Scalia Shuffles Off

[Skyth]

While I should note that my statement wasn't 100% serious, but rather was more geared towards gently mocking Skyth's statements, sure! I won't bother reiterating in any depth the position of the orthodox Abrahamic tradition towards homosexuality, as you're already familiar with it, but I'll try to parse it down:

(a. In Abrahamic tradition, there is a single and objective standard of Truth.

(b. A part of that Truth (as noted in the revelations of all four of the Abrahamic religions) is that homosexuality is sinful/wrong. Ergo, homosexuality is wrong. Period. That's the "single and objective Truth" bit. You could point out that you and millions of others don't really give a shit about Abrahamic morality, -- which is of course true -- but the only thing that would do is put you in the wrong. (b. is usually a bit of a stumbling block as the mainstream culture and mainline religion has gotten increasingly uncomfortable with telling other people that they're wrong, but it's the most important part of this equation. Homosexuality is wrong.

(c. Some people feel that, because homosexuality is wrong, the State should not encourage it. This isn't everyone -- otherwise faithful Catholics such as Joe Biden skate by on the similar issue of abortion by saying the State has no right to impose their views -- but it usually animates the sentiment of the really staunch anti-SSM advocates. The fact that other people don't agree that homosexuality is wrong is meaningless, because they themselves are wrong. This bit really has less to do overall with one's view of homosexuality and more with one's view of the role of the State. Generally speaking, however, it is agreed that the State should not permit moral wrongs.

(d. Because the State should not permit things which are morally wrong and hence damaging to it's citizenry, and because homosexuality is morally wrong, the State should ideally not permit homosexuality but definitely not permit same-sex marriage.

In brief:

(a. Abrahamic tradition maintains a single, objective Truth, although the details differ with each tradition.
(b. As a part of that Truth, homosexuality is wrong.
(c. The State should not permit/encourage moral wrong.
(d. As homosexuality is a moral wrong, the State should not permit/encourage it.

I understand, of course, that there are many -- probably a great majority, in fact -- homosexual couples who are, in all respects, just normal people trying to live their normal lives. I see how not permitting them to get married seems mean, cruel, bigoted, etc etc etc. But that doesn't make it less wrong, only more regrettable. There are many other factors and viewpoint, etc, that could probably do with a mention here but as I'm pressed for time I'm going to ignore them. I hope this serves as a decent encapsulation.

So in other words, you believe that others should be forced to follow the tennets of your religion.

Btw, supporting a morally deficient position isn't mocking.  It just shows how bad of an argument you have.

[Altair]

So in other words, you believe that others should be forced to follow the tennets of your religion.

This has always been the sticking point for me. I don't really give a shit if somebody's religion or other says I'm intrinsically disordered or whatever. That's their business. But when they try to use the mechanism of the state to impose their religion's moral judgments on my life, they make their religion my business, and I will not stand for it for one goddamn second. In that respect, they are no different than ISIS.

In a free society, government exists to enforce only the minimum moral laws necessary for a functioning society (e.g., no random killing) and to provide a means to arbitrate between competing interests. Bans on homosexuality and same-sex marriage fail both tests.

[Castus]

So in other words, you believe that others should be forced to follow the tennets of your religion.

Btw, supporting a morally deficient position isn't mocking.  It just shows how bad of an argument you have.

 Not all of them, no, but I'm quite alright with imposing a generally Judaeo-Christian sense of morality; in line with cultural and historic norms.

And I fear you misunderstand me. When I took your statements verbatim (e.g. 'Sorry, but the country is better off without Scalia on the bench. He has supported many reprehensible ideas.' or 'The idea that homosexuals deserve to be second class citizens is not laudable.') and then immediately countered with their opposites, it isn't because I necessarily agreed with the resulting statement -- I would, for example, actually oppose making homosexuals second-class citizens; although I probably have a different idea of what that would look like -- but rather because I was trying to demonstrate that just saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. I actually addressed that point earlier in the thread, when I expanded upon my statements re: Scalia and why I consider him a loss to the country.

I'm also quite certain we have different ideas of 'morally deficient',

[Altair]

Eh, it's making the rounds in the whacko circuits but he was elderly and not in the best of health. It's a tragedy all the same, but foul play? Nah

Yeah, the "pillow over the face" frothing speculation from the far right has been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-conspiracy-20160217-story.html
 
Besides, everyone knows the pillow has been under Scalia's ass, supporting it comfortably for years now. It is upholstered in rich tones of brown but filled only with the emptiest, most lightweight fluff of downy white. It's name is Clarence Thomas.

Who now will tell it what to think?

[Castus]

Yeah, the "pillow over the face" frothing speculation from the far right has been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scalia-conspiracy-20160217-story.html
 
Besides, everyone knows the pillow has been under Scalia's ass, supporting it comfortably for years now. It is upholstered in rich tones of brown but filled only with the emptiest, most lightweight fluff of downy white. It's name is Clarence Thomas.

Who now will tell it what to think?

 
I'm going to make it a point to drink with you before I die, Altair.

[Skyth]

Not all of them, no, but I'm quite alright with imposing a generally Judaeo-Christian sense of morality; in line with cultural and historic norms.

And I fear you misunderstand me. When I took your statements verbatim (e.g. 'Sorry, but the country is better off without Scalia on the bench. He has supported many reprehensible ideas.' or 'The idea that homosexuals deserve to be second class citizens is not laudable.') and then immediately countered with their opposites, it isn't because I necessarily agreed with the resulting statement -- I would, for example, actually oppose making homosexuals second-class citizens; although I probably have a different idea of what that would look like -- but rather because I was trying to demonstrate that just saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. I actually addressed that point earlier in the thread, when I expanded upon my statements re: Scalia and why I consider him a loss to the country.

I'm also quite certain we have different ideas of 'morally deficient',

 
The problem is that I was actually listing why the country was better off without him.  Attempting to troll someone only shows that you don't actually have a valid argument.

And quite frankly, basing laws on what factions of certain religions claim is never a good idea.  Laws should have a better reason than 'I don't like it' which is basically the reasoning that you are giving.

This is besides the fact that there is no concensus among the religions that homosexuality is wrong.

[Castus]

The problem is that I was actually listing why the country was better off without him.  Attempting to troll someone only shows that you don't actually have a valid argument.

And quite frankly, basing laws on what factions of certain religions claim is never a good idea.  Laws should have a better reason than 'I don't like it' which is basically the reasoning that you are giving.

This is besides the fact that there is no concensus among the religions that homosexuality is wrong.

Attempting to wrangle an actual argument for a position is considered trolling these days? My, how standards have fallen.

Personally, I like my laws to be based in solid moral precepts; the better with which to fashion a nation guided by morality. We evidently have different ideas about from whence morality flows however. And no, not among all religions; but among the religions I mentioned there is a general orthodox conclusion re: the immorality of homosexuality, although I don't dispute the obvious existence of dissenters. Christianity and Judaism both contain a variety of different responses to homosexuality; while Islam and Bahá'í are relatively uniform in their opposition.

[Altair]

Not all of them, no, but I'm quite alright with imposing a generally Judaeo-Christian sense of morality; in line with cultural and historic norms.

That sounds reasonable...

...Here are a few other things that were imposed consistent with cultural and historic norms, and in line with the Judeo-Christian sense of morality of the day:

Slavery
Segregation
Anti-miscegenation

So forgive me if I reject someone's interpretation of Judeo-Christian morality in favor of solid reasoning.

[Castus]

That sounds reasonable...

...Here are a few other things that were imposed consistent with cultural and historic norms, and in line with the Judeo-Christian sense of morality of the day:

Slavery
Segregation
Anti-miscegenation

So forgive me if I reject someone's interpretation of Judeo-Christian morality in favor of solid reasoning.

 
All is forgiven, however I think I'll save my trusty slavery/segregation apologia for another thread; if you don't mind, that is.

[Altair]

I'm going to make it a point to drink with you before I die, Altair.

It would be like the Notorious RBG hanging out with Scalia. Or something.

[Jack]

While I should note that my statement wasn't 100% serious, but rather was more geared towards gently mocking Skyth's statements, sure! I won't bother reiterating in any depth the position of the orthodox Abrahamic tradition towards homosexuality, as you're already familiar with it, but I'll try to parse it down:

(a. In Abrahamic tradition, there is a single and objective standard of Truth.

(b. A part of that Truth (as noted in the revelations of all four of the Abrahamic religions) is that homosexuality is sinful/wrong. Ergo, homosexuality is wrong. Period. That's the "single and objective Truth" bit. You could point out that you and millions of others don't really give a shit about Abrahamic morality, -- which is of course true -- but the only thing that would do is put you in the wrong. (b. is usually a bit of a stumbling block as the mainstream culture and mainline religion has gotten increasingly uncomfortable with telling other people that they're wrong, but it's the most important part of this equation. Homosexuality is wrong.

(c. Some people feel that, because homosexuality is wrong, the State should not encourage it. This isn't everyone -- otherwise faithful Catholics such as Joe Biden skate by on the similar issue of abortion by saying the State has no right to impose their views -- but it usually animates the sentiment of the really staunch anti-SSM advocates. The fact that other people don't agree that homosexuality is wrong is meaningless, because they themselves are wrong. This bit really has less to do overall with one's view of homosexuality and more with one's view of the role of the State. Generally speaking, however, it is agreed that the State should not permit moral wrongs.

(d. Because the State should not permit things which are morally wrong and hence damaging to it's citizenry, and because homosexuality is morally wrong, the State should ideally not permit homosexuality but definitely not permit same-sex marriage.

In brief:

(a. Abrahamic tradition maintains a single, objective Truth, although the details differ with each tradition.
(b. As a part of that Truth, homosexuality is wrong.
(c. The State should not permit/encourage moral wrong.
(d. As homosexuality is a moral wrong, the State should not permit/encourage it.

I understand, of course, that there are many -- probably a great majority, in fact -- homosexual couples who are, in all respects, just normal people trying to live their normal lives. I see how not permitting them to get married seems mean, cruel, bigoted, etc etc etc. But that doesn't make it less wrong, only more regrettable. There are many other factors and viewpoint, etc, that could probably do with a mention here but as I'm pressed for time I'm going to ignore them. I hope this serves as a decent encapsulation.

I'm a little disappointed, actually. I was hoping we could go a little more in depth than "my religion says so." I'd like to get into the traditional arguments, if you're interested. I'm sure you've read various arguments about what, precisely, was intended in Leviticus, and why various Jewish traditions decided the way they did. What is it about the Conservative tradition's position you find more compelling than Reform?

I don't usually see Jews advocating for outsiders to their religion being subject to their prohibitions. Can you speak to this at all? Are gay rights different in some way or have you simply not seen as many opportunities to weigh in on other areas of Jewish law? Or are you engaging from a Catholic or Orthodox POV because you haven't completed conversion yet? I mean, you're not advocatating that people have no gods before the LORD; certainly that wouldn't go very far on this board, but neither do arguments about gay marriage.

(Actually, a personal question if you don't mind: do you have to keep all the laws as a seeker? I've seen home renovation shows with Jewish couples that get into some of the details about keeping a kosher kitchen and having two of everything, using stainless steel because it's easier to sterilize, etc, but I'm not sure where in the conversion process you actually have to, like, remodel your kitchen and clean out your poly-cotton blends and adjust your hair cutting habits.)

[Castus]

I'm a little disappointed, actually. I was hoping we could go a little more in depth than "my religion says so." I'd like to get into the traditional arguments, if you're interested. I'm sure you've read various arguments about what, precisely, was intended in Leviticus, and why various Jewish traditions decided the way they did. What is it about the Conservative tradition's position you find more compelling than Reform?

I don't usually see Jews advocating for outsiders to their religion being subject to their prohibitions. Can you speak to this at all? Are gay rights different in some way or have you simply not seen as many opportunities to weigh in on other areas of Jewish law? Or are you engaging from a Catholic or Orthodox POV because you haven't completed conversion yet? I mean, you're not advocatating that people have no gods before the LORD; certainly that wouldn't go very far on this board, but neither do arguments about gay marriage.

(Actually, a personal question if you don't mind: do you have to keep all the laws as a seeker? I've seen home renovation shows with Jewish couples that get into some of the details about keeping a kosher kitchen and having two of everything, using stainless steel because it's easier to sterilize, etc, but I'm not sure where in the conversion process you actually have to, like, remodel your kitchen and clean out your poly-cotton blends and adjust your hair cutting habits.)

 
I would be thrilled to go in-depth on the issue, and answer your questions, when I return from class. In the meantime, the post 'Conforming to the norm' on my blog (linked in my signature) may be of interest to you. ^^

[Altair]

Yeah, the "pillow over the face" frothing speculation from the far right has been thoroughly debunked

I spoke too soon. It turns out we pagans (and Prez O is one of us; who knew?) are responsible. Scalia was a human sacrifice for the festival of Lupercalia.

Rick Wiles: Obama Killed Scalia As A Pagan Human Sacrifice

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-wiles-obama-killed-scalia-pagan-human-sacrifice

Expect bumper crops this year.

[Castus]

I spoke too soon. It turns out we pagans (and Prez O is one of us; who knew?) are responsible. Scalia was a human sacrifice for the festival of Lupercalia.

Rick Wiles: Obama Killed Scalia As A Pagan Human Sacrifice

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-wiles-obama-killed-scalia-pagan-human-sacrifice

Expect bumper crops this year.

 
*feels his inner cultor Deorum die a little*

That having been said, he was a worthy sacrifice to appease this harsh winter.

[Castus]

I'm a little disappointed, actually. I was hoping we could go a little more in depth than "my religion says so." I'd like to get into the traditional arguments, if you're interested. I'm sure you've read various arguments about what, precisely, was intended in Leviticus, and why various Jewish traditions decided the way they did. What is it about the Conservative tradition's position you find more compelling than Reform?

I am very fond of Reform Judaism as a whole. While it may not be for me, I respect the heritage of the Jewish Enlightenment which it embodies and recognise that Reform Jews do a lot of credit to the Jewish people as a whole. Reform Judaism, in short, has a very respectable theological heritage, but I'm disappointed by what they do with it. The Pittsburgh Platform as the quintessential expression of Classical Reform Judaism has it's problems as far as I'm concerned (see: their positions on the Torah and the value of the ritual commandments/laws of kashrut) but I also admire it for the forthright defense of a God-centered vision that would come to define the ritual-less 'ethical monotheism' of the early Reform movement.

It has become apparent, however, that as time has gone by and Reform Judaism has more comfortably settled into becoming the Jewish version of The Episcopal Church (i.e. the nominal religious affiliation of the US establishment), the Reform movement has drifted further and further from genuine religiosity. Instead of the Divine, it is my opinion that Reform has decided to focus on the concept of tikkun olam (repairing the world) to the extent that it can more easily be defined by tikkun olam than the worship of God. Reform synagogues certainly seem much more focused on soup kitchens and whatever notion of 'social justice' is trending on Twitter than on, say, the Sabbath or liturgical worship. My other major issue with Reform Judaism, which extends to the classical Reform movement of the Pittsburgh Platform as well as more modern Reform Judaism is their conception of Jewish law and the mitzvot; the 613 commandments which traditionally govern Jewish life.

The Pittsburgh Platform, as you can see, explicitly disavows "all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress" and thereby does away with kashrut altogether; as well as mitzvot that do more than govern moral behaviour -- or advise moral behaviour that the rabbis found antithetical to a modern soul. Although the movement eventually ended up walking this back with the adoption of the Columbus Platform in 1937, the official position of Reform Judaism -- and indeed, one of the defining positions of Reform Judaism -- is that the mitzvot are not obligatory, or even normative, but rather that one's observance or non-observance is governed by their own conscious. This rankles me. Although I have, with the creeping advent of liberalism into my personal philosophy, come to value the idea of one's conscious as having an important voice; I still much prefer the -- admittedly Catholic-influenced -- belief that doctrine/commandments ought to form one's conscious rather than the other way around. For this reason, I much prefer the position of the Conservative movement, which affirms the importance of the mitzvot as a means of personal and collective sanctification (an idea which I highly value, and am saddened by it's seeming absence from the Reform movement) and their binding, normative authority:

Mitzvot are ritual gestures that can awaken us to the presence of the Creator. Through them, God commands us to sanctify our lives and improve the lives of others. These ritual gestures startle us from ordinary consciousness so that we may become aware of our origins and goals, both individual and collective. Israel is called to become a covenanted community whose relationship with God is expressed through the mitzvot. These practices link our people to its revelation and give purpose to our collective existence. […] A defining feature of Conservative Judaism is the demand that individuals relinquish some autonomy in deference to religious norms of the Jewish people in covenant with God. We are obligated to observe mitzvot, even when they may not resonate as spiritually satisfying. (JTS Norms of Religious Identity and Practice)

Observe, as well, these key passages from Emet Ve'Emunah: Statement of Principles for Conservative Judaism...

Conservative Judaism affirms the critical importance of belief in God, but does not specify all the particulars of that belief. Certainly, belief in a trinitarian God, or in a capricious, amoral God can never be consistent with Jewish tradition and history. [...]

Conservative Judaism affirms its belief in revelation, the uncovering of an external source of truth emanating from God. This affirmation emphasizes that although truths are transmitted by humans, they are not a human invention. That is why we call the Torah torat emet. The Torah’s truth is both theoretical and practical, that is, it teaches us about God and about our role in His world. As such, we reject relativism, which denies any objective source of authoritative truth. [...]

Our dedication to Halakhah flows from our deep awareness of the divine element and the positive values inherent in it. Every effort is made to conserve and enhance it. When changes are necessary, they are made with the express goal of insuring that Halakhah remains an effective, viable, and moral guide for our lives.

...which (a. explicitly affirm a theistic notion of God, (b. explicitly affirm an objective source of authoritative truth, and (c. admit that changes in religious law may sometimes be necessary but should be made sparingly and carefully. All of these things are very important to me. I am gravely concerned by the rise of atheism and the challenging of classical notions of God in Judaism -- as is prevalent in Reform Judaism -- so I find the United Synagogue's theistic defense reassuring. As someone who, here and elsewhere, has defined conservatism's raison d'etre as the belief in an objective divine Truth, I could not be more in agreement with their statement concerning objective truth and relativism. As well, my increasing recognition that change is sometimes necessary but should be evenly tempered appreciates the nuanced position on Jewish law. Of course, there are other reasons why I prefer the Conservative tradition to the Reform movement, but I hope that I've given you a decent explanation.

As to why I prefer the Conservative position on SSM, I should point out that even if I didn't necessarily agree with it -- and I don't -- as someone converting through a Conservative rabbi and attending a Conservative synagogue I still consider the movement's position (which I have previously explained here in detail) to be more or less binding. However the nifty thing about Conservative halakhah is that rabbis and congregations, as well as individuals, are generally at liberty to adopt as their guideline any responsa adopted by the CJLS. This allows for flexibility and diversity within the movement on a variety of issues, but within a rigorous and normative framework which the Reform movement lacks. As it so happens I feel that the majority decisions of the Committee, which have since allowed for SSM within Conservative Judaism, reflect a capitulation to contemporary norms rather than fidelity to Torah as "the uncovering of an external source of truth emanating from God." That having been said, if I recall correctly we do still counsel celibacy for homosexual couples, so that's nice.

I don't usually see Jews advocating for outsiders to their religion bei thatng subject to their prohibitions. Can you speak to this at all? Are gay rights different in some way or have you simply not seen as many opportunities to weigh in on other areas of Jewish law? Or are you engaging from a Catholic or Orthodox POV because you haven't completed conversion yet? I mean, you're not advocatating that people have no gods before the LORD; certainly that wouldn't go very far on this board, but neither do arguments about gay marriage.

Ah, no, you're correct. Jews do not normally advocate for Jewish law or morals to be normative for gentiles; with the exception of the Seven Noahide Laws. I freely admit that I am an outlier here. My perception here remains coloured by a traditionally Roman Catholic view of the obligations of the State towards it's citizenry, up to and including opposing moral evils for the good of the commonweal. Which, admittedly, raises a host of ethical problems (e.g. why is homosexuality considered a sin to be prohibited to the general populace and not, say, mixing meat and dairy?) that I am not fully qualified to answer; so it's entirely possible that after further research I will have to admit you heathenish goyim the right to sodomise and fornicate to your heart's content ;P Until that time, however, I will remain opposed.

(Actually, a personal question if you don't mind: do you have to keep all the laws as a seeker? I've seen home renovation shows with Jewish couples that get into some of the details about keeping a kosher kitchen and having two of everything, using stainless steel because it's easier to sterilize, etc, but I'm not sure where in the conversion process you actually have to, like, remodel your kitchen and clean out your poly-cotton blends and adjust your hair cutting habits.)

It's expected at some point in a convert's journey that they will begin incorporating some kosher practices into their lives prior to the actual conversion. Personally, my set "K-Day" for going kosher is March 28th, a full year to the day after I left the Church. I'll be keeping kosher to fairly stringent Conservative standards; no bacon, no eating meat and dairy together, quitting smoking my beloved cigarettes, keeping the Sabbath insofar as work allows, etc etc. That isn't quite as conservative as Orthodox standards, which is what you describe with the two of everything, no mixed fibers, etc. but is still above Reform standards and probably above what many Conservative Jews do as well. But we'll see how it goes...