If you denigrate gay people, irrationally disrepect them, lobby against their equality and rights and justify it on your superstitious religious belief then that is still homophobia and it is still bad mannered, hurtful, cruel and tacky. it is as ridiculous me talking about your religious expression without the identity, emotions and feelings that go behind it as it is you separating sexual orientation from identity and the very real lust attraction, love and kinship that people feel.
Indeed. Within the narrow confines of a truly outdated and pointless belief system, I do think that he is trying to reach out and I thank him for it so far as that goers. However, his disgusting comparison of gay sex even within a loving and monogamous relationship and bigamy shows his true colours.
The Holy Bible says that pork is unclean but how many Christians do NOT eat pork (not counting vegetarians who abstain from eating meat in general)? When Jews, Christians and Muslims stop cherry-picking which parts of the Torah, Bible or Q’uran to follow in order to discriminate against certain sections of society then I will be prepared to take them more seriously. To be a true Christian for example you have to be pretty pedantic when it comes to the Bible if you are going to live your life without sin. By that reckoning Heaven must be an empty place as we are all sinners. Jews, Christians and Muslims, please accept that the Earth is not flat, some of us are gay and that you can still live fulfilling lives as good citizens. For a start, do unto others as other do unto you. Do not steal, do not kill, love thy neighbour.
In Christian tradition, the laws of Kashrut (the Torah dietary laws) and most of the Mitzvot were abrogated with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (as they see it), according to St. Paul. Sorry to say, but any fair minded reading of most of Abrahamic scripture would show that homosexuality is forbidden.
But fear not, because it’s all nonsense, my friend. There is no God. I’m just not a fan of this ‘halfway house’ thinking where effectively we pressure the religious to drop most of their scripture and leave the benign parts which are congruous to our modern sense of secular morality. But at the same time, doing this concedes that scripture is no longer the basis of our morality.
Re the “dietary laws”, and others such as circumcision, literalists would disagree with your abrogation, since Jesus is quoted as saying the Jewish laws must be obeyed. Paul was just being politically expedient so as to encourage gentile conversion. And you’re wrong about a fair reading re homosexuality too.
Religion and morality have evolved for most people as we have become more knowledgeable and empathetic, the problem is people who are desperate to hang on to a literal, black and white, reading of an absolute “truth” that they think was written by a supernatural being and delivered ready bound in leather. That level of insecurity, which leads to both religious and political fascism, is perhaps what we should be seeking a cure for.
Indeed, I’m not a Christian (I’m an atheist) so I’m not arguing for the abrogation, just explaining how it came about and why Christians eat pork.
About homosexuality, I think the Bible is quite clear in it being forbidden, if we take a literalist interpretation. (Not that what the Bible says has any relevance to truth.)
As for the last part, you’ll have to talk to theists on that one. But just be aware, there will always be those who take literalist interpretations. And from their point of view, they are just following their faith truthfully. For me, the question is: if the standard by which we determine the relevance of scripture is anchored in secular morality, then what is the point of scripture and belief at all?
You mentioned circumcision here. This is practiced by both Muslims and Jews and some Christians do it as well. Now if God did not intend us to have foreskins, then why are we born with them?
Whilst I believe the Rabbi is seeking to build bridges, I do find the wording of his comment disappointing.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a difference between debating homosexuality and homophobia, in the same way as there is a difference in challenging religion and theophobia …
I do think it is wrong and unnecessary to try and use an argument to sustain concerns from (some) religious viewpoints that homosexuality is wrong by linking it to an argument about bigamy. Its just a slightly different twist on the bigoted polygamous/beastiality and paedophilia arguments that are all totally bogus.
As for the Rabbi’s interpretation of the Bible (whilst I concede that he will have studied it in more depth and with more seriousness than myself), I would profoundly disagree with his assertion that it is clear in its arguments about homosexuality. Many eminent theological scholars would also agree that it is unclear or actually does not condemn homosexuality.
The only way these people will stop with the religious hypocracy is twhen the aliens land. until then they will hold onto it to find a way to cope with death
They already planned for that by inventing Scientology.
Why should aliens landing stop people being Religious?! lol
ps I agree with Stu re the ‘bigamy’ argument – it was the laziest of the Rabbi’s comments…
Personally I find nothing wrong with bigamy except should there be dishonesty towards the partners involved…
The ‘main’ social ‘problem’ is a legal, contractual one – not a (truly) social or spiritual one…
Seriously you can hate me all you want just keep it to yourself and don’t bother me with it.
This is a public forum
lol I see from the negative vote tha someone believes this ISN’T a public forum then…
…things that make yer go ‘hmmmm’….lol
ThAt is just nonsense and defending homophobia, homosexual was coined in 1860′s and many dont agree with biblical interpretations, homophobia is the right term even for religious cherrypickers
Parallels are drawn in this article between adultery and homosexuality. One is the secretive destruction of one’s vows and possibly the eventual destruction of one’s family… and the other is sexual congress between two (nominally single) people of the same sex.
And for any meat eater to reject pork as an abomination is really just stupid. All animals consume impurities at some point, and simply metabolise them just as we do.
The problem with all religious people is that, as this article of mixed loyalties and muted kindness and testy tolerance shows, they need to question their literature a little more.
When the prohibition was first put in place, it made good sense. In days of poor sanitation, poor cooking facilities and a complete lack of refrigeration, pork could easily be deadly.
And in an age when the people were a very small minority, increasing the group through births was vital.
Neither are relevant to today. Perhaps that is why so many traditional religions are losing the young people?
I’m getting confused now …
I normally disagree with you …
This is 2 or 3 days running where I have agreed with most of what yo say …
Absolutely, there is no correlation between adultery and homosexuality … its demeaning of the Rabbi to suggest so …
Listen, Stu… we will agree on far more than we will ever disagree.
At the end of the proverbial day, practically everyone on this site is fighting for the right to be treated as an equal human being. :-)
I think you will agree that the key difference between you and me is that you are willing to cut some slack to individuals or organizations who are prepared to meet us at least half way.
I (and people like dAVID) just tend to be of the opinion that if we are grateful for half-measures, that is all we are ever going to receive. I will pick anyone up on their choosing doctrine over people, be they a scientist or a priest. I have had to adjust to thousands of changes in my life and in society, from the very day that I was born. What is it about the ‘orthodox’ mind that it can not do the same? As far as I know they are built and function like me – human.
Bigotry is the only answer that keeps coming to mind.
Its probably fair to say there is more we agree on than disagree on …
I also agree that most people (with a few noticeable exceptions!) on here do seek fairness, equity and all that is linked to that …
There are some issues where I would be willing to cut some slack with individuals or organisations who are prepared to improve the ability of LGBT people to get fairness and it might be prudent in some (not all) of these cases that there is pathway mapped to ensuring equality and fairness.
Some issues are too important for that and require us to act to ensure fairness with urgency (the only delay being the time to ensure both the law (where necessary) can be redrafted and formally changed and orgaisations involved be given the chance to change procedures, forms etc to meet the needs of fairness … In other words only the practicalities being resolved should cause delay and nothing else …
Whichever route we take be it total change or gradual change we …
… need to ensure that we never stop seeking equality until and unless it is fully achieved.
In terms of cutting slack – there are some areas that I would never concede on … its perhaps fair to say (maybe you will agree) that in the advance of fairness and equality, one of the main differences is the tactics that we would adopt.
Whilst I do consistently fight homophobic bigotry .. I also recognise that this is not the only form of bigotry. I recognise that some LGBT people are also bigots based on other differences. Wherever it comes from, bigotry is not a good thing.
I’m slightly bemused and disappointed he attempts to strengthen his point on civil partnerships by comparing them to bigamy?!
And of course, we all know bigamy, polygamy and adultery are an hetero phenomenon, always have been since the dawn of civilisation. Not a word about that either from these holy rollers. They can’t blame same-sex marriage on that either although some try to.
That’s because the rabbi doesn’t want to step into hot water. Like, do you know that in Orthodox Judaism it is not adultery if it’s the husband sleeping with an unmarried woman? It’s only if a married woman sleeps with another man (whether he is married or unmarried).
Are you insinuating that there is something wrong with bigamy? You must be an awful hateful bigot.
You failed to understand the comparison. Bigamy, as much as people might be so inclined, is rejected by our culture. Similarly, homosexuality is rejected by his culture.
Condemning homosexuality is not bigoted anymore that condemning bigamy.
“Neutrality” on LGBT issues can be just as damaging as an openly anti-LGBT stance, as this article shows: http://t.co/sTuJPS72
The “love the sinner but hate the sin” approach doesn’t work in Christianity, why should it work in Judaism?
The so called clobber passages in the Bible do not condemn homosexuality; they condemn non-consensual sexual acts, for the most part.
And why is anyone still taking a Bronze Age guide to morality as the letter of the law, anyway?
As Karen Armstrong has repeatedly pointed out, Rabbis decided several centuries ago that any interpretation of Torah that was not loving was not valid, and all Torah should be interpreted in the light of love. That suggests that any interpretation that says the Bible condemns homosexuality is wrong, because that interpretation is not loving.
Interpretation has to be made in the light of new knowledge. You can see why it can be considered immoral for straight guys to use eachother as jackpacks because of difficulty in getting access to women, but loving sexual relationships between gay orientated men are not and cannot be condemned by a ing religion.
“they condemn non-consensual sexual acts, for the most part.”
That’s a problematic statement, because if it is non-consensual act that is to be punished, why punish the victim? (and yes, the Bible speaks of punishing both, where presumably there was consent.) Sorry, but that statement doesn’t fly in light of the way Judaism operates. (I do not speak of Christianity, don’t know enough about that.)
(Mind you, I don’t think the Bible should be brought up as a reason to prevent equality in general and marriage equality in particular.)
What a thoroughly nasty bigot.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
What a thoroughly nasty hypocrite you are Harry.
If the Rabbi does not want to be accused of being a bigot then he such exercise responsibility in how he comments … and not use bigoted language …
oops should exercise …
If the Rabbi want to avoid being labelled a bigot, he should avoid expressing an opinion on pinknews that people disagree with.
He can safely express an opinion people disagree with and not be called bigoted if he does not use bigoted language …
If he uses bigoted language (which he clearly has) then its reasonable that people will descirbe him in such a manner
Or you could join a Reform or Liberal Synagogue which will happily marry you to your partner, rather than only accepting part of you.
Exactly – if you are going to follow a fictional ‘god’ then make sure that the ‘god’ you follow isn’t a disgusting bigot.
Let’s go back and substitute a different minority for every place that this man says “homosexual” or “homosexuality” and see if he still stands by his statements.
He clearly has no problem with homosexuals, as he mentions several times in his piece (and as has been completely and repeatedly ignored by most commenters here). As far as homosexuality is concerned, an accurate substitution would be replacing ‘homosexuality’ with ‘pork eater,’ as he does at the beginning.
Notice the complete lack of bigotry in the article now?
He might have tried to build bridges – he failed …
He might have tried to sound “nice” and “understanding” – he failed …
When he compares homosexuality to bigamy – he is being bigoted …
When he uses language where he condemns any homosexual activity (the way gay people are born) – he is being bigoted …
I don’t think he was trying to build bridges, he was expressing his opinion as an orthodox Rabbi.
He failed in so much as his letter wasn’t written for pinknews — where commenters like yourself immediately attacked him for an analogy whose meaning and purpose you failed to grasp.
So how are we supposed to take a comparison of homosexuality to bigamy?
How are we supposed to take a proclamation that a heterosexual person can follow through with their sexual desires (within certain bounds) but that a homosexual must never do so … (despite both heterosexual and homosexual both being born with their orientation) ….?
Surely both are bigoted? If not, please explain how …
“However, just because I maintain that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean I have to go beating the drum about it anymore than I might regularly preach against adultery.”
Really, Rabbi? I’ve not heard any religious leader of any of the denominations railing against adultery in the marriage equality debate, neither before, during or after. Adulterers’ hetero orientation are NEVER denigrated, ridiculed, dehumanised, while ours is. What a hypocrite!
Just look at American presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich. Twice divorced, three times married and supportive of open marriages. Not ONE word of condemnation or derogatory remarks in regard to his sexual orientation and a mere tap on the wrist for his adultery. Hypocrites!
Effectively the writer of this piece is saying ‘I hate gay people, because the torah allows me to, but so long as I make sure my bigotry does not sound too toxic then I should not be condemnded for it’.
Any gay person who supports orthodox judaism is as foolish as a gay catholic or a gay muslim.
These cults hate gay people.
The torah is a badly written work of fiction designed to give meaning to the lives of desert dwelling illiterate peasants thousands of years ago.
It has no place in a modern society.
The Torah is 100% wrong on the subject of homosexuality. Just as it is 100% wrong on the issue of slavery, just as it is 100% wrong on the matter of stoning adulterous women to death; just as it is 100% wrong on the matter of eating pork, shellfish and mixed fabrics.
If this ‘rabbi’ / bigot cannot accept that the Torah is completely wrong on these issues then it is only reasonable to call him a hateful bigot.
If it meant survival and pork or shellfish were the only foods available, they’d all eat them rather than die. Imagine if gays carried a natural substance in their bodies that had the potential to cure fatal illnesses, I wonder if they’d refuse treatment and die instead? If that were the case, nothing would give me greater pleasure but to refuse them. Give them a dose of their own hate medicine.
This is complete bollocks…
Why is PinkNews giving a platform to this hateful bigot to air his poisonous, disgusting homophobia.
The very least they could have done is to interview him and actually challenge his small minded bigotry.
While I sort of agree with a lot of what people are saying here (the Rabbi’s basically a proponent of religious homophobia), you’re just anti-semitic, and you’ve proved it with your comments on other stories on this board, and so I won’t ever listen or agree with anything you say on here. Cretin.
And you’re a f***ing moron.
Religion is a disgusting lifestyle choice for wilfully cretinous people like this rabbi bigot.
Dragging up the anti-semite card is such a lazy tactic and you are doing it to try to stifle criticism of this rabbi fraud.
Do you condemn his monstrous bigotry.
if not then you are a self-hating homophobe.
Mr Yitzchak Schochet does not condemn homoophobia in this article. He merely argues that bigots like him should use nicer language when villifying our community.
As he is a religious cultist who believes the torah is the word of ‘god’ then he clearly agrees with the torah’s position on homosexuality.
He is a disgrace to his community. A nasty, spiteful bigot who is using his superstitious beliefs for the poisonous hatreds within him.
Does Yitzchak Schochet condemn the torah for its homophobia. Does he think the torah is wrong on the issues of homosexuality and slavery?
These are questions which demand answers. Otherwise we need to know why Pink News is giving platforms to dangerous extremists like Yitzchak Schochet
Do you all wana stop calling them cultists? It makes you look as stupid as them.
I agree with a lot of what people are saying here (the Rabbi’s basically a proponent of religious homophobia). BUT… you’re just anti-semitic, and you’ve proved it with your comments on other stories on this board, and so I won’t ever listen or agree with anything you say on here.
“The biblical injunction against homosexual activity is clear.”
No, I’m sorry but it really is not clear at all. There are biblical injunctions against certain types of condemned wrong worship involving sexual acts as well as injunctions against homosexual prostitution and pederasty, these are very specific and need to be distinguished from ordinary homosexuality which is not condemned nor mentioned in the bible at all.
If there was ever a clear positive description in scripture of a homosexual relationship it was censored long ago to become ambiguous.
Unfortunately religious scholars pretend there is nothing to distinguish between ordinary homosexuality and ritual same sex activity, homosexual prostitution, sex with young boys and those who abuse themselves and others sexually.
As long as religious homophobes refuse to make a distinction we can continue to consider them homophobic anti-gay hate mongers.
And the bible’s justification for slavery and the stoning to death of adulterous women is equally clear.
I’d like this bigot to defend slavery and the murder of women in the same manner as he condemns homosexuallity.
He won’t of course.
These spineless religious wretches are very selective in how they interpret the bible.
He is a bigot. The bible does not cause his bigotry. He simply uses the as a convenient explanation for the fact that he hates gay people,
Otherwise he would also be defending slavery and the murder of women.
The problem with your argument is that religious individuals do not accept an argument stemming from Biblical criticism. When they see the passage from Leviticus it clearly says “A man shall not lie with another man by way of the lyings of a woman” (I’m trying to give a sense of what it says in Hebrew). It doesn’t say here “male ritual prostitute” or “pederasty” or something else. So, what you see there is different from what they see there. And you won’t persuade an Orthodox Jew (or a Baptist or whoever else) otherwise.
But, independent of what some book says, civil discourse about the laws and governments should not include religious books.
Yes but why aren’t these religious weirdos arguing for the reinstatement of slavery or the murder of adulterous women.
If the torah or buybull is literally the word of ‘god’ then it is their religious duty to uphold slavery and murder also.
It’s a homophobic double standard and they are being wilfully ignorant.
Spot on. There are also ridiculous admonitions against mixing fibres and eating shellfish. You can’t pick and choose. But – if you wish to stay religious – you can reform and rewrite. It’s been done to the Old and New Testaments several times.
Makes sense to me …
Some (not all) religious people seem to adopt what I refer to as a Woolworths theology …
In other words they pick and mix the segments they wish to concentrate on and adhere to without having any logical explanation as to why they chose those particular choices …
Leviticus does NOT say “a man shall not lie with anothe rman” or anything like it, for the simple reason that it was not written in English. The Hebrew is rather peculiar, best translated as “lie on” rather than the expected “lie with”, and many scholars believe that it is actually a prohibition against male rape, rather than consensual sex between men. This also fits the context better.
Why has PN given space to this condescending God-botherer? It’s the usual sugary drivel about supposedly welcoming people while condemning their way of loving. You can imagine how these characters would react if someone condemned their marriages and then said they were welcome.
Homophobia with a smiling face is still homophobia. I wonder if the good rabbi advocates enslavement or the stoning to death of blasphemers, in line with Torah? I suspect not. He’s apparently not a homophobe for selectively appealing to Biblical homophobia. These holy shysters always talk to the rest of us as though we’re stupid.
Hey in response to why we published it… It was to start this debate. We often publish articles from people that our readers might not agree with. Anything with the word “Comment:” in the title is not the view of PinkNews. Only articles with the words “PinkNews comment” are. I don’t personally agree with this Rabbi, I believe that the commandments are not that clear and we have published many pieces by Rabbis who are gay and perform blessings for gay couples. The point is that we want to show every side of the debate
To start this particular debate? It’s redundant, done-to-death and gratuitously annoying. We have heard this ‘love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin’ line endlessly for years. I think creative provocation needs something more original.
“The point is that we want to show every side of the debate.”
But some religious extremists think we should be executed because ‘god’ wants this.
Are you going to be giving a platform to those people as well?
Hey in response to why we published it… It was to start this debate. We often publish articles from people that our readers might not agree with. Anything with the word “Comment:” in the title is not the view of PinkNews. Only articles with the words “PinkNews comment” are. I don’t personally agree with this Rabbi, I believe that the commandments are not that clear and we have published many pieces by Rabbis who are gay and perform blessings for gay couples. The point is that we want to show every side of the debate. Also, it is rare that anyone who is believes that homosexuality is wrong would let us publish a piece where everyone would criticise him!
He probablly thinks we are not equal so our opinion does not matter
To ‘start this debate’.
But there is no debate to be had.
This man blatantly believes we are abominations and he uses his belief in ‘god’ and the BuyBull to justifty his bigotry – as proof I present his appalling statement “The biblical injunction against homosexual activity is clear. People who want to conform to the Bible should not be condemned as homophobic”.
The BuyBull calls us abominations.
He simply argues for using less monstrous language in his description of us.
Unless he can accept that the torah is utterly wrong on the issue of homosexuality and slavery and the murder of adulterous women then there is no debate to be had. As he beyond reason.
There is no justification for giving a platform to a homophobic bigot to try to justify his bigotry against our community.
You’re having the debate now by contributing to this thread ….
If there is no debate to be had, then you would not contribute …
Actually I am not.
All my comments have simply condemnd this ‘rabbi’ for his vicious cruelty and monstrous stupidity.
The only debate worth having in this thread is to discuss the agenda of Pink News in allowing a vicious religious extremist air his poisonous views unchallenged
A ‘debate’ involves arguement .
This man has no arguement.
He is using his holy book to justify his stupidity and cruelty.
The fact that you feel the need to put your side (which I agree with in the main) means you are arguing, thus there is a debate … thus the article has sparked a debate …
Now, you can choose to agree or disagree whether the debate was right, reasonable or appropriate …
However, it would be incorrect to suggest a debate is not happening …
This is bollocks…
The fact that you had to justify posting an alternative opinion says a lot about echo chamber that this site has become.
You, like most of the commenters on this page, clearly have not read or understood the piece.
The Rabbi very clearly explains that his comments refer to the act of homosexuality not gay people. He doesn’t make any negative comments about homosexuals, much less call them ‘abominations.’
Now if only people here were capable of reading a dissenting view without emotionally imploding we might actually be able to have a debate.
The very fact of comparing homosexuality to bigamy and by condemning following through on a natural attraction (because those people are born gay) is bigotry …
Greg, you might like to see the Rabbi through rose tinted glasses … but even though he has tried to build bridges … he has still basically condemned gay people to never be able to have any sexual involvement (which is a natural human desire) – because gay sexual involvement is wrong … he condemned gay people because they were born gay …. thats damaging and hurtful …
Furthermore comparing homosexual activity to bigamy demonstrates how much he does care for gay people … not a lot …
You failed to understand the comparison. Bigamy, as much as people might be so inclined, is rejected by our culture. Similarly, homosexuality is rejected by his culture.
Condemning homosexuality is not bigoted anymore that condemning bigamy.
If I were like most posters here, I should simply label you a bigot for insinuating that there is something wrong with bigamy.
Bigotry is not unique to one community …
LGBT people can be (and are) bigoted ..
Religious people can be (and are) bigoted
Its an adjective of attitude, much like angry, prejudiced, selfish, dangerous … none of these are unique to a religion, orientation, race etc etc
Whereas, LGBT people are born LGBT – they have no choice – its not an emotion like anger – its not a choice of behaviour like discrimination or bigotry …
I have not insinuated there is anything wrong with bigamy. There is no clamour for bigamy. Bigamy is a choice – unlike orienatation. Comparing an orientation to a behaviour choice is bigoted.
Once again, you have completely failed to grasp the analogy and its purpose. The Rabbi was NOT intimating that homosexuality and bigamy are alike.
People may be born LGBT, and once again let me repeat, the Rabbi was NOT condemning people for being LGBT. Once you understand that, there is really nothing to debate, and most of the emotional responses to the Rabbi’s piece become meaningless.
It is you who fail to grasp it …
The Rabbi may not (in your view) be condeming people for being LGBT – but he says (within certain limits) it is acceptable for heterosexual people to follow through with their natural sexual desires, whereas it is never acceptable for a homosexual to follow through with their natural sexual desires … (that is bigoted!) …
In terms of bigamy and homosexuality comparison …
The Rabbis words were:”To be sure, there are times when public statements are deemed necessary, such as when same-sex marriages began to become legalised. Imagine the public outcry were bigamy to be declared legal.”
Its disingenuous there is no comparison of bigamy and homosexuality by the Rabbi
Why are you hosting a debate over whether homopbhobia is ok or not? What is there to debate here?
You know the “Love the sinner but hate the sin” mentality is almost more insidious than outright blantant homophobia. It is just a polite and politically correct way to disguise your belief that being GLBT is evil.
I agree that the Bible condems same sex acts, in reference to rape, promiscuity, and debauchery. The Old Testament really only addresses same sex love in the story of Jonathan and David, which God approves of. Jesus certainly never discusses the issue but he does not shun the Eunuch, who could reasonably be assumed to be either gay or transgender.
Let’s face it, the Bible was written 2,000-4,000 years ago by humans with limited scientific knowledge and cultural bias and fear intrusion by non-Judeo Christian cultic religions. Condemning someone who happens to be born gay makes about as much sense as killing someone who works on the Sabbath, which is also in the Bible.
Biblical literalists cherry pick what want to accept as literal typically based on their own bias.
Absolutely right, but the fundamentalist cherry pickers also believe that the bible is the word of God. The Leviticus chapter is clearly all written down by and for men as is the rest of that book of fables.
What would happen If I said he should convert to be a catholic cause he’s worshiping satan I’d probably get arrested
Whatever, you’re a bigot and so is your God
This has nothing to do with God – and everything about who this Rabbi believes God to be….(they are not one and the same…)
In all Religions, perception is everything – and they should really be more mindful of that to be honest….
“A male with another male may not lay lyings of a woman”
Actually this verse is as good as meaningless because the earliest version is incomplete and nobody today knows what exactly is being referred to, it is possible to assume that this verse condemns same sex between men but today it is unknown. what “lay lyings of a woman” means as it has no obvious interpretation.
It is becoming exceedingly tiresome.
For years you read the same hoary old arguments from these people.
What with Sentamu, Williams, Widdecombe et al.
Don’t you wish they would all just F OFF out of our faces.
Have your silly beliefs, just STOP bashing other people around the head with them.
You are no Christians and your Christ would be appalled at how you have ruined this world in His name.
Yes I agree …
but I like the Bishop of Salisbury, Father Kelly in Australia and the 100 priests who have written to synod seeking to support LGBT people …
Their beliefs are just as absurd of course.
But at leasty they don’t use their absurd beliefs to promote hatred
And good for them.
However unlike the pious religious I have 1 shot at this life and I am already more than half way through it.
There is no nirvana, heaven, 70 virgins etc etc to allow me a second chance therefore I treasure this life that I have and I am sick to death of these fantasists screwing it up as they have been doing for the past 50 years of my time on this bl@@dy planet.
@Dr Guthrie / dAVID
There are some people like Archbishop Sentamu, Anne Widdecombe, Rabbi Schochet etc on whose bigotry and negativity I suspect we would agree (word it differently, but nonetheless agree).
I suspect we would all agree that the actions (not the beliefs but the actions) of the Bishop of Salisbury, Father Kelly and the priests in the Diocese of London were honourable, desireable and demonstrate that they (as individuals) approach the issue of dealing with people fairly, regardless of their difference …
I suspect we would all agree that the beliefs of people who are religious are illogical and rarely (if ever) stand scrutiny under any calm, measured critical reasoning ….
Now, there is nothing incompatible with welcoming the good things we can see in the Bishop of Salisbury and disagreeing with the tenets of his faith …
I despise Nick Griffins politics, but if he were to support a campaign to tackle domestic violence, then I would support that not his politics.
Try having 50 years of there Sh!te then see if you still have the same opinion.
Not sure age is relevant in this …
Clearly given the thumbs down on my age comment … some PN contributors endorse age discrimination?
See, to me equality is fairness … not treating everyone the same, but with fairness … and age discrimination is rarely that …
Fairness also understands that bigotry whether against us as LGBT people, or young people, or old people, or people with disabilities or people with a faith is wrong … regardless …
I think someone who has experienced 50 years of homophobia has more to grumble about than someone who has experienced 2 years.
Its not the age, its the years.
Who are you referring to as experiencing 2 years?
“People who want to conform to the Bible should not be condemned as homophobic anymore than critics of religion might be labelled theophobic.”
No, I’m afraid they should be condemned as homophobic. Because they ARE homophobic. What they are doing is placing the dictates of an ancient book of fairytale nonsense and political apologia ahead of the equality and acceptance of gay people. If your value system is such that you rate the warblings of desert patriarchs as more important that equality then you are morally compromised and deserve to be condemned.
Also, “theophobia” is nothing to be ashamed of. Deities are a childish and outdated concept, demonstrably nonsensical, which have no place in modern society beyond as a historical curiosity. It is also a nauseating concept, redolent of submission before ultimate authority, which is itself repugnant to civilized values. The promotion of the idea of gods is indeed something that should be feared.
No bigotry is justifiable whether that be racism, homophobia, sexiam, transphobia or theophobia …
Non of it is helpful or constructive …
All of it is damaging both to the recipient and those who use such bigotry …
It does not reduce other forms of bigotry
None of it should be tolerated …
A fear of religion is not bigotry. Nor is it a fear of religious people. “Theos” does not mean “religious person”, it means “deity”. And the idea of deities is one of the most insidious and unpleasant humanity has come up with. It is an idea we vitally need to get over in order to progress as a species.
Religion is the chaining of the mind, the subservience before imaginary tyrants, the abandonment of critical thinking for the palliatives and pablum of wish-fulfilment fantasy. This article itself demonstrates the kinds of dangers that stem from it – the idea that somehow following the dictates of an old book should free you from being judged immoral.
Standing up to and despising what religion does to people is no more bigotry than standing up to and despising what sexual abuse or con artists or drug addiction does to people. I respect religious people too much not to be concerned about what their dangerous irrational fantasies turn them into, and it is a form of prejudice not to be.
Per dictionary definition:
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, whether political, religious, sociological or otherwise …
or to use wikipedia:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.
So pointing out that what somebody else believes is both wrong and harmful counts as bigotry does it? Pointing out that murder is unacceptable and trying to stop it happening makes someone bigoted against murderers? Pointing out that smoking causes all manner of diseases and trying to encourage people to stop smoking makes you bigoted against smokers? Expressing dislike for and opposition to right-wing hate groups makes you bigoted does it? I don’t think so…
As I say, I have too much respect for religious people to respect their stupid ideas. Especially when their stupid ideas compromise their moral integrity, as they so obviously do here (and in most cases).
If it were just pointing out things then no one would quarrell, I suspect …
However, there is a fine line between opposing bigotry, questioning perceived wrong doing and defending one’s own position and stepping over the line and opposing bigots by using bigoted language against them …
Sometimes, VP you (at least in my opinion) veer close to the line, and have been known to step over …
If you dont agree with the dictionary or encyclopedia definition fine … but they are accurate definitions and in my view your actions are those defined (on occasion)
Clearly my last comment being voted down m
eans some contirbutors support bigtory BY LGBT people whilst condemning AGAINST LGBT people …
Disappointing double standards that damages the real fight against bigotry facing LGBT people …
Be interesting to see how anyone can justify any form of bigotry …
Get off your high sanctimonious horse will you,
@B L Z Bub
If you are asking me not to criticise bigotry, no matter where it is directed … then you can sod off … no bigotry is acceptable, in any circumstance
Like your own perhaps.
You have a proclivity for denigrating those who disagree with you.
@Be L Z Bub
So, do you support condemning bigotry?
Or do you support some forms of bigotry?
Simple question …
Please point out where I have not made a legitimate and factually based argument ….
I have expressed my opinion based on fact … if others don’t want to back up their opinions, thats their call …
Not much difference between a closed minded anti thiest and a bible basher is there?
Except that being opposed to theism is in no way a closed-minded thing to be. You might as well talk about a closed-minded anti-murderist or a closed minded opponent of rape or a closed-minded anti-homophobe.
The fact is that theism is a) factually incorrect, and b) the cause of immense harm in the world. It is the duty of every sane human being to oppose it.
Also, if orthodox judaism is intrinsically homophobic, why not just change it and make it less so? Why is blind adherence to traditional prejudice in any way laudable or desirable or positive?
I repeat, If adhering to traditional prejudice is as important or more important to you than the equality of your fellow human beings, you are a morally compromised and disgustingly reprehensible individual with a hugely warped sense of priorities. You desperately need to forget the religion and start thinking for yourself for a change.
“For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.” (Leviticus 21:18-21)
So the rabbi is morally repulsed by disabled people, too?
Did Jews forget that the gays were also put in the prison camps with them in the 1930′s and 40′s? Sad to see the Jewish people going along with the Christians to make more hate. Again the thing that put them in the camps where they died. Shame on the Jews who go along with Christians to make more hate and divide more people.
A lot of them are offended that there are memorials to the gay victims of the holocaust even some who were Jewish. These people have learned nothing of their history but are obviously not loathe to repeat it if they could get away with it.
As Jews move towards a more fundamentalist version of their faith, what genuine difference is there now between Judaism and Islam?
Theologically a great deal of difference …
Practically, there is a danger of more extreme and fundamentalist elements of any of the major religions can and do exhibit more bigotry, intolerance and downright danger to people who are LGBT (in particular), to those who do not follow the particular faith (in general) and in some cases to people of their own faith (who are less ‘hard-line’ than the requisite extremists).
In Israel, Orthodox jews call out ‘whore’ to young women who go out in sleeveless clothes these days. If this is the path we’re going down now, what are the MANIFEST differences between Judaism and Islam? Circumcision, pork avoidance, the stoning of adulterers, ritual slaughter, the low regard for homosexuals…
What difference? Have I supported Israel as a bastion of western-style liberty all these years to see it descend into nothing more than a Hebrew-speaking version of Iran?
I struggle to support Israel totally … As a state they can be superb in some aspect (including LGBT rights in general) … however, they seem to conveniently ignore some of their own human rights abuses …
I totally agree with you, and thats why I say that the practical differences between each “flavour” of religious extremism will have similar (if not identical) impacts on those whom they seek to condemn (whether or not they share the faith or not) …
I would like to point out that it isn’t the Orthodox Jews who sometimes say that to women in the streets. It is the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. I think i would know, i was born there and constantly visit the country. The Ultra-Orthodox happen to be a minority in the country. There are more secular Jews in Israel than what there are of them. Israel will never turn into a “Hebrew-speaking version of Iran” Israel is by far the most liberal place in the middle east.
I find that quite insulting. You obviously know bugger all about Judaism then you moron!
All religions have aspects which are extremist and dangerous in their interpretation – Judaism is not immune to this …
Sure, there are some in all faiths who are either gay themselves or supportive of LGBT people …
Sure, not everyone is every faith is pejorative or discriminating …
Some are though …
Its important we tackle extremism wherever it is …
Nice try, Robbie. I want you to feel insulted, though, if that’s what it will take for you to take a long hard look at yourself. Usually when I’m called a moron it’s by an angy Muslim. I thank you and the rabbi for proving me right on the similarities between Jews and Muslims. You’re too alike as religions, and wallow in superiority and bigotry. Maybe that’s why you’re always at war with each other.
Thats a bit of a daft posting to be honest…
I am not happy with pink news constantly highlighting the Jewish religion in a bad way. I am Jewish and i can say that most Jews who i know and who my friends and family know, do not have a problem with gay people. Israel is a Jewish country and it has the best LGBT rights in the whole of Asia and the City of Tel Aviv has a vibrant gay scene. I know more Catholics who are homophobic than Jews. Plus i would also like to say that basically every muslim person i have ever met has homophobic views, yet pink news hardly ever reports homophobia from muslims. I wonder why.
Islam is the most homophobic of all the major religions.
With Orthodox Judaism running a very close and breathy second.
I have seen stories on Pink News that show positive and negative aspects of issues linked to Judaism, Christianity and Islam …
Ok, recently the stories on PN have been more negative about Judaism … thats because these stories happened (and were also reported elsewhere – not just PN) …
Surely, a responsible media outlet that reports issues connected to LGBT people should report these stories? Would you prefer that PN could only cover stories that spin Judaism in a positive light? Surely that would be censorship,which I would not agree with (personally)
Yes there are some great Jewish people out there who support LGBT people … I hope they will engage in activities that will ensure PN can publicise such things …
The one sure way Jewish people can ensure the media do not report negatively about them is to not behave in a manner that can be seen as wrong, bigoted or prejudicial …
Actually there is a lot bout catholics and christians at the minute.
It seems to me that you are making the mistake of assuming that there is any such thing as “the jewish religion” in any meaningful, monolithic sense. There are clearly thousands of different jewish religions, if not as many as there are people who describe themselves as jewish. Because that’s all religions are – individual cultural phenomena invented and adapted by different people to suit their own personal beliefs and their own cultural circumstances. Religions are not handed down from on high by supreme beings (there aren’t any supreme beings), they’re invented by human beings. Liberal, tolerant, human beings invent liberal, tolerant religions. Bigoted, homophobic human beings invent bigoted, homophobic religions.
When we finally stop putting silly religious labels on people and just see them as people, all this puff and outrage disappears. Why on earth should someone else’s homophobic opinions reflect in any way badly on you if you aren’t homophobic?
All of these weird satanic religions must be stopped, these sycho pathic men and some women have millions of different types of religions going on all over this world and most of them are all occults and satanic orders of sex crimes , pedephilia , physical and menta ab;uses, i have ran into hundreds of people all leaving abusive religions and askin me do i know of any that are stable and loving organiziations who do not bash are ab;use the people , and try and feed them lies about others that they know is not truek and who does not try and get up in their private business, and private informations about their bank accounts and what th;ey do with their famiiles time, ALL THESE PEOPLE AB;USED ALL OVER THE WORLD , RELIGIONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS , THEY OR ORDERS AND FRANTERINITIES , CLUBS AND CLICKS OF MEN AND WOMEN, WHO LEAVE HIGH SHCOOL AND GET INTO GROUPS WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE LIKE MINDS LIKE THEMSELVES AND UNFORTUNATELY MOST OF THEM ARE WAYWARD AB;USIVE SYCHOS WHO WANT TO RUN OTHERS LIVES
shut the hell up, you have no idea what you are on about.
shut the hell up! noone wants to hear what you have to say!
wAKE UP PEOPLE, YOU ARE JUST DEALING WITH MEN AND WOMEN , WHO WENT TO COLLEGE OR NOT WITH YOU OTHER KIDS OR OTHERS FROM SOMEONE IN THE WORLD MOST OF THEM HAS T;URNED OUT BAD, SOME HAS ALREADY BEEN BAD FROM COLLEGE, IN FRATERNITIES, ESPECIALLY RICH KID SNOBS, WITH RICH PARENTS WHO ARE DANGEROUS SNOBS AND ABUSERS, TH;EY TEACH THERE KIDS TO DO SO TO. WATCH THE MOVIE CRUEL INTENTIONS , THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT GOES ON FOR REAL EVERYWHERE WITH A LOT OF RICH ADULTS AND RELIGIOUS ORDER OCCULTS, AND RICH KIDS, THEY AB;USE OTHERS EVERYTHING IS A JOKE AND GAME , MU;RDER, COMPETITIONS TO RAPE AND MURDER, WHO CAN RAPE THE MOST PEOPLE WHO CAN HURT THE MOST POOR PEOPLE , WHO CAN VIOLATE AND BREAK THE MOST HEARTS WHO CAN GET THE MOST WOMEN TO TRY AND GET THEM TO FALL FOR THEM AND THEN THEY BREAK THEIR HEARTS, WHO CAN LURE THE MOST DUMB PEOPLE THEY THINK , INTO OCCULTS AND BRAINWASH THEM INTO BELIEVING IN THEM AS SOME TYPE OF GOD OR FALSE PROPHET ,SO THEY WILL DO ALL THE EVIL THINGS WE DO ANS SAY, THEY WI
EVERYONE IN OUR NATION SAYS THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN, EVERYONE, AND PEOPLE YOU , KNOW THAT IS NOT TR;UE, WAKE UP, YOU KNOW BETTER, HATE IS NOT GOOD AND HATE IS NOT RIGHT, HATE IS EVIL AND HARMFUL , AND HATE DRIVES PEOPLE TO HARM OTHERS IN ALL KINDS OF WAYS, SO HATE CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN, BIGOTRY IS HATE RACISM IS HATE, HATE CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN, A CHRISTIAN IS NOT A RELIGONS, IT IS A GOOD SAMARITAN WHO WALKS IN LOVE KINDNESS, MEEKNESS AND CHARITY, AND GOODWILL AND HUMANITARIANISM HARMING NO ONE AND ALWAYSS TRYING TO GOOD TO AND BY OTHERS, AND KEEP ING PEACE AMONG OTHERS A GOOD AND SOFT AND KIND HEART, AND SOUL, HATE IS NONE OF THESE AND IT PRODUCES NO GOOD CHARACTERS AND ACTIONS, ALWAYS PRODUCES EVIL AND BAD HARMFUL ACTIONS , YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP AND STOP BEING DUMB, THESE WICKED MEN AND WOMEN FALSE PROPHETS THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE OCCULTS, ALL HATE RELIGIONS OR OCCULTS, NOT CHURCHES, CHURCHES ARE WORKING IN CHARITIE AND KINDNESS , SOUP KITCHEN, HOMLESS SHELTERS HONABLALY, PEACE
ALL RELIGIONS OF GOD OR TERRORISTIC ORGANIZATIONS RUTED OUT OF AFRICA, WHO ABUSE OTHERS, I WAS AB;USED BY A OCCULT GROUP CALLED GOD, JESUS AND THE OTHER FALSE PROPHETS, THE PEOPLE ARE AB;USIVE NOSY MEDDLING AND THE MEN ARE SEX ADDICTS WHO TRY AND VIOLATE ALL THE CHILDREN AND WOMEN, TEACH THE MEN TO RAPE THEIR OWN KIDS , TRY AND TEACH THE KIDS TO HAVE PERVERTED SEXUALLY RELATIONS WITH OLD PEOPLE AND THEY FAMIIES, A SNOBBISH PIOUSED PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN ALL PEOPLE AND RELILGIONS, AND YET ONE OF THE WORST AND CRIMINAL , MANY OF THEIR PASTORS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED IN SEX CRIMES , EVERYWHERE, ONE MEGA CHURH OCCULT IN ARIZONA, FORIENGN RELIGONS OR NOTHING BUT TERRORISTS WRITING INFORMATIONS TO OTHER THAT DEGRADE AND BASH AND ABUSE OTHER S RIGHTS ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND POOR, THESE PEOPLE ARE EVIL WICKED ABUSERS , WE NOW HAVE BISHOP SALB;URY OF FINLAND GETTING OUT OF THE HATE OCCULT ORDER OF WICKED RELIGIONS AND STANDING BEHIND EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, HES AWAK
aLL THE RELIGIONS THAT ARE NOT WORKING IN CHARITY AND WALKING IN LOVE AND KINDNESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ARE JUST BAD MEN AND WOMEN WANTING TO RUN OTHERS LIVES AND THINKING THEMSELVES IN A PASTORS UNIFORM MAKE THEM SOMEHOW LOOK MORE PRESTINE AND IMPORTANT THAN OTHER FOLK, THEY GO INTO THE RELIGIONS STRICTY TO GET RICH OFF OF THE BRAINWASHED POOR PEOPLE, AND TO FEEL IMPORTANT IN A PIOUS WAY IN THE FACE OF OTHERS, EGO BIGHEADS B;UT AB;USERS, THE MEN SEE MASSIVE OPPORTUNITES FOR SEX CRIMES TO HIDE AND OTHER WICKEDNESS, WHILE LYING TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE GOING ONS, IS ALL COMING OUT , PAY ATTENTION, JUST SEE A MAN AND A WOMEN WHO SOMEBODY WENT TO SCHOOL WITH WHEN THEY CALL THEIR NAME NOT A; TITLE THAT ANYONE CAN GET OFF OF AND INTERNET, THAT DOESNT MAKE YOU A REAL PASTOR OR MINISTER, YOU HAVE TO BE REAL INSIDE, A REAL GOOD KIND PERSON, WALIKING IN GOODNESS , NOT HATRED AND AB;USING PEOPLE, WAKE UP PEOPLES STOP FOLLOWING THESE CRAZY PEOPLE , THEIR DANGERSOUS , YOUR MINISTRY IS TO YO FAMILIES
The article is a long stream of muddled thought to be honest.
Now while I understand that Judaism has long had a tradition of ‘finding ways round’ edicts thru the use of ‘reason’ it still comes across to myself as muddled if not a trifle fuzzy…
While it might make sense for a heterosexual Rabbi (I’m assuming Rabbi Schochet is straight) to separate saying ‘homosexuality is ‘wrong” from actually welcoming LGBT people into “Synagogues and communities”, the truth is that there is little separation in real terms aside from perhaps physical harm.
In reality (especially in a relatively close community like Judaism) how is it possible that Rabbi Schochet can think this would not have a negative and inhuman effect on any person having to put up with that kind of rubbish?
Its the same kind of patriarchal thinking that is often applied to the issue of racism – a kind of ‘you’re ok cause you’re not like the others’ – ie ‘as long as you sit there quietly and don’t talk about it…’
I entirely agree, the thinking is very muddled …
I believe he thinks his intentions are honourable – the outcome from the article is far from honourable …
Bless you, Rabbi – but its not good enough.
I’m sure you mean well – and I’m sure you have the best of intentions but expecting my Jewish LGBT brothers and sisters to sit there and shut up about their sexuality just to make it easier for you and others to ‘marry’ (pardon the pun) traditional perceptions of Biblical Law with the actual reality of everyday life is simply not good enough
…and ultimately un-Godly.
Its interesting to note that the Rabbi does not contest the English translation ‘abomination’ (albeit that he does in fact elude more to the notion of ‘forbidden’).
I found this from a quick google on the subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible)
Perhaps a Hebrew Scholar could add more here.
Oh, please. Don’t get caught up in the idiocy of trying to re-translate a language you know nothing about.
The word’s been around for hundreds of years. They’re not going to change it now because of you and a couple of other cranks.
You are talking (quite literally!) out of your (very obnoxious) arse
I think you’ll find that Im not trying to ‘re-translate’ anything – I’m suggesting (based on all the evidence I’ve ever seen) that its the very ‘translation’ (as in ‘lost in translation’) itself thats at fault…
The question is: why would you be so obnoxious and rude about someone questioning something in the first place?
Got something to hide (ie vested interest in keeping the wrong translation going) have we?
…things that make yer go ‘hmmmm’…..
It’s somehow more disappointing that Rabbis are saying this when they should know all too well what dangers there are in pidgeon holing people into race, sexual orientation, religion etc.
You should treat everyone equally , this is far more important than anything that you have interpreted in the bible. We can all come to different intepretations to suit oursleves. Most dictators have done it in the past to justify their evils and I would have thought Rabbis should really be very conscious of this fact. They ‘ve been constantly persecuted in the past simply becuase they are Jews. Surely they must know what it feels like to be presecuted simply becuase of a characteristic you have ie being gay.
I don’t know buy I feel his attitude is worse than the CofE or vaticans..
Why is Pink news giving column space to a homophobe?
You think homosexuality is wrong, Rabbi? Then you think i am wrong for existing. I don’t care if your book says otherwise – you’re a homophobe and a bigot. Prejudice should not be given a pass because a religious leader is the bigot
Dear Pink News,
Which bigot will you be giving a column to next week?
If it looks, acts, walks and talks like a cult.
Then it more than likely is a cult.
Judaism has no more validity than islam or scientology.
It’s just older.
But equally fake and ridiculous.
…that was ‘cult’ right…?
Yadda, yadda, yadda and BITE ME Rabbi!
If Pink News can give space to this bigot then why not Mike Judge-mental from the ‘Christian’ Institute? Or Nick Griffin? Or Melanie Philips? The list is endless…
The newsworthy stories are stories from religious orgs and religious people who actually don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality. I agree why give any more encouragements and media space to these guys especially in a gay mag. They are predicatable in their homophobia and false understanding of what is welcoming to gays. I’m sick of them all trying to convince eveyone they really aren’t homophobic. It doesn’t work.
Personally, I wouldnt want to censor news organisations from responsible journalism …
Whether this particular story is responsible or not is debatable …
There is a strong case that the Rabbi is highly homophobic and his attitude is horrific …
I can see PN case for publishing to provoke debate of some comment, I’m not entirely convinced it extends to this comment …
I think there is a huge difference between positive stories such as that about the Bishop of Salisbury and comment such as this …
There is also a large difference between news stories such as that about the Archbishop of York or JFS and this comment …
This comment seems to deliberately use a LGBT platform to perculate personal views which are homophobic … By all means, report on his views, but don’t give the Rabbi a plarform for his homophobia….
Indeed. I’d prefer to read stuff from carrie baker than this tosser!
Although Melanie Phillips is not wild about complete gay rights, I will say that she constantly bangs on about our right to exist at all if Islam gets too much sway. And she’s right.
This comment so much. Why is a gay publication giving space to a homophobe?
Is Stephen Green next?
The above translation from the earliest original clearly describes a condemnation of two men laying with one woman together at once as in a menage a trois.
I really expected better from Jews (obviously, this piece is the opinion of only a handful). I’ve always seen them as kind and wise.
I’m guessing that an extreme right-wing can be found in all major religions, and it is good for us to be aware of that.
Dear Imam Styjzz, Better late than never…Please don’t toss aside all we Jews for the (misguided, despite “ancient”) actions and hate speech from the Ortho/Ultra Orthodox segment of the Jewish population world wide. Here in the States (and in all of North America) the majority of Jews are members/affiliated with the “Union for Reform Judaism”, and other “approaches” to Judaism (used usually, rather than “denonmination”) My family came to the States back in the mid-19th Century, just about the same time that the more “formal” German Jews arrived, with their more “structured” services from prayer books; beautiful choral music, and services delivered in the vernacular, rather than Hebrew, or in same cases, even Yiddish. This was the “Classical Reform Judaism” in which I grew up. We were always “welcoming”, and have a congregation that’s inclusive. We’re of all colours, stripes, nations of origin, and above all, CARING! Pleae believe that we’re kind and inclusive! And maybe even wise! <3
There’s really a somewhat “easy” (or at least “available” solution): It’s called “Liberal Judaism”, or as it’s called in the States and Canada, “Reform” or “Liberal” Judaism. Inclusiveness is our goal in our “communities”, and although the Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox would find it objectionable, we do read Torah, but we also search for real interpretations, both old (e.g. Rambam, Hillel, Rashi) and “new”, from the wonderful rabbis, community leaders, and authors, such as the inspiring Rabbi Schulweiss, and David Wolpe. Here in California, gay marriage is on the horizon (November???) and hopefully this will be the last time that those of us who believe in “marriage for all”, and “equal rights for ALL”. So many vibrant Reform congregations are flourishing, some “catering” to gays, some with large social programs for gay families (lots of children!). One of our major Jewish Centers Assoc. camps in Malibu is hosting a GLBT family weekend camp, with “all invited”. So, “Try Reform”!
Is Pink News going to explain WHY they decided to publish homophobic apologism? Is this a new angle for pink news – tell us icky gays why we’re wrong and why homophobes aren’t so bad?
I think you’ll find they already have
‘icky gays’…..!?!? lol you doughnut…lol
No, it isn’t. Remember that everyone who discusses this is using a selective translation, while the original Hebrew is far more ambiguous. Various interpretations for that bit of Leviticus have been put forward by scholars, including a prohibition against male rape (the Hebrew is best translated as “lie on” rather then the usual “lie with”, and “lie on” tends to mean rape in the Bible).