No return to the closet [HYPER MEGA PUKE ALERT]

Rabbi Akiva preferred 'love your neighbor as yourself' over the 'abomination' of homosexual sex

I write to you as a secular Jew, with a deep respect for you and your beliefs. But only when that respect is mutual. My principles, morals and my way of life are as important to me as Jewish law is to you. I feel no inferiority, need to apologize or discomfort with my "partial" Judaism.

My cart is not empty, and my beliefs are well reasoned and crystallized. They are called secular, liberal humanism. I have written these lines in a spirit of pleasantness and manners. I hope they are received in the same way.

I understand your anger and pain over the Gay Pride parade planned next month for Jerusalem. It is clear to me why it is difficult for you to see homosexuals and lesbians, alongside their straight supporters, marching through the holy city with their heads held high. I know you find kissing and hugging in public offensive, especially between members of the same sex, and I appreciate that it stands in contrast to your beliefs. Still, allow me to tell you why in the long run you are fighting a losing battle.

There is no way to turn back the clock. The values of a liberal society cannot be folded up and returned to the historical closet, unless we are willing to dismantle all of modern Israel society. Most Israelis would be unwilling to pay this price.

The fight against homosexual public legitimacy is lost, just like the fight against bare-shouldered women, bare-headed men and heterosexual couples walking arm-in-arm in public. Your fight is destined to fail, just like you failed to censure expressions of sexuality in the Israeli media and art and literature and film.

You have no hope, just like you had no hope when you tried to silence or scare or re-educate thousands of people with a wide variety of opinions from gaining public voice.

No longer will the multi-faceted Israeli society be channeled or disciplined, and the more society matures, the more faces it acquires. To me, this is a good thing, but even without my opinion, this is how liberal societies develop in the modern world. No one can beat a pluralistic society into an Orthodox template. Plenty of 20th century totalitarian regimes tried and failed, not before spilling huge amounts of blood.

Every free society now recognizes, on both a legal and societal level, the ability of each individual to express his sexuality openly, in addition to his political opinions and other preferences, as long as they do not physically harm others or present a clear danger to public safety.

I'll tell you something tough, but it's not something I created. The Bible itself, in the Book of Chronicles, says it is forbidden to hurt another person, but we are permitted to hurt other people's feelings. Essentially, it says we have no choice but to offend others: There is no way to express an opinion without offending someone else, and there is no personal freedom without freedom of speech, and there is no democracy without personal freedom, and there is no modern, functioning society that is not democratic. Therefore, until we find a better recipe, voices must not be silenced, and hands must not be tied of those whose actions upset others.

But why must we march with our heads held high, ask "moderate religious people" and "enlightened secularists" alike. Even more, they want to know what these homosexuals and lesbians have to be proud about. I will propose several answers.

First of all is the principle of equality. Every person has the right to express his sexual identity in public, within normative limits of general society. If straights have this right, gays do, too. That which the former seek to forbid to the latter should be forbidden to the former as well.

The sight of two men kissing makes you sick, you say? So sorry to offend. I, for example, feel nauseous when I read the talkbacks to articles on this website that curse me and those like me, and those who aren't like me. It is nauseating, offensive and repulsive, and to me it is also a blow to a society's dignity, but it is also legal and legitimate and stems from the principles of free speech and individual freedom and democracy. Insults are a small price to pay, in my opinion, for living in a free society.

Secondly, what does "pride" mean? The literal Hebrew phrase for the homosexual community means "the proud ones," and there is a secret to their pride. It is a pride that pursues you, the pride of the outcast and the pride of the scorned. Allow every person to love who and how they want, and no one will feel the need to hang their pride out in the open.

Or the opposite: Let all lovers take pride, and let all haters be ashamed. Thus, love will be increased in the world. They say there isn't enough.

And what will happen to Jerusalem, our holy city, and to Israel, a country whose Jewish nature takes precedence over its democratic nature to many? Will the homosexuals and their supporters defile the holy, or will they remind Jerusalem that all people were created in the image of God? Both are written in the book of Leviticus, which commands, "you should not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), but also says, " You should not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you should love your neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord" (ibid 19:18).

These are two faces of Judaism, and sometimes we must make choices. There was once a great humanist called Akiva, who chose the command to love others, and said it was the Torah's greatest principle. But has Orthodox Judaism chosen to abandon the command to love others?

It is not my intention to bait you. Many of you are disgusted by the sight of a secular Jew preaching moral lessons from the Torah and Talmud (this should really have made you happy) (even if you could have been happy about it). But I ask you, humbly and respectfully, to think again about your beliefs and to examine your ethical priorities. What do you do when two Torah commands contradict one another?

I assume that the fury and the threats will work, and that the pride march will not take place this year in Jerusalem. I assume a violent man will commit the sort of crime prohibited by the ten commandments (which, by the way, don't prohibit homosexual sex).

These two options will be very bad for Israeli society, for us, for our humanity and for our Judaism. So shout out. Protest. Hold a counter-protest. Try to get a democratic majority to change the law. And if you offend my liberal, secular senses, so be it. Those are the rules of the game.

And as far as the Torah is concerned, listen respectfully. But remember that all the Torah's paths are pleasant, and all the Torah's roads are peace.

Dr. Fania Oz-Salzberger is a senior lecturer at Haifa University and the head of the Posen Forum for political thought

All our modern pathologies stem from the psychotic pursuit of an "objective morality" apart from the decrees of the Creator. To a Thenomic positivist (for whom "morality" simply means "regulation by Divine decree") any appeal to "justice," "morality," "tolerance," "peace," "democracy," etc., by non-Theists are simply square circles. And since right and wrong are determined by G-d's decrees, neither can a Theonomic positivist be shamed by references to slavery, holy wars, or anything else whatsoever. What is just, right, and moral is by G-d's decrees and are not subject to critique from eighteenth century rationalist philosophies (or from anything else).

Communism's great error is not its collectivism or even its mass murders, but simply its insistence that an objective morality can exist in the absence of G-d. This means that there is no real difference at all between Marxists and the atheist Randians (many of whom are members of this forum). It is the positing of an "objective morality" apart from HaShem that is the source of all our troubles.

Do these secular, anti-religious Jews ever consider the possibility that HaShem, the Jealous G-d of Israel Who commanded Israel's wars of old, just might actually exist and might still be G-d? Why are secularists the only people on earth who never face gnawing doubts about their fundamental assumptions?

May Mashiach HaMelekh come immediately, and may he turn back the clock 3300 years! And when the time arrives, may HaShem turn back the clock to Gan `Eiden!

"There is no way to turn back the clock."

The motto of moral (so-called) relativists, as though the passing of time automatically confers desired, and inevitable, progress and advancement of civilization.

For some reason atheists, who adamantly insist that there is no design or teleology in nature, insist on seeing it in history. History is "a budding rose unfolding," working its way upward, upward, ever upward (never any reverse currents) to absolute justice and perfection. It's not just the idea of the "inevitablilty" of the historical outcome that so puzzles me--it's its supposed inherent morality. Although there is no Programmer, human history is somehow programmed to end in perfection. All the protestations of belief in randomness ring hollow in the moral fury of people who believe the progress of history is being "thwarted."

Perhaps the answer lies in Hegel. Herr Hegel was some sort of pantheist who believed the world was creating G-d. Is there any other way to understand the fanatical moralism and teleology of the "atheists?"

Well put. It reminds me of a "discussion" I've been dabbling in with a homosexual agenda promoter yesterday (on FR). I pointed out that anyone who espouses moral relativism [sic] is not only a hypocrite, but the very tenets of moral relativism are found on and permeated with hypocrisy. If they really believed that there are no moral absolutes, they'd be perfectly happy that others see things differently. It'd be no skin off their nose.

But your point about the supposed perfection of evolving civilization, while they deny any Creator or divine planner, is another very telling example of their insane hypocrisy. They are actually psychotic - to believe that which is so profoundly not so.

... it is difficult for you to see homosexuals and lesbians, alongside their straight supporters, marching through the holy city with their heads held high...

Only imbecilic "straights" support homosexuality and their perverted satanic agenda for America and the world!

Why would their heads be held high?

They achieve their filthy orgasms in a way that is condemned by God and radically opposed to the Ten Commandments.

Further, they spread deadly disease amongst themselves and the rest of the populace with reckless abandon.

When one examines the world's serial killers one finds that the large marjority are committed by homosexuals.

They prey on little boys. They want their filthy hands on our children and grandchildren.

They are the shame of polite society and have become a disgrace to humanity!

Unfortunately, the word "gay" is most certainly misplaced when applied to this gaggle of degenerates.

It should be labeled "Pervert Parade."

Gay used to mean, and still should, happy and fun=loving.

There's nothing "fun" about homosexuals.

But your point about the supposed perfection of evolving civilization, while they deny any Creator or divine planner, is another very telling example of their insane hypocrisy. They are actually psychotic - to believe that which is so profoundly not so.

Unfortunately there are a lot of atheists here on FR (only capitalists instead of socialists) who are every bit as hypocritical as their Marxist co-"religionists." And their nastiness and billowing sense of superiority fufill every stereotype of an atheist you could possibly have.

Two men kissing is just really icky. In public, it's disgusting. A bare-shouldered woman is not. Maybe provocative depending on the shoulders. But definately not icky or disgusting. That difference is never going to change. The vast majority of people will always, either publically or in secret, regard two men kissing as stomach turning.

It can be a whole lot worse than two men kissing. If you happen to live in a city like Seattle or San Francisco there are a lot of gay men who seem to seriously consider having sex in a public restroom as a civil right. Once in a blue moon the police will decide to bust them, (remember George Michael), and then they'll start screaming about homophobia, discrimination, racism and everything else. Everything that is but acknowledging that there is something fundamentally wrong with "screwing" in a public restroom.

The freaking hypocrites think that removing G-d from the equation causes sexual morality to collapse as an anachronism while leaving "thou shalt not kill" intact and adding rules against "hatred" and "intolerance." Apparently "morality" only means "sexual morality" for some reason. My tentative personal opinion is that religion arose primarily as a means to control the members of the societies in which they orginated with "carrots and sticks" that reached beyond the mortal world. If I am right about this (and I'm fully willing to consider that i'm not) then "Thou shalt not kill," not because it is objectively wrong, but because no society could function where everyone felt free to commit wanton murder. Same with theft, fraud, etc. Similarly, we aren't to worship any other gods or images because that would endanger societal confidence in "the code." We aren't to commit homosexual acts or adultery or disrespect of parents because the integrity of the family is (or at least was)important for society to function. If the above describes the assumptions of the "hypocrites" you describe, then they are not hypocrites at all. They simply believe that "thou shalt not kill" is still a vital rule to abide for society to function, and "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" is an anachronism that no longer provides any tangible benefit to society. Anyway, I guess I'm one of your FR "athiests." Though I don't really _believe_ it cause I'm not sure. Who can be?

Thank you for admitting that in the absence of G-d all that remains is not objective morality but a mere utilitarianism.

Perhaps you can find out from your fellow non-theists on the Left why they believe that "racism," "sexism," "intolerance," etc., bring such grief to "our mother the earth."

My principles, morals and my way of life are as important to me as Jewish law is to you.

Yes, definitely two analogous things:

1) The Torah, over 5000 years old and given by G-d to guide his beloved people.

2) The desire to put one's willie wherever one wants, whenever one wants.

Definitely belong on the same page, yup.

Yes, what remains is utilitarianism. Under that standard, we would judge personal actions based on how they affect the functioning of our society. Since by its Constitution our country is a federal republic, in which certain freedoms to act are (supposed to be) sacrosanct, we can only consider whether "racism," "sexism," "intolerance," etc. are helpful or detrimental to the ordering of society, within the constraints set by our Constitution. (Since our "society" is partially defined by the Bill of Rights, restricting the freedom of speech to combat "racism," for example, would be akin to curing the disease by killing the patient).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.