park slope eruv

doublediamond · September 2006

brooklynpotter wrote:
perhaps if you're all bored later you can come by and feel my head to see if i have horns. if i do, you can drop my karma points even further

brooklynpotter wrote: ok, i gotta say this (and watch the karma drops...): you guys are being shitheads about this.

brooklynpotter wrote: and i find your comparison between jewish laws that nobody but the religious are forced to follow, to the political power of the christian right or to the raping of girls in utah or to the large handful of muslim fundamentalists who seek to destroy us to be, frankly, terribly anti-semitic.

brooklynpotter wrote: you want to criticize? go ahead. i never said you shouldn't criticize. or be curious and wonder and ask questions and form opinions. but your metaphor was disgusting.

Your responses are out of hand to what's being said. To say that kensignton mom is anti-semitic because she's criticizing and stating that orthodox judiasm is a fundamentalist religion is out of control. Kensingtonmom displayed no anti-semitism in her posts and in stating her opinion. Because you vehemently disagree with her doesn't make her opinion invalid or her prejudice against Jews.

And since you're providing a lot of cultural/religious information on this thread, please be aware that the term "shiksa" that you called yourself is a racial and ethnic slur (even though you're using it against yourself). The term derives from the Hebrew verb shakaytz meaning to abominate or loathe an unclean thing. At the most basic, the term means a non-Jewish, sexually available female on the make for a Jewish man. (I'm loosely quoting Christine Benvento who wrote a book on gentile women in the bible and in Judaism).

brooklynpotter · September 2006

doublediamond wrote:

Your responses are out of hand to what's being said. To say that kensignton mom is anti-semitic because she's criticizing and stating that orthodox judiasm is a fundamentalist religion is out of control. Kensingtonmom displayed no anti-semitism in her posts and in stating her opinion. Because you vehemently disagree with her doesn't make her opinion invalid or her prejudice against Jews.

And since you're providing a lot of cultural/religious information on this thread, please be aware that the term "shiksa" that you called yourself is a racial and ethnic slur (even though you're using it against yourself). The term derives from the Hebrew verb shakaytz meaning to abominate or loathe an unclean thing. At the most basic, the term means a non-Jewish, sexually available female on the make for a Jewish man. (I'm loosely quoting Christine Benvento who wrote a book on gentile women in the bible and in Judaism).

perhaps this is why my karma points are dropping into negative digits.

i believe that kmom's attitude about comparing women covering their heads to women being forced to wear burka was out of line. to me, i think that's prejudiced. (and kmom, i'm not getting into it right now with you, just referring the situation to dd)

as for using the word shiksa, i was referring the post above mine, written by flexi, who called herself a shiksa. i am not a shiksa, i am a non-practicing secular jew/atheist.

please do not attempt to educate me about judaism and the meanings of yiddush expressions. trust me when i tell you it won't be pretty.

doublediamond · September 2006

brooklynpotter wrote:
please do not attempt to educate me about judaism and the meanings of yiddush expressions. trust me when i tell you it won't be pretty.

There's nothing more for me to say to you. You've proven my points. Your attitude towards others is ugly.

apollonia666 · September 2006

brooklynpotter wrote:
perhaps this is why my karma points are dropping into negative digits.
...
please do not attempt to educate me about judaism and the meanings of yiddush expressions. trust me when i tell you it won't be pretty.

Maybe reacting so harshly when someone disagrees with you in a civil fashion -- which I think Doublediamond was trying to do -- is indeed responsible. Or maybe it's that you've already made 800 references to your negative karma rating. Or both.

Really, there's no need to get so nasty about it.

raw · September 2006

Don't all current extreme religions oppress women?

anonymous · September 2006

Covering your head to me seems respectful--it seems many religions ask their participants to cover their heads in a house of worship. No problem. but when there is a double standard--women completely covered in hot black polyester because their body is the property of their husband, (as I see over here in Kton), or Orthodox women in hot polyester wigs because their beautiful hair is the property of their husbands--I guess I am not really seeing why any liberated woman would defend that?? And many women who are veiled and even wearing burkas are professionals too. They have careers and education as long as they don't interact with men who might desire them--it seems to me along the same continuum.

To me, if rules made 2000 years ago aren't working in modern enlightened society, maybe it is time to relook at the rules instead of making hypocritical ways to get around the rules. Or else, follow them.

I do resent being labeled an anti-semite for not agreeing with fundamentalism. That just ends any dialogue and seems very paranoid.

whyfi · September 2006

brooklynpotter wrote: ok, i gotta say this (and watch the karma drops...): you guys are being shitheads about this.

Care to qualify this? I asked a question out of pure curiosity, and yet I feel that I'm being lumped in to the 'shithead' category by you...

brooklynpotter · September 2006

WhyFi wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter]ok, i gotta say this (and watch the karma drops...): you guys are being shitheads about this.

Care to qualify this? I asked a question out of pure curiosity, and yet I feel that I'm being lumped in to the 'shithead' category by you...

i never meant to say that you, whyfi, were a shithead. i'm sorry if i gave you that impression.

i'm pretty much done with this thread. i don't like the turn it took, i don't like being told my attitude towards other people is "ugly".

again, k mom, you don't like fundamentalists that's fine. neither do i. i personally think that equating a head-covering with a burka (something you could be killed or publically stoned for not wearing) to be a very disturbing comparison. perhaps we have different ideas about women forced to wear burka.

regardless, i wanted to know where the eruv was. all of a sudden the fact that there's an eruv here makes it open season to say all kinds of things that feel very, very biased.

perhaps they're not meant to be biased when you say them, but that's how they come through.

raw · September 2006

This eruv squabble is taxing. CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we move on to a less querulous conversation, like whether or not the Food Co-Op sucks?

anonymous · September 2006

brooklynpotter wrote: perhaps they're not meant to be biased when you say them, but that's how they come through.

O.K. I guess I have nothing new to add except OF COURSE I mean to be biased!!!! I am not interested in being politically correct but expressing what I perceive to be the truth based on some reading and logic (not just the gut like W). I really didn't mean to upset brooklynpotter so much but I absolutely worry that World War III is being started by fundamentalists from our nutty born again christian president, to fanatical fundamentalist muslims to dare I say it, the extremist fundamentalist orthodox. Crap I have two sons!!

And finally I just read a great book by Jon Kraukauer called Under the Banner of Heaven about the murder committed by two fundamentalist mormons in Utah sanctioned by their god. But the book really talks not only about the beginning of Mormonism (which in itself is fascinating to see how a major religioun develops) but also about the extremes in all the religions. It is a great read.

theoryofpractice · September 2006

apollonia666 wrote: I gotta say, this has been one of the most educational threads I've seen in a while! It reminded me of a website I came across at least three of four years ago, written by a Hasidic rabbi, with an FAQ on Hasidim (just one subset of Orthodox, I know, but in case you're curious...) and tons of links for further exploration, so I did some Googling and it turns out the site's still up:

http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/hasid1.html

Might take a while for the page to load, but it's really fascinating, and the rabbi who maintains the site has a really accessible way of explaining things and sounds like a really nice, funny guy. Thought y'all might want to check it out.

That link was great -- thanks!

kewell · September 2006

xxxxxxxx

idlewild · September 2006

What everyone should understand about religious law is that alot of it has changed from the original meaning over the years. Judaic law is close to being 5,000 years old. Older realy before Jews were monotheists. Over the years interpretation gives in to heavy editing, whether adding rules or taking away rules, to the tribe/sect that adapts to a specific law or customr. Satmars may have different customs on eruv than Sephardics because situations in Rumania are different than in Spain. Both have totally different customs from Jews living in Ethiopia and Yemen. Islamic law, Christian theory, Buddism, all are practiced somewhat differently depending what sect you belong to and what part of the world you live in. As far as the wig wearing goes. I think that is more custom to the area where the Jewsih sect came from rather than absolute law. It seems to be European rather than worldwide. There are Jewish women in parts of the world who do wear veils so I think the comparison to Islam is just.

doctorj · September 2006

raw wrote: Don't all current extreme religions oppress women?

Wicca might be an exception; it's fairly matriarchal.

In Rome (and earlier) there were women-only mystery cults, such as that of the Magna Mater (Cybele) but unfortunately she morphed into the Virgin Mary when the Christians rose to power.

park slope eruv

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories