(no subject)
Jul. 14th, 2003 11:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaA couple of times, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written on Beliefnet about homosexuality in the Bible -- declaring that it is a religious sin, and not a moral or ethical sin -- making it just as sinful as, say, eating shellfish.
Basically what this means is that it is not inherently wrong, it is just something that Jews, as they observe the rules and laws of their religious teachings, are supposed to avoid.
This has some interesting ramifications. For example, it may have the effect of making Reform Judaism more tolerant of gays and lesbians in general, but LESS tolerant of gays and lesbians who are practicing Jews.
Secondly, one is tempted to ask what benefit one has from adhering to codes or laws that one knows are "religious" vs. ethical -- IOW if they serve mainly to identify the Jewish community, isn't this an arbitrary and stylized distinction that has little inherent meaning?
Basically what this means is that it is not inherently wrong, it is just something that Jews, as they observe the rules and laws of their religious teachings, are supposed to avoid.
This has some interesting ramifications. For example, it may have the effect of making Reform Judaism more tolerant of gays and lesbians in general, but LESS tolerant of gays and lesbians who are practicing Jews.
Secondly, one is tempted to ask what benefit one has from adhering to codes or laws that one knows are "religious" vs. ethical -- IOW if they serve mainly to identify the Jewish community, isn't this an arbitrary and stylized distinction that has little inherent meaning?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: an unresolved disjunction behind it maybe
Date: 2003-07-16 08:42 am (UTC)