BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:36 AM

I was not sure about this thread or the implications. I am glad I read it because it has made me think a little - always a good thing:-)

Firstly, I think it goes without saying that that my sympathies are with the community concerned.

The bit I thought most about was this thing about having to destroy or rekosherise the utensils. I reaslised after a while it was not realy about the crockery at all. It is about teachings. Whether they are right or wrong is completely irrelevant. The laws of that religion say that this must happen. Whether people do it or not is a test of their religious beliefs. Do you love your religion more or your possesions? How strong are your beliefs?

Whether I agree or not I must say that anyone who has the conviction to destroy lots of goods, maybe costing lots of money, maybe with deep sentimantal value, because of their beliefs shows a great faith in their religion. Some may say this is madness but I say, provided it does not affect me, it shows a strength of character far greater than many have. In fact it saddened me a little when a post above said that some are not destroying the china. Sounds like bending the rules to suit themselves. When I decided that the rules of the Catholic church were not for me I did not ask them to bend the rules, I got out.

On the whole I am happy for people to follow whatever beliefs they want. As long as they don't expect me to follow them. Good luck to those who have put their trust in their god and passed this test.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:05 AM

I sympathise with those who feel that they have been sullied. I appreciate the feeling that the guilty in this case should be held up to public opprobrium. I am sure that Rabbi-Sol is perfectly genuine and justified in his outrage at the fraudsters and thieves. But why do I feel that I have to keep emphasising that, when I go on to discuss other perfectly genuine concerns?

It will seem morally repugnant to many that they who were (if they were, and were not wilfully closing their eyes) wholly unaware that they were eating food that was proscribed by their religion should be regarded as in any way guilty. Offences of strict liability are rightly regarded by most legal systems as extreme measures.

It will also seem morally repugnant to many that a whole set of persons - including they who not only are under no moral guilt (see above) but even they who have themselves not eaten such food at all - should be required to atone. It is quite definitely wrong to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty (unless there is a very very good public policy reason as in the case of employers' vicarious liability for the torts of thier servants committed in the course of thier employment).

To take Marion's example, should a person tricked into eating human flesh be punishable for cannibalism? Should their parents or children who did not eat human flesh be punishable for cannibalism?

I note above that even different factions of the religion in point do not agree that the relevant china dishes need to be destroyed or given away. Maybe there are some who would say that metal dishes can (as they in fact can) be sterilised without heating to red heat.

How should we judge a religion that requires its followers to harm themselves and/or to make payments to the infrastructure or members of the infrastructure of the religion for things that those followers have not done or for which those followers have no guilt?

There are a number of religions that we rightly criticise for fundamentalism. In this sense I mean, by fundamentalism, the belief or assertion that texts and prohibitions of the religion are literally true and must be literally obeyed, despite their impossibility or irrationality (or, in some cases, not the present case, inherent evil). Even small requirements by a religion that are irrational are the thin end of the wedge in this respect, and they need to be tested to see whether they ought to be changed.

I have been thinking about all this at least partly (apart from my inherent pedantry) because I am currently having a bit of a crise de confiance in a moral belief system with which I am myself involved, and I do not know whether I will be able to continue with it, despite the much good work it does, because of irrationalities that I see within it. I respectfully suggest that ritual cleansing requirements need to be examined in the light of knowledge and reason, and if appropriate discarded. If they do no good and may lead to harm should that not be so?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Marion
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 02:59 AM

Hello Rabbi Sol. I can certainly understand why this incident is so upsetting to you and the other folks in your community. I think that the people reading are focussing too much on the dishes and forgetting about how these people's bodies were violated. Through this act of fraud, the thief took away his victims' right to control their own bodies.

I'm a vegetarian, and my aversion to meat is visceral and deep-seated. If I learned that somebody had tricked me into eating meat, I would feel violated, profoundly disgusted, and furious, and it's almost certain that my relationship with that person would be irrevocably ended. So I think I can empathize with what you're feeling. (I should add that I'm not speaking here for any vegetarian but myself - there are many different combinations of reasons why people choose not to eat meat, and not all vegetarians share my aversion).

For those of you reading this thread who don't relate to religious taboo or to vegetarianism: the closest equivalent for you would probably be your aversion to cannibalism or to feces. So please imagine how you would feel if somebody tricked you into eating human flesh or excrement, and keep that feeling in mind when you think about this situation.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Lady Hillary
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 01:16 AM

EBarnacle here. Above it was stated that:

"Jewish dietary law in any case doesn't come under the ten commandments, and is a cultural aspect of judaism."

The ten commandments are only the ones which most people are most familiar with. If you try reading and understanding the remainder of the Torah, you will discover that there are five books, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where most people's knowledge seems to stop. By tradition, the content of these 5 books was handed from God to Moses and, thence, to the children of Israel. The last 3 books consist mainly of the laws which the Israelites are supposed to follow. There are several hundred of these laws. Each is important and they deal in issues of life and death, and community relations, as well as public health and sanitation.

Many of the laws do not seem to make sense to the community at large now. During times like the Middle Ages, they were often the cause of Jewish survival when those around them were dying of various communicable disorders, such as typhus and waterborne disorders. This difference helped create a community which those around them, mostly Christians, saw as practicing magic, instead of common sense. This identity has allowed the Jewish community to survive despite frequent attempts to eradicate Jews as a people and as a culture.

These rules are very slow to change and will not change unless a positive reason is shown for them to change. Two weeks ago, an orthodox Jewish congregation appointed a woman as its rabbi in all but name. It is a small but significant adaptation to the needs of the community.

In the case presented here, the sins have to be examined in terms of the Kaper Lanu prayer recited on Yom Kippur. These sins include sins committed in ignorance as well as sins committed intentionally. A sin is a sin, whether it is quitting smoking and regressing or unknowingly eating unclean food. The result is the same--a sin, a failure of a moral duty which a person has sworn, even if only to oneself. Having discovered the sin, it is up to the person to improve his or her ways and lead a better life.

The reason the community is fasting is as a duty to the larger community. There have been countless events in the past, such as plagues or invasions, [Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Flood come readily to mind] which are associated with moral failures within the community. These events were often what made the prophets famous in their efforts to clean up the community, often against public opinion that their ideas were not needed.

That the community is willing to atone for an unintentional sin is laudable. They are showing the universalism for which Judaism is famous. "Am I my brother's keeper?" They believe so and are acting on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,barbara
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 12:39 AM

m. finkel is not a hasidic man. he is an orthodox man. 2 different things. and not everyone is throwing away their dishes. my rabbi, rabbi shlesiner, says, not necessarily so.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 11:04 PM

Uh-huh. And look what happened to the Billy Goats Gruff and the Troll under the bridge. And Gilgamesh, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:38 PM

You may be right, but look what happened to Adam & Eve. And their offspring.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:17 PM

I really do not think that God will hold any of this misadventure against your community, Rabbi-Sol, unless God is as capricious and as totally unreasonable as some people are...

It's my impression that God always shows mercy. It is people and carnivorous animals who do not show mercy. In the animals' case, that's perfectly understandable and it does not carry any burden of what I would term "sin". In the case of people, however, I'd say it's quite a different story. People should know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:52 PM

The Sabbath just ended here in Monsey so I am back on the board. In all synagogues plus at the sabbath dinner table the chickens were the major topic of discussion. Here are some new developments that have not as yet reached the media.

The chickens in question were not only "treif". They were also stolen. We do not yet know from who but the police are investigating. Therefore the profit that the perpetrator, Moshe Finkel, realized on them was even greater than first thought.

The Rabbis of Monsey have decreed a fast day for all Jewish members of the community to take place on next Sunday, September 17th. The principle of collective guilt is apparently weighing heavily on their minds. In performing this fast we are beseeching God to show mercy and refrain from any divine retribution or punishment for our community for creating an atmosphere that would allow such a tragic incident to occurr on such a massive scale.

More news should be forthcoming later this week and I will keep you all informed.
                                                 SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:51 PM

Geez Mick, wasn't meant to be a lecture, more of an observation. If it's a contest to see who's been on the Mudcat (or the internet) longer, it'd be a tough call since I've been here myself about as long as you have, and online a good deal longer than that. You seem to be bemoaning the fact the the Mudcat ain't what she used to be, but neither is nostalgia. Rabbi Sol has gotten a very great deal of sympathy in this thread, as far as I can see, and rightly so. Why should folks who feel other than sympathetic - or sympathetic "but" be expected to hold back? From what I've read from him, I suspect Rabbi Sol is an intelligent grownup who can handle it, and I doubt he expected anything different from what's been posted. But you seem to be dedicated to shifting the focus of the thread from the heinous fraud committed to the failure of Mudcatters to live up to your expectations. With all due respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:52 PM

I am entirely in agreement with you on all points, Richard.

People all over this world are mentally enslaved by their various mythologies...the things they take for granted and never question...the beliefs they have taken on for no other reason than "that's what I was told to believe" or "it's in the Holy Book"... whether it be religious mythology, cultural mythology, racial mythology, scientific mythology, medical mythology, or political mythology, or even gender mythology, and they do the darndest self-defeating and crazy things because of it.

They're also usually enslaved to money, of course, and that particular mental enslavement is what led to this ridiculous situation with the chickens. Someone valued a quick buck more than he valued behaving honestly and responsibly in his community.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: LilyFestre
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:45 PM

I don't see many people who aren't outraged at the fraud that was committed. I do see many people without an understanding of it all and would expect that since not all people share the same faith. I also see this thread as an opportunity to share some answers and to clarify for those who are interested enough to ask. Questions aren't attacks!

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM

For heaven's sake (maybe the wrong choice of phrase): plainly there was a fraud (and infringments of copyright, too, possibly infringments of trade marks and/or passing off); plainly there was a breach of religious shibboleths - two different things.

Plainly it has caused distress: most regrettable; most culpable.


Is the suggestion that ceramic dishes cannot be cleaned rational? Is the suggestion that metallic surfaces have to be heated to cherry red rational?

My sympathy is more for those who will be irrationally directed to destroy cherished possessions for no reason. It's not about this religion, it's not about the idea of religion, it's about the fact that the manifestations of religions see themselves as entitled to dictate, without reason or sense. God may be above man. Priests are not.

The idea that the Christian religions were solely to be interpreted by the priests, and that man needed an intermediary between himself and his God was mostly long since chucked out as a restrictive practice designed to entrench the power of priests.

The idea of a divine being may help some to live lives with consciences. The manifestations we see about us make us question the merit and goodness in such thoughts.

I have no reason to doubt that Rabbi-Sol is a good, devout, and sincere man. But why should his or any other religion cause any form of suffering to anyone for irrational reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:16 PM

If a subject is remotely connected to a script or role some of these folks have already memorized, that's how they're ging to address the issue. People are often not smart enough to think up appropriate responses for specific, unfamiliar situations - they force the discussions into what they know well and have practiced a lot.

Rabbi Sol, I'm sorry this happened. I hope things can be made as right as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM

What is logic to one person is illogical to another. You drive on the "wrong" side of the road on the other side of the pond. Should I question the logic of that? No, there are reasons why it is different and it doesn't affect my world.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

No Richard, it isn't. Apply your intellect, logic and rationality. The subject of the thread isn't religion. It is about a fraud committed on a community. It is initiated by a member of our community, presumably to for the purpose of expressing his outrage at the fraud. It is being twisted into an argument on the merits of religion in general, and specifically on the dietary laws which observant Jews live by.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:15 PM

Is that not rather the point? Why should religion be free from the requirements of logic and rationality?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

I think I know where from you come, Michelle, but you are putting your world view or religious view on a religion that does not share it. As I said, Jews do not expect non-Jews to follow their religious strictures, and unlike most God-based religions Judaism generally does not seek converts who would have to share those beliefs. So, if a non-Jew eats Beef Stroganoff--a mixture of meat and dairy--that is a-ok with a Jew. But the Jew would not eat it, nor would they eat from the dishes and utensils that it was on at least until they were ritually cleansed.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,steve
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM

Ron

I said it was valid to question this a a tragedy. That statement also gave scope for others to question it otherwise. It only affects me in that If such a discussion came up socially, I would also question it the same.

I deeply respect judaism,not least for the wisdom I have come across from a book by Rabbi Lionel Blue, quoting rabbis over millenia. In fact I have written a song inspired by something he wrote. However nothing should be beyond criticism. If something was, the person criticising would be judged a fool.

If I am insensitive here, I am sorry for being insensistive

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:30 PM

" I think it is extremely valid to question this episode as "a major tragedy". "

Why would you consider it "extremely" valid to question this, yet you question others who consider this a "tragedy" in their own culture?   Steve, how does this effect your world to the "extreme", so much that you feel compelled to write about it? Yet, when someone else feels their world has a "tragedy", there is something about your moral compass that is compelled to question it?   Sorry, but it sounds a little inconsistent to me.

As I read through some of these posts, I do see people looking for knowledge and understanding. I see others that wish for nothing more than an altercation and an excuse to act out. This discussion had nothing to do with your opinion of religion and dogma, yet some of you feel a need to find an opportunity to share your thoughts with the world - at the expense of others who in their own world are feeling troubled. Instead of compassion, or simply ignoring, some people choose to put salt in the wound. What does that say about you?

Rabbi Sol, you have my sympathy - although I don't think you were looking for any. Your post appears to have been an attempt to share some knowledge and give those of us who do not understand the culture a bit of insight.   What attracted me to the world of folk music and folklore was the ability to see and understand cultures that were different from my own. I guess that there are still people around who suffer from ethnocentric leanings and do not wish to understand. It is easier to pass judgement instead of trying to learn something.

I hope that something good can come from this terrible situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

Michelle, I was not referring to those that asked questions to gain understanding.

Let us get back to the discussion. We will save the discussion of tolerance on the Mudcat for another thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: LilyFestre
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

Hey Mick,

   It's nice that YOU understand completely what it is all about but some of us are still learning and certainly mean no disrespect. I can't speak for anyone but myself but I have asked out of curiousity and the desire to understand, certainly not to be disrespectful.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,steve
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM

I think it is extremely valid to question this episode as "a major tragedy". Sorry it isn't one. If you think it is get over it. There is enough real tragedy going on in this world to worry about.

I'm a strict vegetarian. If I accidently ate a bit of meat, it would not be a tragedy, it would be unfortunate. And my vegetarianism is informed by my religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 02:35 PM

Buck, with all sincere respect, spare me the lecture on public forums. As you might note, I have been posting on this particular one since 1998, as a member since 1999. I understand completely what it is about. My observation is based on remembrances of a certain tolerance that seems to be missing around here lately. Rabbi Sol didn't say anything that could be considered advocacy. He simply came to his online community to share his shock. What he got was mockery, from some, of his religious practices. I know very well that you post and take your chances, but I wish that this thread had just simply responded with empathy and a proper community attitude. It used to be like that, but lately even folks I care a great deal about, even myself, have been outright nasty.

Rabbi, I am sorry that this happened to you. I don't read any lack of respect for others in your offers to give the china away. In fact, I applaud your recognition that others might have a use for it that don't share the same religious beliefs as you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 02:13 PM

I think the forum speaks for itself. A situation with religious significance has occurred and Rabbi-Sol has given us an interesting insight into its effect on him and the psychological trauma to his and related communities, who thought they could trust the assurances of people, package labels, and the review process that enables them to keep their religious practises. They were betrayed.

Other folks on this forum asked some relevant questions, including me, as to where do we go from here?

Other folks then felt it necessary to give their opinions as to what they had read, and many of these opinions were colored by the existing prejudices of the people. And then, o'course, there came those of us who wished to point that out.

Rabbi-Sol, thank you for the posts, I wish you and your community well, and I'm curious as to how the miscreant winds up. From the browsing I've done I gather he is liable for a rather minor fine, but the shame to him must be great. Is there any chance he can be sued by the community for the financial losses of the dinnerware, since he as a member of the community would have been aware of the repercussions?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM

Surely this is a case of fraudulent advertising and defrauding the public; can criminal charges be laid against them?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 11:08 AM

Mick, if you place something in a public, internet discussion forum, everyone else participating is justified in assuming that you've placed it there for commentary by others. And when the posting is about religion, and not just religion but about some particularly detailed and abstruse, orthodox practices, one should reasonably expect more than just sympathetic murmurings. Otherwise, put it on a comment-free blog. "Discussion" by definition permits opposing points of view. Granted there've been some insensitive responses, but that's life, especially on the internet. I'll defend Rabbi Sol's rights to his beliefs and practices, glad to do so, but those rights do not include the necessity of everyone else shutting up in the face of them. For the record, my suggestion was sincere.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:54 AM

This thread troubles me. It starts out with a Rabbi talking about a fraud committed on him. He goes on to explain the dietary laws. He has patiently explained why the observant Jew can't use the china. He explains that his folks don't expect others to follow these beliefs, and that they will donate the china expecting nothing in return because their beliefs forbid them from profiting in any way.

What does he get for this? A bunch of people using this to attack religion in general and his belief structure.

There has been no attempt by the Rabbi to solicit, or proselytize. He simply came to his online community for support, and what he gets is a load of shit. IMO this speaks much more for him than the rest of you. No one is asking you to believe what he believes.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Colin Okeefe [The Duke of Omnium ]
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:41 AM

This thread will end up with the question or rather the statement, ' religion in general is a load of bollocks '

I'm an atheist, but they say there are no atheists in the trenches, and maybe I agree with this, so simularly, a person dying of starvation couldn't give a fuck if the china OR the chicken is kosher or not. GET REAL

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:31 AM

Yo Spaw, I'm with you, Woody had it dead right.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:26 AM

Maybe there are some Lebanese families in need of replacements for lost household goods.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Nellie Clatt
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:26 AM

For fucks sake, a dead chicken is a dead chickem, sterilise your china with 10%HCL, it will taste just the fucking same, It won't kill ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM

LOL@Michelle.......Kinda' like saying, "Here, take this piece of junk. Its good enough for you but not for me."

That isn't what is meant at all but it does kind of come across that way doesn't it? One more word on the Rabbi saying that God is punishing them........I guess I see it like Woody once said of songs. Remember the line about not liking songs that made people feel bad and worthless? I could go find the exact quote but it was to that effect. I can't understand any religion that endeavors to make you feel worse. What's the point in that? No sarcasm, no disrespect......I'd just like to know.

I am agnostic as I can neither believe nor disbelieve. Every religion requires some elements of faith in something that is not knowable so I hit a block right there. Of course I have no proof there is no god/are no gods so that stalls me out on the atheistic path. But if I were to start my own church/religion, I would not be blaming good people for the acts of some slimey-ass thief. I really don't get that at all.

Spaw

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: LilyFestre
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 08:53 AM

John,

   I guess I find that to be somewhat of an odd situation. If I were a follower of that faith, I'm not sure my conscience would allow me to give something away that I felt was tainted for others to use whether they were of the same faith or not. Don't misunderstand me, I think anyone who needed the serviceware would be thankful to have it and it's a good thing that people are willing to give it away. It's the thought process that I find odd.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 07:03 AM

If religion were rational, I don't think it would be religion. Every religion I know of requires its followers to accept certain things, which at first sight are crazy.

If this brings people peace, without feeling the need to inflict their rules and peace on others against their will, then religions are can be a great joy and insperation. It's when they fail to reach this ideal then the problems start.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:01 AM

is as insane as the maddest mullahs of Islam (May your God...)

The regulations and prescriptions of any religion do not have to be rational. Some of them may have been rational long time back and are no longer now, some may be rational still today, some may never have had a rational basis but that is nothing for an outsider to judge in my eyes.

However, I would get mad at and criticise harshly any religion that tries to tell others that they have to accept the rules of that religion as well. Whatever I think privately about the rules followed by (more or less) orthodox Jews is my business and I shall not talk about it here, but there is a big difference between this incident and the 'mad mullahs'.

The community of Rabbi Sol accepts that others do not follow their kosher laws (and gives away the china). The extreme fringe of Muslims did not accept last year that non Muslims may picture Mohammed. In some interviews German Muslims stated explicitely that this rule has to be followed by non-Muslims as well and the most extreme even told that non-Muslims may be killed for not following that rule. I must say I appreciate this difference.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:27 PM

LilyFestre-The china is 'treif' for Jews. They are contaminiated from a religious perspective, not from a health perspective. While observant Jews adhere to kashruth, it is not required-nor even expected-that non-Jews observe the laws of Kashruth, so they may use those dishes.

For those who question reasons Jews observe laws and perform rituals that are not found in the Torah or the 10 Commandments, the reason is that Rabbinic Judaism also follows the interpretations of Jewish law and living as promulgated in the Talmud, which in the most simplistic sense an amplification of the Torah. [I'll let Rabbi Sol get me out of this one on Sunday]. :>]

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Murray on Saltspring
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 09:01 PM

Can anyone (rabbi, lay, or other) explain WHY things have to be rekosherised? What, in other words, is the basis for this activity? If I remember correctly, the dietary laws of the Torah don't give such instructions. Who then did? What's the origin of the idea? Which sages came up with this evodently non-scientific process?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,May your God go with you
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM

No, look, sorry and all that, but the idea that religion frees you from the constraints of reason is not unique to Judaism and is as wrong for that religion as any other.

To take the simplest example, the idea that a re-fired glazed object might have absorbed something through the glaze, so that although it were put again in a kiln and heated to 1000 degrees it might still in any real way contaminated is as insane as the maddest mullahs of Islam - or the idea that the sacrament is in any way other than symbolically the body and blood of Christ.

By all means have religions as sources of morality, and by all means accept if you wish to (although there is I think no real evidence) that there may be a divine being or divine beings, but do not let these things become excuses for murder, persecution, or folly.

There is a lot of tippy-toe-ing about on this thread. Mankind should not deny reason for fear of offending religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: LilyFestre
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM

Question. If the china cannot be used because of treif, why would you pass it on to others? If it's contaminated for one, wouldn't it be for all? That strikes me as odd. Can anyone explain? I'm just curious.

Michelle :)

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 06:59 PM

I had a similar reaction a few years ago when I was talking with a co-worker who was a Jehovah's witness, and learned from her that as a rule they do not participate in elections, i.e. they don't vote. I was quietly outraged and made free with my opinion, but after a little contemplation and some internet research, I looked her up and apologized, and lucky for me, she had not been offended (or at least was kind enough to tell me she had not been offended).

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 06:11 PM

Sol, let me rephrase that last part.

I am sorry that I made the statement in a sarcastic way that would offend. I am NOT sorry for holding my own belief that while this is a crime, a fraud, and an act of outright greed which relied on misplaced trust, it cannot in my mind be considered a major tragedy. I hope the perp gets a hundred years based on the means of fraud involved.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 05:31 PM

I dunno' Russ.....I read it that way too and it was that which set me off along with the "major tragedy" element.

Somewhere along the line I guess I thought it was religion which many used to soothe the soul. The hellfire and brimstone bunch never seemed to make sense for that very reason.

Sol, if I offended I apologize up to a point........You are of course entitled to your beliefs and I have never felt otherwise. This one bothered me and it frankly should not have. Maybe I'm just in a piss poor mood!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 04:06 PM

Fascinating thread.

I just want to make sure I correctly understand something.

Rabbi Avraham Chaim Feuer is quoted as saying "we as a community are collectively guilty of not doing something right if God can let such a major tragedy befall us"

So he says that this event is God's punishment of the community?

So the evildoer is guilty and the community is also guilty?

Am I getting this right?

Russ (Permanent GUEST and easily ignored)

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,steve
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

Its not disrespecting any religion, by questioning whether or not it is actually a major tragedy. This is the definition from answers.com of tragedy (in such a context).

"A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, with all hands lost at sea".

I suggest it would be a tragedy if people died from eating the chicken.

Jewish dietary law in any case doesn't come under the ten commandments, and is a cultural aspect of judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 03:35 PM

It matters little whether you agree or disagree with the dietary laws, someone is guilty of an egregious breaking of trust....as it says, for greed. He lied...he mis-labeled...and he caused enormous upset in a community that trusted him.

I don't comprehend the dietary laws, but neither do I comprehend outright lying to those who keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

With all respect to those (such as Spaw, Guest Steve, et al) how hard is it to show a little respect for someone's religious beliefs? No one asks you to agree, but for these observant folks, this is a major tenet to their lives. I could understand the comment, until the "Wars, famine, disease, still cover the world and we're talking about chickens and sin" part. That was unnecessarily judgemental. The judgement to be passed should be on the perpetrator of this fraud. The fact that one chooses to live an observant life doesn't hurt a soul, and is too be admired, IMO, for its devotion to God as these folks see it. There is plenty to criticize in the world of organized religion with regard to the actions of the hierarchies of these religions (says the Roman Catholic guy), without attacking or impugning folks that are simply worshipping their God in their own way. One who takes advantage of this, in fact defrauds these good folks, they are the scum worthy of scorn.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Steve
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 02:58 PM

A major tragedy?


No-one died did they?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 02:43 PM

Rabbi, I like ya' and all, but reading this is why religion, any religion, simply scares the livin' shit out of me. Please don't try and explain. Mark Twain once made a comment about the bible which for me also applies to religions. It isn't the parts I don't understand that bother me....it's the parts I DO understand.

I spent a college summer in the employ of a Kosher catering service. I mention this because it was educational and I certainly learned a lot about Kosher food and Jewish dietary law. On the other hand I have a few stories from that summer that you don't want to hear.......like when the truck broke down on the way from the temple to a 500 dollar a plate (1967)Bonds for Israel Kosher dinner at the Governors mansion. I really don't think the borrowed truck met Kosher standard as it was from a sausage packing house. It was pretty greasy and none too sanitary inside and when that rack of Chicken Capons fell over............. Well, you don't want to know any more do you?

Wars, famine, disease, still cover the world and we're talking about chickens and sin.

Spaw