Please don’t apologize. You’ve got nothing to apologize for. I am not making the claim that this is somehow a character flaw of yours. You believe what you believe and you are willing to support your position. I admire that about people (in most cases) because at the very minimum I can understand what drives them and what they stand for.
As for your openness to debate, I’m sure you have come across plenty of people on this board who use it simply as a soapbox for spouting their views and who are not even remotely interested in open debate. Their inflexibility does not seem in any way to preclude them from being here. I certainly am not accusing you of this. I am simply saying that you have very strong convictions (again, a good thing in general) which you sometimes try to hide behind a thin veil or reserve. Perhaps it’s your trained attempt at humility. I don’t know.
But I believe it was in that same thread (and we agreed on this) that people certainly were within their right to make judgements about others. After all, isn’t that why we have the legal system - to make judgements about the actions of others before G-d gets a chance to have His final say on the subject.
Revealing of what? I guess it all depends on what you expect to be revealed, right? I expect Mr. Lieberman to reveal that he is a politician of some skill and a man of some intellect. To prove it, he may have to work on the sabbath and I am willing to overlook that transgression. I sense that you will be looking more sharply for his sabbath transgressions and say that he has chosen to conform to society and thus failed his first obligation to his orthodox jewish roots; his political performance being a secondary issue. Since you seem to be a republican w.r.t. your political leaning, I suspect that him being a democrat will not curry much favour with you either ;).
When evaluating specific issues, yes. When passing judgment on a person, no, because there are just too many facets of a human being for another human being to correctly judge.
Revealing of to what degree he’s willing to compromise (or not compromise…hey, he hasn’t done it yet, innocent until proven guilty…) his convictions (those that he claimed to hold prior to running for higher office) in order to obtain that higher office. How much or little he’s willing to compromise them says something to me about how important they are in his life.
I’m certainly not going to deny that (although what does “w.r.t.” stand for?). My political coming-of-age was at a time when what I saw of the Democratic Party, both nationally and locally (in New York City), was less than flattering, and it’s an impression that has colored my view of it ever since. However, he’s certainly one of the more conservative Democrats, and if he were on top of the ticket, I quite likely would consider him a better bet than W (assuming that the kind of platform he ran on would reflect his voting record as a Senator). However, since I’m not expecting Al Gore to keel over any time within the next four years, his presence on the ticket isn’t much of an influence on my November intentions in any case.
And re-reading my earlier post I think I should stop practicing amateur psychology via the internet chat forums. I’ll quit pestering you now… thanks for being a good sport. Shalom.
That is exactly the issue which I am trying to get to the bottom of.
If he maintains his orthodoxy but as a result fails to serve the people to the best of his abilities he will remain a good jew but a poor public servant. In such a scenario will he have satisfied your expectations? Can we possibly expect him to maintain the strict Jewish Orthodox standard of living in the demanding, mostly secular world of American/World politics? Are we (meaning you, sorry ;)) being fair in setting these expectations of him given that we live in country where jewish interests are only a small minority compared to the various other interests he must also attempt to serve and satisfy?
Finally, given that he is running for the US vice presidency and not for rabbinical council, ought we (again, you) judge him based on his jewish or political political merrits?
Rambam and the Shulhan Arukh both rule (following the explicit statements of R. Yaakov and R. Shmuel bar Nahmani in the name of R. Yohanan in Ketubot 5a) that it is permissible to oversee public affairs on Shabbat, even going to the theatres and palaces of non-Jews to do so, if that is necessary.
Personally, I think that how fastly a man holds to his stated convictions is the face of the temptations of power and/or money is a significant barometer of how principled he will be when faced with big decisions. And if amongst his stated convictions is belief in the Orthodox Jewish religion, that’s icluded too.
I can’t speak for Orthodoxy, of course, but I think the relevant quotation is something like, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Whilst there are some matters regarding things like Sabbath observance that are pretty cut-and-dried, there are other matters that are a matter of personal choice and decision. The ruling that one should fast on Yom Kippur, for example, is abrogated in matters of health; and I have always heard the quote that if 99 doctors rule that a person may fast and one doctor rules that the person should not fast, that the one doctor outvotes the other 99. This is to say that there are matters of personal choice in some things.
I have a cousin who is a member of an Orthodox Synagogue, but is not Sabbath-observant. Does that make him not Orthodox? or does that mean that he chooses some compromise in his practice of Orthodoxy?
I guess I would take the opposite pole from CMKeller on this one. I would praise a person for what he does observe, rather than condemn him for what he doesn’t observe.
Someone raised the question about kosher food. In the diplomatic world, there are all sorts of people with all sorts of dietary restrictions. When a dignitary comes to visit, say, a President or Prime Minister, the staff sees to it that any individual circumstances are respected. They must deal with Moslem dietary requirements, with vegetarians, with people who don’t use forks, with visiting ambassadors on a low-salt diet or who are allergic to canteloups. Being able to provide a U.S. Vice President with a kosher meal would not be any more difficult than any other diet restrictions.
Seems to me that these questions of whether a person can follow his religion while in office all have a very appalling under-tone. For years and years, Presidents and Vice Presidents have attended Church on Sunday morning, and no one has worried that they might miss a major event by being at Church. No one has worried that they might spend Christmas Eve with their families and be unable to perform their duties. We had a Catholic President once, and no one asked whether he would be able to meet foreign dignitaries if he had to eat fish on Friday.
Are we setting an awkward vice-precedent? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I’m not sure how, but somehow I missed this thread.
First of all, it is important to note that significant religious authorities, including the Vilna Gaon, have emphasized that covering ones head is of lesser halachic significance, than for example, the often ignored, but technically more significant, prohibition of walking fully upright. I’m not saying that Joe Lieberman is following the Vilna Gaon or the Maharshal, but it doesn’t hurt.
Secondly, I believe I have read that there were certain halachic permissions given to those who for work reasons were not supposed to wear head coverings. A lot of the obligation to cover ones head was specifically in a society where even the non-Jews did, and in todays society there can be some room for leniency.
Thirdly, even Israel today has a president who is Orthodox in practice, but like Joe Lieberman, only covers his head during prayers.
But I think the most important approach is in the spirit of Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev. That is to say, wow, look, here we have someone, who doesn’t even cover his head, and yet he still keeps all these other commandments, is a worldwide example of honor, dignity and honesty, and might possibly make it to the White House!
Um…walking upright?? How do you make an extremely confused emoticon? I’m not even sure how to ask the questions that raises. Can you elaborate a little?
Back to the OP. My problem with Lieberman isn’t that he’s Jewish, but that he’s orthodox. Maybe it’s my unfamiliarity with the Jewish faith (kaddish, kippot, doven - it’s like you guys have a language all your own! ), but I tend to equate orthodox Jews with fundamentalist Christians. There’s no way I would vote for a fundamentalist Christian, or an extremely devout Roman Catholic, or ANYone who I felt was convinced they were the holder of a special truth that set them above the “heathen” rest of humanity.
That’s not to say I have a problem with spirituality in political leaders. Religion is a pretty good guide to morality (usually), or at least it can be, and an ordinary Christian, Jewish, Moslem, etc. leader is okay with me. But I see trouble with those who take religion to extremes, especially when they have the power of government behind them. Fundamentalists of any stripe scare me.
So am I off base in equating the orthodox Jews with fundamentalist Jews? Is there a difference? Do other Jews, i.e. reform, conservative, apostate, regard the orthodox sects as the analog of Christian fundamentalists? If not, why not, specifically? (Maybe this should be it’s own thread).
Hard to be sure exactly what you mean. If you’re saying anyone who feels that they are on the right path in a religious sense, than you likely would exclude most religious people, and not just fundamentalists. If you mean someone who walks around with a holier-than-thou attitude, I would suggest that this has less to do with religious affiliation, and more with personality. In fact, the attitude can be found among athiests. I would suggest that anyone who walks upright is suspect in this matter.
I assume by "fundamentalist Christians" you're referring to those who advocate prayer in public schools, want certain books removed from schools because the books offend their religious beliefs,and in general,want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. _All_ of those who identify themselves as fundamentalists do not behave in this way, and, except in the special case of abortion ( an issue about which the society as a whole is divided,and which is not entirely dependent on religious views) it's rare to see a Catholic or a Jew in the US, however devout, try to impose their strictly religious views on others. I never heard of a Catholic group trying to make birth control illegal or a Jewish group trying to pass a law making it illegal to work on the Sabbath. It's entirely possible that the reason there are no such groups is that there's no chance of success,but you also don't see Catholics or Jews advocating for prayer in school, and I think that's becausethe special situation of of these groups in a "Christian" country. Non-Catholic Christians can advocate school prayer secure in the knowledge that any such prayers will be acceptable to them, but Catholics, and Jews ( along with Muslims, Buddhists, etc ) cannot. I suspect those fundamentalist Christians would raise hell if there was school prayer and that prayer was the Hail Mary, but I don't think that possibility crosses their mind.
From the outside, I think the differences between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform look more like the differences between say, Catholics , Episcopalians and Lutherans than the difference between the Moral Majority and the Unitarians. From the inside, I’m sure it’s different, but I’ve never heard Reformed Jewish friends compare the Orthodox to Jerry Falwell types. Their complaints are usually more like " Their kids won’t talk to my kids because we’re not good enough Jews".
Then you may vote for Lieberman on that score without a qualm (although there are other grounds on which I recommend doing so…that, however, is another thread). It is generally conceded among Jews that non-Jews are not bound by the Halakhah. Whatever religious strictures Lieberman may feel bind him and his landsmen, they don’t apply to the goyim.
Re: walking upright; thanks IzzyR. See, to a biologist “walking upright” is usually contrasted with something like “knuckle walking”. I was pretty sure that wasn’t what was meant! So your explanation makes sense. Is there a specific practice that is associated with forebearing from “walking upright”, or is it up to the interpretation of the observer?
As to the rest, I guess I should have been clearer about what I meant by (and object to in) fundamentalists. What I was trying to express is my distaste for those who feel that people who follow other creeds than their own are inherently morally inferior. I’ve seen it in Christians and Jews both, including, Akatsukami, a few Jews who don’t expect goyim to be bound by Jewsih religious law, or “live up to their standards” as they would put it if I weren’t within hearing. While the Jews have not actively sought to legislate morality on the public (they hardly have the numbers), some extreme-Christian groups with political power have more or less explored trying to do exactly this. I don’t think they do it as a form of proselytizing or forcing their religion on others per se, it just comes from the simple yet absolute conviction that THEIR interpretation of morality was the right one even if large segments of the public (subtext: including those morally inferior NON-extreme-Christian groups) didn’t hold that interpretation.
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but … oh, what the hell, maybe I’ll just go ahead and do it anyhow. You don’t know where I live :). Everyone already knows I don’t think much of religion, so… My impression of the (admittedly few) orthodox Jews I’ve spoken to is that they had the Jewish equivalent of this righteous conviction, tending to sanctimony, that I object to in the fundies. Putting the weight of government behind that attitude is objectionable to me, whatever the specifics of the faith in question. But I admit I haven’t met many orthodox Jews, and maybe as Izzy says it was more the individual personalities than the sect itself.
Maybe I should give a specific example. If a bill was introduced to have an ecumenical prayer to God, asking his blessing on the day, in public schools, do you think Lieberman would be inclined as an orthodox Jew to support such a measure?
I believe another reason Lieberman does not wear a yarmulka in public has to do with the the way people percieve him. He does not want people seeing his religion when they meet him but rather just another guy. I can personally understand it. People see a yarmulka and automatically assume things of you. Sometimes you receive respect but other times people think they can pass things by you and you won’t understand what they mean. Not wearing a yarmulka allows him to present himself without anybody making any assumptions.
Forget about antisemitism and about jewishness. A guy who believes it is wrong to ride a car or use machinery on given day of the week is nuts (in my book at least). I would rather vote for someone with a more rational view of the world. Someone who had priorities more “normal”, who can use an airplane on saturday if he has a meeting on Sunday.
If I were hiring someone and he had views (religious or otherwise) that might interfere with his duties, I would choose someone else. That is not being anti-anything. He is free to believe whatever he wants and I am free to hire someone else.
My favorite candidate would be a-religious (meaning no religion) but I guess that is kind of unlikely given the amount of religious superstition still around. My next best candidate can be nominally anything but his first priority is his job and religion is way back down there.
So, sailor, in all those States and Counties with “Blue laws” that prohibit certain sales, etc on Sunday, you pracrice civil disobience? In those state where it is illegal to sell tires 9 or saocks) on a Sunday, do you frose the clerk to sell to you?
As long as Lieberman’s faith does not get in the way of the nessesary performance of his duties, and it does not sound like it will, I have no problem.
In fact, Lieberman might perform a valuable task by reminding the “Religous Right” that we have religions other than THEIRS. In fact, the more i think about it, the more i like it. I can just see some “RR” “fundie” demanding the “Lords Prayer” or something be posted in schoolromms, and L reminding him that that is not part of HIS “family values”. <chuckle>
APB: No, Orthodox Jews are not like the “Fundies”. There are a few Jewish “sects”, or perhaps the “ultra-orthodox” that come very close, perhaps. But L is rather to the Conservative side of Orthodoxy, from what I have seen/read.
), but I tend to equate orthodox Jews with fundamentalist Christians. There’s no way I would vote for a fundamentalist Christian, or an extremely devout Roman Catholic, or ANYone who I felt was convinced they were the holder of a special truth that set them above the “heathen” rest of humanity.