ME-L, that's f*cked up. Few things annoy me more than people who cloak there political or ideological views in their religion, as if the religion were in fact sanctioning those views. Worse, the tradition she's citing here does no such thing. Worse, she's grossly misrepresenting that tradition to the world. Thanks a lot, lady.

I'm curious: how do you distinguish between a political position informed by someone's religion and one "cloaked" by someone's religion? And aren't religious values ideological values as well?

Regardless, Lynn's pretty up-front about how her interpretation of her religion deviates from the traditional position. She's done what most people do; when her religious values conflict with each other, she chooses those values that she thinks are the most important. Those passages where she discusses her religion, she discusses why she thinks the _traditional_ Jewish position has its priorities muddled.

So I think the charge of misrepresentation is a little extreme.

MS, do you think what Lynn is doing is a mitzvah or not? (Full disclosure: Lynn is a friend.) To me it's sort of like feeding bacon cheeseburgers to the hungry.

Ooooh! Abortion fight in the comments!

I'm a religious jew and I just want to take this opportunity to publicly defend my religion from the slander brought upon it by this article. For the record, there is no text, Rabbi, or source in the thousands-year Jewish tradition to support the notion that what this woman is doing is proper. This is nothing more than a self righteous ego-maniac wrapping herself in religious terms to justify her politics, the same way any fundamentalist does. See my posts on the nextbook website where this article originates. I'm dedicated to finding every website where this article is posted and informing people of the truth.

Rabbi:

I am also a religious Jew. I believe that providing shelter to a stranger in need is a mitzvah. Remember, Abraham did not ask who the three strangers were, or what their errand was.

I've read your comments on the Nextbook site and respect your point of view. However I think that you do not have a monopoly on the "truth" of what Lynn is doing in the context of our religion.

In the interest of full disclosure, the main reason I was drawn to this thread is the possibility, however remote, that Lynn might be handing out bacon cheeseburgers.

What’s great about religion (especially religion in America) is that we’ve adopted a sort of “self-validating model.” Lynn is declaring her services to be a “mitzvah.” OK, now what? Or, perhaps, “so what?”

It isn’t clear to me that there is a way to judge the accuracy or importance of this declaration. Clearly, there are some who would argue the point – though to what avail or before what authority, I’m not certain. Others will doubtlessly embrace her position – again to little effect. Taking “mitzvah” at its loosest (an act of kindness, perhaps?), it is hard to imagine what *isn’t* capable of being unilaterally declared a mitzvah on the basis of personal viewpoint. Regardless, given the lack of a Mitzvah Certification process, the question is unanswerable and perhaps unimportant.

I’d go further and suggest that whether you feel her action is a “miztvah” or not will probably be 100% determined by your underlying political views, and have no relationship to any religious authority whatsoever. If a Rabbi (or 10, or 100) were to denounce it, one could simply unilaterally declare that/those Rabbi(s) to have “muddled priorities” and carry on. I think the direct correlation between politics and outcome is perhaps part of what causes MS to distinguish “cloaking” and “informing.” If generally accepted religious authorities cannot impact your viewpoint, it is very hard to see how a religion is “informing” you. It looks more like you are simply declaring the religion to be in conformity with your actions, and torpedoes be damned!

Yes, I know, “two Rabbis = three viewpoints,” etc., etc., etc., but taking that position quickly leads down the “anything goes” path where you can simply point to a dissenting voice (or be one yourself) and declare an issue up for grabs, or undecided. As far as I am aware, elective abortion is not widely associated with mainstream Jewish beliefs, and Lynn admits such herself, noting, “strictly speaking, Jewish law permits abortion only when there is potential danger to the woman's health.” With that in mind, taking a position directly contrary, facilitating abortions, and then declaring it to be a blessing under that religion is . . . strained?

To Mike’s point (because, on reflection, it seems bacon cheeseburgers are not forthcoming), I prefer a counter-example. What if Lynn were helping women murder their abusive husbands and declaring it a Mitzvah? Hooking them up with hit men, perhaps? Or perhaps just offering them shelter once the act is done, as they try to make their escape? It is certainly an “act of kindness” to liberate the abused from their abusers. And she’s not doing any killing herself. Is that equally Kosher?

Which, of course, loops us back to the eternal question of abortion: Is a fetus a “person” with a “right to live.” A political question – and the one that drives the answer to both situations.

I tend to agree with MS. Lynn’s position is 100% determined by her politics. She can further declare them to be consistent with her religious viewpoints (who's gonna stop her?), but I’m unpersuaded that religion is playing anything more than a personal supporting role. Whether I applaud her actions or not, I don’t buy the religious basis for them, beyond the “well, she *thinks* its a Mitzvah, so there ya’ go.”

I'm not religious, but if I was I would be Catholic (as I was raised). In such top-down religion people, whose job it is to do so, tell you right from wrong. If you disagree with the Pope, guess what? YOU'RE WRONG. Without such absolute morality, religions are just a bunch of people saying stuff.
And not really on topic, but I am sick of people, mostly Christians, talking about their "personal relationship with God". If you and God are so close A) Why don't you use his first name and B) why are you wasting your time talking to me?

Clearly, aiding a woman in getting an abortion falls somewhere on the moral line between 1) aiding her in hiring a hit man and 2) aiding her in buying a bacon cheeseburger.

Of course, #1 would be wrong. As you've pointed out, not all homicides are equivalent, either in religious or in civil law.

#2 -- tasty! I miss bacon.

So, the question is, is our friend Lynn helping these women murder? Is what they are doing a sin in the eyes of Jewish law?

The following is lifted from the comments from her article:

"Since the hosted women in this article are not Jewish, then the halachah [Jewish law] of abortion does not apply to them, unless abortion falls under the seven commandments that traditional Judaism considers incumbent on all non-Jews as a result of the Noahide covenant. [See article] These are to refrain from idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual misconduct (incest, adultery, bestiality, male homosexuality), theft, and eating meat torn from a live animal, and lastly to set up courts of justice. While it may be difficult for non-Jews (and ill-educated Jews) to believe, although Orthodox halachah considers abortion to be a sin in many circumstances, it does not equate it to murder. That line of reasoning comes from Christianity. So abortion does not come under the Noahide covenant."

Under this reasoning, providing support to a gentile who is getting an abortion is not contrary to Jewish law.

But, interestingly enough, the bacon cheeseburger might be:

"Eating meat torn from a live animal."

I'm afraid I agree with Patrick here. Religion without authority is just a bunch of people talking.

Well, that's sort of the thing with Judaism, isn't it? The authority is the text. We don't got no pope.

Was there ever a single Jewish authority? David and Salomon where, I guess. But how about after them and before the Diaspora? As I recall from Jesus Christ Superstar (which we have recently learned may have been more than a little right about Judas) there were high priests and a Jewish King who had some kind of authority.
If Judiasm doesn't have a Grand Rabbi simply because the Romans scattered them shouldn't they get together and elect one already? I know of someone who was, hem, hem, passed over as Pope. Hem, hem. And is considered very fair and impartial, hem, hem. And doesn't have any sectarian baggage.
I am busy most Saturdays in the summer, though.

M E-L- I see you've further slandered our religion by selectively quoting from someone's inane and ignorant comments which I've already proved wrong on the nextbook website. So I'll repeat for this audience: non-jews certanly ARE prohibited from getting an abortion, and the talmud is 100% clear that its included in their seven noahide laws (under the category of murder, though it is a lower level of murder, but its certainly higher than "eating a cheeseburger" which is such a ridiculous amoral comment by the way that it makes me sick) and that a non-jew who gets an abortion could receive the death penalty. furthermore, the ignoramus further spews that "orthodox" halacha doesn't consider abortion murder. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the preeminent orthodox authority of the 20th century ruled that abortion is murder, following maimonodes, the preeminent jewish philosopher of all time. Other rabbis disagree and say its only a sin severe enough to warrant 39 lashes. but I reiterate that no rabbi in jewish history would condone the author's activities, though a great many would have had her stoned for it (I'm not exagerating). To the dissilusioned catholics who think religion is just people talking: orthodox judaism is, like catholicism, a vibrant value system that speeks with a coherent moral voice. there is no ONE authority like the pope but every generation has 3 or 4 sages (such as the above mentioned rabbi moshe feinstein) who are universally acknowledged as authorities for their scholarship and piety. They do disagree at times on ritual issues, but they are on the same page enough usually on moral issues to be able to unequivocly declare this article to be heresy for example (which any orthodox rabbi would). It is only reform judaism in which it is "just people talking" because in reform, "jewish law" means whatever the reform rabbi thinks it should mean based on his modern secular humanist leanings. This is why every orthodox rabbinic authority for over 2 centuries has declared reform values to be alien to judaism (is that united enough a voice for you?) though we love reform jews as family and hope they see the light soon. So M E-L: please tell lynn harris I'm waiting for a reply on nextbook and that I'd love to publicly debate her publicly so as to defend our religion from her defamation of it.

Orthodox Rabbi: Guess what? I am a Reform Jew. I am proud of being a Reform Jew. And when you stop defaming MY religion as "secular," then perhaps you may have something to add to this discussion. Unless you are going to apologize for this libel, then your comments are no longer welcome here.

M E-L- I'm sorry, and I do sincerely apologize (to everyone) if my comments were hurtfull. I wrote them late last night after being very angry from seeing you quote from comments that I felt grossly misrepresent judaism, and I realized right after the post that it was a mistake to take such an angry divisive tone. For the record- I have nothing against reform, conservative, recon, (any) jews and half my relatives (and many of my best friends, though I know its a cliche) are reform and I grew up in a conservative shul. I respect their lives and have no need to see any of them become orthodox any time soon. HOWEVER I stand by my comments that reform RABBIS (harris is married to one) very often preach secularist values disguised in a cloak of judaism, and I strongly believe that they come into discussions about judaism with an agenda to make sources fit with modernity. And I think this article reflects that. The writer is pro-choice,and tortures her religion into fitting with that. So my beef is with reform rabbis, not congregants trust me. Most reform jews aren't out there standing on a soap box preaching about how judaism believes in X, they're quietly living their lives on their own level just like I am, so of course I have nothing against them, but the reform rabbinate and political leadership I feel has an agenda to present a distorted picture of judaism to the world, and it shouldn't go unchallenged. that's free speech, I have a right to be passionate just like anyone else, but once again I apologize and hope you accept it.

Did you really write "some of my best friends are"...? I don't think saying that that Reform Jewish rabbis are secular is much different from saying that Reform Judaism is secular. You may disagree with them politically, or disagree with them theologically, or disagree with them morally, or disagree with them on the interpretation of the Law. I would have no trouble with that. But to call them "secular" (or that they are "preach[ing] secularist values" is to call Reform Judaism secular, and that I will not accept. This discussion is now closed.