is merely an ad hominem attack, not an actual argument about the politics surrounding Prop 8 or Jewish culture/religion.
David,
Best of luck getting any kind of responsive answer to THAT, my friend. See, what you’ve composed consists of something that would generally be characterized as an “argument,” you know, a coherent analysis of factual circumstances surrounding a particular proposition, such as the nature and appropriateness of the participation of certain segments of the Jewish community in the political dispute over gay marriage. What we have here, on the other hand, has nothing to do with any such argument, but with the extent to which such participation makes Kelsey “comfortable,” like the thong string going up his ass when he composes these especially brilliant posts.
Now, why anyone would give a flying shit what makes Kelsey comfortable (oh, excuse me, what he regards as “normative,” in his favorite and most frequently abused word in the English language) is beyond me, but it’s his sandbox, so you’ll have to simply take his egregiously stupid, self-indulgent bigotry for what its worth.
“Democratic referendums” sound like embodiments of the highest American ideals, but we too often forget that America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
I am not comfortable running a referendum, and then declaring the outcome unimportant.
Finally, your closing quotation about Kaplan’s ill-advised rallying call is merely an ad hominem attack, not an actual argument about the politics surrounding Prop 8 or Jewish culture/religion.
No, it does appear the shofar was misused from a traditional standpoint. And the Jews are much too involved.
“I am not comfortable running a referendum, and then declaring the outcome unimportant.”
The anti-Prop 8 side asked the California courts multiple times to evaluate the constitutionality of running Prop 8 through the initiative (rather than revision) process. The courts refused to address the question, which I’ve read is quite common when a proposition still hasn’t even been passed yet. Through no fault of the anti-Prop 8 side, the courts seem to prefer seeing if a proposition passes before evaluating its legality.
The same procedure happens with laws from the legislature: the courts generally won’t even address the constitutionality until the laws are already passed and being enforced. The legislature cannot really ask, “Would this law, if passed, be constitutional?”
“No, it does appear the shofar was misused from a traditional standpoint. And the Jews are much too involved.”
It’s still ad hominem given the context of Jewish involvement in Proposition 8. “Ad hominem” literally means “against the person.” When you argue about behavior that has nothing to do with the merits of or problems with Prop 8, you are indeed attacking a person (in this case, Kaplan) and not an argument.
I could hold up a Christian cross and invoke the name of Jesus to “unify Jews.” It would be idiotic, but it wouldn’t truly say anything about what I was trying to unify Jews behind. It would only say that I, personally, lack any understanding of Jewish symbolism and theology.
Now, why anyone would give a flying shit what makes Kelsey comfortable
Why should anyone give a “flying shit” about conforming to whatever will make the Jewish Leftist, perennially the champion of all “outsiders,” and “the marginalized” feel slightly less uncomfortable in his victimology?
At some point, others have the right to say, “No, Jew, we don’t want that. It’s not happening, and stop calling us fascists.”
Everyone has the right to blow their shofar or consensually blow someone else’s. But if the gentiles don’t want to offer a full-blown, government-mandated temple service over it, well, that’s their right.
David, my focus on the issue with Prop 8 was not Prop 8 exactly. It was on the Jewish role in Prop 8.
And misusing the Shofar was an example of Jewish far-Left excess, and the pushing into the public square of one’s Jewishness. And for myself and some of both the heretical (you know this isn’t a frum site, right?) and traditional readers, it did demonstrate a confusion and conflation between secular and dubious religious mission.
I did not call anyone names. I simply made fun of an action by a public official. I don’t see that as ad hominem.
Exactly. Ms Kaplan should have stood on the steps of City Hall waiving a Matza and singing ‘Ve Hi SheAmda” to get attention. She should then have ate the Matzah followed by a leaf of romaine lettuce after making the appropriate Brachos.
Blowing the shofar just made her look silly.
“you know this isn’t a frum site, right?”
Quite. I’ve been a reader for a while.
“I did not call anyone names. I simply made fun of an action by a public official. I don’t see that as ad hominem.”
Calling someone names is merely the most textbook case of ad hominem argumentation. In an attack on Jewish involvement in Prop 8, making fun of the behavior of a public official who happens to be against Prop 8 — even if such behavior somehow relates to Judaism — does not demonstrate a flaw in the idea of Jewish anti-Prop 8 involvement.
In other words, one poor choice for involving Judaisim in the Prop 8 controversy is not an argument against all forms of Jewish involvement in Prop 8.
But enough of arguing only your points. Let me give you some reasons why Prop 8 is something Jews specifically would not want:
(1) Prop 8 represents an enactment of religious prohibitions in civil law. Even if Prop 8 itself does not conflict with your personal Jewish values, the groups pushing for Prop 8 are primarily Christian and religiously conservative. There’s no way to know whether the next religious/civil battle will align so well with your views, but Prop 8 sets a precedent of allowing religious influence over the civil law — law that governs both out civil and religious lives.
(2) Many reconstructionist, conservative, and reform congregations do perform same-sex marriages. The state’s refusal to recognize these the same as male/female marriages infringes on the right of these invididual congregations to choose which marriages they wish to recognize.
Prop 8 in itself no more represents an enactment of religous prohibition in civil law then does the current non recognition of polygamous marriage in civil law. Neither does the fact that murder is prohibited by the sixth commandment evidence that its prohibition in civil law should be prohibited.
Individual congregations have a right to choose which marriages they wish to recognize but they do not have a right to impose a recognition by that state of that right. The Ottoman Empire millit system is not something which the USA should adopt.
David and d.s. you need to lighten up a bit. Making lighthearted fun of state officials is one of life’s few innocent pleasure. Think of the joy that Sarah Palin brought to the world.
“Prop 8 in itself no more represents an enactment of religous prohibition in civil law then does the current non recognition of polygamous marriage in civil law.”
I don’t personally think polygamy should be prohibited in civil law, though I think there are probably some decent non-religious reasons to have such a prohibition. In any case, it represents a much larger legal change to allow polygamy: all current law and regulation around marriage is premised on working with two people, and it doesn’t suddenly stop working if you have same-sex married couples. Much of marriage law answers the question, “What happens if something happens to one of the people?” It’s pretty easy to answer when there’s only one other person eligible to make the power-of-attorney decisions, take child custody, and (in the event of death or incapacitation) gain control of the partner’s benefits.
“Prop 8 in itself no more represents an enactment of religous prohibition in civil law then does the current non recognition of polygamous marriage in civil law. Neither does the fact that murder is prohibited by the sixth commandment evidence that its prohibition in civil law should be prohibited.”
I agree, but the difference is that there is no non-religious justification for Prop 8. It’s OK for civil law to conflict with religious practice, but there has to be a non-religious reason to do so. There are obvious, secular justifications for prohibiting murder. The only “secular” justifications for prohibiting same-sex marriage tend to be from discredited studies founded by religious or conservative organizations.
Okay, David. I will address some of your points.
David wrote,
There’s no way to know whether the next religious/civil battle will align so well with your views
Well, I don’t see a real status quo being changed here. Mostly, the U.S. has not allowed gay marriage for most of her history.
Additionally, from a strategic standpoint, my party is in power, and I kind of want to take the gay marriage thing away from the Republicans next election…I see this as a losing battle, in part because it is overly aggressive, and it is not something I see as critical to American, or frankly, Jewish interests.
We lost the 2004 election in part because of the gay issue. I like having the Dems in power. If you go against the will of the people, if you overrule them through legal machinations, there will be a price to pay, and it may be very high. It was in 2004.
David wrote
” The only “secular” justifications for prohibiting same-sex marriage tend to be from discredited studies founded by religious or conservative organizations.”
David, my objections to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religous or conservative views or abhorrence of buggery.
I recently watched a documentary about the condition of an impoverished Tehran prostitute. This poor woman insisted that she was virtuous as she always took advantage of the concept of ‘temporary marriage’ available in Shia jurisprudence. To support her claim of virtue she produced a folder containing dozens of cheaply printed one page ‘marriage contracts’ signed by her clients and witnessed by her pimp bearing the stamp of the Ministry of Interior. These temporary marriages are clearly a sham designed to give some type of respectability to what is obviously prostitution. This marriage is intended to last as long as it takes a man to satisfy his lust. It is not intended to gives rise to a commitment to procreate or support the raising of children. This woman was just deluding herself that she was not a $10 whore.
Similar self delusion occur with those who undergo ‘sex change’ or ‘gender alignment’ procedures. The fact that a man may have his genitals mangled so that they has a passing resemblance to a vulva (or a Volvo if the surgeon was was confused by a Yiddish accent), has two silicon bags over his ribs and has his hair styled in a beehive does not make him a woman. He is just a man who bears a cosmetic likeness to Sarah Jessica Parker and those who think otherwise are deluding themselves. Such a man is just a ‘sham woman’.
Same sex marriage is similarly a sham in that it ignores the purpose of the commitments the parties to marriage take on and why society rewards the taking on of these commitments. The legal and social advantages married couples get are not a reward for engaging in heterosexual intercourse or giving each other spousal support. The social advantages married couples obtain are for taking on the onerous commitment to procreate and raise children. Heterosexual intercourse and as well as spousal support are just means to procreate and raise children. Same sex couples cannot procreate. It is not their fault and it is not even the Romans’ fault. The reason same sex couples should not be given the benefits of married heterosexual couples is that they do not deserve those rights as they cannot earn them by reason of biology. ‘Couplehood’ is not by itself worthy of reward.
Imagine three elderly couples, each couple sharing a house. A husband a wife, two homosexual men and two spinster sisters. On the death of the husband, the wife will be exempt for death duties. That exemption is not a reward for her satisfying her husband’s and her own sexual desires some decades earlier but for having or having been prepared to have children. You may argue that it would be unfair to impose death duties on the homosexual couple as it may force the sale of the house and eviction of the surviving partner but so does imposing death duties on the two spinster sisters (or an elderly parent who cared for his adult disabled child). Why should the fact that the two homosexual couples enjoy or enjoyed a sexual relationship with each other whilst the two sisters did not have any bearing on tax exemption. Why should the taxpayer have any interest in non procreational sex? DK is right to suggest that this caused the Democratic Party damage in 2004
Same sex marriage activists have an obvious agenda. To equate committed heterosexual and committed homosexual relationships in peoples minds. However, in reality these relationships are too different as the former has a major and important consequence the latter does not and can never have. It may upset them to be told so but that is reality.
Of course and notwithstanding that they are deluded, same sex activists have every right to argue that homosexual relationships are the equal of heterosexual relationships or that having sex (as opposed to procreating) deserves social recognition. I may regard their same sex wedding ceremonies as being as much of a sham as the Iranian whore’s ‘marriage contract’ or ‘gender reallignment’ but in a democracy, the state must not prevent these ceremonies. Recognizing these ceremonies as having legal effect is a different matter. These ‘weddings’ are as much a sham as the Kapparos ritual transfer of sins to chickens. I would not stop Kapparos but I would not want to see civil law recognizing the validity of this ritual and releasing all prisoners who have engaged in this ritual.
Now David, scroll back and enjoy the Monty Python scene I posted earlier whilst I will ask Rebitzen Rebecca Kaplan to blow her shofar so as to remind me of my need to do Kapparos for my sin of being rude to Sarah Jessica Parker.
I have never understood why the gay-marriage advocates act as if they have never heard of this whole, “marriage is connected to procreation” thing.
“Why should the taxpayer have any interest in non procreational sex?”
Very interesting thought. Not cool about SJP though; She’s a classy lady.
“Well, I don’t see a real status quo being changed here. Mostly, the U.S. has not allowed gay marriage for most of her history.”
Neither was interracial marriage allowed. Or voting for women.
“If you go against the will of the people, if you overrule them through legal machinations, there will be a price to pay, and it may be very high. It was in 2004.”
Are you really trying to blame the 2004 elections on gay issues? That’s pretty pathetic and entirely unsupportable.
” The social advantages married couples obtain are for taking on the onerous commitment to procreate and raise children.”
Except that even a woman who had a hysterectomy can marry a man.
“I have never understood why the gay-marriage advocates act as if they have never heard of this whole, ‘marriage is connected to procreation” thing.’”
Oh, we hear it all the time, but it turns out that it’s mostly an invention of people against same-sex marriage. Procreation — or potential for it — has never been a condition for marriage in this country, nor has it been elsewhere. Marriage, traditionally, was an institution for managing wealth and power, especially before the 18th century:
http://www.psychologytoday.com.....00006.html
Neither was interracial marriage allowed.
Blacks really rejected this argument. Oh, my, by a landslide. So you go do your work with the Blacks, convince them, and then you come back over to these white parts with your integration stick. Cause it don’t look too big right now.
Except that even a woman who had a hysterectomy can marry a man.
So can old people. So do you really need me to explain this to you?
Marriage, traditionally, was an institution for managing wealth and power, especially before the 18th century
In other words, marriage may be generally less compelling today. I agree. I’m single, and so are most of my friends. Sounds like a compelling reason not to expand the goverments role in this fading institution. So yes, exactly, David.
Being impotent, infertile or refusing to have sex (which before contraception became available was tantamount to refusal to procreate) have always been grounds for annulment of marriage even before the 18th century. It is the procreation with a suitable partner of the opposite sex rather than the marriage ceremony or the sexual act which is effective in maintaining wealth over generations. A husband is entitled to an annulment if his wife has failed to disclose prior to marriage, the fact that she has had a hysterectomy.
Whilst inability to procreate whilst young is a grounds for divorce, the loss of that ability through age is not. Even amongst Gerrer Hasidim (who have some strange sexual customs), one does not hear that Zeyde has thrown out Buppa because he wants more babies.
There still is a strong taboo against women having sex outside marriage whether they are fertile or not. If such women were denied marriage many would remain alone rather than cohabit than be considered as fornicators. It is for that reason that elderly widows and the infertile are given the right to marry. In former times when it was hard to women to live independently that taboo could lead to impoverishment if no man was prepared to support them.
There is no similar taboo regarding homosexuality. Whilst there may be same sex couples who would wish to have their commitment to one another blessed by Rebitzen Rebecca Kaplan blowing her shofar at City Hall, there are none for whom not doing so is taboo.
Leave a Comment