"Dear Dr. Laura" - Blind Chihuahuas Playground

Reply · Quote

dave_c (Guest) 2006-04-29, 09:59 #1

No profile available.

Subject: "Dear Dr. Laura"

This is a reply to [J. Kent Ashcraft's] open letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger. It is not a defense of Dr. Laura, with whom I am not familiar:

Dear [Mr. Ashcraft],

1. Don't smite your neighbors. Invite them to see "The Passion of the Christ" instead. If they haven't seen it yet, they'll appreciate your generous offer of a night out. On the way home, you can all discuss the whole sacrifice thing with a new perspective. A little self-evaluation, repentance, faith, love and mercy will go a lot further with your neighbors than smoke and smiting

2. I'm afraid that you'll have difficulty finding a slavery position for your daughter in the United States. For the most part, even the poorest among us no longer view slavery as a viable, honorable alternative to abject poverty, as they did in ancient Palestine. Instead, encourage her to get a good education. You might never have an opportunity to sell her, but hopefully she will learn to sell herself well on job interviews.

3. Gee. Women just don't ceremonially separate themselves out from society when they menstruate like they used to. (Ah, the good old [testament] days...) My advice is to check out Hosea 6:6, and then just be kind to all women, even those who menstruate without telling you. I'm pretty sure that God won't zap you, and women will stop slapping you for being rude.

4. Canadians cannot be owned because they look and sound too much like most of us, except when they say "a boat" instead of "about", and "eh?" after every question. Mexicans, on the other hand, look and sound different enough from most of us, and are poor enough to make them good candidates for slavery. You might be pleased to know that you probably already own one or more Mexican electronics assemblers, as well as some Chinese sweat shop workers and Indonesian shoe factory workers. And why not? Who wants to pay $5,000.00 for a DVD player or $600.00 for a pair of sneakers? As a modern-day slave owner, I would encourage you to read Colossians 4:1 as soon as possible. If they are like most, your Mexicans will be grateful for the couple of dollars you currently pay them each day. But make sure that you're thorougly prepared when the time comes to explain your concept of fairness to the Lord.

If you want a more "hands-on" slavery experience, you might try taking a couple of homeless people into your home, and clothe and feed them in exchange for some chores around the house, like they did in Leviticus. That guy with the cup on the corner will love you for it!

5. My feeling is that you are under no obligation to kill your neighbor for breaking the Sabbath. But I do understand your dilemma. First God says, "Stone your neighbor if he breaks my rules". Then, just when everybody gets the stone throwing thing down (which, apparently, humans find quite enjoyable in one form or another), He tries to make things easier for everybody. "Don't bother trying to keep all the rules anymore," He says, "because you can't. I can, though, so just believe in me and love each other." Go figure! No wonder people were really annoyed at Him.

6 - 10. Shellfish, homosexual practice, extra-marital heterosexual practice, bad eyesight, short hair, football, bad threads, blasphemy, selfishness, lying, cheating, stealing, unforgiveness, hypocricy, pride, backstabbing, murder, etc. I think from a god's-eye view (if you will), it's probably all a pretty confused-looking mess of hurt. I still say that a little soul-searching, repentance and belief are the way to go.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Dave

Posted to our old Forum - March 15, 2004

This post was edited 2 times, last on 2006-04-29, 10:06 by Admin.

Reply · Quote

Sharon (Guest) 2006-04-29, 10:56 #2

No profile available.

Link to this post

Dear Professor,
I am neither a Rabbi nor a scholar, but I have answers for you. Take them in the spirit of Hillel's advice to the scoffer who demanded to be taught the Law while he stood on one foot.

1. sacrifices
The Torah explicitly allows sacrifices only in the designated place, the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem. Presumably the odor will not annoy your neighbors from there. To put this in perspective, how would you feel about it if the priests were required to eat their meat raw because the use of the altar's fire offends you? Don't you barbeque your burgers before giving them to guests?

2. daughter into slavery
You unfairly ignore the context of your excerpt. This passage allows for a humane parent who is unable to care for his daughter to place her in a safe and supportive environment. The use of the word slave here is misleading, because Jewish servitude was not the demeaning and destructive practice of Christian slavery, it was more like a fostering arrangement. The girl would be bound, like an indentured servant, to work for a specific number of years (6 years or until puberty, whichever comes first). During the period of servitude she had to be provided with appropriate apparel and room and board the equal of what the master provided for himself and his family. She could not be treated disrespectfully, and on her release she had to be provided with gifts, and her master was expected to help her to marry. Don't you wish our Child Protective Services did such a good job?

3. menstrual uncleanliness
The only woman required to put your need to know over her own modesty, is your wife. Perhaps you shouldn't knock this practice until you've tried it. The effect of this rule is to force husbands to realize that their wives' bodies aren't always avaible to them, and it helps to foster a respectful relationship. The fact that self-control is required in the expression of sexuality offers a woman a great deal of protection, as well as the authority and responsibility to regulate that aspect of married life. In addition, you might be interested to know that many marriage/sex counselors suggest a form of this observance to help couples who are having difficulties in their marriages. Perhaps one reason is because when a couple can't express themselves physically, they are forced to use conversation and other activities to express themselves during this period (usually 2 weeks). It works beautifully. It also makes the return to the physical more uplifting. Look at it this way: if you could recreate your wedding night once a month, wouldn't you?

4. possess slaves
Slavery among the Jews was a different institution from what you remember from American history. A slave had always to be treated with respect and concern for his well being, far beyond what he might have expected in other circumstances. There were two categories of slaves: prisoners of war, and Jewish criminals who literally had to work off their debt to society. You also might note the social impact of taking prisoners of war as slaves: it gives incentive not to kill captives but to treat them well. And having a thief work for restitution is a whole lot better than maiming him (the Moslem way), branding him for life (the old Christian way) or incarcerating him in a jail where the people he associates with are unlikely to have an uplifting effect on him.

5. working on the Sabbath.
Are you aware that the first time this sentence was actually carried out, Moses went to God to ask him what to do? Obviously, a death sentence isn't something treated lightly. Look at the circumstances: a person would have to violate the Sabbath in public, be warned by two witnesses that to do so is punishable by death, and then choose to violate the Sabbath again in public in front of witnesses. At that point the violator could be arrested and brought to trial, where the judges would try as hard as possible to find a legal way to absolve the culprit. Please note that only a Sanhedrin has the right to impose a death penalty; there is no Jewish court today that could do so. And a Sanheddrin court that executed two death sentences in a generation was considered to be extremely severe. This isn't a Sharia court we are talking about here, not even a Texas court. Also, consider who this violator had to be: someone who not only didn't want to oberve the Sabbath, but was determined to undermine its observance by others (or else why violate it publicly?). Then, after being warned, the person repeats the violation -- if he didn't want to live a Jewish life, why didn't he just pick up and move elsewhere? Why this need to try to spread the practice of Shabbat violation? When you take into accout the widely held opinion that Sabbath observance has been crucial to the survival of Judaism, you begin to see why this public desecration is a life-or-death issue.

6. though eating shellfish is an abomination, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality
The laws of kosher food are one way of sanctifying the every day activity of eating. There is no logic to understand them, and we don't know what the reward is to be for keeping them. They are simply God's commandments that we keep out of our love and respect for Him. The law on homosexuality is a different type of commandment, because it is easy to see its logic. The Creator is pro-life. The first commandment he gave to people was to "be fruitful and multiply". The homosexual is disregarding this directive, and mis-using the equipment God gave him. In this way, he misses out on the holiness of sex -- of course sex is holy -- but it is holy because it has the ability to bring a soul to earth. That said, there are many sins of which a person is capable, and only God can attribute to each the damage it has caused or the degree of punishment it requires. There is a lot of evidence that at least some homosexuals have about as much control over their desires as a kleptomaniac has over his stealing. It is better to stay out of the store, but if you can't and slip up, we'll try to be compassionate about it. The same directives appply to prosecution here as in the Sabbath violator above. Someone would have to be extremely and deliberately public about their activities to get in trouble. Also, please note that there are no societies for kleptomaniacs insisting that we legitimize their lifestyle of thievery. This is why many people have gotten the impression that the gay rights campaign is out to undermine the Bible rather than to protect human rights. It is not an attack on Mr. Homosexual if I ask him to keep his sex life private -- I expect the same from my heterosexual neighbors as well. It is, however, an attack on my family and my religion if the gay rights activists try to force my child to learn that our laws are invalid or misguided. That isn't my idea of mutual respect.

7. I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.
The verse refers to all types of disfiguring blemishes (see Rashi). Please note that people with these blemishes were not restricted from anything except to make the offerings, otherwise they are entitled to lives of respect and productivity. To bring the sacrifices was to stand before God as a representative of the people. Would you send a hunchback or someone with no nose to be your Ambassador? Might that not be taken as a sign of disrespect?

8. male friends get their hair trimmed
Very few sins actually carry the death penalty. This is not one of them.

9. touching the skin of a dead pig
This prohibition applies during festival visits to the Temple, because one is obligated to try to avoid contamination that would prevent full observance of the festival in the Temple. (Rashi). It should not have an impact on your football playing, or gloves, for that matter.

10. uncle has a farm
Again, it is essential to recognize the context, as well as to differentiate among the laws you mention. First of all, the prohibited mixture in clothes is the use of wool and linen together, so cotton and polyester would be fine. In any event, the rules against mixing kinds, like the kashrut rules, do not carry a death penalty. And they are not as senseless as you might think, considering how problematic many people find genetic engineering to be. Public blasphemy, on the other hand, is specifically intended to demean God and undermine his Authority. There is a pattern here to the laws you find objectionable: each one is an effort by someone to launch a sin campaign, a PR effort against God and God-fearing people. The sin anyone sins privately is between him and God, but the sin one sins publicly and deliberately to weaken the morals of others and cause them to sin is an attack on religion itself, and cannot be tolerated by a religion that intends to last through the ages. Before you decide that God made a mistake in giving these commandments, consider the fact that Judaism has proven itself robust for the long haul.

A final word: Your discussion seemed more designed to denigrate than to elucidate. I know you were just poking fun - but this type of scornful humor does little to help us respect each other, and I was concerned that some people might read your interpretation of Scripture and think it was accurate. I hope you will consider more careful research next time; such ridiculing behavior is beneath you and it doesn't do justice to your obvious intellecual gifts.

Sincerely,
Sharon

Orig.- April 28, 2004

This post was edited on 2006-04-29, 10:59 by Admin.