How I missed this one, I’ll never know. So thanks to The Right Reverend Rabbi Judah for the tip.
A group of Orthodox Jews in Los Angeles is trying to erect an eruv near a synagogue on Venice Beach’s boardwalk. An eruv is essentially a magic enclosure that allows Orthodox Jews to circumvent certain oppressive traditions within its confines. For instance, Jews are not allowed to perform some basic activities like pushing a stroller outside on the Shabbat, but slap together an eruv and you’re good to go. You can read more about eruvs here.
The proposal calls for several miles worth of 200-pound test fishing line to be strewn about the Venice Beach Boardwalk area. Typically in cities, eruvs are tied to existing structures like telephone poles, but a beach is quite different. The Jews suggest that the line be tied to existing lamp poles and signs. To fill the void in certain parts of the beach, 20-foot poles would be planted to provide the necessary connection.
Needless to say, many people are not too keen on the idea. Some are concerned about the poles being an eyesore, while others are concerned about the impact on local birds and their nests. Others find the use of public property for religious reasons troublesome.
My only beef with this issue is it’s utter stupidity and the willingness for Jews to tolerate it. They obviously don’t like the archaic rules, so instead of utilizing common sense and vanquishing them, they subvert them by finding loopholes in the system… as if that’s ok with God. Why can’t the Jews just admit that some of their traditions are outdated and just plain silly? For instance here’s a snippet from the article about a Rabbi’s concern for a family’s child who can’t go outside on the Shabbat:
We have a family with a child in a wheelchair and it’s not just getting to synagogue for her, it’s getting outdoors. It is a terrible thing for an 8-year-old.
So this kid is forced to stay indoors on Saturday because of some insane demand from God? Seriously, what the hell kind of God doesn’t want your wheelchair-ridden child to be outside, enjoying the glorious natural beauty that he supposedly created!
If there are any Jews reading this, please make me see the light.
Related posts:
- Green Light For More Jewish Stupidities
- King Of Jews, King Of Beers
- Confused Jews For Jesus Annoy Thousands
- Jews And Muslims Have One Thing In Common
- Jews Claim Homo Parade Started War With Lebanon
October 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Yay for magical barriers of God-power.
October 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Orthodox Judaism is very much about the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
October 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
hey, they should all go and buy my portable eruv for only $29,99.
I personally think it’s the epitomy of denail if you subvert your archaic believes with a new set of even more redicilous ones.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
So God’s wrath is approximately measured at 200 pounds or less, then? Because otherwise you’ll need stronger fishing line.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I didn’t know this, it’s quite shocking in my eyes. Why’s this not a bigger issue in religious debates? Or have I missed the ones who address it?
October 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Mike, these eruvs are apparently very common. This is the first I’ve seen them, but do a search on Google and you’ll see them all over the US. Weird stuff if you ask me.
gasmonso
October 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
yé.
I recently reconstructed my house’s roof with lead so God can’t see that i masturbate at home. This way i’ll go to heaven.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
An eruv is not a loophole at all. There are very few areas where there is a Biblical proscription against carrying on Shabbos. In most areas carrying is only forbidden rabbinically. It was the Rabbis who prohibited carrying, and it was they who enacted the laws of eruvin to allow carrying.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
“An eruv is not a loophole at all.”
umm… It’s still stupid. Like, Scientology stupid.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
It was the Rabbis who prohibited carrying
I guess that’s one way to get out of chores, god said so. Cheaper than a moving van. Or caravan.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Before you call something stupid do your homework.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:49 am
What about these idiotic rituals deserves further study? When people read far enough into religions that they lose the supposedly good messages you religious types are always going on about, lose touch with reality and perform such completely asinine rituals, it is always stupid. This one’s just kind of funny and stupid.
I suppose I should be glad the orthy jews are just keeping it silly like the scientologists and not blowing up embassies and abortion clinics.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Hehe, this is sooo… well I cant think of anything similar really^^
Anyway, what if I was to cut one of these fishing lines without them seeing it, would I then condemn them to eternal damnation?? Cant wait to see the new terror kit, no bombs, no guns etc, just a pair of nail clippers^^ (this does indeed explain why I cant take my nail clippers onboard a plain)
October 27th, 2006 at 3:24 am
For someone who lives in Australia and has never met anyone Jewish, and who is largely ignorant of the entire culture (I don’t get half the Jewish references in the Simpsons) these things just sound absolutely bizzare. Magical fences which circumnavigate religious doctrine? Sounds awfully convenient.
But Christianity has some pretty silly looking traditions too, so I’m just going to sit here bewildered here at both. In general I don’t like tradition, mostly because traditions are a pathetically nostalgic link to a past which is never coming back.
Learn from the past, enjoy the present and plan for the future I say. Don’t get bogged down in unimportant detail from the past.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I enjoy tradition;
You make up some stupid law as a drunk legislator, people laugh at you and nobody cares.
20 years later, no one remembers it was just a joke and the police and judges start using it to prosecute.
50 years later, everyone respect it because ‘it’s teh law!!!!11!!1′
or tradition or whatever. Warped, no good reason to exist and a ‘bad’ begining. Tradition. You do it cuz you do it. Real nice.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:04 am
And you would think after Auschwitz that they’d be leery of fences…
October 27th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I was not looking to debate the halachic (legal) underpinnings of eruvin on a blog whose credo is anti-religion. My objective was just to clarify basic misunderstandings.
I find it ironic that on the one hand there are those individuals who scoff at the very notion of an eruv calling it a legal fiction that does not remotely symbolize a wall, yet on the other hand, there are those who claim that an eruv is offensive because the wall it represents suggests the poles and wires that the Holocaust survivors got away from.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:01 am
@ Anon
And you would think after Auschwitz that they’d be leery of fences…
OUCH!!!
lineman, I think most people here think it’s stupid because it is AND we (an assumption) don’t want public property used by any religions. I think all religions are stupid, and they all have these loopholes that circumvent what they state then doublespeak morons into believing it still.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:03 am
lineman, first off… this is not an anti-religion blog. I don’t care what religion you practice or what you believe in. What I take issue with is people who use their religion to impose their beliefs on others like kids, homosexuals, etc. If people would keep their religion to themselves this site wouldn’t exist.
gasmonso
October 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am
American law allows eruvin. An eruv is not a religious symbol but rather an object with religious significance to those who need it.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:21 am
No one needs an eruv, they simply (and irrationally) believe they need one. If there were no eruvin at all, they’d still be alive and well.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
I probably do not need many things you need either but I do not belittle you. It’s called tolerance and respect for others.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:48 am
The idea that I might need something that you do not is irrelevant. My point is that an eruv is not a need, it is a desire. If you can demonstrate to me that an eruv is a need, than I will cease to ‘belittle’ those who build them. It’s no different than the conspiracy theorists who claim they ‘need’ tin foil hats to block out the mind-control rays.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:26 am
This is all semantics. It may not be a need for a Shabbos observer but it most definitely enhances the day for those who are observant. Why should this make a difference to you?
October 27th, 2006 at 11:56 am
heh… i’m sure drugs enhance a junkies day. basically what it boils down to, is that “Shabbos observers” have deemed their nutty religion too inconvenient, and created an artificial construct that lets them circumvent the religion’s arbitrary rules.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Why does it make a difference to me? Irrational beliefs breed irrational beliefs. “I’m building this fense because its part of God’s law” isn’t much different from “I’m giving people who believe and practice X less rights because it’s not inline with God’s law”. Taken to an extreme (as it has been throughout history), people could claim “I’m going to kill those who don’t obey God’s law because God commanded us to do so”.
In addition to promoting irrationality, eruvin are also funny from a non-religious point of view. We believe that Jewish laws were made up by man and latter attributed to God. Because of this some of the laws that made sense a few thousand years ago have become irrelevant and arbitrary. To us, an eruv is an arbitrary, made up way to circumvent some arbitrary made up laws. It’s like an obsessive compulsive person who doesn’t allow himself/herself to leave the house without exiting through the main door backwards.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
LOL, well said sidfaiwu!
gasmonso
October 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
It is only irrational to one who is unfamiliar with the underlying reasons for eruvin (I am not going to explain it on this blog; it has no relevancy to you). Unlike the example you gave the laws of eruvin cannot be taken to the extreme, since, as you stated, it is not needed, it is only desired. (You will have a hard time illustrating where Jewish law has actually been taken to the extreme of killing people in G-d’s name.) You are using the issue of eruvin as a platform for your views that Jewish law is manmade. I have explained that we believe that eruvin is a rabbinical injunction not Biblical, so we agree on something.
More so, the American court system has always allowed for eruvin mainly because it does not at all affect those who have no use for it.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
What about those people who use Venice Beach and don’t want their views spoiled by twenty foot poles? Not to mention the wildlife (that’s MUCH more important to me than any religion) that end up entangled in this stupid line? People in California complain about the color of a house’s trim, of course they’ll complain about another eyesore. One of the main problems with religion is they want their “freedoms” respected but could give a crap about anyone else’s.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
What I find interesting is that apparently they’re not observing because they want to, like it gives them inner peace or makes them feel at one with god or something. They’re acknowledging that they are compelled to observe and finding a nice loophole, as you say. Maybe it’s some insight into why religious people seem to think that without religion people would go around killing and raping each other. Because their books tell them not to kill and to do some random stuff one day a week. Without religion, they wouldn’t be doing the random stuff, so surely it follows that without religion they’d kill too.
Or maybe they just need to believe that their religious beliefs are necessary to be moral so they can justify all the time they spend on rituals and dogma.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
“An eruv is not a loophole at all.”
This is a dubious statement at best. So your god prohibits certain activities on the holy day, except if you stand inside some sort of symbolic outline? Why would god care about such an outline? It’s like inventing a rule saying god prohibits murder unless you’re standing on one leg, in which case he’s all for it.
“An eruv is not a religious symbol but rather an object with religious significance to those who need it.”
object with religious signifigance == religious symbol
The are equivalent.
“It is only irrational to one who is unfamiliar with the underlying reasons for eruvin (I am not going to explain it on this blog; it has no relevancy to you)”
You’re not going to explain it because there isn’t any real explanation. It’s a rule of arbitrary nonsense.
“More so, the American court system has always allowed for eruvin mainly because it does not at all affect those who have no use for it.”
And yet Jews whine when Mormons posthumously baptise Jews into the Mormon church. That’s also something that doesn’t effect anybody. You’re being a hypocrite.
October 28th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Elliot - The poles are only extensions of existing poles. No one knows what the impact of the strings on the wildlife will be, but you are already certain about it. I have no doubt that in the end, if the experts are certain that it will impact the wildlife, the eruv will need to be moved. Most eruvin are not noticeable at all.
Singe – Again G-D has nothing to do with this since eruvin is rabbinical.
The American court system does differentiate between religious symbols and objects with religious significance. So you are disagreeing with the court system.
Again, it does not affect you so the underlying reason is totally irrelevant.
Maybe some genealogists are bothered what the Mormons are doing, but most Jews could not care less.
October 29th, 2006 at 8:32 am
I’ve been hoping that the Eruv in lower Manhatten would be restored so I can wheel my grand-daughter around on the Sabbath. Hence I have put “Eruv” in my Google search and end up with all sorts of fascinating sites, such as this one. If for no other reason, Eruv’s were invented to bring out these sorts of discussions. To me an Eruv is a test of a community, for both the Jews and non Jews in the community. If an Eruv can be established this says to me that the Jews of that community are able to work together in an important project that is a key to Jewish observance (and it’s a given that observant Jews have the right and responsibility to define what constitutes Jewish observance and the reality is that the geographical Eruv is a key component)and further an indicatino that their non Jewish neighbors are also willing to “tolerate” this diverse approach (and I also take as a given that respect for diversity is a goal of American society). The Eruv must not, in my opinion, create problems for those who do not use it and I can’t comment on the Venice Beach situation, not knowing anything about it. However, in most cases, no one who isn’t interested even knows the Eruv is present. But what is interesting to me on this list is that so many folks cannot accept the concept in principal, they think it’s silly and wrong etc. To me (and I have a PhD in Neural Engineering) the Eruv is a truly brilliant mechanism for both preserving Jewish law which has, after all, been around longer than most other religions practiced in the US, and making life a little easier for those who do so practice. We “sell” our bread and booze before Passover, and this “silliness” helps create one of the best and beautiful Jewish events, the Passover Seder — even Jesus apparently went to one. As a Neural Engineer I deal a lot with interfaces between the world at large and the nervous system. We survive because of those interfaces, otherwise we would have to simply remain forever in the womb. We build all sorts of shelters, homes, walls, etc. to “protect” us from the physical environment. Is it so strange to anticipate that there are spiritual environments as well and we are also building spiritual walls there as well? This isn’t magic, as someone called it, is engineering in a nonmaterial sphere (or do you believe that all that is there is what we can sense with our 6 senses — that’s pretty silly as well in my opinion). Judaism is based on building boundaries, often in time such as the Sabbath but also in space, such as the Eruv. If you don’t want to follow Judiasm, Kol HaKovod, as the saying goes, but what motivates those who have to call it silly? The environmental movement has taught us that all things can be linked together. Well in the Jewish world view “though shalt not murder” is linked to Eruv in an transcendant way that lies at the heart of Judiasm and of the Jewish interpretation of Gods message to humanity.
October 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Sorry, I’ve got a few more comments. I had to go out and finish taking down my Succah before it started snowing. I guess you could call the Succah another example of religious idiocy. After all why would anyone build a temporary structure in the middle of October, eat meals and perhaps sleep in it, insure that the roof is somewhat open to the sky and made completely out of natural materials. Afterall, why give up our safe and sound and controlled lives, and homes of brick and wood and expose ourselves to the vagaries and uncertainties of weather and wind and life. But wait a second … lets focus on these things for 7 or 8 days every year at an appointed time. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all. How much control do we really have over the important things in our lives?
In any case let’s get back to the assertion that “An eruv is essentially a magic enclosure that allows Orthodox Jews to circumvent certain oppressive traditions within its confines.” First of all, Judaism doesn’t allow magic and in the “good old days” magic was probably punishable by stoning. Fortunately things have evolved and those who do wish to practice magic are free to do so, albeit is isn’t Judaism. Secondly it’s not just Orthodox Jews who follow the practices of the Eruv, many Conservative Jews do as well. If you happen to be in the LA in the vicinity of the intersection of Pico and Robertson on a Saturday afternoon, you will see many Jews of all sizes shapes and garments walking happily to and from their synagogues and one anothers homes in one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in North America. This Los Angeles Eruv (http://www.laeruv.com/) helps to establish this community or more correctly set of overlapping Jewish communities. Check out the Eruv map on the lower right hand of the website and then try to find it. But the observant Jews of LA know that it’s there and indeed often check every Friday afternoon to make sure its intact. Wait a second, maybe this is magic. How could this symbolic boundary help create a more vibrant committed Jewish community. Because Judaism is based on boundaries and a key boundary is the boundary in time between one day of the week, called the Sabbath and the other 6 days. Boy, if you think an Eruv is hard to fatham at least it has a physical manifestation. What could be special about a day. Shouldn’t the days just run on day after day without any distinctions. Perhaps, but that’s not the Jewish way, we try to sanctify time and space and give it special meaning — called Holiness. Whoops — how can we measure Holiness, where to we buy the Holiness meter? Sorry, can’t do it. All I can say is try it, and perhaps you will like it. So what the Eruv does, in my opinion, is build up an attitude in the consciousness of the adherent, an attitude that says that one way we honor the Sabbath, and hence our Creator and/or our families and/or our ancestors, is to not carry in a public domain. But we reserve the right to expand that domain — just as we can carry in our home and in a walled in backyard, we can carry in a community surrounded by an Eruv knowing that we have the full support of the Jewish tradition in so doing. I love to sing the America the Beautiful because I’m proud to be an American, and I love to walk within an Eruv on the Sabbath because I’m proud to be a Jew. Is it idiocy? Perhaps, but what do you have to offer as an alternative. Do you really think you can discover all there is to discover through physics and mathematics? If anything is idiotic it is that view. There is no scientific evidence to support, rather the boundaries of our scientific knowledge have never stopped expanding and the end is not in sight — just new and better questions. Our physics is limited, and our math is limited, and indeed our brains our limited but while we strive to use our limited tools to understand the human condition, which is a good thing to do, we can also strive to use our religions to find other dimensions of truth, dimensions which transcend physics but intersect our world — the Eruv is one such intersection so ignore it at your peril — you will be missing out on one of the gateways to awareness.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Wait a minute, aren’t we completly overlooking the practical side of this discussion? Rabbi’s like every other human being, must come in a variety of sizes. How can a smallish ,say 100 pound, Jewish woman possibly be expected to carry a 200 pound Rabbi whether there is the biggest strongest ERUV or not????
October 30th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
@lineman, the article also states the where the are gaps poles would need to be erected. As for the wildlife I was speculating, I’m sure we’ve all seen birds entangled in fishing line.
@rleesmith, religion has nothing to do with truth, it sprung up from primitive man’s need to understand the forces being observed in the world. It evolved into a means to control the masses, unfortunately, once power and money entered the picture evolution stopped or was stopped. I can’t understand every scientific principle I’ve been exposed to nor can I understand every religious principle espoused but when push comes to shove I go with reason and logic. If religion stuck to philosophy and didn’t try become reality I’d have no problem with it, but religion isn’t philosophy it’s mythology.
As an aside, what happens if an eruv is vandalized or damaged? What if no one notices and continue the prohibited behavior are they breaking the law? Can an eruv be ‘reconsecrated’ as it were?
October 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
“”we can also strive to use our religions to find other dimensions of truth, dimensions which transcend physics but intersect our world — the Eruv is one such intersection so ignore it at your peril — you will be missing out on one of the gateways to awareness.”"
well, that would require your universe to be completely different from the one the rest of us live in, but, in the words of Lineman: “it does not affect you so the underlying reason is totally irrelevant.”
@lineman and rleesmith
What we’re all trying to say is this: if you don’t want to follow your laws then don’t. don’t go making up any poor excuses and claim that you’re still the image of piety. To create a nice analogy, it’s no different from saying to yourself: “I won’t make any lefthand turns on tuesdays, except when wearing a blue hat.”
See that’s a completely pointless, self-imposed rule. It’s overruled by another pointless rule, with the sole reason of being able to say that you’re still following the first one.
now, you can rationalise any of the above rules in any way you want, but they remain pointless.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Also, does this mean it’s ok to put my own cables on the phonemasts? I’ve got some nice idea’s for them. I mean if your religion is allowed to put up random wires without good reason, so should I.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
As far as the technicalities of an Eruv, I plead ignorance. Check out the LA Eruv website, perhaps they can explain the rules. But it’s essential to realize that these things are all done according to logic and rules. As with any legal system one must start with a given and the given is the Torah as interpreted by the Rabbis. Of course if you reject the starting point, there is no basis for the rest, but as in a mathematical system the integrety of the system can be judged based on it’s logic. So one starts with a rule that on the Sabbath one cannot do “work”. That leads to the question what is meant by “work”. Over the centuries the Rabbis have interpreted that — there is no black and white set of rules, human beings are needed to determine what the rules mean and how to apply them in a given place or time. One of the relatively basic rules is that one cannot carry objects in a public domain on the Sabbath. This raises another question — what is a public domain? Centuries of scholarly analysis have logically come to the the conclusion that there are private domains and public domains and that a properly constructed eruv can encircle a private domain, thus allowing one who is committed to the system to carry things within the eruv but not outside of it. Alcari claims we are not within the system if we utilize an eruv. What he is really saying is that he is an absolutest, all or nothing — either accept the most stringent restrictions of accept no restrictions. Judaism as practiced my most of us is not a fundamenlist/absolutest religion. We seek easy ways out when we can. We eat meat even though vegetarianism is probably the performed form according to the Bible. But we compromise and only eat some kinds of meat. We don’t eat Pork — is that meaningful — only if you want to be part of this system. There are Jews known as Karaites who do practice a much more rigid form of Judaism and reject Rabbinical interpretations. Perhaps if there are any Karaites on this list, they can chime in with their views of the eruv.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:08 am
Rleesmith – Your wasting your time trying to explain to these people.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:38 am
“”We seek easy ways out when we can.”"
thank you.
@lineman
Actually, he’s explained it very well. At least Rlee realises it is rather odd, but decides to live with it. That’s more then I can say about you (it seems).
October 31st, 2006 at 11:29 am
Hello lineman,
“You will have a hard time illustrating where Jewish law has actually been taken to the extreme of killing people in G-d’s name”
If they haven’t, then they are not very law-abiding Jews. Read Deuteronomy Chapter 13, which I believe is part of the Torah. It compels Jews to stone to death anyone that tries to lead them from God and to utterly destroy any city (along with its inhabitants) that worships any other God. It seems that Jews are bound by their own laws to kill in the name of God.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Sweet! Perfect business opportunity! You could sell belts but call them portable eruvs… I wonder if God would be cool if you ate trafe while wearing one. ;)
October 31st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
And i’m sure Sid could point out a couple of dozen more, It’s a skill I wish i had :)
.
hey josh, if you do do that, I expect at least 20% for the idea.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Could we use some of the dark fiber we have to create an eruv all around the US? Get a Rabbi to bless (do Rabbi’s bless things?)the net then everyone with access is already within an eruv.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Another advantage for a Eruv which perhaps will interest you scoffers, atheists,whomever. Real estate prices will go up. So if there are too many observant Jews in your neighborhood and you want to get away from them (us), join the eruv committee, put up and Eruv, and sell your home. Here is an article from England:
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=4752……
Ben Russell, owner of Taylor Hawkins estate agents, Edgware Way, told TJ: “There has been unprecedented demand for houses of all sizes within the eruv ever since the proposed boundaries were announced three years ago. There has also been a natural influx of frum families into the area from fading communities further afield, regardless of the eruv.
“These two factors have resulted in house price increases far greater than average national trends. ….
Agents at Melvin Jacobs also field daily enquiries about houses within the eruv. ..
He added that he was sure some were buying not with the intention of making use of the eruv but in the knowledge that property within its boundaries will prove a good investment for the future.
Other areas look set to share in Edgware’s excitement as they put into place their own plans for communal eruvs. In Borehamwood and Elstree the scheme is backed by both the Federation and United Synagogues and the eruv committee has been working with the local council in a bid to complete work by the end of next year.
There could also be a second eruv in Barnet, covering areas of Woodside Park, Whetstone and North Finchley, with officials there already in the process of inspecting the eruv boundaries.
November 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
I’m waiting to hear the idea to have NASA construct an orbital Eruv. Then as long as we stay on Earth, we’ll be safe from god.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Okay i live in israel and i have a serious question here:
Will the jews have the right to punish others for not following jewish laws inside the Eruv?
I’m asking because that’s what happening over here. There simply are some areas that are so religious that you can pretty much say good bye to your car(and probably prepare for the hospital) if you drive into one on saturday.
If it’s that way then i SERIOUSLY think this thing needs to be bombed off the face of this planet. If not, i don’t give a damn(althoug they should just draw a line in the sand instead of poles and stuff)
November 5th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
To agony: So far as I know there is no basis in Jewish law for punishing others, Jews or non Jews, for infractions of Jewish law. However, fanatics exist in every religion and culture who will attempt to use force to enforce what they think is correct. In any city or country one visits i would recommend that you use your common sense when going into areas inhabited by violent fanatics who are likely to break the law and attack you for any number of things — such as having more money then them, having a different skin color, or not observing their religious rules.
To humanistic Jones; I haven’t been able to find anything on three dimensional eruvs. However, there is increasing thought going into how to observe Shabbat when in orbit. For example, how do you know when it’s the seventh day? Check out “Shabbat in Space” if you are interested.
November 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Hello Rleesmith,
There is a basis in Jewish law for punishing others. See post #42.
November 5th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
sidfaiwu: You are quoting the Bible. As I think was explained above, Judaism is not a fundamentalist religion, and Jewish law is not based on the Bible which cannot be understood literally, but is based on the interpretations of the Rabbis over the centuries (the oral law which guides Jewish observance). You cannot quote statements in the Bible and say that they are Jewish law. Futhermore, Jews consider themselve bound by the civil laws in the communities in which they live, not by Jewish laws relating to punishment of violators. Judaism and Jewish law has evolved over the centuries which is one of the reasons for it’s endurance. Even in the days when there were communities ruled by Jewish law capital punishment was extremely rare. For example, in ancient times “Conditions for convicting and executing a person were so restrictive that a Beth Din that put to death more than one person in 7 years, and some say in 70 years, was referred to as a “destructive courtâ€. More recently, leading rabbinical authorities in the United States have reportedly been consulted by the government regarding the Orthodox Jewish approach to capital punishment. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the foremost modern authorities on Jewish Law, explained that although Jewish Law does not advocate capital punishment in all cases, it nevertheless permits the death penalty to be applied where the law of the land permits it. However this should be restricted to cases of particularly cruel murders, or in a situation where bloodshed becomes widespread and out of control and the threat of capital punishment will restore respect for the law.
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=239&o=523177
November 5th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Hello rleesmith,
Thanks for the clarification. I commend Jews, then, for not being literalists. It would seem that Jews are less of a threat than other religious types. I still find fault in relying on authority (the Rabbis) instead of reason. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a radical group of Rabbis comes to power and ‘reinterprets’ Jewish law for its followers.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Sorry to double-post, but I can’t help wondering this. Isn’t the Old Testament part of the collection of Jewish holy texts? If so, how is it even possible to interpret the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy benignly?
November 5th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Sidfaiwu: I would recommend a course in Judiasm. Your questions are getting too deep for me. All I know is that these sorts of laws are no longer operational for any number of reasons. Idol worshippers of the type mentioned no longer exist and the Jewish monarchy being mentioned no longer exists nor will it ever be likely to. We no longer have Kings etc. In the Rabbinical system, the Rabbis base their conclusions on reasoning and anyone can try to attain the knowledge necessary to serve as a Rabbi. It’s much like a Judge or a lawyer — you have to go to Rabbi school and graduate with your Rabbi degree, just like law school. Certainly radical groups can come into power — that’s true in any society or religion. Getting back to the Eruv, there are even disagreements about that. Consensus is sought amongst the believers. In the end of course we are all individuals with the free will to decide our actions! Re Deuteronomy, its not a statement of what we as individuals should do, it’s a statement about a society that needs to be integrated into the judicial system if there is one based on the Bible. However, it’s also a historical statement that would likely have applied in a certain time but certainly not for many centuries. The much more relevant section of Deuteronomy is Chapter 14, the laws of holidness, especially 14:1-21. These are the basis for a very important component of Jewish practice — keeping Kosher — and here there is quite a bit that has come down literally through the ages.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Hello rleesmith,
Thanks again. I might just take such a course. I do not know as much about Judaism as I thought.
Anyway, you are right that eruvin do not directly affect anyone (except that there seems to be some environmental concerns about the one mentioned in the article). But you must understand our concern about irrational practices. Too many times has an irrational beliefs of one group been used to oppress another. It is not the eruvin themselves, but the irrationality accepted by a large group that worry us. That is partly why this site exists. It calls people on their behaviors that are based on irrationality so that people are aware of it and its potential dangers.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Sidf: Could it be that one person’s irrationality is another persons rationality. Were you to follow the rules of the Eruv it would indeed be quite irrational. But if I do it based on my belief structure then you really can’t say I’m being irrational just because I follow that practice. Indeed, I hope that you agree that eruvin are potentially the ultimate in rationality. If you were to review the chain of logic beginning with setting aside the Sabbath as a day of rest (is that irrational — perhaps but it is a value judgement and all rational arguments probably have to begin with some assumptions which cannot in and of themselves be proven and hence are irrational). Anyhow — a day of rest once every 7 days (a great invention for many who achieve it) leads to no carrying in a public domain leads to deriving what is meant by a public domain leads to the eruv. Until you have studied the argument and rationale you can’t really decide it’s irrational can you? That conclusion in and of itself would be irrational. How would you rationally “build” a day of rest that was so powerful as to separate you from the daily routine? What is irrational about the Jewish approach to building such a sanctuary in time. From the empirical perspective, as a Jewish scientist, I can tell you that in my experience it works.
This column is sort of like the “golden fleece award” some politicians use to make fun of scientific research projects that they are completely ignorant of. They make easy targets for the uninformed.
November 7th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Hello again rleesmith,
You’ve hit the nail on the head! The axioms that you assume are irrational. Thus so are any deductive conclusions you make from those axioms. There is no rational basis for the Sabbath as law. It may be a good suggestion, but when it prevents people from functioning normally or harms people (like the wheelchair bound kid who can’t get around because of Sabbath law), it ceases to be rational. (I already know the ‘rational’ basis behind eruvin from reading the linked article when it was first posted.)
“…it is a value judgement and all rational arguments probably have to begin with some assumptions which cannot in and of themselves be proven and hence are irrational.” I must reject this relativistic view of truth. Axioms based on evidence are more legitimate than arbitrary axioms. For example, I have a piece of paper that I believe will burn when I toss it into a fire. The axiom: paper burns. I base this assumption on witnessing paper burn many times in the past. This is inductive reasoning, which forms the basis for the rational assumptions we make. From this axiom I can rationally conclude that I should not keep my book collection close to my fireplace.
Now consider an arbitrary, evidence-free set of axioms: God wants bad people to be punished and people who cough in public are bad. Thus I should go around slapping people who cough in public. This is clearly an irrational conclusion that is ‘rational’ within the set of arbitrary, evidence-free axioms.
The Sabbath is arbitrary: Why Saturday? Why every seven days? Why ever? Why nearly complete rest? as are eruvin: How big can they be? Can you enclose a whole city in one and call that ‘private domain’? If not, how big is too big? A city block? How tall must it be? Is two inches high enough? What can it be made of? I’m pretty sure that the Jewish community simply finds the answers to these questions through rabbinical authority. I’m sorry, but that is not good enough of an answer. As I’ve pointed out, it is possible for the same authority to convince people to do things that truly harm others.
November 7th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Sidf: I thing that You are mixing together two methods for determining “truth”. The scientific method is empirical and inductive. It begins with observation, generates hypotheses, and then tests them against predictions of new observations. The predictions are obtained using deduction. Value based systems are deductive at the outset. They begin with assumptions and then derive the logical deductions. For example, let’s start with “thou shalt not murder”. If that is a given, a principle, one may then attempt to derive from it exactly what one cannot do. One would need other axioms as well to complete the derivation. For Jews all of these axioms are found in the Bible, leading one to conclude that if someone is threatening to murder you, killing that person in self defense is not murder and is allowable, indeed comendable. Others would start with a different postulate, namely “thou shalt not kill”. This could lead one to conclude that even when one’s life is threatened, one should not kill to defend it, i.e. pacifism. How can one scientifically prove who is right, the person who has to kill because of self defense or the person who would rather be killed than take someone elses life. Now Judaism goes even further and apparently concludes that if an unborn baby is threatening the life of the mother, it is acceptable to kill the baby in the name of safe defense. Catholics conclude otherwise because they take the pacifist view on this.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Hello rleesmith,
Once again, as I’ve said many, many places on this website, there is a rational basis for morality based on reason and evidence. It’s no different from scientific reasoning. I see that other people behave in a very similar manner to me and to other people. From this inductive evidence, I conclude that people are fundamentally the same. They have the same needs, similar desires, and similar fears. From this, I can also conclude that the moral thing to do is treat others as I would want to be treated. In other words, the guiding morality of secular humanism is the Golden Rule, and is derived at rationally and via evidence.
Under your argument, any set of non-falsifiable axioms for morality are equally valid. Yet, the example I gave in my previous post, proves this view incorrect. It would be immoral for me to strike every person who coughs in public, but would be ‘moral’ based on the following axioms that cannot be proven or disproven:
1. Going God’s will is morally good.
2. God wants those who cough in public punished
These are just as arbitrary as “Don’t carry anything in public on Saturdays.”
November 8th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Sidfaiwu: You have an interesting hypothesis that I have heard before, namely that through observation of others, and essentially through our need for self preservation, we learn the golden rule. The problem is that not all folks have learned the rule the way you have. That’s why we have murders, Nazis, pedafiles, robbers, etc, all thinking that what they are doing is the right thing. The Golden rule only makes logical sense if you are not likely to be among the strongest who can enforce their will and power on the others. On a less glaring scale, I know lot’s of people who do lot’s of mean things to lot’s of other folks. It’s natural, it’s competition, it’s survival of the fittest — that is also a natural state that continues to arise throughout human history, especially in the absence of religious teachings. I’m glad that you accept the Golden rule, but the truth is you have no idea where it came from — there are no scientific studies showing that people will intuitively gravitate towards the Golden rule. One could just as well gravitate towards a facist society with might was right and some people would and have loved it just as much. But that’s okay, to me it shows the power of Gods word which has effected so many who don’t even realize it. The important thing is that you do the right thing, not that you know why. All systems are not equally valid even though they may all be logical. The ultimate valid system is the one that comes from God! Prove that I’m wrong.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:06 am
There are also no studies showing religion is the cause of the golden rule.
There is no ultimate valid system. Times change, people change, laws change, and believe it or not religions (that KNOW the word of god) change too, but with a 100-500 year lag.
Pink bunnies living in my skull tell me not to kill people. That is the ONLY reason I don’t kill people. Where else could the idea have come from. Prove that I’m wrong.
Why don’t you prove that you’re right? and while you’re at it, why don’t you tell us why you choose not to follow certain words of god, like #2 that sidfaiwu mentioned?
November 9th, 2006 at 8:31 am
To all: We will have to agree to disagree. I consider myself a seeker of truth. My methods include the scientific method that I have been trained in but found unable to provide some fundamental answers, and also I embarked on a path of exploring religious committment as another path to knowledge. This was also an empirical path since I based my development on what I experienced and the feedback I got from taking religious actions and studying religious texts and history. Being Jewish I chose the religion of my childhood since I hypothesized that Judaism was a part of my fundamental identity (whatever that means). I find both science and religion appear to lead to truths of qualitatively different but complimentary natures. Starting as an agnostic, I now believe that God (whatever that means) created a world which follows the laws of science and human beings with souls and free will (whatever they are — but I seem to have them) and a charge to humans be “fruitful and multiply” and subdue the earth — i.e. apply the scientific method for the betterment of humanity. I also found that the religious path opened doors that would not be encountered in the scientific path: concepts such as the Sabbath, repairing the world, the golden rule, control of one’s appetite, prayer, study of religous texts, approaches to life and death, responsibililty to ones fellow humans and to the environment and the animals and plants that inhabit it, etc etc. So to me is’s all a package, and if you chose to limit your approach — so be it but it’s your loss and all of ours. May you live a long and healthy and productive life.
Shabbat Sholom (have a Sabbath of peace welcoming the Sabbath queen as you sit around the family table) — or go shopping at the Mall and run around town doing all sorts of things, it’s your choice.
rleesmith
November 9th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Thanks for the discussion, rleesmith. I have a few parting thoughts.
The problem of evil is not a problem for the golden rule. The fact that some people use faulty reasoning to justify evil does not mean that correct use of reasoning will result in anything other than moral behavior. The very fact that we, by and large, recognize that violators of the rule are evil indicates the wide-spread validity of the rule. Ignorance of the rule does not invalidate its validity either. Similarly, you would agree that ignorance of Jewish law cannot invalidate it.
Don’t get me wrong. I think there is plenty within Jewish law that leads to people behaving morally. It’s just that there are other parts of the law that are superfluous or potentially immoral. This is the problem I see with any dogmatic approach to morality. When we use rational methods for obtaining moral truth and teach each other how to use reason, no one can add superfluous ‘laws’ or immoral interpretations. It is when people are taught to suspend reason and believe in impossible things that the door is open for exploitation by authority and/or rationalizing immoral behavior.
“The ultimate valid system is the one that comes from God! Prove that I’m wrong.” I have no interest in proving that statement wrong. Indeed it is not falsifiable and thus outside the realm of science. I will point out, however, that the statement merely begs the question. Even if true, how can we know the mind of God? Why should we choose one religious explanation over another? Isn’t it possible that they all have it at least partially wrong? It’s also entirely possible that the golden rule is that valid system and God ‘revealed’ it to us by endowing us with the ability to reason it out for ourselves.
Finally, it seems we are unlikely to alter the opinion of one another. As you wrote, we shall agree to disagree. You have taught me some things that I did not know about Judaism and I hope that I have at least given you some things to think about.
Shalom (that means ‘peace’, right? Good).
November 11th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
sidf seeks a completely “rationale” system for creating a moral totality. “I think there is plenty within Jewish law that leads to people behaving morally. It’s just that there are other parts of the law that are superfluous or potentially immoral.” I would never claim that Judaism is the unique system for achieve moral truth for all people. However, it is the system for the Jewish people. Saying that one can carve out the moral sections and eliminate the “superfluous” sections flies in the face of history. The Reform movement tried that and discovered that they ended up with the shell of the religion, and are now trying to reintroduce the core. By the way, check out the following article. I think it’s a wonderful and inspirational article, what do you think?
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/101906/sxOutOfAfrica.html
Shavua Tov (meaning have a good week, the traditional wish at the end of the Sabbath)
November 12th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I don’t seek a rational basis for a moral system that excludes superfluous and potentially immoral rules, I have one. The reason it is free of irrational/immoral rules is precisely because it doesn’t rely on any religion. The Reform movement that you mentioned had the right idea: dump the religion, keep the morality. It’s a shame that they ended up feeling that they needed religion.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
sidfaiwu: I don’t accept that there are immoral rules in Judaism. The rules are what establish the meaning of morality, or at least of one set of moral rules — there may be others. However, there are rules whose meaning is not completely or sometimes even at all evident. The Sabbath is a rule along side Thou Shalt Not Murder. The implication is that observing the Sabbath, which has value in it’s own right, also creates a sensitivity to human life that leads one away from murder, and even more towards life. Hence one of the rules of the Sabbath is that all the other rules of the Sabbath are null and void if they interfere with saving a human life. Hence we get the best of both worlds, a day of peace rest prayer study and contemplation along with a day which we remember is superceeded by the sanctity of life! Indeed life is the one thing one can create on the Sabbath. And the laws of Kashruth — would you say they are superfluous. I would say they teach an important lesson — we eat to live, not live to eat. Hence we control what we eat by a system of “superfluous” laws. These are just some superficial examples. Many of the laws are meant to create a sense of holiness, an awareness of a level of reality that transcends our physical being and experience. Of course if you claim such a level does not exist, then of course there is no reason to seek it. But if that’s your claim then you are the one guilty of circular reasoning. And if there were no other purpose for the “superfluous laws” they would exist so that we could have this discussion, and hopefully raise our own and other’s awareness of the majesty of our Creator who creator beings like us to carry on this discourse re what the creater has endowed us with and expects of us!
November 12th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
“The (Judaic) rules are what establish the meaning of morality”
I’m not sure where you think I have circular logic, but the portion of your quote sets up the following argument:
1. Judaic laws define morality
thus
2. Judaic laws are all moral
This is the very same ‘reasoning’ used by all religions. The Christians claim that the Bible is true because it says it is. One can justify anything as moral using such ‘logic’.
I have one:
1. The writing of Marquis de Sade define morality
thus
2. All activities depicted in his writings are moral
Also, I’ve also heard from practitioners of BDSM that they often gain an “awareness of a level of reality that transcends our physical being and experience.†Does that make BDSM moral as well? I’ve had the same experience from distance running. It doesn’t make distance running moral. Others get it from LSD, meditation, prayer, speaking in tongues, lucid dreaming, etc.
It’s great that you, personally get a lot out of the Sabbath, but assuming it’s morality doesn’t make it moral (nor does it make it immoral either) nor does its induced feeling of transcendence.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:03 am
sidf: You are correct that many systems claim to reveal truth. The proof is in the pudding — study the system, study it’s history, and most importantly, live it! Logic will not solve this.
rleesmith
November 19th, 2006 at 4:53 am
I think the course these comments took is a perfect example of what happens in the real world. Somehow all of the rational (well, for the most part) people who poked fun at the ridiculous notion of an eruv dropped out and a “logical” debate over the semantics of constructing a proper eruv emerged. By the 68th comment, it’s as if neither party realizes they’re talking about running a fishing wire around a town in an effort to thwart god’s eternal wrath. This is exactly the reason completely useless traditions such as eruvs manage to perpetuate themselves; they’re given a false sense of merit by constant, generation-spanning discussion over details. All the while, no one bothers to question whether or not the basic principles of the argument are completely irrelevant and antiquated.
I guess rleesmith said it best though:
>Logic will not solve this
…which I guess means we’re going to be stuck with illogical people bickering over ancient traditions for quite a while.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I’m sorry that Jim has concluded that this discussion is about fishing wire and avoiding God’s wrath. I had hoped we had morphed into a discussion of more general things such as the meaning of the Sabbath to Judaism. The eruv is an outcome of Jewish views of the Sabbath, a potential solution to problems Sabbath observant Jews have encountered as they moved out of the ghetto and into the world at large. However, the eruv is only a small part of the institution of the Sabbath, and need not be utilized albeit is an aid to a goal which is perhaps best summed up by Rabbi A.J. Heschel as follows:
————–
Shabbat as a Sanctuary in Time
The Sabbaths are our great cathedrals, the Jewish equivalent of sacred architecture.
By Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
Judaism is a religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-minded man to whom time is unvaried, iterative, homogeneous, to whom all hours are alike, quality-less, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/
———-
It is not to avoid Gods wrath that we observe the Sabbath, but rather to celebrate and participate in Gods holiness.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
>Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.
and how many of those hours have orthodox jews wasted trying to get a fishing line run around their town in order to circumvent a rule that keeps them inside during the Sabbath (a rule which often prevents them from making preferred use of their time)?
How many hours is the weelchair-bound child in the article to spend inside because jewish law forbids him from leaving on the Sabbath?
and for what? So that you can tell yourself that god’s light shines brighter on you than on others?
November 19th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
RLee,
The more you type the less you say. Glorious this, tradition that, super real meaning bla bla…
All this comes down to is that despite whatever special meaning these rules may have to some, they are stupid. If slapping yourself on the ass everytime you walked through door for no reason was a precious tradition of some people, it would still be stupid.
I’m half a Jew and I appreciate my heritage just fine, but am I supposed to believe that my ancestors were really on to something with the sabbath loophole fence?
Can’t you celebrate your heritage or sabbath or whatever it is you do, without following ancient rules that anyone with half a brain can see are unbelievably stupid.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Hey guys, it looks like you’ve all come back to discussion. I guess I don’t understand why you are all so opposed to the concept of the Sabbath. The truth is that trying to explain to you what I am try to explain is a little like trying to explain to a blind person what it means to see. The difference is, however, that you have the opportunity to struggle with these concepts, try to live them (especially “Your Father”) if he is indeed Jewish — was it your mother’s half — if yes then you are indeed Jewish and residing within you is the “spark of a Jew”. This mystical component can indeed be fanned and grow in strength magnitude and brilliance if only you would start taking steps such as observing the Sabbath — and yes you can start without worrying about an eruv. Go to your neighbor synagogue on a Friday evening and if you are fortunate you will get an invitation to a dinner what will be a taste of Heaven as you sit around welconing the Sabbath queen, eating, singing, dicussion philosophy and religion and learning what the Sabbath is all about. (By the way, I agree that the wheelchair argument is quite irrelevant and a bit silly. Eruv’s are not constructed for the disabled — there are other ways to deal with those needs).
Re loopholes, the are necessary in all walks of life. You have tax deductions — do you use them. Did you ever challenge a speeding ticket and get it reduced to a non moving violation? Did you ever use a coupon to get a discount or did you ever not pay the sticker price of an automobile? An how about the gambling “boats” on the Mississippi river which go out into the river from 7 am to 8 am so as to qualify as ships and then return to land. And how about absentee ballots? And what about health insurance — shouldn’t everyone have to pay the full amount? And how about hearing aids, are they cheating by the hard of hearing? etc etc etc. We do what we can to survive and live in a world of constraints. Religion involves committment to a system of constraints in order to achieve a higher goal. Or don’t you think there are higher goals than, eating. sleeping, deficating, and call other people “unbelievably stupid>?
Good luck,
R. Lee
November 20th, 2006 at 2:36 am
OK, it’s not stupid because it’s a loophole to a higher power, it’s stupid because if there were a higher power, and humans were as special as we like to believe, why would god(s) care about not working on a particular day outside of a particular kind of fence?? It’s stupid because people actually believe that this is a way of achieving a “higher goal”
BTW my mother is jewish, and I’m sure god loves me extra special for it.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
In case anyone is interested the “eruv” request has been granted:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eruv20nov20,0,7031868.story?coll=la-home-local
November 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
To Your father: Actually if your mother is Jewish it’s not that God loves you more than other folks, but rather that you have a Jewish destiny to fullfill — that’s what it means to be “Chosen”. It’s not always so great. we sometimes attrack some pretty unpleasant and sometimes downright toxic attention from th evil forces in the world at large. On the other hand, it is your destiny whether you chose to accept it or not, whether you recognize it or not, whether you deny it or not. Perhaps this will some day become clearer to you, perhaps even as a result of interchanges such as this one. One can only hope for the best, but we are taught that if you will just take “one step forward” God will more than match your approach. Give it a try — I dare you : - ).
December 18th, 2006 at 1:17 am
[...] In the past I covered a story about eruvs that sparked a wide spectrum of opinions. Some defended the Jews, while others like myself ridiculed them for the shear nonsense. I like to think of this story as the sequel. [...]
December 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Stupid religious laws = stupid God.
December 31st, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I can’t believe it, its almost 2006 and you guys are still at it. I thought that I would take a peak at this site for old times sake. At least we Jews give you something to talk about. Here is the idea again: Work means among other things conscious purposeful control of technology/energy. On the seventh day we sit back from the wonderous technology that humanity has created (using our God-given brains during the other 6 days of the week) and enjoy it. Is that really so hard for you to understand? We don’t light fires and we don’t turn on or off electrical applicances or traffic lights — NOT EVEN INSIDE OUR ERUV! Non Jews are not bound by these particular laws so if you, a non Jew, pushes the button for your own needs I can also cross with you (but I can’t ask you to do it for me). The detectors being described would not work so far as I know (but I’m not a Rabbi). There is one sort of exception — one can create new life on the Sabbath (I think it’s a blessing to do so) but that’s not really a technology creation.
I realize that some view adherence to a set of religious laws as being silly from their perspective (you probably laugh at all sorts of things that are different from you — that’s known as intolerance and has been a plague of humanity forever_ but am a bit surprised that you “rationalists” never seem to be able to fathom the logic behind the rules which are really extremely self consistent.
Happy secular New Year.
rlee
December 31st, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Whoops — it’s almost 2007 but since I don’t keep time by this calender it’s really 5767 and I get my secular dates wrong.
So sorry
RLS
January 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
There was some very interesting discussion here, a while back. And I think some of it is worth reviewing.
In particular, R Lee Smith and Sidfaiwu had a decent exchange that was respectful, clear-headed, and educational.
But for all of his calm, nice words and (sometimes) logic, R Lee Smith really shows the scary/loopy side of religion in his posts #73 and particularly #76. Check them out.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:41 am
i’m not exactly sure what all the dislike for the sabbath is about. jews follow it because we are in love with it. we consider the idea of one day out of the week in which people are free to leave all our work behind, all our worries behind, and spend the time enjoying our life, enjoying our family, studying, and just taking pleasure in the world, one of the best and most progressive ideas humanity has ever known. we know that sometimes we can be unreasonable about it, but that is out of our faith that the sabbath has a great deal to offer to all people, whether they believe in its divine origin or not, and it saddens us to see this beautiful tradition fading. you don’t need to believe in G-d to know that any tradition that sanctifies the home and the family and humanity’s commitment to one another is something that the world desperately needs right about now.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I like enjoying my family, studying, and taking pleasure in the world 7 days of the week!
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Sacred Architecture as a Sanctuary in Space
The Great Cathedrals are our sabbaths, the Christian equivalent of sacred weekdays.
By Father Pint O’Guiness
Christianity is a religion of space aiming at the sanctification of space. Unlike the time-minded man to whom space is unvaried, iterative, homogeneous, to whom
all places are alike, quality-less, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of space. There are no two places alike. Every place is
unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.
http://www.pleaserecognizesatire.com/
Re:
————–
Shabbat as a Sanctuary in Time
The Sabbaths are our great cathedrals, the Jewish equivalent of sacred architecture.
By Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
Judaism is a religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-minded man to whom time is unvaried, iterative, homogeneous, to whom all hours are alike, quality-less, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/
———-
April 24th, 2007 at 6:50 am
/me waits for a moslem two write “islam is a religion of space-time, as no two four dimensional points are alike….”
Now, what exactly is this supposed to mean?
October 24th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Everytime i think i dislike either chrisianity, islam or judaism more than the other, i read something on this site and… whoops we have a new winner!
Seriously, theyre all so ignorance inspiring, hateful and retarded in their own ways, but Judaism really pushes the boundaries of retarded.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Religion is a set of ideas, meant for the weak and the ignorant… Contraptions like eruvs just further prove my point,
March 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
the lead rook is okay, but you really need to do the walls too. Yeah, this is just one more example of Jewish meddling and manipulation. I think Hitler was on the right track after all–he just didnt finish the job!!
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 am
I feel it is so sad that loads of negative people wish to see her fail. I pray that she can get together with nicer folk and enjoy living once again.