ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: simpak on November 10, 2010, 08:40:43 am
-
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no-room-for-girlfriends-at-ivanhoe-girls-dance-20101109-17m4g.html
I laughed so hard.
Any thoughts?
-
Apparently Schnags was interviewed? Did anyone hear it?
-
There's ABC reporters and stuff outside... :/
And they're interviewing people... This is ridiculous, they're interviewing Year 9's who don't even know the situation. As if the school hasn't even told anyone to not say anything..
-
I love the comments on news stories on theage.com.au
case in point
Perhaps we need schools for lesbians just like we have schools for different religions?
I would not treat someone differently because of their sexual needs, but i dont want to know about it or see it in my face.
Please tell me they were trolling
-
I love it when schools get fucked over like this.
They are run by control freak tools, 90% of whom didn't have what it takes to further their career, and instead decide to take out their frustrations on others and make them miserable.
Hope they get their asses sued off.
I went to school not far from IGGS, and I could imagine them trying to pull the exact same shit.
Whether or not people like it, they're going to have to accept that homosexuals do exist, and they have the same rights as everyone else.
-
Hope they get their asses sued off.
I went to school not far from IGGS, and I could imagine them trying to pull the exact same shit.
Whether or not people like it, they're going to have to accept that homosexuals do exist, and they have the same rights as everyone else.
I'm pretty sure the case was dismissed.
-
Even still it's incredibly embarrassing for the school and I hope Schangl has fun cleaning up her failed PR messes.
Haha I hope that they were trolling also.
-
my school was in the papers for this same thing a few years ago but got away with it because of their 'religious values', good old religion, the promoter of inequality.
mates with hannah though and pretty proud of her for this, iggs would be so pissed.
-
Even still it's incredibly embarrassing for the school and I hope Schangl has fun cleaning up her failed PR messes.
Haha I hope that they were trolling also.
Sucks for us who still go to school T_T Suuch bad press..
Honestly, I think this whole thing is ridiculous. I don't understand why it's being brought up now, when the formal was months ago, and the girls aren't even going out.....
What the hell are they trying to do?
That being said, I completely disagree with them not being allowed to go the formal together, I just don't see why it's suddenly big news now, when it wasn't, back then (I'm pretty sure they were going to get some news people to come in and do their story)
-
I went to Japan with Hannah...school trip yay.
Yeah I remember the groups popping up on Facebook not too long ago.
I don't know why now but I DO know the girl who wrote that article, she graduated with my degree a couple of years ago.
Better late than never, though.
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
-
is the school that religious? I got the impression that it was more of a non-progressive, socially conservative decision rather than "homosexuality is evil".
My school didn't allow us to take same sex partners but our head of year said that if we really wanted to, we should discuss it with him. I think that's a better response than trying to justify it by claiming she's too young or the wrong year level.
-
the school was "built" on christian values.
-
MHS embraces homosexuality ;)
SOFA is the name of the club.
I have no further information to contribute :P
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/coming-out-is-in-at-school-20100424-tklo.html
-
MHS embraces homosexuality ;)
SOFA is the name of the club.
I have no further information to contribute :P
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/coming-out-is-in-at-school-20100424-tklo.html
HEY. THAT GUY SITTING DOWN AT THE FRONT WITH RED HAIR IS MY FRIEND.
itsk, I already knew he was gay.
@OP
This stuff happens .. everywhere... Even at my school D=.
-
inerd you go to mhs?
and a lot of state schools are now having same sex groups to get awareness out there
-
inerd you go to mhs?
and a lot of state schools are now having same sex groups to get awareness out there
it's iNerd :P...and yes.
-
ahh. did you ever have Ms Wilson before she left in 2008?
-
inerd you go to mhs?
and a lot of state schools are now having same sex groups to get awareness out there
it's iNerd :P...and yes.
lol, i think i called you iiNerd at some point haha...
-
iinerd. inerd Inerd iNerd iNeRd same shit.
:P
-
iinerd. inerd Inerd iNerd iNeRd same shit.
:P
Ah no sweat...your like the 7th person in this forum to not know how to type it properly. As for your question...I'm in Year 10 hence only joined MHS in 2009, hence I would have no clue who Ms Wilson is.
-
Were year 10 boys allowed to go to the formal?
-
Were year 10 boys allowed to go to the formal?
Doubt it. No-one I know went.
-
I think she meant the IGGS formal and according to the article, yes they were
-
yeah a year 10 boy did because they don't normally check the background of the partners, it was just because her gf was known to the teachers to be in year 10 so they used that as a reason... though seeing it was used after the other reasons of 'having an equal ratio' etc, sounds like they were grasping at straws.
-
ROFL
in the comments section
"Private schools seem to be more understanding when the same-sex "relationships" are between teachers and pupils."
-
Ah my bad (I read a different newspaper article which didn't mention whether year 10 boys were allowed)
*makes mental note to stay away from that school*
-
howwwwwww annoying just shutup she looks like a dimwit anyway the stupid hag the school was trying to organise an event to get girls talking to guys DOESN'T have to be relationships or whatever and this bitch is going on about her 15 year old gf stfuuuuuuuuuuuuuu hoe
-
^Woaah woah
There's absolutely no need to make those comments..
The whole issue has been blown completely out of proportion. There is so much complete bullshit circulating about this now, and I'm so over it. There's been news crews hanging around all day, and it's absolutely ridiculous... This has gone way too far.
-
Ignore hard, he's just a troll
-
it is entertaining reading how all the different news articles present it differently to the truth in varying ways/ mostly exaggerate...
still, at least it raises an important issue
-
Non sensationalist news is much less interesting :P.
-
is the school that religious?
We had chapel once a term and some Good Friday service and sang a hymn sometimes in Assembly. And had religion studies till yr 10.
Oh and we had a school prayer.
But when you compare that to schools you make their students do VCE Religion - not entirely?
-
Lettuce explain harr.
Okay so what happens is, for the Yr 11 formal (which is not, technically known as a 'dinner dance' bee tee dubs) girls are invited to bring a partner.
You must write down the name of your partner on a list but you do not have to specify their age.
Sometimes, you will need to specify the school they go to just so the school knows something about them, I suppose?
But never their age.
So discriminating against age for this one girl, and not for any of the others, is still discrimination no matter which way you look at it.
Secondly, younger boys would have attended.
Thirdly, this has happened continuously at our school.
Like, once a year at least. This is just the first time the media has blown it up.
-
In my school, you can only bring a guy to the formal if you're gay. That's racist
-
fail..go school
-
Lol, you're just racist. Against straight people
-
wrong context
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
-
^I agree. Collin Li put it well in another thread:
"Their house, their rules" is an important principle. It would actually be imposing (and hard to enforce) if you forced schools to not discriminate. However, it is to the detriment of catholic schools that they choose to discriminate: they are left with less choice. You might accuse me of being unfair to the homosexual teacher, but there is no better alternative. Forcing a school to view homosexual teachers objectively is not practical, nor is it fair for the school - who own the property and should be able to manage the school the way they wish. On the other hand, the lower demand (since some catholic schools will not demand them) for homosexual teachers will make them cheaper for other schools to hire them - helps the parents.
Keep in mind that even though I am against outlawing discrimination, I am certainly not against individual choices against discrimination. The bad publicity the school gets from media sensationalisation ("discrimination scandal!") is the price they pay.
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
What about a private school that allows teachers to smack children? Is that a rule that in this day and age, schools should be allowed to simply allowed to apply with the students having no right to question said law?
-
However, they in this particular case they didn't mention a thing about religion and instead tried to cover it up with tired excuses.
If they had debated it on the basis of school values or principles, there would have been an uproar but you would have been correct, because the school has a right to enforce its own policies on the basis of values and beliefs.
My issue with the scenario is the ridiculous stuff that she is saying now, when, from personal experience I know none of this is true. To lie consistently about what is permitted at Year 12 formals, even, when I have a friend who was turned down many a time when she asked to bring a girl last year, annoys me immensely.
Anybody who is willing to believe it is crazy.
On Schnagl's side though, if you listen to Hannah on 3AW, she does sound very uncomfortable with the questions she is being asked, which indicates media blow-up which may have been taken out of her control and spin she had never intended.
At the crux, this issue basically revolves around deciding whether to piss off the parents of the school who may be more conservative in true 'high income' style (although I don't speak for my own parents, or any of my friends' parents here) or whether to piss off people who don't give her a lot of money. It has nothing to do with moral standards or any kind of religious code upheld by the school...they don't have as many strict standards as you might think, detention doesn't even exist at IGGS.
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
What about a private school that allows teachers to smack children? Is that a rule that in this day and age, schools should be allowed to simply allowed to apply with the students having no right to question said law?
Of course a school shouldn't be allowed to contravene the law. I am sure Coblinator thinks his argument should apply to all privately-run institutions; we just happened to be talking specifically about schools in this and the other thread. With your example, whether or not one thinks smacking should be allowed in schools depends entirely on whether or not one thinks it should be legal at all.
-
I agree a private school can be as backward as they want to be. But in that case, make it clear that that is your stance. Don't go around umming and erring and putting up this ridiculous facade of "we're not against gay people" when all and sundry can see that's really the case (and when it's been backed up by students themselves).
@Yitzi, socially progressive religious schools do exist. I went to one.
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
i agree, if you choose to go to a private school, but how many kids are out there these days, that are FORCED by their parents to go to a private school?
I mean hell, i had no choice to what high school i went to, my parents forced me to go to the one my mother worked at, as opposed to the one in the area that was a decent one and not a shithole like mine was.
-
ahh. did you ever have Ms Wilson before she left in 2008?
yes, i had her for eco in year 9
-
I am sure Coblinator thinks his argument should apply to all privately-run institutions;
Even ones that receive government funding?
-
since im a lesbian, i side with the girl automatically.
aha.
however, i dont think religious based schools should be allowed to discriminate based on religious values of others as well as sexuality.
but they have money and will buy their way out of it once again.
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
Given that most people going into school (whether its high school or primary school) don't know their sexuality for sure, I think that 'choice' in schools is a bit of an illusion here. It's not like a regular 12 year old can say 'well, I'm gay, so I'll go to a gay-friendly school', is it?
Additionally, why should they have to? Just because you're religious, doesn't make you necessarily homophobic. Likewise, there are homophobic people who aren't religious. People don't just subscribe to a set of predetermined beliefs, that's too simplistic. So, even if the child did know they were gay at age 12, doesn't mean that they would know how the school principal felt about gay people anyway. Moreover, there is no reason why a religious person necessarily ought to be homophobic.
And besides, discrimination is discrimination. Even if the girls knew at age 12 that they were lesbians, even if they knew that everyone at the school was homophobic, it's ridiculous that the school thinks it's okay to control students like this and deliberately exclude them from events. What I mean is, if a girl knows that she is a lesbian and that people aren't very accepting of that, does that mean that she needs to limit her own educational options? Does that mean she should never go to church, even if she believes in God and that she ought to go to church? Does it mean that she has to choose an employer on the basis that they aren't going to discriminate against her, rather than on the basis of her preferred industry or preferred starting salary? Is she meant to make concessions to homophobic people merely because they don't approve of her? Discrimination can influence peoples lives in so many ways, and while people may be entitled to their own private opinions, it doesn't mean it's okay to tell people that they can't be who they are in terms of something as basic and private as sexuality. I'm not sure you realise what heterosexual privilege really entails if you think that discrimination, by any institution, is ever okay and is something that a member of a minority group not only should realistically expect but should normatively expect.
This action also goes beyond their role as an institution designed to educate people, instead it closes off people from being themselves and showing students to accept others for who they are. People with closed minds are generally very poor learners and the school should be ashamed of this wasted educational opportunity.
-
I am sure Coblinator thinks his argument should apply to all privately-run institutions;
Even ones that receive government funding?
Oh, well, good point. No, I suppose not. Where's teh coblin grenade anyway?
-
@Yitzi, socially progressive religious schools do exist. I went to one.
Schools which are not prepared to compromise on their religious belief do exist. I went to one.
-
What's your point? I was responding to this erroneous assumption that just because a school is religious, it's necessarily also completely backward:
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
-
What's your point? I was responding to this erroneous assumption that just because a school is religious, it's necessarily also completely backward:
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
My point is that your point has nothing to do with my point. The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, when one goes to such a school, one is making the choice to follow that code, at least during school events.
-
fixed it for ya
The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is not changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, such schools should make it clear that that is their policy, rather than hiding behind bullshit excuses like age.
edit: inb4 you start with the "stop imposing your views on everybody":
I agree a private school can be as backward as they want to be.
-
fixed it for ya
The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is not changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, such schools should make it clear that that is their policy, rather than hiding behind bullshit excuses like age.
I agree. What annoyed me the most was not the fact that they don't endorse same sex couples, but the way they tried to lie about it and use age as a cover instead.
The principal came across as a but of a simpleton in the TV interview, especially if she expects people to believe the age thing.
-
I think it is outrageous this school is doing this to this poor girl but at least the school didn't react like this:
"OMFG YOU HAVE A GIRLFRIEND? BUT YOU'RE A GIRL! AND YOU WANT TO BRING HER TO PROM? FINE. [size=15]PROM CANCELLED[/size]"
Cue rest of school hating on this poor girl
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm
-
I am sure Coblinator thinks his argument should apply to all privately-run institutions;
Even ones that receive government funding?
Oh, well, good point. No, I suppose not. Where's teh coblin grenade anyway?
I wouldn't mind hearing his opinion actually.
-
What's your point? I was responding to this erroneous assumption that just because a school is religious, it's necessarily also completely backward:
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
My point is that your point has nothing to do with my point. The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, when one goes to such a school, one is making the choice to follow that code, at least during school events.
I don't think that's true at all. People do obviously change the content of their beliefs over time, which is why people wear polyester and jewellery (those things are banned in the bible). Things change. And there's no way you can tell that someone is a homophobic on the basis that they're religious.
fixed it for ya
The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is not changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, such schools should make it clear that that is their policy, rather than hiding behind bullshit excuses like age.
I agree. What annoyed me the most was not the fact that they don't endorse same sex couples, but the way they tried to lie about it and use age as a cover instead.
The principal came across as a but of a simpleton in the TV interview, especially if she expects people to believe the age thing.
While I agree that lying about the reasoning behind the ban is awful, I think the ban itself is much worse. Just because these girls are lesbians, they should not be unallowed to do the things straight people do. I'm frankly concerned that this debate isn't getting to the crux of this issue, which is that the school is infringing on the rights of their students.
Given that the school has the most amount of power in this relationship, yes, I am much more concerned about the girls' freedom to be lesbians than the school's freedom to not like it very much, particularly since the girls aren't actually hurting anyone!
-
edit: inb4 you start with the "stop imposing your views on everybody"
What's your point? I was responding to this erroneous assumption that just because a school is religious, it's necessarily also completely backward:
If you choose to go to a religious school, aren't you agreeing to abide by their religious code? I don't mean follow all the rules all the time, but at a school event, why should they not be allowed to impose their religion? It's the students' (or their parents, who are responsible for them) choice to go to the school, so they should follow the rules, whether they agree with them or not.
My point is that your point has nothing to do with my point. The fact that there exists religious schools for whom the actual religion is changeable, does not alter the fact that there are schools for whom the content of their religion, and therefore the code that the school abides by, does not change. And therefore, when one goes to such a school, one is making the choice to follow that code, at least during school events.
I don't think that's true at all. People do obviously change the content of their beliefs over time, which is why people wear polyester and jewellery (those things are banned in the bible). Things change. And there's no way you can tell that someone is a homophobic on the basis that they're religious.
Source? Neither jewellery or polyester are banned by the bible.
-
Lev 19:19 and I think the jewellery one comes from the general guidance not to be obsessed with physical things
-
And there's the shellfish one
-
Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”
Timothy 2:9: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”
-
It is interesting how we follow some verses in the bible but not others.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Where can I buy a New Zealander?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Taken from my fb tho I can't remember where I found it.
However, someone told me that the NT makes a lot of these laws void (though I believe Judaism follows the OT, no?)
-
Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”
Timothy 2:9: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”
Those two quotes sound restricting, we must acknolegde to the fact that things change over time.
-
That's not the point, the point was to provide a source.
Also, bible discussion isn't going to end well :(
-
The point was to say that you can't possibly follow all the different rules religion makes up for you. As such, it's impossible to tell the content of one's beliefs on the basis that they follow a certain religion. But the point isn't very important anyway, because overall it's not good to discriminate against people who aren't hurting anyone else, regardless of what you happen to believe.
-
Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”
That is talking specifically about wool and linen. Other mixtures of fibres are acceptable. It may interest you to know that orthodox Jews to this day do not wear clothing that contains both wool and linen.
It is interesting how we follow some verses in the bible but not others.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Where can I buy a New Zealander?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Taken from my fb tho I can't remember where I found it.
However, someone told me that the NT makes a lot of these laws void (though I believe Judaism follows the OT, no?)
a) Bulls may only be sacrificed at the altar in the Temple. As such, it should pose no problem for your neighbour. (Additionally, you're not going to be doing any sacrificing, as a woman.)
b) In a case whereby a father simply cannot provide his daughter, he may 'sell' her to another, for that person to take care of her until she is old enough to care for herself. Nowadays, we call that 'adoption'.
c) It may interest you to know that even today, orthodox Jews do not have any relations when the wife is menstruating. It's called Taharat Hamishpacha, and is one of the most important facets of Judaism.
d) In the New Zealand slave market.
e) No, you are morally obligated to take him to the Beth Din (Court of Law). There, the case would be judged (although you would not count as a witness) and, if all the criteria were filled, the Beth Din would put him to death. Nowadays, in the absence of the Sanhedrin, there are no courts with the power to impose the death sentence. When the Sanhedrin returns, so will the death sentence.
f) No, I can't. G-d calls them both abominations, so we would have to assume that they are equal.
g) As you are both a women and not a Kohen, this doesn't matter to you. But the list of blemishes which invalidate a person from the priesthood is clearly set out in the commentaries. If you are really interested, look it up.
h) Again, it may interest you to know that orthodox Jews do not ever completely remove their sideburns, as per this commandment. Many never cut them at all. As for your friends, I'm assuming they're not Jewish, so the commandment does not apply to them. If they are Jewish, you should take them to a Beth Din.
i) Footballs are no longer made of pig skin. Problem solved.
j) The commandment to burn an entire town is not for towns which commit those sins. It's specifically for idol worship. According to the Talmud, such an event (the razing of an entire town) never too place in history.
Also, it may interest you to know that orthodox Jews to this day do not plant multiple crops in one field (although the rules for that are exceedingly complex), nor do they wear wool/linen blends.
I hope I've answered all your questions. Hit me back if you've got more.
It really bugs me when people say that all religions change over time, because it's so factually incorrect. Orthodox Judaism remains exactly the same religion that it was 3000+ years ago. We still follow everyone of the exact same laws, and I challenge any of you to prove otherwise. The only difference right now is that in the absence of a Temple and a Sanhedrin, many of the commandments simply cannot be carried out. Tomorrow, when the Temple is rebuilt and the Sanhedrin reestablished, these laws will come bac into force exactly as stated in the Torah.
-
a) Bulls may only be sacrificed at the altar in the Temple. As such, it should pose no problem for your neighbour. (Additionally, you're not going to be doing any sacrificing, as a woman.)
I know it's OT, but best thing I've read today
-
I'm sure that proper orthodox Jews follow the rules of the bible well, if not fully. However, just because someone identifies as Jewish, doesn't mean that you know the entire contents of all their beliefs. Same with Christianity, same with Islam, etc.
-
I'm sure that proper orthodox Jews follow the rules of the bible well, if not fully. However, just because someone identifies as Jewish, doesn't mean that you know the entire contents of all their beliefs. Same with Christianity, same with Islam, etc.
That's true, and there are many non-religious Jews. However, you said 'you can't possibly follow all the different rules religion makes up for you'. What I'm telling you is that it is possible, and orthodox Jews do so. (I can't speak for other religions though).
-
It really bugs me when people say that all religions change over time, because it's so factually incorrect. Orthodox Judaism remains exactly the same religion that it was 3000+ years ago. We still follow everyone of the exact same laws, and I challenge any of you to prove otherwise. The only difference right now is that in the absence of a Temple and a Sanhedrin, many of the commandments simply cannot be carried out. Tomorrow, when the Temple is rebuilt and the Sanhedrin reestablished, these laws will come bac into force exactly as stated in the Torah.
And once again you've missed the point.
How many "religious" schools follow ALL of these bible laws? I'm not just talking about Jewish schools. I'm talking about schools of every religion - Islamic, Catholic, Anglican, Hindu (if they exist).
The answer is very few. So why do they get to pick and choose and only follow the "homosexuality is bad" line?
-
It's something that they have very strong views against.
Why do the Police usually let people off with possession of Marijuana, yet always arrest murderers?
If the school/institution is strongly opposed to homosexuality. I see no reason why these people want to go to those schools anyway?
If I was gay, I wouldn't be able to stand the thought of the administration absolutely loathing my kind. The Bible is not intended to be taken literally. Most sections of it anyway. It's open to interpretation etc.
-
Let me clarify then.
Why should schools be allowed to justify their discrimination on the basis of religion when clearly they don't really give two shits about the religion (since they're not bothering to follow all its laws, just the ones they find convenient)?
It's something that they have very strong views against.
My parents have very strong views against dark-skinned people, should they be allowed to start a school which bans Indians from attending?
Why do the Police usually let people off with possession of Marijuana, yet always arrest murderers?
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
If the school/institution is strongly opposed to homosexuality. I see no reason why these people want to go to those schools anyway?
IGS does not state this as their policy, but instead justified it on the basis of age (which everyone knew was bullshit).
If they didn't want homosexuals attending their school (and giving them money) then why not make that obvious?
-
It's something that they have very strong views against.
Why do the Police usually let people off with possession of Marijuana, yet always arrest murderers?
If the school/institution is strongly opposed to homosexuality. I see no reason why these people want to go to those schools anyway?
If I was gay, I wouldn't be able to stand the thought of the administration absolutely loathing my kind. The Bible is not intended to be taken literally. Most sections of it anyway. It's open to interpretation etc.
Of course you wouldn't want to go to a school that has homophobic policies and makes life for homosexuals harder. However, given that you firstly cannot gauge their level of acceptance from the outset, that makes choosing difficult. But further, by telling homosexuals to 'pick something else' you limit their choices in terms of where they'd like to be educated - straight people get to go to school anywhere they want, basically.
Furthermore, given recent reports from the US that homosexual people are killing themselves due to a lack of wider societal acceptance, I think the attitude of 'go somewhere else' simplifies what it means to be rejected by an educational institution and the hurt that can entail.
-
Let me clarify then.
Why should schools be allowed to pick and choose from the laws of the bible, and then justify their discrimination on the basis of religion when clearly they don't really give two shits about the religion?
Well this is a bit more complex. See normally, I'd say the school gets to choose which values the school values. It's their building, if they believe in something, then so be it. However, I go to a Catholic school myself and am a Catholic. I see sluts at the school, banging boys before school, with no respect for themselves. People swear constantly, the teachers don't even tell them off. One of my teachers keeps saying how bullshit the whole religion is. The list goes on. Personally, if the school has set values and adheres to them, then they can pick whichever values they like such as their stance on homosexuality. However, if they are going to quote that there actions where concordant with Catholicism, then they must always adhere to the core beliefs in Catholicism. I personally don't think Catholic school do that currently and hence I see reason for your argument. I would prefer to go to a school where people live in a way Jesus would have wanted, that currently does not happen in Catholic schools.
-
It's something that they have very strong views against.
Why do the Police usually let people off with possession of Marijuana, yet always arrest murderers?
If the school/institution is strongly opposed to homosexuality. I see no reason why these people want to go to those schools anyway?
If I was gay, I wouldn't be able to stand the thought of the administration absolutely loathing my kind. The Bible is not intended to be taken literally. Most sections of it anyway. It's open to interpretation etc.
Of course you wouldn't want to go to a school that has homophobic policies and makes life for homosexuals harder. However, given that you firstly cannot gauge their level of acceptance from the outset, that makes choosing difficult. But further, by telling homosexuals to 'pick something else' you limit their choices in terms of where they'd like to be educated - straight people get to go to school anywhere they want, basically.
Furthermore, given recent reports from the US that homosexual people are killing themselves due to a lack of wider societal acceptance, I think the attitude of 'go somewhere else' simplifies what it means to be rejected by an educational institution and the hurt that can entail.
Well this is sad, I don't know how to answer this. Personally, I know in R.E we are taught not to hate homosexuals and be accepting. Our reasons against homosexuality though is that it makes it impossible for people to have children. Hence it's against the human race God made etc etc etc. It's more complex but that's the jist of it. I find it remarkable on a scientific note, that in the same period of time, out of thousands of years, two things occur. One, science makes it possible for homosexuals to have children and so have continue the human race. Two, homosexuality is starting to become more acceptable in society. Personally, my logical guess(Nostradamus type effort here) is that God has planned for the explosion of homosexual acceptance and liberation. I simply find it far to great a coincidence for technology to advance to a point where it prevents the major road-block for homosexuals in that they can't have kids, to come in almost the exact same period as homosexuality's global explosion. Remember we are talking about thousands of years here.
-
Btw, surely, any rational thinker on VN, cannot the existance of a God?
-
Homosexuality starting to become more acceptable? Mate, you clearly have not met the Greek military. They treat their men like New Zealanders treat their sheep
-
All that matters is what America + China thinks of homosexuality. The rest of the world will follow. Don't kid yourself into thinking Greece has any impact on the world's current debates. FWIW I'm sure Serbs+Bulgarians are harsher.
-
Btw, surely, any rational thinker on VN, cannot the existance of a God?
I think you accidentally a word
-
HAHAHAH, if that was intended. Good one.
-
HAHAHAH, if that was intended. Good one.
It's a meme but thanks for playing!
-
I simply find it far to great a coincidence for technology to advance to a point where it prevents the major road-block for homosexuals in that they can't have kids, to come in almost the exact same period as homosexuality's global explosion.
What technology are you talking about here?
-
Guy in America who had a baby. Also surrogate mothers and the like.
-
Yeah but that isn't technology alone allowing homosexuals to have children. Both of those situations require a uterus, something that can't be compensated for by technology alone (ie the man had to have been born a woman, the couple have to get a friend to carry it)
-
Okay guys apparently she cried in whole school assembly this morning.
SO I HEAR.
The principal.
-
Okay guys apparently she cried in whole school assembly this morning.
SO I HEAR.
The principal.
I'm glad.
-
Okay guys apparently she cried in whole school assembly this morning.
SO I HEAR.
The principal.
Oh bull.
She cried a bit, you would too if you were in her position ;)
And how the hell does everyone know this? o_O The assembly was 7-9 with 2 exceptions....
She's actually a good principal, and the school is so incredibly supportive of virtually anything and everything, it's a real shame that the media have seen it fit to make such a big deal out of this issue, and completely blow it out of proportion.
At any rate, she also mentioned that early next year, they'll be opening discussion for school events (such as formals), and everyone will get a say about what they want to happen.
-
^ well, what do you make of the issue?
-
All the debate is pretty cute.
At our school pretty much you can only take a male to the formal if you are gay. Which does imply that the formal is some sort of mass school-sanctioned sexual activity.
Private schools, particularly religious ones, in my opinion can have their backward thinking if they like. Before you bring out all this equal rights business out, by the same argument, religion shouldn't be tolerated either. Nevertheless, the school is definitely going to regret it.
And yes, a year 12 at our school is allowed to bring a year 10 from the same school, they just have to go through the whole process of gaining an exemption.
-
Homosexuality starting to become more acceptable? Mate, you clearly have not met the Greek military. They treat their men like New Zealanders treat their sheep
Loves that Greek military is totally representative of the broader society.
Accurate.
-
All the debate is pretty cute.
At our school pretty much you can only take a male to the formal if you are gay. Which does imply that the formal is some sort of mass school-sanctioned sexual activity.
Private schools, particularly religious ones, in my opinion can have their backward thinking if they like. Before you bring out all this equal rights business out, by the same argument, religion shouldn't be tolerated either. Nevertheless, the school is definitely going to regret it.
And yes, a year 12 at our school is allowed to bring a year 10 from the same school, they just have to go through the whole process of gaining an exemption.
The thing is, I don't have a problem with people being religious. Frankly, it's even okay to be homophobic for whatever reason you have. What isn't okay is to force other people into a religion (which schools don't really do) or force people into heteronormativity (which this school kind of has) or to stop people from doing things because they aren't what one thinks they should be (provided that they haven't hurt anyone). You may think that the debate is 'cute', but it doesn't justify what happened.
I think that your take is interesting though, given that you are sort of an 'insider', lol. Hypothetically, if a lesbian girl in year 11 wanted to bring her girlfriend to the ball and they were in the same year level, would the school have allowed that, do you think?
-
All the debate is pretty cute.
At our school pretty much you can only take a male to the formal if you are gay. Which does imply that the formal is some sort of mass school-sanctioned sexual activity.
Private schools, particularly religious ones, in my opinion can have their backward thinking if they like. Before you bring out all this equal rights business out, by the same argument, religion shouldn't be tolerated either. Nevertheless, the school is definitely going to regret it.
And yes, a year 12 at our school is allowed to bring a year 10 from the same school, they just have to go through the whole process of gaining an exemption.
The thing is, I don't have a problem with people being religious. Frankly, it's even okay to be homophobic for whatever reason you have. What isn't okay is to force other people into a religion (which schools don't really do) or force people into heteronormativity (which this school kind of has) or to stop people from doing things because they aren't what one thinks they should be (provided that they haven't hurt anyone). You may think that the debate is 'cute', but it doesn't justify what happened.
I think that your take is interesting though, given that you are sort of an 'insider', lol. Hypothetically, if a lesbian girl in year 11 wanted to bring her girlfriend to the ball and they were in the same year level, would the school have allowed that, do you think?
/off-topic/ ^that reminds me, I used that word in an olde thread; people were like wtf?? :) /off-topic/
which piece was about debutantes?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/this-is-one-ball-that-should-be-dropped/2008/03/04/1204402450848.html?page=fullpage
I don't agree with that article entirely, but she highlights some of the reasons why I chose not to do the deb. It's funny, I told some of my friends from other states about them and they report never having heard of them (they were all boys though).
I think for them to be an obligatory rite of passage, as was the case previously, is adverse, but I'm not sure if they're that harmful to girls in their current context.
Also she argues that they're heteronormative and exclusive to those with particular inherent physical quatlities . Well, so are many pursuits and aspects of our culture.
-
Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”
That is talking specifically about wool and linen. Other mixtures of fibres are acceptable. It may interest you to know that orthodox Jews to this day do not wear clothing that contains both wool and linen.
It is interesting how we follow some verses in the bible but not others.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Where can I buy a New Zealander?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Taken from my fb tho I can't remember where I found it.
However, someone told me that the NT makes a lot of these laws void (though I believe Judaism follows the OT, no?)
a) Bulls may only be sacrificed at the altar in the Temple. As such, it should pose no problem for your neighbour. (Additionally, you're not going to be doing any sacrificing, as a woman.)
b) In a case whereby a father simply cannot provide his daughter, he may 'sell' her to another, for that person to take care of her until she is old enough to care for herself. Nowadays, we call that 'adoption'.
c) It may interest you to know that even today, orthodox Jews do not have any relations when the wife is menstruating. It's called Taharat Hamishpacha, and is one of the most important facets of Judaism.
d) In the New Zealand slave market.
e) No, you are morally obligated to take him to the Beth Din (Court of Law). There, the case would be judged (although you would not count as a witness) and, if all the criteria were filled, the Beth Din would put him to death. Nowadays, in the absence of the Sanhedrin, there are no courts with the power to impose the death sentence. When the Sanhedrin returns, so will the death sentence.
f) No, I can't. G-d calls them both abominations, so we would have to assume that they are equal.
g) As you are both a women and not a Kohen, this doesn't matter to you. But the list of blemishes which invalidate a person from the priesthood is clearly set out in the commentaries. If you are really interested, look it up.
h) Again, it may interest you to know that orthodox Jews do not ever completely remove their sideburns, as per this commandment. Many never cut them at all. As for your friends, I'm assuming they're not Jewish, so the commandment does not apply to them. If they are Jewish, you should take them to a Beth Din.
i) Footballs are no longer made of pig skin. Problem solved.
j) The commandment to burn an entire town is not for towns which commit those sins. It's specifically for idol worship. According to the Talmud, such an event (the razing of an entire town) never too place in history.
Also, it may interest you to know that orthodox Jews to this day do not plant multiple crops in one field (although the rules for that are exceedingly complex), nor do they wear wool/linen blends.
I hope I've answered all your questions. Hit me back if you've got more.
It really bugs me when people say that all religions change over time, because it's so factually incorrect. Orthodox Judaism remains exactly the same religion that it was 3000+ years ago. We still follow everyone of the exact same laws, and I challenge any of you to prove otherwise. The only difference right now is that in the absence of a Temple and a Sanhedrin, many of the commandments simply cannot be carried out. Tomorrow, when the Temple is rebuilt and the Sanhedrin reestablished, these laws will come bac into force exactly as stated in the Torah.
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
-
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
Wouldn't that depend on whether you follow the religion or not? I think I read somewhere where you said you were an atheist.
-
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
Wouldn't that depend on whether you follow the religion or not? I think I read somewhere where you said you were an atheist.
Yes, I am an atheist. (Or whatever the correct term is for someone who tacitly renounces belief in a higher power.) However, I'd imagine that for orthodox Jews, if you're born a Jew you remain one, no matter what you do with your life. We'll see what Yitzl says anyway.
-
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
Wouldn't that depend on whether you follow the religion or not? I think I read somewhere where you said you were an atheist.
Yes, I am an atheist. (Or whatever the correct term is for someone who tacitly renounces belief in a higher power.) However, I'd imagine that for orthodox Jews, if you're born a Jew you remain one, no matter what you do with your life. We'll see what Yitzl says anyway.
Yeah I heard the same thing. We know of a Jewish lady who entered Islam and her parents will always be telling her "Your still a Jew, you have Jewish blood" or something like that :P
Anyway, do you call yourself a "Jew?"-I found it hard to believe someone can be Jewish and not believe in God, since I thought that had made up the foundations of the faith?
This is just me asking, I heard there's many like that but never understood it.
-
Jewish != Judaism
-
Sure, you can be Jewish and not believe in God; many famous Jews, from Einstein to Stephen Sondheim to Sacha Baron Cohen weren't/aren't religious.* Judaism is perhaps the best example of a religion which is also a race. (Though perhaps the word "Judaism" specifically pertains to the religion, I don't know.) At the moment, I don't consider my Jewish identity to be especially significant, but that could change somewhat if I become involved with a Jewish community and especially if I go to live somewhere with many other Jews close by.
*And as regards *this* community, surely you can name another Jew who doesn't expressly believe in God? :P
-
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
The first thing you have to understand is that nowdays, the Beth Din hs very little power, especially when it comes to distributing punishment. These days, Beth Dins deal almost exclusively with business issues, divorces, and conversions.
In addition, there is an important principle in Jewish law that a person cannot make himself into a 'rasha' (lit. evil-doer). What this means is that a person cannot testify negatively about themself. You can tell a Beth Din anything you like about yourself, but it won't count for anything.
In the past, when the Beth Din had power, and in the future, when it will have that power again, this is the procedure that would happen. You would have had to be observed eating your non-kosher food by two witnesses, (the criteria for witnesses to be valid are quite extensive) who would have had to warn you immediately before you did the act that what you were about to do was against the Torah, and they would have had to warn you of the punishment you would receive for doing it. The witnesses would then go to Beth Din, whereupon their testimony would be examined extensively. If the Beth Din are satisfied with their testimony, you would receive 117 lashes (39 each for the pork, shellfish, and combined milk and meat).
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
Wouldn't that depend on whether you follow the religion or not? I think I read somewhere where you said you were an atheist.
Yes, I am an atheist. (Or whatever the correct term is for someone who tacitly renounces belief in a higher power.) However, I'd imagine that for orthodox Jews, if you're born a Jew you remain one, no matter what you do with your life. We'll see what Yitzl says anyway.
Anyone born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, no matter the level of observance. This is what makes being Jewish both an ethnic and religious matter.
Jewish != Judaism
Not true. One can be a Jewish christian, or a Jewish muslim, or a Jewish atheist. Being a Jew has nothing to do with what religion you are, it simply means you had a Jewish mother (or converted). Judaism is the religion which observant Jews believe that all Jews are commanded to follow.
*And as regards *this* community, surely you can name another Jew who doesn't expressly believe in God? :P
Indeed, enwiabe is absolutely no less a Jew than I am.
-
Indeed, enwiabe is absolutely no less a Jew than I am.
I quite enjoy my cultural Judaism and you'll even find me at Elwood Synagogue a few times a year, but that's about it. Also I'm even in the "motherland" right now :P
-
Indeed, enwiabe is absolutely no less a Jew than I am.
I quite enjoy my cultural Judaism and you'll even find me at Elwood Synagogue a few times a year, but that's about it. Also I'm even in the "motherland" right now :P
In that case happy Chanukah, don't eat too many sufganiyot :D
-
Thank you :) Interesting, I didn't know that it mattered how many kosher laws you flouted; I though once you entered the realms of non-kosher food that was it.
I once saw a kosher telephone for sale in Melbourne. Would you take great care to seek out such an item?
Also (this actually happened) An orthodox Jew in my family was staying with my Granny, a non-observant Jew.
The Sabbath came, and my Granny's guest, upon seeing an electric light on, in the
fridge, proceeded to disable it, without asking permission. Who is most at fault here?
Also, I'm curious: would you feel very much out of place at Chavi's school and vice-versa?
-
Quote from: Cthulhu on December 01, 2010, 02:22:14 PM
Jewish != Judaism
Not true. One can be a Jewish christian, or a Jewish muslim, or a Jewish atheist. Being a Jew has nothing to do with what religion you are, it simply means you had a Jewish mother (or converted). Judaism is the religion which observant Jews believe that all Jews are commanded to follow.
I think Cthulhu agrees with you, he just likes his programming jargon.
-
Indeed, enwiabe is absolutely no less a Jew than I am.
I quite enjoy my cultural Judaism and you'll even find me at Elwood Synagogue a few times a year, but that's about it. Also I'm even in the "motherland" right now :P
In that case happy Chanukah, don't eat too many sufganiyot :D
I have already had at least 3 at the various chanukah parties at the Technion -_-
-
I once saw a kosher telephone for sale in Melbourne. Would you take great care to seek out such an item?
A kosher phone means one without a camera or access to the internet, in order to prevent people from seeing stuff they shouldn't. (Porn etc.) These phones are used mostly by the ultra-orthodox 'chareidim' in Israel and elsewhere, whose Rabbis forbid them from using the internet for that reason. Since I have internet at home, it would be pointless to get a kosher phone.
Also (this actually happened) An orthodox Jew in my family was staying with my Granny, a non-observant Jew.
The Sabbath came, and my Granny's guest, upon seeing an electric light on, in the
fridge, proceeded to disable it, without asking permission. Who is most at fault here?
The light in the fridge is a big problem for us orthodox. When the light is activated, so that it will come on when the fridge is opened, opeing the fridge would mean violating the laws of shabbat. Even worse, if someone opens the fridge on shabbat when the light is on without realising it, the fridge can't be closed, as turing off a light is also against the law. This has happened in my house a couple of times, it means the fridge beeps for hours and the food spoils, but there's nothing that can be done.
As you can see, it's very important to us that the light is deactivated every shabbat, and we even have a fridge with a special setting just for that purpose. However, I do think it was inappropriate of the guest to have done it without permission, it would have been basic courtesy to ask beforehand.
Also, I'm curious: would you feel very much out of place at Chavi's school and vice-versa?
I don't know how much you know about our respective schools. The main difference is that his is co-ed and mine isn't, and since I've never been in a co-ed school, I would probably be weird for me. Also, his school is probably a little less religious than mine, with more non-observant students, so I might feel a little ot of place for that reason. Obviously I can't say how Chavi would feel in my school (although I believe he was there at some point early on?).
-
I was born to a Jewish mother. Yesterday I ate a dish which contained shellfish, pork and milk products. Do you exhort me to present myself before a Beth Din? What will likely happen if I do?
Wouldn't that depend on whether you follow the religion or not? I think I read somewhere where you said you were an atheist.
Yes, I am an atheist. (Or whatever the correct term is for someone who tacitly renounces belief in a higher power.) However, I'd imagine that for orthodox Jews, if you're born a Jew you remain one, no matter what you do with your life. We'll see what Yitzl says anyway.
Yeah I heard the same thing. We know of a Jewish lady who entered Islam and her parents will always be telling her "Your still a Jew, you have Jewish blood" or something like that :P
Anyway, do you call yourself a "Jew?"-I found it hard to believe someone can be Jewish and not believe in God, since I thought that had made up the foundations of the faith?
This is just me asking, I heard there's many like that but never understood it.
You should make a distinction between Jews and Judaism, in the same way that you make distinctions between Arabs and Muslims, even though there are large overlaps
Judaism is a religion, yes, to which a firm majority of jews subscribe to.
Jews are above all a nationality (not a race, as Hitler believed). This is how they are described in the bible ("Am Yisrael" - "the people of Israel"), this is how, as Combob has aptly demonstrated, you can have Atheist Jews (as opposed to Atheist Christians/Atheist Muslims, which are unheard of)
-"A Jew should never confuse his nationality with his citizenship" - Menachem Begin, PM of Israel
-
Not true. One can be a Jewish christian, or a Jewish muslim, or a Jewish atheist. Being a Jew has nothing to do with what religion you are, it simply means you had a Jewish mother (or converted). Judaism is the religion which observant Jews believe that all Jews are commanded to follow.
I have to disagree with this point. You can't be a Jewish Christian or a Jewish Muslim. If you renounce your Jewish faith - that's it. You'll have troubling applying for the law of return, because Israel won't recognize you as Jewish. (but they will recognize you as Jewish if you simply identify with Judaism and have 1 paternal Jewish grandparent i.e. lo lefi halacha)
btw - how did this topic go from Lesbian @school party >>>>> religion
-
It is interesting how we follow some verses in the bible but not others.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Where can I buy a New Zealander?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Taken from my fb tho I can't remember where I found it.
However, someone told me that the NT makes a lot of these laws void (though I believe Judaism follows the OT, no?)
Great to see you demonstrating your superior knowledge of religion by finding a few quotes out of context from Google. Way to go. In 5 min of trawling the internet you have aptly every conceivable 'flaw' in religious thought. Here, have a cookie.
-
LOL^ ^ You really liven this place up
-
Yitzl, if your food is in liable to go bad, couldn't you give some away?
enwiabe: I sent you 2 civil PMs regarding my username. Please reply, or I'll assume you haven't seen them
-
Yitzl, if your food is in liable to go bad, couldn't you give some away?
Well yeh, you can do anything other than close the fridge. We actually have two fridges at home, so when that happened to one of ours, we just put the food in the other one (which has the light turned off pernamently.)
-
I'm curious, why can't you turn off the light?
-
I'm curious, why can't you turn off the light?
The Torah forbids doing work on shabbat. The Rabbis list the 39 types of labour that are included in this prohibition, one of which is extingnuishing a fire. Closing the fridge would cause the light to turn off, and that is considered to be extingnuishing the 'fire' that is present in the filament.
-
Actually, Hitler never considered Judaism a race. But whatever dude
-
Actually, Hitler never considered Judaism a race. But whatever dude
Actually white nationalism and nazism are the most notorious proponents of racial theories in history. Do you need me to post a link to the text of the Nuremburg Laws, or will you concede on this point?
-
He claimed that Jews were agents of the faith and not actually a race in themselves. The Nuremburg Laws never referred to them as a race.
-
sigh.
He claimed that Jews were agents of the faith and not actually a race in themselves. The Nuremburg Laws never referred to them as a race.
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007695
The Nuremberg Laws, as they became known, did not define a "Jew" as someone with particular religious beliefs. Instead, anyone who had three or four Jewish grandparents was defined as a Jew, regardless of whether that individual identified himself or herself as a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community.
-
And my point still stands. Jews were still not defined as a race. He wanted to rid Germany completely of the Jewish faith, so he defined a Jew as someone with three of four Jewish grandparents
-
And my point still stands. Jews were still not defined as a race. He wanted to rid Germany completely of the Jewish faith, so he defined a Jew as someone with three of four Jewish grandparents
lol - thank you for proving my point. In my readings of Mein Kampf, I discovered that other than 900 pages of insane ramblings, the entire book is one long rant/diatribe against what Hitler sees as the "evil Jewish race"
Whereas faith/religion is a personal decision that anyone can take up, one's race is immutable, as it biologically extends to your grandparents and beyond.
Hitler saw Jews as the only people opposing his delusions of a crazed Aryan master-race empire. Imagined race politics were at the very centre of Hitler's antagonism and crazy delusion of grandeur. Taking Jesse Owens as a prime example. . .
-
And if you took up Judaism under Nazi Germany, you would be killed as well.
Absolutely, there are biological elements involved in the laws. But there are also large traditional and cultural values involved which I believe what he was aiming for. Judaism was (or is) a belief which is predominantly passed down from generations, correct?
I'm not saying he wasn't a racist as he definitely was as you pointed out with Jesse Owens.
But fine, you win. I will be gone for a while. I've had fun dude
-
And if you took up Judaism under Nazi Germany, you would be killed as well.
This is purely hypothetical as it never happened.
Hitler's vendetta is predominantly (and erroneously) racially based. Because as you state correctly, one's 'Jewishness' is predicated upon factors other than belief.
-
Relevant, I guess:
Arab and African nations succeeded Tuesday in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.
...
But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis."
-
Seriously, what the hell. How does everything turn into a religion debate.
-
Seriously, what the hell. How does everything turn into a religion debate.
+1. My head hurts...
-
Frankly, I see it as an improvement. It used to be that every debate turned into rants in regard to libertarianism.