| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 436.1 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:50 | 22 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.1 Decorum at shul 1 of 20
IAGO::SCHOELLER "Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoell" 16 lines 8-FEB-1988 18:05
-< I have an opinion (don't I always 8^{) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether they are explicit or implicit every congregation has guidelines
for behavior. Behavior of children and adults during the sermon is
(in my opinion) up to the taste of the congregation and the rabbi.
Conversation and walking around when the rest of the congregation is
davening is rude no matter where you are. Smoking, eating (and what
you eat 8^{) are, I think, halachic issues and should be handled as
such.
I assume that the congregation only has services on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
If such is the case, then cameras and guest book signings should be
forbidden. I understand that the Reform does not worry about halacha
but since some part of the congregation considers themselves Conservative
it is appropriate to require conformance to halacha at the shul.
Gavriel
The preceding was my opinion and nobody listens to me anyway.
|
| 436.2 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:50 | 85 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.2 Decorum at shul 2 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 79 lines 9-FEB-1988 11:36
-< the proposed guidelines >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the Board, in its infinite wisdom, decided that they
didn't want to spend the entire night debating this and decided
to post the proposed guidelines in the Temple Bulletin (mailed
to all congregants) and ask for feedback.
Following the form feed is the exact text of the proposed
guidelines. I am astounded at some of it. I am even more
astounded at some of the reactions it got at last night's Board
meeting. How would you react?
By the way, I initially felt much the same as Gavriel, in .1,
but have since changed my mind on some of the issues. There
seems to be a lack of distinction between what is/should be
governed by halacha and what is/should be governed by societal
mores.
Anyway, here it is:
GUIDELINES FOR BEHAVIOR IN TEMPLE
AT ALL TIMES
1. Eating is not permitted in the Sanctuary.
2. Jumping on, or otherwise abusing Temple property, is
prohibited.
3. Changing diapers in the Sanctuary is prohibited. Either
the restrooms or the downstairs will be used for this
purpose.
DURING STANDARD SERVICES
1. Running around, and other activities which tend to disrupt
the service, are not permitted.
2. Congregants are requested to refrain from talking.
3. Presence of children at services is encouraged; it is
the responsibility of parents to control distracting
behavior of their children.
4. Consideration for the feelings of others shall be paramount
at all times.
DURING THE RABBI'S SERMON
1. Talking or walking around is not permitted, as it is
distracting to other congregants and the Rabbi.
2. Congregants will not be permitted to leave or enter
the Sanctuary. The doors will remain closed.
DURING FAMILY SERVICES (Last Friday Night Service of Month)
and TOT SHABBAT
1. Children will be allowed more leeway in terms of behavior.
Otherwise, the guidelines for other services still apply.
PICTURE TAKING
1. "Flash" picture taking is not permitted during Shabbat
services, including life cycle events. Pictures may
be taken from the back of the Sanctuary only.
DRESS CODE
1. Appropriate clothing should be worn during Shabbat and
other services to celebrate the occasion.
GUEST BOOK
1. Guest book signing should not be accomplished during
Shabbat services and life cycle events that occur on
Shabbat.
|
| 436.3 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:51 | 45 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.3 Decorum at shul 3 of 20
CADSYS::RICHARDSON 39 lines 9-FEB-1988 12:14
-< Common sense ought to decide >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I serve on the religious activities committee of our (reform) schul
- in fact, I used to chair it, but someone else does now (so I don't
have to go to the board meetings anymore; they conflicted with classes
I was taking - anyhow Natalie is much more capable in the role than
I am!). Most of the proposed rules you listed seem to be merely
common sense - we've never had to write a policy that told people
things like not to change diapers in the sanctuary! I don't believe
smoking is allowed anywhere in the building, both for halachic
(reverence for your body - and mine; I'm allergic to smoke) and
for insurance reasons. One side of the sanctuary is also used as
a function room, so eating does take place there. We don't have
much trouble with children running around during services, and the
rabbi prefers children noises (within reason) to noises of people
trying to hush their children - anyhow, most people think to take
their child out of the sanctuary if he/she really can't sit still
any longer. We do allow unobstrusive photography from the back
of the santuary with no flash (most people in our congregation don't
have a problem with this so long as the camera doesn't make either
light or noise - anyhow, my Nikon cameras will operate without even
a battery in the "P90" setting, so all I am doing is pushing a lever).
Like you, we are the only synagogue in town, and have people with
a wide variety of backgrounds: my husband is from an Orthodox
background, some of our members are "classical reform" (women wear
kippot, etc.), and most of them are somewhere between reform and
conservative in their outlooks.
We had much more fun the year we actually had to write a policy
on food allowable in the building! Someone presented their bar-mitzvah
plans to the committee, someone whose Orthodox relatives would be
staying with various families who live within walking distance of
the schul. Her proposed menu for this affair included water chestnuts
wrapped in bacon!!! That was the first time common sense alone
hadn't set our food policy, but, never fear, we spared this congregant
much embarrassment she would have suffered later by vetoing that
menu and writing a policy about "kosher-style" food (we don't require
that the meat be kosher - nearly all the affairs we run are dairy
anyhow, since many members are vegetarians).
|
| 436.4 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:51 | 110 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.4 Decorum at shul 4 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 59 lines 9-FEB-1988 17:27
-< how common is common sense? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Common sense ought to decide"
This *was* the philosophy until several events occurred that
made it painfully obvious that either many people lacked
common sense or there were very different ideas of what that
common sense is.
Diapers were changed in the Sanctuary. Pictures were taken
by people who would make their way to the front during the Torah
reading so they could preserve David's haftorah reading for
posterity. Video cameras were set up by the bimah to take
in the whole Bar Mitzvah. There were noisy children and noisier
adults kvetching about the noisy children. Women would come
to services in outfits more suitable for the beach or brothel
than the bimah.
Some people were disturbed by these things. Others weren't.
Those who were disturbed let the others know in no uncertain
terms. At one point, incredibly, it came to fisticuffs during
a service!
Everyone claimed that everyone knows what is right and wrong,
yet when asked to specify it, no one could agree. Though most
members whom I've spoken with dislike the idea of listing
guidelines (including myself), the alternative has been shown
to be intolerable.
My personal views on some of these subjects are:
Cameras: cameras of any sort have no place in the Sanctuary
during Shabbat or many other holidays.
Guest books: same as cameras.
But in both cases, I would not advocate an outright ban. This
is a recent change in position for me. I certainly wouldn't
do either, but if others want to, who am I to say they can't.
Dress: this is a particularly sensitive point for me. We
are told that we should wear "our best" on Shabbat. But what
does that mean? Should men wear tuxedos and women wear evening
gowns? I personally believe that the point is that *if* dress
can enhance the Shabbat experience, make it special, then you
should do so. If putting on a jacket and tie detracts from
your Shabbat experience by making you uncomfortable, you
should *not* be so dressed.
The bottom line is that dress on Shabbat is and should be totally
individual, and if others don't like your choice that's their
problem, not yours. I have certainly had negative reactions
to dress that I've seen on Shabbat, but a moment's reflection
allows me to dismiss my judgmental thoughts and get back to
the reason I'm there.
Hoo boy. Enough. I'm sure everyone agrees with me :-)
Sid
================================================================================
Note 442.3 Decorum at shul 3 of 20
CADSYS::RICHARDSON 39 lines 9-FEB-1988 12:14
-< Common sense ought to decide >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I serve on the religious activities committee of our (reform) schul
- in fact, I used to chair it, but someone else does now (so I don't
have to go to the board meetings anymore; they conflicted with classes
I was taking - anyhow Natalie is much more capable in the role than
I am!). Most of the proposed rules you listed seem to be merely
common sense - we've never had to write a policy that told people
things like not to change diapers in the sanctuary! I don't believe
smoking is allowed anywhere in the building, both for halachic
(reverence for your body - and mine; I'm allergic to smoke) and
for insurance reasons. One side of the sanctuary is also used as
a function room, so eating does take place there. We don't have
much trouble with children running around during services, and the
rabbi prefers children noises (within reason) to noises of people
trying to hush their children - anyhow, most people think to take
their child out of the sanctuary if he/she really can't sit still
any longer. We do allow unobstrusive photography from the back
of the santuary with no flash (most people in our congregation don't
have a problem with this so long as the camera doesn't make either
light or noise - anyhow, my Nikon cameras will operate without even
a battery in the "P90" setting, so all I am doing is pushing a lever).
Like you, we are the only synagogue in town, and have people with
a wide variety of backgrounds: my husband is from an Orthodox
background, some of our members are "classical reform" (women wear
kippot, etc.), and most of them are somewhere between reform and
conservative in their outlooks.
We had much more fun the year we actually had to write a policy
on food allowable in the building! Someone presented their bar-mitzvah
plans to the committee, someone whose Orthodox relatives would be
staying with various families who live within walking distance of
the schul. Her proposed menu for this affair included water chestnuts
wrapped in bacon!!! That was the first time common sense alone
hadn't set our food policy, but, never fear, we spared this congregant
much embarrassment she would have suffered later by vetoing that
menu and writing a policy about "kosher-style" food (we don't require
that the meat be kosher - nearly all the affairs we run are dairy
anyhow, since many members are vegetarians).
|
| 436.5 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:52 | 14 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.5 Decorum at shul 5 of 20
IAGO::SCHOELLER "Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoelle" 8 lines 9-FEB-1988 18:17
-< Modesty >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dress: this is a particularly sensitive point for me. We
> are told that we should wear "our best" on Shabbat.
We are also told that we should dress modestly at all times even
on Shabbat. This is can be enterpretted in many ways but I don't
think that leather minis and spaghetti strap tops is one of them 8^{).
Gavriel
|
| 436.6 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:52 | 50 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.6 Decorum at shul 6 of 20
YOUNG::YOUNG 44 lines 10-FEB-1988 09:59
-< Dress 'em all up like penguins (women too!) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with CADSYS::RICHARDSON about quite a few things (no surprise).
I note that your rules about sermons (closing the doors etc.) make
it more difficult for families with children - what do you do when
a kid misbehaves during the sermon?
Smoking REALLY should not be permitted within the building.
Things such as photographs and guest books are real hard to ban,
as some families consider them appropriate. Rules such which make
it possible for people who don't want anything to do with it to
ignore it are probably your best compromise. This means no flash
and no coming up to the bimah to take pictures, that video must
be from the back of the room and set up well before the service,
etc. Also, a decision on what is allowable at the social function
after Bar/Bat Mitzvahs may be necessary, especially if you have
a function room. I would tend to allow flash photography there,
as that is by invitation only.
The current rule at the synagogue I belong to about food is that
we don't allow obvious mixing of milk and meat, or pork or shellfish.
This seems to be sufficient, especially now that we have a stainless
kitchen which can be made kosher when necessary.
By the way, my feeling is that noisy children are alright, but that
parents who make lots of noise trying to quiet them should be expelled
from the sanctuary. The kids are kids, and are why we built the
shul in the first place; whereas the parents should know better.
(Boy, would I love to ban chewing gum during services...)
Dress codes are impossible to get right. I would rather see someone
show up in jeans than not make it to services!
Being on the religious activities committee of a shul in a similar
situation, I know what you are going through. Don't take it all
too seriously and it can be a fun time to learn a lot about various
Jewish traditions.
By the way, I take a little offense at someone's earlier suggestion
that the Reform movement ignores halacha!
Paul
|
| 436.7 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:53 | 49 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.7 Decorum at shul 7 of 20
RSTS32::KASPER "STMP T VWLS!" 43 lines 10-FEB-1988 16:04
-< Common sense isn't >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see anything about smoke in the proposal; while I personally
dislike being subjected to smoke at any time, and would favor a ban
throughout the building, I think refraining from smoking in the
sanctuary falls under common courtesy.
The necessity of banning diaper-changing is appalling. The ban itself
is obvious.
> 2. Congregants will not be permitted to leave or enter
> the Sanctuary. The doors will remain closed.
I would reword this as "Congregants are requested to avoid entering or
leaving the sanctuary during the sermon." This will make it clear that
running back and forth is not appropriate, but will help the parent
of a child who is being too disruptive [maybe because it needs to be
changed?!]. I'd rather have someone leave the room than be sick in the
sanctuary.
If I thought I was going to be locked in (which is what this sounds
like), I'd stay home.
> If putting on a jacket and tie detracts from your Shabbat experience by
> making you uncomfortable, you should *not* be so dressed.
>
> The bottom line is that dress on Shabbat is and should be totally
> individual, and if others don't like your choice that's their problem, not
> yours. I have certainly had negative reactions to dress that I've seen on
> Shabbat, but a moment's reflection allows me to dismiss my judgmental
> thoughts and get back to the reason I'm there.
> Dress codes are impossible to get right. I would rather see someone
> show up in jeans than not make it to services!
I agree with both these statements. If someone has the bad (in my
opinion) taste to show up in a bikini, what is she doing to me? In
what way am I injured? As for jeans and a T-shirt, maybe that *is* the
best they can do! There are poor Jews, and if they feel a desire to
attend services, they should be welcomed.
Beverly
|
| 436.8 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:53 | 152 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.8 Decorum at shul 8 of 20
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 146 lines 10-FEB-1988 16:35
-< oy, vey, another flame... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> By the way, I take a little offense at someone's earlier suggestion
>> that the Reform movement ignores halacha!
Well, I wasn't going to reply to this note at all until I
saw that.
***HOW can you believe that?***
You just finished saying...
>>The current rule at the synagogue I belong to about food is that
>>we don't allow obvious mixing of milk and meat, or pork or shellfish.
>>This seems to be sufficient, especially now that we have a stainless
>>kitchen which can be made kosher when necessary.
>>(we don't require
>>that the meat be kosher - nearly all the affairs we run are dairy
>>anyhow, since many members are vegetarians).
HAH? "Kosher when necessary?"
You mean that you think that halacha says that sometimes you
should eat kosher, and sometimes you shouldn't?
>>Things such as photographs and guest books are real hard to ban,
>>as some families consider them appropriate.
You just PROVED the previous comment that you objected to:
"some families consider them appropriate" is the same thing
as saying "those families have jettisoned some halachot".
Sorry: **THE** halacha (not the Reform or the Conservative or the
Orthodox or the Reconstructionist halacha) says that "YOU SHOULD
EAT KOSHER ALL THE TIME". You can _choose_ to ignore this, but
that doesn't CHANGE the halacha. Halacha just ain't personal choice.
THE halacha says that you should observe Shabbat. You don't
have to get into fine-point discussions to realize that
that doesn't allow writing. It doesn't allow picture taking
(with or without flash). It doesn't allow video recording
(with or without lights, or only from the back of the synagogue,
etc.).
>>Rules such which make it possible for people who don't want anything to do
>>with it to ignore it are probably your best compromise. This means no flash
>>and no coming up to the bimah to take pictures, that video must be from the
>>back of the room and set up well before the service, etc.
So, you're recommending compromising THE halacha here?
You're making up the rule that it's "OK" to do video from
the back? Or it's "OK" without flash? Who poskin'ed that for you?
Or are you creating your own halacha as you go along?
The fact that there's no such thing as a responsible posek who
would allow this leads to the comment that you're ignoring THE halacha.
>>Congregants are requested to refrain from talking.
THE halacha says that there's no talking between "bar'chu" and
the end of "shmoneh esrai". Period. The rest is just plain respect.
How much more need be said?
>>Dress codes are impossible to get right. I would rather see someone
>>show up in jeans than not make it to services!
Yeah, well, maybe there's a point, and maybe not. Anyone
ever read the pasuk "Da lifnei mee atah omeid"? Know what
it means? "Know (imperative) in front of whom you're standing".
Would you go in front of the Queen of England in dirty clothing?
Why would you stand in front of G-d in dirty clothing?
(Or, why did you come in the first place?)
"Modest" clothing is pretty well understood. It's possible
to go a long way with this, but I think Dick Schoeller came
close: backless, frontless, bottomless, topless, etc., just
have no place (I'd say, _period_, and so does THE halacha)
but certainly not in the synagogue.
I think that allowances should be made, e. g., Israelis don't wear
jackets and ties. In our shul, jacket/tie is the normal rule.
If you go to Israel and davven around on Shabbat, you'll see that
generally Israelis dress _much_ better for Shabbat than the
workweek (though without tie!). So we allow that. Dirty jeans? Hardly.
>>If someone has the bad (in my opinion) taste to show up in a bikini, what is
>>she doing to me? In what way am I injured? As for jeans and a T-shirt,
>>maybe that *is* the best they can do! There are poor Jews, and if they feel
>>a desire to attend services, they should be welcomed.
You _are_ injured, and so are they. There is (maybe "was" :-) )
a word in the language called "RESPECT". You know? "Kavod"?
Respect for you, for G-d, for the synagogue. A recognition
of what the synagogue _is_ and what we're there for?
Yes, there _are_ poor Jews. There is a halacha (again, even,
a Jewish one) to help them. And, yes, they should be welcomed.
I've visited the southwest part of Ireland a few times. Many of
the people there are desperately poor. Some even live in the
old-fashioned thatched cottages with dirt floors. One thing
which struck me repeatedly was that on Sunday mornings, those
people and their clothing were spotless. Even when they were in
"rags", by American standards. Does that make point?
>>Changing diapers in the Sanctuary is prohibited. Either
>>the restrooms or the downstairs will be used for this
>>purpose.
Guess what? There are specific halachot on this. _Jewish_
halachot, even. You have to do it in a "closed off place" (i. e.,
a room with a door), which has no sifrei Torah, chumashim,
etc., in it.
>>Presence of children at services is encouraged; it is
>>the responsibility of parents to control distracting
>>behavior of their children.
Absolutely. The children _should_ always be there. It's one of the
major reasons to have communal services in the first place.
Parents should control them. Perhaps parents should teach their
children where they are and why.... :-)
>>I note that your rules about sermons (closing the doors etc.) make
>>it more difficult for families with children - what do you do when
>>a kid misbehaves during the sermon?
You take the child outside.
Generally, we offer a supervised kid's "oneg" during the sermon.
The kids get a break, and the sanctuary is quiet.
>Smoking REALLY should not be permitted within the building.
Yes, I agree, it shouldn't be permitted at any time. But
THE halacha forbids it on Shabbat.
>>A decision on what is allowable at the social function
>>after Bar/Bat Mitzvahs may be necessary, especially if you have
>>a function room. I would tend to allow flash photography there,
>>as that is by invitation only.
People can do what they choose. That doesn't change THE
halacha.
/don feinberg
|
| 436.9 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:55 | 57 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.9 Decorum at shul 9 of 20
IAGO::SCHOELLER "Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoell" 51 lines 10-FEB-1988 16:58
-< Clarification >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .6
> Things such as photographs and guest books are real hard to ban,
> as some families consider them appropriate. Rules such which make
The original note claims that the Shabbat morning service is Conservative.
I would assume that this means that observance would follow Conservative
responsa on halacha. Therefore, operating an electic device (most modern
cameras are) and writing should both be forbidden on Shabbat.
If the congregation uses the Conservative siddur but is not overly concerned
with observance then I stand corrected on the above.
> By the way, my feeling is that noisy children are alright, but that
> parents who make lots of noise trying to quiet them should be expelled
> from the sanctuary. The kids are kids, and are why we built the
> shul in the first place; whereas the parents should know better.
I agree.
> Dress codes are impossible to get right. I would rather see someone
> show up in jeans than not make it to services!
Dress codes which prohibit jeans dress because it isn't fancy enough are
bad. Dress codes which set some standards of modesty are good.
> By the way, I take a little offense at someone's earlier suggestion
> that the Reform movement ignores halacha!
The Reform movement considers halacha optional. Since halacha is law,
considering it optional is tantamount to ignoring it.
re: .7
> I would reword this as "Congregants are requested to avoid entering or
> leaving the sanctuary during the sermon."
Very diplomatic and clearer on meaning.
> I agree with both these statements. If someone has the bad (in my
> opinion) taste to show up in a bikini, what is she doing to me? In
> what way am I injured? As for jeans and a T-shirt, maybe that *is* the
> best they can do! There are poor Jews, and if they feel a desire to
> attend services, they should be welcomed.
A woman (esp. an attractive one 8^{) sitting in front of me, wearing a
bikini would be very distracting. As such it impares my ability to
concentrate. This is more than a matter of simple taste.
Gavriel
|
| 436.10 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:55 | 43 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.10 Decorum at shul 10 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 37 lines 10-FEB-1988 17:09
-< smoking, dress codes >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .7
I also object to the strong working in "Congregants will not
be permitted to leave or enter..." during the Rabbi's sermon
and I strongly suspect that that will be changed in final version.
The point can be made in a more reasonable manner.
You may have noticed that I mentioned smoking in the base note
but that there was no mention of it in the proposed guidelines.
That is because it was determined that the shul is bound by
Colorado Springs law that forbids smoking in a public place
"except in designated areas." The only such designated area
is the Rabbi's office. He occasionally smokes a pipe. There
are now "No Smoking" signs at all other places in the shul.
There were those, however, who wished to have smoking banned
"on the Temple grounds." This included the parking lot. It
was felt that this was too restrictive. Since the inside of
the shul is covered, reference to smoking was eliminated.
re: .8
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who equate
jeans with dirty. Jeans are blue cotton trousers. No more,
no less. What makes blue cotton trousers worse than gray
polyester trousers? Would it be better to have someone come
to shul in clean jeans or in a dirty suit?
The day that a shul dictates fashion on Shabbat is the day
that is has moved from Temple to Country Club. I fail to see
how blue jeans and T-shirt is immodest or in any way a violation
of halacha. If I'm missing something here (halachic) please
let me know. My Rabbi agrees with me on this. Perhaps there's
something he's missing also.
Sid
|
| 436.11 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:56 | 44 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.11 Decorum at shul 11 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 39 lines 10-FEB-1988 17:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .9
> > Things such as photographs and guest books are real hard to ban,
> > as some families consider them appropriate. Rules such which make
>
> The original note claims that the Shabbat morning service is Conservative.
> I would assume that this means that observance would follow Conservative
> responsa on halacha. Therefore, operating an electic device (most modern
> cameras are) and writing should both be forbidden on Shabbat.
I should have said a bit more in the base note. Yes, Shabbat
morning service is Conservative. However, we have an exception.
If a "life cycle event" will occur, e.g., a Bat Mitzvah, then
the family is granted the privilege of determing what type
of service there will be (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
etc.). The Temple Bulletin announcement of the "life cycle
event" states what kind of service there will be.
Re: noisy kids
I personally think that there should be a lot of leeway on
this at all services, but I am acutely aware that there are
many who do not agree. I feel that a great deal of leeway
in terms of talk, motion, etc. during services should be given
to the very young and the very old. Those of us in the middle
must be prepared to make some sacrifices for those two segments
of our community.
Children should *like* to go to shul. They are what they are
and we are fooling ourselves if we think we can force them
to be something else at shul AND STILL EXPECT THEM TO VIEW
GOING TO SHUL AS SOMETHING POSITIVE. Yes, we can make them
aware of what goes on there and that being in shul is different
from being at the playground, and expect a higher standard
of behavior, but we can't make them stop being children. All
we accomplish then is alienation.
Sid
|
| 436.12 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:57 | 64 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.12 Decorum at shul 12 of 20
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 58 lines 10-FEB-1988 17:55
-< a couple of words of explanation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who equate
>>jeans with dirty. Jeans are blue cotton trousers. No more,
>>no less. What makes blue cotton trousers worse than gray
>>polyester trousers? Would it be better to have someone come
>>to shul in clean jeans or in a dirty suit?
Nothing makes blue cotton trousers better than gray
polyester trousers.
What makes things "better" and "worse", in my view, is,
again, respect, and a sense of what I think the Shul is
and is not.
I wear jeans to work on my car. I wear jeans to paint
my house. That, in my estimation, makes (even clean)
jeans unsuitable for shul. Simply, I don't go to speak to
G-d dressed as I would to pour concrete, any more than
I would go to see Ken Olsen or the President of the
United States that way.
Would jeans be better than a dirty suit? Sure. I
wouldn't go to shul in a dirty suit, either. That doesn't
make _either_ desireable.
>>The day that a shul dictates fashion on Shabbat is the day
>>that is has moved from Temple to Country Club. I fail to see
>>how blue jeans and T-shirt is immodest or in any way a violation
>>of halacha. If I'm missing something here (halachic) please
>>let me know. My Rabbi agrees with me on this. Perhaps there's
>>something he's missing also.
**Fashion** has NOTHING to do with it, in any way, shape, or form.
Period.
One thing I don't do, as anyone who knows me can say :-),
is that I don't dress "fashionably", whatever that is.
But I do wear a clean jacket/tie or a suit to Shul on Shabbat. Why?
It differentiates the Shabbat (that's a positive mitzvah).
It's a piece of respect for G-d, the Shul, and the other
congregants (also positive mitzvah). And there's mitzvah
to do things "l'kavod haShabbat". I realize that this is drastically
unpopular in modern America. Coming to Shul in the right jeans
and t-shirt may not violate the letter of any mitzvah "lo ta'aseh", but
you're going to have an serious uphill fight showing how it observes
the mitzvah "ta'aseh". Ask your Rabbi...
Now, there's a halacha that you can come to Shul in your "ordinary
workclothes," **if** that's what you have on when it's time
to davven, and if there's no possibility to change them. Of
course, that eliminates any excuses for Shabbat.
"Immodesty" is a different class. To say it cutely, you need
to have the things of your body that are normally covered,
covered. So: no shorts, cutoffs, sleeveless t-shirts (there's
a discussion in Shulchan Aruch about covering the arms when
davvening), shirts with holes, trousers with holes, etc.
/don feinberg
|
| 436.13 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:57 | 46 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.13 Decorum at shul 13 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 41 lines 11-FEB-1988 10:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .12
> I wear jeans to work on my car. I wear jeans to paint
> my house. That, in my estimation, makes (even clean)
> jeans unsuitable for shul. Simply, I don't go to speak to
> G-d dressed as I would to pour concrete, any more than
> I would go to see Ken Olsen or the President of the
> United States that way.
So it is not right for *you* to wear jeans to shul. I don't
disagree. You have thought about what it means to you and
you act accordingly. Believe it or not, I have done the same.
I wear jeans to work on my car. I wear jeans to paint my house.
I would wear jeans to go to see Ken Olsen and I'd wear jeans
to go to see the President of the United States. And I go
to shul in jeans and have not the slightest fear that G-d
will believe I'm being disrespectful.
> But I do wear a clean jacket/tie or a suit to Shul on Shabbat. Why?
> It differentiates the Shabbat (that's a positive mitzvah).
While it is not evident here at DEC, it is probably a safe bet
that a large number of the men you see in shul on Shabbat wear a
jacket and tie to work every day. How does their wearing a
jacket a tie to shul qualify as a positive mitzvah?
*There is nothing inherent in the jacket and tie that makes it
appropriate for shul.*
Perhaps "fashion" was the wrong word. Perhaps "style" of
clothing makes my point clearer.
What I wear at shul that differentiates that day from all others
is the tallis. All I accomplish by wearing a jacket and tie
under that tallis is misrepresentation of myself (to me).
With all due respect,
Sid
|
| 436.14 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:58 | 29 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.14 Decorum at shul 14 of 20
FSLENG::CHERSON "Birth, School, Work, Death" 23 lines 11-FEB-1988 10:26
-< no such a thing as "kosher-style" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, by reading note and it's replies I knew that Don F. would get
into this and interject some sobering words on Halacha, etc.
Don happens to be right in this respect, Halacha is the law and
you can't change it through a legislative process as you can secular
laws. I also support the view that Shabbat is different than all
the other days, and that dressing up a bit helps distinguish the
day, and also convey a modicum of respect to G-d, the shul, and
the community.
I wouldn't exactly describe myself as an Orthodox person. I was
brought up in the "Conservodox" mode, we kept kosher in the house,
and attended synagogue regularly, but observance of the Shabbat
was open to each family member to define, that's about as liberal
as we got. Maybe it's the fact of a different upbringing that makes
Reform Judaism appear strange to me. After all it's roots are found
in the strong assimilationist movement in Germany of the last century,
that's fact. It's always made me feel that it's a movement that's
tried to make Judaism adapt to western society.
David
|
| 436.15 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:58 | 13 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.15 Decorum at shul 15 of 20
DIEHRD::MAHLER "Mordecai ben Moshe" 8 lines 11-FEB-1988 11:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did MOSES where his dress desert robe to speak with G-d?
On a recent trip to my home town during the High Holy Days
it looked more like a fashion show. Sorry, but I found it
disenchanting.
|
| 436.16 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:59 | 20 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.16 Decorum at shul 16 of 20
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 14 lines 11-FEB-1988 11:45
-< more to say later, but... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What I wear at shul that differentiates that day from all others
> is the tallis.
I wear a tallit gadol every morning. That's a mitzvah.
I wear a tallit katan all day, every day. That's a mitzvah.
Neither has any relationship to Shabbat. (What's different about
Shabbat along these lines? I don't wear tfillin then.)
[One can still make even using tallit katan "Shabbsdik"
i. e., observance of the mitzvah "l'kvod". How? One way:
I have one, nicer than the rest, that's reserved for
Shabbat.]
/don
|
| 436.17 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 09:59 | 35 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.17 Decorum at shul 17 of 20
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 29 lines 11-FEB-1988 11:56
-< [dressing well] .nes. [fashion show] >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reply to: < Note 442.15 by DIEHRD::MAHLER "Mordecai ben Moshe" >
> Did MOSES where his dress desert robe to speak with G-d?
You can be as "flip" as you want. There's a lot of both
Gemara and Medrash to support the view that "dressing up
a little" for G-d was well established in the time of
Moshe, and certainly formalized in Beit HaMikdosh times.
The answer to the question is "yes, or some appropriate
equivalent thereof".
> On a recent trip to my home town during the High Holy Days
> it looked more like a fashion show. Sorry, but I found it
> disenchanting.
Oh, come on!
If you read my previous reply, I stated that fashion
had ***nothing whatever to do with this***. If anything,
I am anti-fashion. On Yamim Noraim, I wear a kittel.
It makes halachic sense (thought it's not a mitzvah);
also, it makes "anti-fashion" sense, in the sense that
no one gets to compare fashions.
Do you have to equate "getting dressed well" with "putting on
a fashion show"?
/don
|
| 436.18 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:00 | 22 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.18 Decorum at shul 18 of 20
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 17 lines 11-FEB-1988 12:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > What I wear at shul that differentiates that day from all others
> > is the tallis.
>
> I wear a tallit gadol every morning. That's a mitzvah.
> I wear a tallit katan all day, every day. That's a mitzvah.
> Neither has any relationship to Shabbat. (What's different about
> Shabbat along these lines? I don't wear tfillin then.)
I don't wear a tallit gadol every morning. I don't wear a
tallit katan all day, every day. I'm not so frum as you.
And pardon me if you find this offensive, but you're no more
Jewish than I am. For you, wearing a tallis on Shabbat (pardon
the mixed pronunciations) does not differentiate it from any
other day. For me it does. I'm not you. You're not me.
Can we agree on that?
Sid
|
| 436.19 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:00 | 80 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.19 Decorum at shul 19 of 20
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 74 lines 11-FEB-1988 13:33
-< to be a Jew? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't wear a tallit gadol every morning. I don't wear a
> tallit katan all day, every day. I'm not so frum as you.
> And pardon me if you find this offensive, but you're no more
> Jewish than I am.
A good point?
We -- and I -- are not talking about how Jewish "we" are. The
most assimilated Jew in the world who never heard of halacha,
who never learned anything about Yiddishkeit and doesn't
care to is just EXACTLY as Jewish as the greatest talmid
chocham there is.
That's not what I'm getting at in my replies, at all. If you
think it is, I apologize, and I'll try again.
There is a profound difference between _being_ Jewish, and
_acting_ Jewish.
_Being_ Jewish has to do with halacha only in that you can
arrive at a binary decision: yes, the person is Jewish, or
no, the person is not Jewish.
_Acting_ Jewish has to do with halacha in the sense that the
halacha sets up THE standards and ideals for _Jewish_ behavior
- not the other way around. Halacha didn't arise from "social
Judaism". "Social Judaism" arose from the halacha.
You can disagree, and you can ignore. But the key point is that
behaviors which ignore the halacha (and are counter to it)
are _not_ Jewish behaviors by definition. Cherson made the very point
a reply or two back: there's no such thing as Kosher-style,
Jewishly. (Now, ignoring very "fine points") it's either Kosher,
i. e., halachically correct, or it's not. Kosher-style food is treif.
That's _not_ Jewish.
There's nothing rare or inconsistent about Jews behaving in a
nonJewish manner.
>For you, wearing a tallis on Shabbat (pardon
>the mixed pronunciations) does not differentiate it from any
>other day. For me it does. I'm not you. You're not me.
>Can we agree on that?
That's the point. We cannot agree on this. The mitzvah is that
one put on the tallis every morning. Halachically, there's no
difference between doing it on Shabbat and any other day.
It might make _you_ feel better to do it on Shabbat and on
no other day -- but the halacha does not recognize any choice
on your part. To put a tallis on for "l'kvod haShabbat" is to some
degree nonsense halachically.
"I'm not you" and "you're not me" are exactly where the difference
lies. Halacha does NOT allow you that freedom, for a defined
set of bahaviors. We are both Jews together, and what makes
us Jews is Torah, not because we like bagels and lox. You and
I are commanded the same. "Free choice" is what we do with our
abilities to fulfill the mitzvah.
Largely, American Jews have come to accept the precept of "your
own thing". But "your own thing" simply doesn't exist as a Jewish
(i. e., halachic) behavior. And one cannot change that just because
one disagrees with what the halacha requires -- and so in one's
own mind "redefines" the halacha, and therefore, Judaism.
A fundamental difference, I suspect, is that I believe that the
Torah (in it's broadest sense) is from G-d. I may not like
some of what that implies. Some observances may seem, sometimes,
like a "pain". But I have no right to change any of it.
I accept it, even if I can't make all the observances.
You may not accept that, but you can't evade it. That's
called "being a Jew."
/don
|
| 436.20 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:01 | 29 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.20 Decorum at shul 20 of 20
IAGO::SCHOELLER "Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoell" 23 lines 11-FEB-1988 13:51
-< I don't know what respectful is but modest I know! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some of the past notes are shouting into a hurricane.
It serves no purpose. We all agree that on Shabbat you should dress
so as to show respect for G-d. If dressing up for you means wearing
a button front shirt instead of a T-shirt, fine. If it means wearing
CLEAN neat (maybe even new looking) jeans, fine (esp. if you wear
tattered ones normally :^{). If it means wearing your best suit,
fine (and no better than the above). Some will disagree with this
but if you are respectful you are doing the right thing. If you
would dress better for a job interview than for shul there is a
problem.
In addition to dressing in a way which is not respectful there are
those who dress in a way which is immodest (some are downright lewd
:^{( ). On Yom Kippur some members of my mother-in-law's
congregation came to shul in leather mini-skirts (at least 5" above
the knee) and blouses with a deep plunge back. Now it is one thing
to put on a fashion show, it is another to dress like that for shul.
Is there anybody out there who (honestly) thinks that this consitutes
appropriate dress for shul (esp. on Yom Kippur :^{( )?
Gavriel
Still issuing useless opinions.
|
| 436.21 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:02 | 73 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.21 Decorum at shul 21 of 30
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 67 lines 11-FEB-1988 15:58
-< some day (probably not soon) I'll learn to shut up >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Don, one last shot at this. I've decided that I'm not
sure I have been correctly interpreting what you have been
saying. So, I extracted all the past replies to have another
look at them and see if I could figure this out. Oddly enough,
I'm not sure we disagree about many things. However, I think
that you may have hit the nail on the head regarding one crucial
point of disagreement.
But before I get to that, let me understand something first
by asking for a straight, simple answer to a simple question:
Is it your belief that wearing jeans to shul is non-Jewish
behavior?
The distinction you make between being Jewish and acting Jewish
is fine. I understand what you were saying and agree. What I
couldn't figure out is if I could rightly extrapolate from
that, and past points you have made, that your answer to the
above question is "Yes."
Your point about the halachic significance of the tallis is
well taken. Nonetheless, I don't believe it is germane to
issue of whether jeans in shul on Shabbat is a violation of
halacha.
Now, the crucial difference:
> A fundamental difference, I suspect, is that I believe that the
> Torah (in it's broadest sense) is from G-d. I may not like
> some of what that implies. Some observances may seem, sometimes,
> like a "pain". But I have no right to change any of it.
> I accept it, even if I can't make all the observances.
> You may not accept that, but you can't evade it. That's
> called "being a Jew."
You're right: I don't accept that. I'm not sure what you
mean about not being able to evade it or what bearing that
has on "being a Jew."
Throughout history, Jews have engaged in interpretations,
arguments, etc. on the derived meanings of the Torah. No one
person or group of people at some time in the past has/have exclusive
rights on derived meanings. Many points are clear. Many are
not. Those that are not clear are because they are not directly
addressed. Many can't have been directly addressed, for they
didn't exist.
For example, jeans are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.
Because of your understanding of halacha (note that I said
"understanding," not "interpretation"), and because of your
interpretation of what jeans are, or more importantly,
what jeans symbolize, you conclude that jeans are inappropriate
dress on Shabbat. Am I way off here? If not, I can happily
accept that. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I can
see how you come to it. Fine. If we were to be at the same
service, however, and you told me that I did not have the right
to be there in my jeans, I could not accept that.
Are we diving down a rathole? I don't know. I don't think
that I understand very well the exact point of our disagreement.
If you don't think it's worth pursuing, that's okay by me.
I'm not sure exactly how all this reads, but I read no hostility
in your replies and intend none in mine. I'm just afraid we're
arguing different points.
Sid
|
| 436.22 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:03 | 32 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.22 Decorum at shul 22 of 30
WAV14::SOHN "Back in the High Life Again" 26 lines 12-FEB-1988 09:24
-< still another view... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never replied to this Notes conference, but this is a topic
near and dear to my heart, so...
I grew up Conservadox. Going to shul does not merely include davening
and communing with God, but also includes setting a solemn/serious
tone in doing so, much like not wearing jewelry or leather on Yom
Kippur sets a tone of humility. Going to shul also involves showing
respect for the rest of the congregation, like not talking during the
sermon, or by not entering/exiting the sanctuary while the congreg-
ation is standing.
In that vein, wearing certain types of clothing, _dependant on the
style of the particular congregation_, is inappropriate for shul, just
as wearing jeans is inappropriate for me, being an SWS person for the
Banking industry.
Now, this means that jeans are okay if the congregation is casually
dressed in general. Personally, I would still dress up, but no one's
nose is put out of joint. However, even dressy clothes can be inappro-
priate - some of the Benettonian dress I see on Yom Kippur makes me
*sick*.
FLAME OFF.
Thanks, I needed that - Eric
|
| 436.23 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:03 | 16 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.23 Decorum at shul 23 of 30
FSLENG::CHERSON "Birth, School, Work, Death" 10 lines 12-FEB-1988 10:52
-< Yes, he did >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .15
Yes Mike, if you've been keeping up with the weekly Torah portions,
we're on Shemot (Exodus). In these portions you will find that
Moshe did change into better clothing before going up to Har Sinai.
This doesn't mean that he put on the latest Georgio Armani original,
more like a clean jalabiyah rather than the one he wore "on the
road".
David
|
| 436.24 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:04 | 12 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.24 Decorum at shul 24 of 30
DIEHRD::MAHLER "Mordecai ben Moshe" 7 lines 12-FEB-1988 14:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yah, gotcha!
Fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fashion!
|
| 436.25 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:04 | 11 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.25 Decorum at shul 25 of 30
FSLENG::CHERSON "Birth, School, Work, Death" 5 lines 16-FEB-1988 17:31
-< Arrgh! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: -1
Sound of gnashing of teeth in background (^:-).
David
|
| 436.26 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:05 | 31 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.26 Decorum at shul 26 of 30
YOUNG::YOUNG 25 lines 17-FEB-1988 10:45
-< How do you handle Conservative + Reform? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sorry I helped contribute to this topic diversion and then disappeared
for a couple days - Business, and network unavailability...)
Back to the original topic:
I'm curious about how you handle the Conservative / Reform issues.
Are you affiliated with both? What is the Rabbi's affiliation?
What do you do about holidays? Do you celebrate the extra day?
Do you blow shofar on the first day of Rosh Hashana if it is on
Shabbos?
Do you serve peas on Pesach?
I'm curious, as our Shul is Reform and while the religious activities
committee has to figure out what to do about these things, we don't
have the added wrinkle of Conservative services.
By the way, I did not say that I agree with all the policies of
the shul I belong to, but I recognize that our goal is to get people
to show up and doven, and not to alienate them so that they don't
go to a shul at all...
Paul
|
| 436.27 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:05 | 80 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.27 Decorum at shul 27 of 30
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 74 lines 17-FEB-1988 12:09
-< you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .26
> -< How do you handle Conservative + Reform? >-
Not very well, I'm afraid. There is constant friction. After
a recent, ugly upheaval, people seem to be trying to follow
a more considerate path and some of the problems are being
worked out. We're hoping this new detente will last long enough
to put some reasonable programs in place.
The arguments over how things should be done almost always
degenerate into "this is how we did it in *my* shul when I
was growing up, so it's the right way" type of arguments, with
a generous helping of holier-than-thou.
I realize that that sounds quite negative, and it probably
isn't really as bad as all that, but being caught up in the
politics, I have a somewhat jaded view.
> I'm curious about how you handle the Conservative / Reform issues.
> Are you affiliated with both? What is the Rabbi's affiliation?
We are affiliated with both. The Rabbi is Reform.
> What do you do about holidays? Do you celebrate the extra day?
We usually have two services. This is a constant bone of
contention. The Religious Practices Committee will be meeting
very soon to discuss what will be done this year for the High
Holidays.
Last year, for example, we had a Conservative cantor from Denver
(male -- and I mention the sex of the cantor since that was
central to having him come down) come to the shul for Kol Nidre.
After the service, the Conservative faction left the shul and the
Reform came in for Kol Nidre with the shul's regular Reform
(female) cantor.
> Do you blow shofar on the first day of Rosh Hashana if it is on
> Shabbos?
To tell you the truth, I don't know. I don't go to the shul on
Rosh Hashanah. There is a group of us (about forty last year) who
hold an outdoor alternative service back in the hills, with
children and pets in attendance. The service is nonstandard,
but still consists of Shachrit, Torah reading, and Musaf.
It is a *much* more meaningful service to those who attend.
Actually, this brings up yet another point about having one
shul for the entire community. The bylaws require the Temple
to support alternative services. That support (for us) comes
in the form of Mahzors, tallaysim, kippot, and a Torah (dontcha
just love those mixed pronunciations).
I belong to a chavurah (Beit Chutzpah) that holds one Shabbat
service a month back in the hills when weather permits and
at someone's home otherwise. We are supplied with the necessary
things by the shul. The most recent service (at someone's
house) featured the (adult) Bar Mitzvah of one of the chavurah
members. There was a *large* turnout, including the Rabbi,
who ended up taking a lot of flak from the Board for having
come to our service rather than the one at the shul (he had
made appropriate arrangements ahead of time).
Needless to say, the dynamics of a one-shul, diverse Jewish
community make for some interesting, if difficult, problems.
But we're working on it.
> Do you serve peas on Pesach?
Again, I don't know. We (my family) do our own thing on Pesach.
Sid
|
| 436.28 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:06 | 113 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.28 Decorum at shul 28 of 30
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 107 lines 18-FEB-1988 17:55
-< a few more words... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .21
Very briefly. I am very pressed, and I couldn't get to the
file for several days (while HUMAN was down)....
> But before I get to that, let me understand something first
> by asking for a straight, simple answer to a simple question:
>
> Is it your belief that wearing jeans to shul is non-Jewish
> behavior?
Not in and of itself. It's a question of "who, when, and why".
I will bring two simple examples:
a) Someone is very poor, and only has rags to wear day
to day.
For him to put on a clean pair of jeans to go to shul
is definitely a Jewish behavior, because it
is an observance and a visible piece of respect.
b) For someone who has enough money to freely choose how
and in what they dress; no, it is not a Jewish behavior,
because they have the clear ability (and therefore
requirement) to do better.
> The distinction you make between being Jewish and acting Jewish
> is fine. I understand what you were saying and agree. What I
> couldn't figure out is if I could rightly extrapolate from
> that, and past points you have made, that your answer to the
> above question is "Yes."
That's because the answer is "it depends".
.
.
.
> For example, jeans are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.
> Because of your understanding of halacha (note that I said
> "understanding," not "interpretation"), and because of your
> interpretation of what jeans are, or more importantly,
> what jeans symbolize, you conclude that jeans are inappropriate
> dress on Shabbat. Am I way off here? If not, I can happily
> accept that. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I can
> see how you come to it.
I conclude that jeans are inappropriate for me because
I don't think that I'm honoring anyone or anything
by coming dressed that way. You're arguing what
you think is your right to dress that way, but you
have yet to show me how you honor G-d by coming
dressed in everyday clothing. My understanding (and it's
certainly the overwhelming psak!) is that it is
halachically correct to pay this honor in every way
that I can.
You said that you'd wear jeans to meet the President of
the United States. We differ there. I think that that
behavior would be insulting to the office, if nothing
else. By doing so, in a way you are passing the message that
meeting the President is no different to you than cleaning
the house.
I conclude that jeans are inappropriate for me because
I think that it's inappropriate to come before G-d
wearing "ordinary" clothing. For me, as I said jeans are
ordinary, everyday, wear-around-the-house clothing.
That, and the ability I have to do better, makes
jeans unacceptable in shul -- NOT because G-d can't
"see" me in jeans or not!
This is explicitly a way of honoring the shul, the
congregation (and the Shabbat, by the way), instead of
making the explicit statement that "this day is
just like all other days".
By the way, that's true of the rest of the Shul decorum
and mental attitude also. I personally wouldn't come
before a king and have cute conversations in his
presence; I don't do that in the presence of G-d either.
> Fine. If we were to be at the same
> service, however, and you told me that I did not have the right
> to be there in my jeans, I could not accept that.
I wouldn't tell you that directly. But I would try to convince
by actions of what I think is right. And I might come at
it indirectly. The Rabbi wouldn't be so quiet, though.
Of course, he wouldn't say anything publicly, but if you
came in jeans repeatedly, he would ask you privately
about it.
> Are we diving down a rathole? I don't know. I don't think
> that I understand very well the exact point of our disagreement.
> If you don't think it's worth pursuing, that's okay by me.
> I'm not sure exactly how all this reads, but I read no hostility
> in your replies and intend none in mine. I'm just afraid we're
> arguing different points.
No, I don't read hostility from you, and I'm not intending
any at all.
I don't think that this is a rathole. I do think that
I made a fundamental point and that you picked it
up -- about the mitzvah. I want to answer it, and
I will, but I just cannot at this moment.
/don
|
| 436.29 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:06 | 31 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.29 Decorum at shul 29 of 30
BAGELS::SREBNICK "It works better if you plug it in" 25 lines 19-FEB-1988 08:40
-< Down in front! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, this is a long discussion. I think it'll be easier for me
to put in a couple of responses than to try and save up everything
for one reply.
One point about cameras that no one (up to note .10) has brought
up. In addition to the fact that some are electrical devices, taking
a picture is considered either "writing" or "changing" the film.
When you expose film you make a "mark" on it, or you change the
chemical composition of it. As such, it should fall into the same
category as signing a guest book on Shabbat.
Although I have not done the research on this one, it's possible
that video recording falls into a different category. If you allow
use of electricity, then recording amounts to little more than making
"physical" changes on the tape.
My point is that if you're looking to halacha to lead you to the
final answer on photography, there may be more research to do.
As for me, I get offended when people take pictures during a service.
If the photographer is Jewish, then s/he should be participating
in the service, not worring about f-stops. If the photographer
is not Jewish, then s/he should sit down and get out of our way
so we can kvell from the sight of our relatives and friends being
bar/bat mitzvah-ed, named, aufruffed, etc.
|
| 436.30 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:07 | 48 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.30 Decorum at shul 30 of 30
BAGELS::SREBNICK "It works better if you plug it in" 42 lines 19-FEB-1988 09:38
-< Where's Kissinger when you need him? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this whole thing, it looks like you need a negotiator.
The writing of a policy statement such as you've described is usually
the result of a few people making noise about one or two incidents
and then calling for an all-inclusive policy statement covering
every possible situation.
My experience in both professional and synagogue life is that this sort
of response is usually overkill. We plunge headlong into the solution
to a problem that we don't fully understand.
It may also help for the ritual committee to look at what motivated
this whole thing. Is it a few isolated incidents, or is there an
insidious trend?
I am dealing with such an incident in a Young Leadership (ages 22-40)
that I lead. One person in the group made a big ruckus at a meeting,
basically saying that the whole group was "missing the mark" on
achieving a lot of its goals, and that the membership was not being
well served.
This is being brought to (what I think is) a successful resolution
more by doing some group dynamics and mutual understanding than
by setting new directions and policies.
You may be able to find some people who are skilled at group dynamics
and negotiating who could facilitate some of this. You may even
find this within your synagogue. It doesn't require professional
consultants, psychologists, and lots of bucks, sometimes all it
requires is a level head.
Emotions run high on issues like this, and it's important to recognize
and understand these emotions before plunging headlong into a policy
such as the one you've described.
BTW -- I've been to your synagogue on a few occasions (Sid G. even
tried to recruit me as cantor for the High Holies). I didn't see
any of the problems you described (smoking, loud kids, eating,
inappropriate dressing). Are these things problems with members,
or with guests of the shul?
Dave
|
| 436.31 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:07 | 59 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.31 Decorum at shul 31 of 39
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 53 lines 23-FEB-1988 13:17
-< rather than let this die a quiet death... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .28
> > Is it your belief that wearing jeans to shul is non-Jewish
> > behavior?
>
> Not in and of itself. It's a question of "who, when, and why".
> I will bring two simple examples:
>
> a) Someone is very poor, and only has rags to wear day
> to day.
>
> For him to put on a clean pair of jeans to go to shul
> is definitely a Jewish behavior, because it
> is an observance and a visible piece of respect.
>
> b) For someone who has enough money to freely choose how
> and in what they dress; no, it is not a Jewish behavior,
> because they have the clear ability (and therefore
> requirement) to do better.
Perhaps this is quibbling, but I think not. There is a difference
between something being "not a Jewish behavior" and being
"non-Jewish behavior." The latter would be, I believe,
categorized as a violation of a mitzvah "lo ta'aseh" whereas the
former would be, as my Rabbi put it when I discussed this with him
again last week, a "missed opportunity" to perform a mitzvah
("ta'aseh").
To be frank, I miss lots of such opportunities, many out of
ignorance, some by choice. Is it a violation of halacha to "miss
opportunities" with full knowledge of what you are doing? This is
not meant to be a rhetorical question.
> I conclude that jeans are inappropriate for me because
> I don't think that I'm honoring anyone or anything
> by coming dressed that way. You're arguing what
> you think is your right to dress that way, but you
> have yet to show me how you honor G-d by coming
> dressed in everyday clothing. My understanding (and it's
> certainly the overwhelming psak!) is that it is
> halachically correct to pay this honor in every way
> that I can.
I don't pretend to be honoring anyone by the way I dress. You may
think this blasphemous, but I personally think that G-d has little
to do with this. I am not convinced of the existence of G-d. I
recognize the importance of moral and ethical codes and behavior
and the value of spirituality, but do not _believe_ in the
existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being. How's that for
throwing a wrench in the works? :-)
Sid
|
| 436.32 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:07 | 83 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.32 Decorum at shul 32 of 39
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 78 lines 23-FEB-1988 13:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .29 and .30
> One point about cameras that no one (up to note .10) has brought
> up. In addition to the fact that some are electrical devices, taking
> a picture is considered either "writing" or "changing" the film.
> When you expose film you make a "mark" on it, or you change the
> chemical composition of it. As such, it should fall into the same
> category as signing a guest book on Shabbat.
Rabbi Kline made this exact point at the Religious Practices
Committee meeting when asked to comment on the halachic
significance of cameras. The majority of those present (who had
votes, which doesn't include me) decided to recommend that cameras
are okay anyway so long as pictures are taken in an unobtrusive
manner.
> As for me, I get offended when people take pictures during a service.
I don't like it either but I try not to take offense. I know that
they're not doing it to offend me or anyone else, and the halachic
violation is their problem, not mine. Besides, those same people
are probably offended by my jeans, so we're even. :-)
> The writing of a policy statement such as you've described is usually
> the result of a few people making noise about one or two incidents
> and then calling for an all-inclusive policy statement covering
> every possible situation.
Bingo!
> It may also help for the ritual committee to look at what motivated
> this whole thing. Is it a few isolated incidents, or is there an
> insidious trend?
There were several incidents in a short period of time and a lot
of people felt hard done by. I am one of them. For me, it
concerned my children. I take the rearing of my children very
seriously. I react strongly to those who believe they have the
right to dictate how I do it. I asked for a statement of policy
so that I could determine if it was appropriate for me to continue
to bring my kids to shul. That, of course, was not enough to
spawn this effort.
Other incidents (camera-related) caused a different group to feel
put out. This group, however, is part of the shul's power
structure, so they decided it was time to address the problems.
re: group dynamics, overkill, et al
I think that most of the folks on the Board recognize this. I
think that this is not meant to be a policy statement so much as
guidelines for those who want to determine ahead of time what may
or may not be appropriate at Temple Shalom. That is certainly how
I view it. Personally, I was on verge of terminating my
association with the Temple altogether but decided to increase my
participation in the decision-making process instead to try to
improve what I didn't like or understand.
> BTW -- I've been to your synagogue on a few occasions (Sid G. even
> tried to recruit me as cantor for the High Holies). I didn't see
> any of the problems you described (smoking, loud kids, eating,
> inappropriate dressing). Are these things problems with members,
> or with guests of the shul?
Funny you should mention Sid G. He is on the Religious Practices
Committee and the Decorum Subcommittee. In fact, he drew up the
original draft of the guidelines. We went over them together and
I took them to the RPC meeting (he was not able to attend that
evening).
The problems that I have seen or have at least second-hand
knowledge of involve both members of the shul and guests (usually
family coming to life cycle events).
Sid
|
| 436.33 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:08 | 12 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.33 Decorum at shul 33 of 39
TAVENG::GOLDMAN 6 lines 24-FEB-1988 01:06
-< a question >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused. Would you please explain what the Reform position
on Jewish law (halacha) is? I was under the impression, perhaps
wrongly so, that Reform did not give any credence to Jewish law,
but if this is the case, then I don't understand why you would ask
your rabbi what the halachic significance of cameras is. (I mean
no offense - this is an honest question.)
|
| 436.34 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:08 | 39 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.34 Decorum at shul 34 of 39
QUOKKA::SNYDER "Wherever you go, there you are" 33 lines 24-FEB-1988 11:09
-< an answer >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .33
> -< a question >-
>
> I'm confused. Would you please explain what the Reform position
> on Jewish law (halacha) is? I was under the impression, perhaps
> wrongly so, that Reform did not give any credence to Jewish law,
> but if this is the case, then I don't understand why you would ask
> your rabbi what the halachic significance of cameras is. (I mean
> no offense - this is an honest question.)
I don't know a lot about Reform Judaism, but I am beginning
to learn. My upbringing was much more like what was described
in a previous note as "Conservadox." Frankly, I feel
uncomfortable at a Reform service. So, I can't answer the
first part of your query.
Why would the RPC ask the Rabbi about the halachic significance
of cameras? Because a large number of the shul's members are
Conservative and are concerned about halacha. In fact, there
are definitely members of the shul who consider themselves
Reform but take great interest in halacha. They don't necessarily
live by it, but they wish to know about it. It is particularly
important at Temple Shalom, since we all live/daven under one roof.
Perhaps lost somewhere in the maze of previous replies is the fact
that this shul has Conservative *and* Reform (and other) services.
The RPC is faced with the unenviable task of trying to provide
for *all* of its membership. Halacha must therefore be a factor
in any decisions made.
Sid
|
| 436.35 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:09 | 19 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.35 Decorum at shul 35 of 39
DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "CIT: Solving ISDN's hang-ups" 13 lines 24-FEB-1988 23:43
-< Reform studies Jewish Law too! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:.33
Well, it _sounds_ like a leading question,, like, "when did you
stop beating your wife?".
Reforem Judaism begins with the premise that Judaism is living,
founded on (written) Torah, but adaptive to the modern world. A
theological point is that the _writing_ of the _Oral_ Law, in Talmud,
was not a Good Thing, so the Talmud is Not the equal of the Pentateuch.
And Halachic rigidity is not accepted, but the traditions are useful
nonetheless. We don't, however, try to guilt-trip people who choose
not to live like 15th century Poles.
fred
|
| 436.36 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:09 | 20 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.36 Decorum at shul 36 of 39
GRECO::FRYDMAN "wherever you go...you're there" 14 lines 25-FEB-1988 09:43
-< Halacha is not a course--its a way of life >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:35
I take offense at the suggestion that people who live according
to halacha are living as " 15th century Poles". Halacha is living---
it just doesn't move as fast as some would like.
That type of characterization doesn't further discussion... and
just shows a lack of sensitivity.
Fred, why don't you and your wife come and spend a Shabbos with my
family. We have central heating :^) , answer machines on our phones,
timers on some lights, a large crock pot for a warm cholent, and a urn
full of hot water.
|
| 436.37 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:09 | 103 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.37 Decorum at shul 37 of 39
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 97 lines 25-FEB-1988 13:30
-< Ethics... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't pretend to be honoring anyone by the way I dress. You may
> think this blasphemous, but I personally think that G-d has little
> to do with this. I am not convinced of the existence of G-d. I
> recognize the importance of moral and ethical codes and behavior
> and the value of spirituality, but do not _believe_ in the
> existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being. How's that for
> throwing a wrench in the works? :-)
NOT blasphemous at all. And not a wrench, for sure. Now,
I think, we're really getting somewhere... I think that this
is precisely the nut -- the unstated nut, perhaps -- but
THE center of the argument.
G-d has EVERYTHING to do with this! I hope that
this is only the beginning of a discussion of "Ethical Monotheism"
vs. "Moral Relativism", which I think is (and should be explicitly)
the actual subject of the discussion of "Decorum in Shul".
I have reproduced below a small piece of an essay of Dennis
Prager's plus some text of mine; I have sent you
the whole in the company mail. I think that it's entirely
germaine, in re particularly, to sources of ethics.
"A ridiculous (?) example"
[Feinberg, first :-) ]
I will suppose your hair is brown. Suppose that the society
around you develops the value that brown hair is ugly and
undesireable. Period. Unless you have blonde hair, you
can't vote or hold a job. The "value" of that society is that
it is wrong to have brown hair. That society considers it
bad.
Do you think that that's a ridiculous example? I don't. Let
me give you a related one: The norm in Germany in the 30's and
40's was to kill Jews. That was the "value" of the society.
People got medals from the government for killing Jews. People
were thrown in jail for NOT killing Jews. "Goodness" was
killing Jews. Do you agree that, because an overwhelming majority
of the German people at the time supported this view, that they
were right? What about Dr. Mengele and his experiments?
He was a physician, and the German Medical Association accepted
his experiments -- they were positive. Do you believe that they
were _right_? The German society, at the time, did. Many still
do, today. Do you agree with them? Are they "righter" or
"wronger" today because of the presence or absence of a majority
supporting them or not?
They are wrong! Period. Judaism, at least, has a value that says that
that's wrong. We -- Judaism -- don't care how many people say it's
right. What the Germans did in WW-II, and what the Communists do now
is wrong, in this respect.
[Now, Prager...]
" ... Will Herberg cited the analogy of cut-flower ethics.
Imaging cutting flowers from the soil and giving them to somebody
who then says, "Look at that. Flowers don't need the soil that
nourished them. They can live without soil." Now, of course, we
know that that person is wrong, In a few days, those flowers will
wither and die.
"So it is with ethics. The great ethics that you hold - such as
that deliberately hurting innocent people is wrong, that
injustice is wrong, that there should be one justice for all people
- came to you primarily thanks to religion. Yet you think that
if you tear these ethics away from the religious soil that gave them
to you, they will live. The only difference between cut flowers
and cut ethics is that it takes cut flowers a few days to die, and
it takes cut ethics a few generations.
"With all the studies done of Nazism and Communism, the two greatest
evils in history in terms of sheer numbers killed and tortured, it
is very rarely pointed out, except by religious people who are not
listened to, that they share quite a few things. One of them was a
tremendous hostility to what is called the Judaeo-Christian
tradition, to G-d-based ethics. The Nazis chose the pagan swastika
as their symbol because Hitler's ideal was pre-Christian, pagan
Germany. He hated Jews for, among other things, forcing
Christianity on the Germans. A true German is not a Christian, but
a Teuton pagan. That was the Nazi ideal. And I don't have to tell
you how anti-religion Communism is.
"In other words, it is axiomatic that Nazism and Communism will
produce death camps bacause that which makes war on G-d as the
source of ethics must produce death camps. Are there good atheists?
Of course there are good atheists. So what? There are good
totem-pole worshippers. Do they get their ethics from totem-pole
worshipping? There are ethical third basemen. Do they get their
ethics from playing third base? Do you get your ethics from atheism?
How can you get ethics from atheism? Atheism affirms nothing;
it is merely a negative statement -- there is no G-d. It therefore
cannot be a source of ethics. So, without a G-d and religion,
where will you get your ethics? And how long will they endure?
Half a generation, a generation?"
|
| 436.38 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:10 | 33 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.38 Decorum at shul 38 of 39
CURIE::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" 27 lines 25-FEB-1988 13:49
-< "Not Yet" as opposed to "Nope"??!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To be frank, I miss lots of such opportunities, many out of
> ignorance, some by choice. Is it a violation of halacha to "miss
> opportunities" with full knowledge of what you are doing? This is
> not meant to be a rhetorical question.
I didn't think it was a rhetorical question. It's an important one.
I don't believe that it's a violation of halacha, but I am not
a Rav. This question deserves a consultation with a Rav.
I will do so, and post the result here.
In the meantime, I prefer to think of mitzvot which I don't
do, or don't do well, in a category called "not yet", as
opposed to "nope, I don't do that". That
is, I am not ready to fulfill those mitzvot yet. Everyone who
is learning and developing Jewishly is in this position. There
was a time in my life when we did not keep Kosher. There
was a time when we kept Kosher "in", but not "out". And some
years ago it was right to become Kosher "all the way".
As you have probably figured out, I am a lot more enthusiastic
in the case of "well, we know it's right and Halachic to keep
Kosher, but all we're able to do today is cut out the lobster and pig",
opposed to, "keeping Kosher is just archaic and since the halacha is
wrong and/or does not apply, what we do is just as Jewishly
acceptable".
/don
|
| 436.39 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:11 | 34 |
| ================================================================================
Note 442.39 Decorum at shul 39 of 39
FSLENG::CHERSON "Birth, School, Work, Death" 28 lines 26-FEB-1988 08:22
-< a tasteless remark >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Reforem Judaism begins with the premise that Judaism is living,
>founded on (written) Torah, but adaptive to the modern world. A
>theological point is that the _writing_ of the _Oral_ Law, in Talmud,
>was not a Good Thing, so the Talmud is Not the equal of the Pentateuch.
>And Halachic rigidity is not accepted, but the traditions are useful
>nonetheless. We don't, however, try to guilt-trip people who choose
>not to live like 15th century Poles.
I find the above remark on "living like 15th century Poles" tasteless and
insulting. The Torah is not a relic of the past that should be discarded
and forgotten, it's a living dynamic that even Jews in 1988 can use as a
reference for their lives.
You can interpret halacha whichever way you think, but you can't amend it to
suit your life. I'm far from the most observant Jew, but if I boil water
on Shabbat for a cup of coffee, I don't rationalize the act by saying that
this cup of coffee will add to the spirituality of the day, etc. Plain and
simple, the boiling of water is a Chilool Shabbat (a profanation of Shabbat)
and that's all there is to it.
Many moons ago in this conference (during the days of the oft-lamented Fred L.),
there was a heated discussion on the "Who is a Jew" question. If memory serves
me correctly, I went to bat in defence of Reform Jewry in their right to
practice in Israel. But remarks such as the "15th century Poles" appear than
I'd think twice about ever returning to that defence.
David
|
| 436.40 | | QUOKKA::SNYDER | Wherever you go, there you are | Tue Mar 15 1988 10:11 | 142 |
|
re: .37
> G-d has EVERYTHING to do with this! I hope that
> this is only the beginning of a discussion of "Ethical Monotheism"
> vs. "Moral Relativism", which I think is (and should be explicitly)
> the actual subject of the discussion of "Decorum in Shul".
It may indeed turn into a discussion of "Ethical Monotheism" vs.
"Moral Relativism" though I wouldn't necessarily recognize it as
such. Care to provide a definition of those terms? If the
"example" and essay you provided are an indication of what you
mean, then it looks more to me like a discussion of "Does G-d
exist?"
I am wary of entering into such a discussion. I have found that
such discussions tend to slip from the arena of rational discourse
to that of dogmatic bluster. Don't get me wrong. I am not
saying that that is what I expect from you, though I don't
discount the possibility either. Despite liking to believe
that I have an open mind and consider arguments solely on their
merit, I know that I can be very stubborn in my beliefs and
thereby be as dogmatic as the next guy.
That said, I am prepared to stick out my big toe and test the
water. I will be ever ready, however, to sound a hasty retreat.
> "A ridiculous (?) example"
> .
> .
> .
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. You appear to be
making the assertion that "morality" is absolute, that it is not
alterable by the prevailing sentiments of a given society. You
are suggesting, I think, that any given action can be labeled
right or wrong, moral or immoral, irrespective of time, place, or
circumstance. I don't believe that. Before I get carried
away in refutation, I'd like to know if that is indeed what
you propose.
I also don't understand the business about "majority." Surely
you're not implying that I believe that I derive my "right" (as
you put it) to wear jeans to shul from majority opinion? I *know*
that I stand in a small minority on that one. I claim that it
isn't wrong, despite majority opinion.
> [Now, Prager...]
> " ... Will Herberg cited the analogy of cut-flower ethics.
> Imaging cutting flowers from the soil and giving them to somebody
> who then says, "Look at that. Flowers don't need the soil that
> nourished them. They can live without soil." Now, of course, we
> know that that person is wrong, In a few days, those flowers will
> wither and die.
>
> "So it is with ethics. The great ethics that you hold - such as
> that deliberately hurting innocent people is wrong, that
> injustice is wrong, that there should be one justice for all people
> - came to you primarily thanks to religion. Yet you think that
> if you tear these ethics away from the religious soil that gave them
> to you, they will live. The only difference between cut flowers
> and cut ethics is that it takes cut flowers a few days to die, and
> it takes cut ethics a few generations.
The "cut-flower" analogy is rubbish. It tells us something about
cut flowers and soil. It tells us nothing about ethics or
religion. Let's see:
So it is with children. Children exist because parents gave them
life. Children flourish because parents give them love, food, and
shelter. The values that they learn - such as that deliberately
hurting innocent people is wrong, that injustice is wrong, that
there should be one justice for all people - come to them
primarily from their parents. Yet you think that if you tear
these children away from the parents that gave them all these
things, they will live. . . .
Therefore, children should never leave their parents. (I'll
admit that there might be the odd Jewish mother who believes
this :-)).
> "With all the studies done of Nazism and Communism, the two greatest
> evils in history in terms of sheer numbers killed and tortured, it
> is very rarely pointed out, except by religious people who are not
> listened to, that they share quite a few things. One of them was a
> tremendous hostility to what is called the Judaeo-Christian
> tradition, to G-d-based ethics. The Nazis chose the pagan swastika
> as their symbol because Hitler's ideal was pre-Christian, pagan
> Germany. He hated Jews for, among other things, forcing
> Christianity on the Germans. A true German is not a Christian, but
> a Teuton pagan. That was the Nazi ideal. And I don't have to tell
> you how anti-religion Communism is.
>
> "In other words, it is axiomatic that Nazism and Communism will
> produce death camps bacause that which makes war on G-d as the
> source of ethics must produce death camps. Are there good atheists?
> Of course there are good atheists. So what? There are good
> totem-pole worshippers. Do they get their ethics from totem-pole
> worshipping? There are ethical third basemen. Do they get their
> ethics from playing third base? Do you get your ethics from atheism?
> How can you get ethics from atheism? Atheism affirms nothing;
> it is merely a negative statement -- there is no G-d. It therefore
> cannot be a source of ethics. So, without a G-d and religion,
> where will you get your ethics? And how long will they endure?
> Half a generation, a generation?"
I get it. If I believe that it is possible for rational human
beings to determine that there is a difference between right and
wrong and that they should attempt to live their lives accordingly
*without there having been some supernatural inspiration*, then I
am doomed to a life of mass murder and hatred. It is axiomatic.
There is an incredible difference between asserting that atheism
is a source of ethics and asserting that there are sources for
ethics other than divine revelation.
Nazis and Communists do not believe that the moon is made of green
cheese. Nazis and Communists have done horribly evil things.
Therefore, anyone who does not believe that the moon is made of
green cheese is doomed to do evil. Where is the link between
atheism and evil?
History has recorded incredible horrors performed in the name of
G-d. Does this mean that those who believe in G-d are doomed to
evil? Hardly. How then can the actions of atheist groups prove
that atheism will lead to the same? How can we conclude that
it is the *atheism* that was the source of the evil?
By the way, I do not consider myself an atheist, not that that
really matters. Agnostic is probably a better term. Both theism
and atheism have their merits and their problems. What I have a
very hard time with is either of the two groups claiming that the
other is some dark, subhuman, evil entity. It is simply untrue.
I'll stop here. I'll wait to get the full text in the mail.
Suffice it to say that I found absolutely nothing convincing
in the excerpt above. All I saw was a clever use of faulty
logic to support an unsupportable position.
Sid
|
| 436.41 | Right and Wrong are relative | RSTS32::KASPER | Ever have one of those lifetimes? | Mon Mar 21 1988 13:31 | 19 |
|
I tend to agree with .-1. I, too, consider myself an agnostic -- I
don't know whether there is a G-d (or many gods!). There may be, but
I've not been privileged with divine revelation.
I believe that the reason for religion to exist is to create and preserve
a code of ethics. The ceremonies and the holidays are ancillary to that
-- they provide a context for teaching the ethic, and they allow those
who do not wish to reason out their own moral views an anchor; this
is good. Children need to be taught morality and ethics, and this is
certainly easier within a religious context. However, that context is
not a prerequisite!
I have great respect for those who believe that it is right to keep the
strict laws of Halacha; I do not, however, see them as imperative in my
life.
Beverly
|