You’re right that she’s not exclusively focused on homosexuality, and I withdraw the expression “mouthing off all the time.” But I maintain that if she’s going to use a term with the shocking connotations of “deviant” to describe homosexual behavior, it would be more honest, and less inflammatory, for her to provide the full context by explaining that non-procreative behavior among heterosexuals should also be so classified. I think many homosexuals would be less outraged by her if she were honest enough to do that, as they would realize that she’s not singling them out as exemplars of sexual “deviance.” Of course, many of her erstwhile heterosexual supporters would then be very upset with her.
kimstu:
I will concede that that’s true. However, I think it’s also quite likely true that her not saying it was not an intentional act of hatred or provocation, but rather, the fact that the issues in which context she raised the point were issues that homosexual-rights activists (and not “deviant heterosexual sex activists,” if, as I said, any exist) had taken the position contrary to hers, and it was for that reason that it didn’t occur to her to specify the caveat you suggest.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Awright then. Shake? 
Of course, Kimstu. Ain’t that the way?
Chaim Mattis Keller
Nice job of defusing a very controversial issue, Kimstu and Chaim!
One very quick comment, Chaim: In view of the fact that the gay community is one with a history of being victims of discrimination, does it not seem reasonable that a public figure should be much more circumspect in voicing criticism of them than, say, thirtysomething people who married in their teens, to take a noncontroversial group at random? And in view of the fact that Dr. Laura is a convert to Judaism, it seems particularly ironic. I mean, given the history of antisemitism, if I as a Christian were to raise the question of the morality of Jews (as members of a faith community, not as part of an ethnic group) in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, I would think that I would need to be far more careful in how I phrased the question than if I asked the same question about UUs. I should like to think that the same degree of courtesy would be incumbent on her in expressing her views regarding gays. And she does seem terribly judgmental in much of what she says, though as you note she is sometimes quite compassionate.
cmkeller, I want a handshake too! 
Polycarp, didn’t I raise the same issue myself a few posts above? No handshake for you! 
Arnold, my apologies. I had not opened this thread in quite a while and had a lot of reading to catch up on when I did, and the ensuing dialogue drove the fact you had made much my point completely out of my mind. I do regret it.
Chaim, addressing the post you made to Arnold’s post that raised the issues I did: from your Big Apple perspective, I’d have to suggest that while you do have a point about gay rights becoming more generally supported, there are a lot of areas where strong discrimination against gays still exists, even in New York State (don’t forget that I come from rural upstate New York). I’d venture to suggest that the American populace is about 50:50 on the issue right now, and that if you mapped the pro and con areas, the latter would be larger owing to many of the rural areas lagging in grasping the issue, somewhat stronger religiously based prejudice (in some areas and churches), and the fact that there are far fewer rural out gays.
Which, of course does not make anti-Semitism, anti-gayism, or anti-Schlessengerism right.
OK Polycar, as long as I know someone is reading my posts. 
Off many degrees from the original question, I know. I can’t stand to hear her rip people apart; it seems like such an unequal thing. Is she able to hold her own with people such as herself, who are not down on their luck and doing “well” in a career?
And WHY would people call and subject themselves to that?
While your at it…
Why do people go on daytime talk shows to air their dirty laundry in public?
People do stupid things.
Zev Steinhardt
Spider Woman:
I’m with you on this. And my wife, who used to listen fairly often, finally couldn’t put up with her anymore.
The callers are the same as the listeners. These people have heard her berate all her previous callers, and have agreed with her about all those other people. They have no reason to suspect that Dr. Laura will act the same way to them. After all, they’re the good people.
Polycarp:
I don’t know that this is true. If she is passionate about the issue in question, and her opponents are also passionate about it, a perceived lack of passion could hamper her efforts at persuading others to her point of view. I will concede that too much passion can also be counterproductive or harmful, however, it’s a fine line to walk…and it’s difficult to judge how much is too much except by results. And I don’t think that historically-discriminated-against groups should get a free pass of that sort (i.e., more muted opposition to the policies they advocate) merely because of their history. And I include Jews in that statement.
Any group that wants muted opposition had better stick to muted support. And any group that wishes to express passionate support for its positions must expect and be willing to deal with passionate opposition. No exceptions.
Arnold:
Oh, didn’t I tell you that comes free with the Mazel Tov on the upcoming wedding? All kidding aside, handshakes all around.
Polycarp reprise:
I don’t deny that there are still much anti-gay prejudice in our society. I haven’t forgotten the death of Matthew Shepard (sp?). Nonetheless, it is (IMHO) far below the level at which violence is so easily encouraged. Heck, even the guys who beat up and killed Shepard did it only under the influence of alcohol. That doesn’t excuse them, but it makes the point that today’s society at large does not view such things as acceptable (as, say, society in the Southern USA did of blacks and Jews back in the days of more frequent KKK lynchings), and that even hard-core bigots, who, uninhibited by drink, could be driven to kill a gay man, would quite likely have not done so had they been operating in complete sobriety.
Spider Woman:
Same reason people read Dear Abby or Ann Landers. Or, for that matter, read many works of fiction. Other peoples’ problems and the solutions offered for those problems are interesting to hear.
She’s appeared in other forums to debate issues. She writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column, as well as several bestselling books. Her show is based on a specific format, but her abilities hold up quite well outside of it. The beef her detractors have with her are a) her moral beliefs, with which they disagree, and b) her “bedside manner.” To imply a lack of intelligence or ability (and to doubt her stated credentials with no basis whatsoever for doubt, as some in the earlier parts of this thread have done) is both unfair and untrue.
Because those who do so agree with her moral system and respect her advice as an example of clear reasoning (according to that moral system). Clearly most people on this board disagree with her on most of those issues, but those who call her program don’t.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller:
Just to reiterate, there are two separate issues. You can agree with her moral position on most or all issues, and still find her treatment of her callers meanspirited and unpleasant.
**
But it doesn’t make that function the only purpose.
That doesn’t even make sense. Many mammals do not and cannot mate when the female is not in estrus. That is, they do not and cannot mate when it is impossible for that mating to result in a pregnancy. If the female has her internal reproductive organs removed she will never mate at all. This can have nothing to do with arranging for the young to be born at the correct time, as mating when the female is not fertile would not result in a pregnancy anyway.
Just my speculation, or do you include your speculation in that as well?
IzzyR:
Possibly, but those who agree with her to the point of calling would probably say that, to the end of promoting morality, the “unpleasantness” is justified. So to callers, the issue is probably not seperate.
Lamia:
I gave you my definition of “purpose:” the function that makes it indispensable to the operation of the entity in question. By that definition, it is. What is your definition?
So perhaps (in the evolutionary model) nature had previously selected for males which only mate when the female is in heat. Perhaps it’s an issue of the male conserving its strength for foraging. I don’t know for certain, but my point was that the fact that humans are capable of copulating at any time they want does not necessarily imply that there are purposes to reproductive organs other than reproduction. Functions, yes. Purposes, no.
Mine as well. I never presented my speculation of the “seasonal mating” thing as a proof that it is true.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Ok, folks, the entire issue of whether or not being gaty is natural is totally off topic. We always go down that road, but that is not the issue her, as a “good jew” must beleive that Gay sex is an adbomination, so thus Lauras dissing the gays does not make her a bad jew.
But let us go back to that judging stuff. I have posted verses from the Torah and the Talmud which show that you should be careful how you judge, and be careful who you judge. And that you should not hate,or be a talebearer, or bear grudges. Now, you are allowed to "rebuke’ your sinning neighbor, but it seems to me that in order to do that you must be very sure of what he is doing, that what he is doing is a sin, and that you must do so without hate, and not publicly. Now, somebody tells Laura a 5 minute story about their freind, or child, or spouse, and laura immediately decides (without hearing the other side) that that person is an evil sinner, who must be stopped, and does so with so much vituperation that she clearly has hate for those who commit certain sins.
So: She hates, she is a talebearer, she bears grudges against certain groups, and she cannot possibly be sure of her judgements. Thus, she is not following the Law.
Is there some inherent absolute that states that 1 must be placed to the left of 2 and to the right of 0 in order to make sense on a number line? Does it work the same way in Arabic? and Hebrew? and Chinese? and … ?
So no one in Europe understood that two was twice as much as one, until the 10th century when Zero was imported? And they still managed to maintain an economic system. Astounding! (“I’ll trade you one sheep for one bushel of wheat. That’s the going rate around here.” “Well, I really need two bushels of wheat. So I’ll trade you one sheep for two bushels of wheat.” “Well, that’s the same thing now, isn’t it? OK, we’ve got a deal!”)
You don’t need zero to understand that two is more than one. You don’t even need zero to understand that two is twice as much as one.
=======================================
Many persons of conservative religious belief would (and have) state that their morals are better than mine. They claim that this is because their morals are based on a absolute standard (i.e., proclaimed by their deity of choice). But the fact of the matter is, they have chosen to believe that their moral standard is absolute. There is no evidence or proof that this is the case.
Obviously, I believe that my moral standards are better than theirs (PoCRB), or I would change to using their moral standard. However, I don’t claim that mine are better because mine are based on some imaginary ‘absolute standard of morals’. (And before you ask: if you want to know on what I base my claim, plan to spend a few hours/days in discussion. )
Those same persons will claim that their morals are better than those of Wiccans, because theirs (PoCRB) are based on an absolute standard. They simply ignore the fact that the Wiccan moral standard is also based on an absolute standard (i.e., Wiccan Rede). Now, who gets to pick which absolute standard is correct? Where do you find the ‘absolute absolute standard’?
A claim that there is some identifiable absolute standard, made without any outside evidence of such, always devolves to this sort of circular reasoning. “My standard is best because it’s based on an absolute fixed standard. I know that that is an absolute fixed standard because it is the best standard and because (fill in method of choice) said so.”
A concrete example: All of the major (and minor, so far as I know) religous/philosophical/moral/ethical systems agree that murder is wrong. Peachy, that’s an absolute standard. Now, define ‘murder’. Let’s define murder as the killing of innocents (pretty standard definition). Now, define ‘innocent’. Review your history for the various definitions of ‘innocent’ used to approve and even sanctify what, from our perspective, was the murder of innocents.
So, even when we have something that we can hold up as an ‘absolute standard’, the meaning of that ‘standard’ changes from society to society, from place to place, from era to era. In effect, there is no absolute standard at all.
===================================================
Back to the OP…
Does MetallicAsh’s statement qualify to to exclude Dr. Laura from the ranks of the ‘good Jews’? If not, why not?
[aside] Threadkiller??? Hah! It should be so easy… [/aside]
How about DanielitWD’s Torah verses and interpretation thereof? Does that qualify? If not, why not?
=====================================================
Discuss and Enjoy!
Danielinthewolvesden:
You raise some good points. I have to say, though, that after looking up some of the laws that you referred to, I have come away surprised at how strictly she has not violated Torah law! To run down your list:
Hatred: There are two categories of hatred that is forbidden: Baseless hatred, and “hating someone in your heart.” The first does not preclude hatred with a reason, such as a perception of sin; the second says that you cannot hate someone in your heart while pretending outwardly that you don’t hate him. I think it’s safe to say that if you’re hearing it on the radio, it’s not hidden within her heart.
Talebearing: That law only applies when you name the person you’re telling tales about, and if the information is not already in the public domain (defined in Jewish law as having been told to three people). Articles she reads and/or people she criticizes in her monologues she gets from public-domain sources; her callers remain anonymous.
Bearing Grudges: The prohibition against bearing grudges means not holding past offenses against someone when that person asks for a favor. This doesn’t apply to the radio program at all.
Judgement without certainty: You quote two passages from Tractate Avos on this one. The one about being deliberate in judgement is intended for genuine judges, whose judgements genuinely affect peoples’ lives. No one is forced to follow her advice unless they wish to. The one about judging people favorably does not apply to the anonymous, see the talebearing bit.
Now, I’ll grant that a truly pious person might very well act differently, e.g., to not judge people based on 5-minute stories even when their judgments do not have genuine power. However, the “unpious” are not necessarily sinners.
But, I must commend you on an excellent argument. It took me some research to determine that it does seem as if Dr. Laura sticks to the details of the law. Needless to say, whether or not she keeps in the “spirit” of the law, and whether or not she is a good Jew in general, is something only G-d could say for certain.
redtail23:
Now, now. The concept of Zero that the Arabs originated was not the idea of nothingness; every culture understands the quantity that zero represents. It was the idea of using a digit to represent nothingness as a placeholder in mathematical calculations, thus allowing the use of ten digits, repeated, for expression of quantities. Prior to that, quantities were expressed as additions of smaller quantities, e.g., 101 = C (100) + I (1), not one in the hundreds column, one in the units column, and zero in the tens column.
Two is twice as far from zero (or, if you prefer, nothingness) as one. No matter how you cut it, you need a starting point, or else, your measurement/comparison system is meaningless.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Redtail23: Ive been trying to say what you’ve said all week. His definition of an absolute standard was lacking and therefore I did not comment upon it preferring to give up before I started banging my head against a wall.
And before you jump in cmkeller, you did note that you used a mythological example to answer my question. No such society exists(ed), proving (to me at least) that it occurred pretty much as I stated. A little over time, evolving, ie relative.
cmkeller: *The concept of Zero that the Arabs originated was not the idea of nothingness; every culture understands the quantity that zero represents. It was the idea of using a digit to represent nothingness as a placeholder in mathematical calculations, thus allowing the use of ten digits, repeated, for expression of quantities. *
The Arabs didn’t “originate” this, they got it from the Indians.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. Thank you.