Another Landlord Worry: Is the Elevator Kosher?

[marksman]

Where did you get that idea?

I agree. I know of no Jew who thinks it disrespectful for a non-Jew to wear a kippah in synagogue. It's not required, but it is appreciated.

 

[marksman]

Wearing it out of respect isn't a "wrong" reason, just a different one.

Actually, it's pretty close to the Jewish reason too. It's just a custom designed to show respect for God and the community. It's a way of dressing up. The non-believer is just doing it for the community and not for God. It's expected you don't wear shorts, jeans, t-shirts, or bare feet. It's just a convention.

 

[Southwind17]

Wearing it out of respect isn't a "wrong" reason, just a different one.

You miss the point. The question isn't: is wearing a kippah respectful? It's: is wearing a kippah hypocritical? Given the explanations I've read here as to the religious background to the wearing of a kippah and your description of your attitude to Judaism I believe your wearing a kippah is hypocritical, certainly by the most common meaning of the word, and hence disrespectful.

I would not. And I would honor their inclination.

So what, exactly, do you suppose your friends are "respecting" when they accompany you to church?

Where did you get that idea?

I mean that as a serious question. You obviously have that idea in your head, and it obviously didn't come from anyone who actually practices the customs in question, because I can't imagine any of them objecting.

Would you also go so far as converting in addition to wearing a kippah? I doubt it, but I suspect that the people that you bow to see your wearing of a kippah as a good seed sewn, and will happily indulge you in hope.

So, somewhere along the line, you formed an idea that my gesture of respect is actually disrespect. I'm not saying that's an absurd idea, but it isn't a Jewish idea. Where do you think it came from?

My analysis of your hypocrisy - that's where.

I agree. I know of no Jew who thinks it disrespectful for a non-Jew to wear a kippah in synagogue. It's not required, but it is appreciated.

See above.

Actually, it's pretty close to the Jewish reason too. It's just a custom designed to show respect for God and the community. It's a way of dressing up. The non-believer is just doing it for the community and not for God. It's expected you don't wear shorts, jeans, t-shirts, or bare feet. It's just a convention.

In other words simply to seek to gain some degree of superficial acceptance into an otherwise estranged crowd.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Hang on a minute. You've made a seemingly unusual claim. I've challenged the correctness of your claim and asked you to support it. And you think I should justify the challenge! If you're correct you could have demonstrated so in so many words as you've used to be plain awkward instead. I'll draw the obvious logical conclusion from that until such time as you back up your assertion.

Perhaps you would like to point out what claim you've apparently challenged that I made.

The only statement you've made, which I called you on, is that practicing religion equates to mental imbalance. You falsely equated this with the fashion fad of neckties (connection?) assuming that all religious practices are superficial and only done as routine without questioning why its done. Obviously you've never been to shoul or church, since there's always been questioning of such practices.

The problem I have with your statements is that you are using straw man and a number of other fallacies to justify your wide-swept allegations towards any and all religious practices and continue with this route.

This thread is not a general thread about religious customs/practices and specifically asked about a certain custom/practice. Hence not an invitation for trolling and rhetoric on what atheists think about customs/practices overall when they refuse to acknowledge the basic concepts about said custom/practice.

Trolling and deflecting from the original op does not equate to questioning any custom.

If you think I have a problem with the reason or roots of a day (or two) of rest you haven't been paying attention. Otherwise, your response here makes no sense.

I haven't made this claim.

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps you would like to point out what claim you've apparently challenged that I made.

Sure - it went something like this:

I'm not sure IQ is a measure of all of one's mental faculties, is it? Genuine question - you might well be right.

But apparently mental stability is. [Here's the claim]

Just as well I'm in the top one percentile then. However, I think you're wrong, and should welcome a citation. [Here's the challenge]

You can think I'm wrong, fine. Have you backed up why you think I'm wrong or what exactly I'm wrong about?

This thread is not a general thread about religious customs/practices and specifically asked about a certain custom/practice. Hence not an invitation for trolling and rhetoric on what atheists think about customs/practices overall when they refuse to acknowledge the basic concepts about said custom/practice.

Well thank you for putting in an appearance now and then and keeping us all on the straight and narrow. What would we all do without you?

 

[Meadmaker]

You miss the point. The question isn't: is wearing a kippah respectful? It's: is wearing a kippah hypocritical? Given the explanations I've read here as to the religious background to the wearing of a kippah and your description of your attitude to Judaism I believe your wearing a kippah is hypocritical, certainly by the most common meaning of the word, and hence disrespectful.

You are projecting an awful lot. There's no misrepresentation. My actions don't belie anything. You are projecting meaning onto something, but that meaning isn't there.

In American society, Christianity is the dominant religion, and most of us growing up here have our ideas about religion shaped primarily by Christianity, and I think your ideas have been shaped that way as well. In Christianity, faith is a big deal. Accepting Jesus, becoming a Christian, putting faith in God/Jesus, and all those things are really, really, important. Overt religious symbols are seen as outward demonstrations of that faith.

Judaism isn't like that. I'm not saying the idea is totally absent, but it just isn't very significant. The wearing of a kippah, or the lighting of shabbat candles, or even the recitation of prayers, just don't have the same sort of meaning in Judaism as they would in Christianity. The rabbi at my temple knows that I'm agnostic or atheist (depending on my mood at the time.) He has absolutely zero difficulty with me coming to temple, or to Torah study, or saying the blessings at services and such, knowing full well that I sure as heck don't believe in God as described in the Bible, and the idea of any god existing in any sense is sort of an abstract hypothetical to which I attach no real significance.

A Christian minister or priest would probably feel different. If he allowed me to participate at all, it would be in the hopes that Jesus would redeem one of his lost sheep whose faith was lacking at the moment.

As for conversion, I'm thinking about it, but I wouldn't do it without telling the rabbi that I don't believe in God. From what I've read, I suspect a Reform rabbi would be willing to do it anyway. I'm not sure.

In other words simply to seek to gain some degree of superficial acceptance into an otherwise estranged crowd.

Sort of, but you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Meadmaker]

You falsely equated this with the fashion fad of neckties (connection?) assuming that all religious practices are superficial and only done as routine without questioning why its done.

FWIW, I started the necktie thing. I brought it up as an example of an irrational secular ritual, which has absolutely no purpose other than to mark certain occasions as significant within our culture. The wearer undergoes a certain degree of discomfort in order to demonstrate his willingness to participate in whatever occasion is being practiced at the time.

 

[Southwind17]

In American society, Christianity is the dominant religion, and most of us growing up here have our ideas about religion shaped primarily by Christianity, and I think your ideas have been shaped that way as well. In Christianity, faith is a big deal. Accepting Jesus, becoming a Christian, putting faith in God/Jesus, and all those things are really, really, important. Overt religious symbols are seen as outward demonstrations of that faith.

Judaism isn't like that. I'm not saying the idea is totally absent, but it just isn't very significant. The wearing of a kippah, or the lighting of shabbat candles, or even the recitation of prayers, just don't have the same sort of meaning in Judaism as they would in Christianity. The rabbi at my temple knows that I'm agnostic or atheist (depending on my mood at the time.) He has absolutely zero difficulty with me coming to temple, or to Torah study, or saying the blessings at services and such, knowing full well that I sure as heck don't believe in God as described in the Bible, and the idea of any god existing in any sense is sort of an abstract hypothetical to which I attach no real significance.

A Christian minister or priest would probably feel different. If he allowed me to participate at all, it would be in the hopes that Jesus would redeem one of his lost sheep whose faith was lacking at the moment.

As for conversion, I'm thinking about it, but I wouldn't do it without telling the rabbi that I don't believe in God. From what I've read, I suspect a Reform rabbi would be willing to do it anyway. I'm not sure.

Assuming what you write here about Judaism is the commonly held view amongst Jews, and I've no reason to doubt you, so I'll take it as read, thanks for that enlightening and candid appraisal. I think you're probably correct that I've assumed an almost direct correlation of Christian values (so far as I know or perceive them) to Judaism and judged you accordingly, which I now see is wrong, and I retract my allegations. That said, I maintain my views regarding mental imbalance and silly religious rituals generally (kippah excepted!).

 

[marksman]

In other words simply to seek to gain some degree of superficial acceptance into an otherwise estranged crowd.

Do you wear a tuxedo to a function that requires "formal attire"? Is that simply to "gain some degree of superficial acceptance in an otherwise estranged crowd"? Or are you someone who flaunts conventions wherever he goes, happily wearing a t-shirt and jeans to your best friend's wedding, or refusing to wear a uniform when playing in an intramural sports league, or pointedly removing your footwear whenever you see a sign that says "No shoes, no service"?

A kippah is an expected (but not required) mode of dress in a synagogue. That's it. It doesn't mean you believe in God. It doesn't mean you endorse Judaism. It just means you are dressing appropriately for the occasion that has brought you to the synagogue. I'm really having trouble understanding your consternation over this.

 

[Southwind17]

FWIW, I started the necktie thing. I brought it up as an example of an irrational secular ritual, which has absolutely no purpose other than to mark certain occasions as significant within our culture.

I maintain that's not strictly true. Neckties are clearly worn as a fashion accessory outside the business or "formal" environment, demonstrated by the fact that such wearing goes through phases just like other fashions.

The wearer undergoes a certain degree of discomfort in order to demonstrate his willingness to participate in whatever occasion is being practiced at the time.

I totally disagree with this. The only time I, for example, endure discomfort from a necktie is when I'm carrying too much weight (like right now!) and my collar becomes snug, which the necktie tends to exacerbate. In that sense it's little different from a snug-fitting watch strap. Otherwise, I'm as unconscious of wearing a necktie as I am my socks.

 

[marksman]

The only time I, for example, endure discomfort from a necktie is when I'm carrying too much weight (like right now!) and my collar becomes snug, which the necktie tends to exacerbate. In that sense it's little different from a snug-fitting watch strap. Otherwise, I'm as unconscious of wearing a necktie as I am my socks.

That still constitutes a "certain level of discomfort" which is still more discomfort than one ever experiences wearing a kippah. So I still am not sure what your point is here. There's no practical reason to wear a necktie. At least a snug-fitting watch-strap has a watch that can give you useful information like the time and possibly date. A tie has no practical use and is ever-so-slightly less comfortable than a kippah.

 

[Southwind17]

That still constitutes a "certain level of discomfort" which is still more discomfort than one ever experiences wearing a kippah.

Just like the discomfort exerted by my tight-fitting waistband. Are you seriously suggesting I should ditch the trousers too?!

So I still am not sure what your point is here.

That's because you've lost sight of why the necktie was introduced into the debate. I've never contrasted the alleged discomfort of wearing of a necktie with that of a kippah. I've contested that it simply cannot be fairly likened to an irrational religious ritual.

There's no practical reason to wear a necktie.

I agree. There's no practical reason to wear a necklace, bracelet, earings, baseball cap (usually), brooch or ring - but we do!

 

[drkitten]

Just like the discomfort exerted by my tight-fitting waistband. Are you seriously suggesting I should ditch the trousers too?!

Why not? Tunics and togas can be quite comfortable.

Or kimonos, like the Japanese wore.

What rational (your word) reason do you have for preferring a necktie and trousers to a kimono or a toga?

 

[Southwind17]

Do you wear a tuxedo to a function that requires "formal attire"? Is that simply to "gain some degree of superficial acceptance in an otherwise estranged crowd"?

Not at all - why on earth would you think that? "Acceptance"; "estranged crowd" - who do you think I am?! I wear one for exactly the same reason that every other man there does - it looks smart and I like dressing up now and then. It's called FASHION!

 

[Meadmaker]

Assuming what you write here about Judaism is the commonly held view amongst Jews, ...

It would vary among different branches. My views would find less support among Orthodox, more among Reform. Very common among Reconstructionist, but there aren't a lot of them.

However, even the typical Orthodox view of things just can't be compared to the typical Christian, or even Christian fundamentalist, view of things. The similarities are superficial. The differences go to the core.

 

[marksman]

Not at all - why on earth would you think that? "Acceptance"; "estranged crowd" - who do you think I am?! I wear one for exactly the same reason that every other man there does - it looks smart and I like dressing up now and then. It's called FASHION!

It only "looks smart" because it's socially acceptable and because all the other men in the room are dressed similarly.

I understand the necktie-kippah metaphor, but you keep calling it an irration religious ritual, when there's virtually nothing religious about it. It's just a custom of dress from the 17th century.

 

[Kritikos]

In American society, Christianity is the dominant religion, and most of us growing up here have our ideas about religion shaped primarily by Christianity, and I think your ideas have been shaped that way as well. In Christianity, faith is a big deal. Accepting Jesus, becoming a Christian, putting faith in God/Jesus, and all those things are really, really, important. Overt religious symbols are seen as outward demonstrations of that faith.

Judaism isn't like that.

This is a point that I was trying to make earlier, though apparently with less success:

Using a model of religion derived from Christianity to understand other religions tends to produce misunderstandings. This seems to me to be going on in a lot of posts in this thread. [. . .]

[After quoting the OP:] You simply assume that the discussion concerns a matter of belief. It doesn't: it concerns the interpretation of religious law. You may reply that there has to be a belief about the status or significance or origin of the law involved. That may be so; but no such belief is at issue, and different Jews can and do hold divergent beliefs about the origin and status of the law without diverging in their understanding of its content.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my ignorant questions.

So back in the mists of time God gave a set of vague rules to mankind, then left it up to the Rabbis to work out the fine print?

As I'm an Atheist, I'll just have to say that none of it makes any sense to me and leave it at that, I guess.

That's right, you did. You weren't there. Whippersnapper.

I doubt you were there when the Bill of Rights was signed, either, but you still expect freedom of speech.

My country doesn't have a Bill Of Rights. I'd like to think I have freedom of speech, but I have no guaranty of such.

 

[Kritikos]

So back in the mists of time God gave a set of vague rules to mankind, then left it up to the Rabbis to work out the fine print?

No, not to all mankind; just to the Israelites, whose living descendants are the Jews. The Orthodox story is that God dictated 613 commandments to Moses, which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah, but also -- and at this point the story gets really bizarre -- he gave an "oral Torah" at the same time, whose contents got written down centuries later by the rabbis. I don't think that many non-Orthodox Jews accept either idea, and I'm not even sure how widely they are accepted among Orthodox Jews.

Edited to add: Actually, there are commandments addressed to all of mankind: they are given to Noah and his family after the flood (Genesis 9). But these have nothing to do with what you can or cannot do on the seventh day of the week.

 

[Brainache]

No, not to all mankind; just to the Israelites, whose living descendants are the Jews. The Orthodox story is that God dictated 613 commandments to Moses, which he wrote down in the five books of the Torah, but also -- and at this point the story gets really bizarre -- he gave an "oral Torah" at the same time, whose contents got written down centuries later by the rabbis. I don't think that many non-Orthodox Jews accept either idea, and I'm not even sure how widely they are accepted among Orthodox Jews.

Edited to add: Actually, there are commandments addressed to all of mankind: they are given to Noah and his family after the flood (Genesis 9). But these have nothing to do with what you can or cannot do on the seventh day of the week.

OK thanks. And people believe this stuff? Really?

"So tell me young Moses, what happened to the rest of your Torah?"
"The God ate it..."