Laura Schlesinger, US radio personality [long]

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response
is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it
to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you,
however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?


3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with
people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you
again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I know you weren't expecting this Gav, but I can answer most of this person's queries below. I admire him for even knowing about them however he is obviously not a Biblical scholar.

The error this person is making is that the verse refers to Jews in the Land of Israel in ancient times when owning slaves was customary. It is not easily applicable in Israel in this day and age let alone in any other country. By the way, is the author of these queries Jewish? He doesn't say.

Again, contextual and in any event, even the Jews at the time it was written weren't allowed to do this unless they were completely destitute and had absolutely no method of generating an income. Also, this wasn't slavery in the sense you are thinking of. The girl would be more of an indentured servant when young and would eventually expect to marry the young man of the household. If she didn't want to when she came of age, she was released (I'm doing this from memory so I can't recall if the family also gave her some money...in any event, she wasn't a prisoner).

That's your problem, big guy. This is one of the commandments that you can obey today. Interestingly enough, I've heard (actually, my wife did the research) that there are several health benefits for the woman who does refrain from intimate contact during her period.

This one shows this fellow's ignorance. First off, you can only have the alter in the Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. It is the only place such sacrifices could be made. Also, only a Priest from the tribe of Levi was allowed to offer sacrifices on behalf of a Jew. This fellow, even if we assume for a moment that he's Jewish, couldn't offer a sacrifice unless he was a Levite. In any event, no Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice. He would be allowed to have a barbecue, though.

Another Biblical quote says "Vengence is Mine, sayth the L-rd". If this cretin feels he needs to commit murder (violating another commandment) to defend the Sabbath, let him try to explain it to the police. Also, is the neighbor Jewish? Although I could argue it the other way, you could say that if the neighbor isn't, he didn't "sign on the dotted line" to observe the Sabbath. I won't go into the argument for the other way since it's outside the scope of this thread.

He'll need to ask a Rabbi about this. I don't think the Bible differentiates but there are plenty of rabbinical commentaries that he could study.

I'd have to take a look at this one to see if the interpretation of the verse is literal (that is, no one with less than 20/20 vision can approach the alter) or if this is poetic language describing another condition (perhaps the spiritual myopia this person seems to suffer from). In any event, no Temple, no Alter, no problem.

Jury is out on this one. As far as I know only Ultra Orthodox and Hassidic Jews where the curls in an attempt to obey this command. I believe most other observant Jews believe this command refers specifically to a type of cutting of the hair done by the pagan peoples in and around the ancient land of Caanan (Israel) at the time the commandment was given.

Ceremonially unclean. Means he can't present a sacrifice to the priests at the Temple until he cleans himself. Probably involves letting 24 hours pass and undergoing a ritual washing. Has nothing to do with day to day life. Of course, since there is currently no Temple...

As far as I know, even in Biblical times, this wasn't an incredibly common practice (stoning). I believe the elders of the city this occured in or around were consulted and the offender was presented to them and given a chance to make amends. In any event, this commandment and the others above, were designed specifically for a united people who all signed on the dotted line to accept the Almighty's rule over their lives and to live by one set of laws. You'd be hard pressed to live a life completely consistent with these ordinances today, in a foreign land and particularly without access to the Levitical priesthood and the Temple in Jerusalem.

I have absolutely no intention to address the cause of this person's original rant. Cute as his response may be, he knew just barely enough about the Torah to make himself look silly.

 

I soooo hope that was a large pinch of tongue-in-cheek there, Trip - I'm going to feel like seven shades of sh1t if not ...

 

Relax, Gav. None of the above was aimed at you at all.

I was merely demonstrating that "Mr Know-It-All" who wrote the darn thing was playing fast and loose with beliefs he might not espouse but which do mean something to millions of people. It was actually kind of fun to respond to them point by point and I'm just a little bit impressed with myself for being able to do so without having to look anything up (I don't habitually bring a Bible to work).

Nothing against you at all, my friend. Nice one. I enjoyed playing back. Cheers.

 

My interpretation of it was that the correspondent was making a mockery of the DJ's postulation that homosexuality was deviant, simply by pointing out that if she were to adhere to the letter of the Gospel for the purposes of her own argument, then other teachings must also be adhered to, which, accurate or not in his response, make her look like an idiot.

Sorry if I'm wrong here, and if this post causes offence to anyone on CF, please let me know immediately and I, or the nearest Member of Staff will pull it at once.

 

So far, I'm the only one who's responded and the complaints don't seem to be rolling in. I'd relax until they do (if ever). It really was funny.

 

Shame, i was looking forward to a good stoning!

 

Something similar to this was featured in Season 2 of the West wing, the president rips the shite out of some woman radio personality for saying things just like that, with.. lines just like the above

seems someone has perhaps expanded on those quotes


I'm not sure how you can pass some off as 'well in ancient times that was right' and not just apply that to the majority of them, slaves are not common practice now, true, but homosexuals are, are they still an abomonation, or can we claim that is soley an 'ancient text in the context of the time'?

perhaps some wiggle room is required by all these days

 

I'm just amused by the phrase 'wiggle room'