大象传媒

I think Judaism is a fascinating "faith spectrum" - it is incredibly diverse, and for many people it is more of an indentity, rather than a corpus of actual beliefs. For example, the concept of a Jewish Atheist is much less problematic for many Jews than the concept of a Christian Atheist is for many Christians. Probably something worth exploring in all this.

Will, I've often wondered a bit about the experience of Jewish people living in NI. The Synagogue and Hebrew School are up the Somerton Road - I've never visited, but I do hope to be able to go along some time (I've forgotten who our local Rabbi is). The history of Jewish people is intriguing; following the expulsion of Sephardi Jews from Iberia in the 15th Century, many moved north into France, and there is some evidence that they may have assimilated into the Huguenot population (no idea if any genetics backs this up) and "converted" (or concealed their Judaism) to Calvinistic Protestantism. One Huguenot symbol (I am led to believe - this may be nonsense - someone more learned than I may know a LOT better - I don't want to do a Dan Brown!) was the burning bush superimposed by the Tetragrammaton; the Presbyerian burning bush emblem may be derived from this. Against that hypothesis is the observation that one thing the Protestants and Catholics had *in common* was a nasy anti-Semitic streak.

All that fun speculation aside (even Brian probably thinks I'm losing it), I do think the Jewish angle is potentially an interesting one (actually, wasn't there a thing on 大象传媒 a while back?? Will - any of your archive johnnies recall this?)

Why is this significant?

Does the fact she's a Jew mean anything other than she's a Jew?

Aside from the likes of Fox News going into apopletic fury at yet another Supreme Court place not going to a Neo-Con and the good people over at Conservapedia banging on about some conspiracy or other perpetrated myth, I'm more impressed that more women are serving on the highest bar of the US than a Jew. The US has a technical separation of Church and State, therefore her religious views -should- be irrelevant.

I do like her response though. More judges should be witty.

There is a kosher Chinese restaurant in London called Met Zoo Yan.

Metzooyan is a Hebrew word. It means excellent.

Standard issue democrat liberal, who, like the rest of them, can't read plain English in the Constitution, but mysteriously see see words that are not there, like "privacy" and "abortion".

Chris, would you care to expand?

They invent rights that aren't in the constitution, such as privacy, and then use those non-constitutional rights to cover things they support like abortion.

And yet on the other side they can't read the plain text on free speech, freedom of religion, guns and death penalty.

Now before you all go for me - I'm not a gun or death penalty supporter - but it's clear that the US constitution provides for both and if you want to change it you need to change the constitution, not bung in judges who make up the law as they go along.

Have a read here about how Kagan, when working for Clinton, manipulated medical experts into supporting partial birth abortion. She got them to change 'the select ACOG panel "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.鈥� into "partial-birth-abortion procedure 鈥渕ay be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.鈥�




You can read about her attempt to deny it here

#4:

The consitution also doesn't mentions computers, aeroplanes and motorised vehicles, but I see you're quite happy using all of them.

Stupid.

The constitution is ambiguous at best regarding gun ownership, it's entirely based upon the semantics of the sentence.

Regardless, just because something is in the constitution doesn't make it a god-given right, prohibition was on the constitution for several years, but they soon dropped it.

Your issue seems to be that's she's a liberal, and you don't like her because of it. Well, you're not going to get much sympathy here. Liberalism means something more positive in Europe, as opposed to the Fundamentalist States of America.

2nd amendment "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not that ambiguous. Okay, if you look at the militia reference you can create ambiguitybut I think the second clause of the sentence is stronger than the first.

And no where did I say something was God given because it's in the constitution. My point is that judges are there to interpret the Constitution as written, not as they'd like it to have been written. Your point about prohibition makes my point. Prohibition didn't happen because some judge invented it - it was added by the 18th amendment and it didn't disappear because some judge uninvented it - it was removed by the 21st amendment.

I don't like her liberal views but the real problem is that liberal judges impose their liberal views on the text whereas conservative judges tend to be conservative in their interpretation as well as their views - they don't invent conservative views if they're not in the text.

I would love the US to abolish the death penalty - but it has to happen by legislation or constitutional change, not pretending the constitution says what it doesn't say.

Isn't the whole point of having a judge is to interpret the law? Otherwise we could feed the evidence into a computer and have it decide. The constitution was written over 200 years ago when the United States wasn't even a fully-fledged country and the world was a very different place. Threat of Britain taking back control of its wayward colony, legal slavery, native american tribes banging on the back door - it all lends itself to a constitution written for a specific purpose.

If a judge refuses to adapt a 200 year old document to meet the needs of a society far different to that of the past (even though some might not like the changes) then they are not doing their job properly. Conservatism has a role in keeping a check on inevitable change and progress in society, but it shouldn't restrict change simply due to an ideological adherance to the way things have always been. Liberalism is much more adaptable and, inevitably, will win out.

If it doesn't meet. the needs of society you change it - simply ignoring it turns judges into super legislators and that's not their job, liberal or conservative.

Constitutions are designed to be conservative in the sense that they restrain simplistic change - they're supposed to be changed by a clear will of the people.

After weddings I had officiated at, the newly weds would often invite me to a meal at their new house, after returning from their honeymoon. On one such occasion I left the husband in the sitting room and went through the kitchen to chat with the wife as she prepared the meal.

I noticed that she had cut both ends off the ham before she put it in the oven to cook. For no other reason than conversation, I asked her why she cut off the ends of ham, did it cook the joint better? Did it make the joint tastier?

The woman replied that she didnt really know. She had been taught to cook by her mum and she just did what she did.

Two weeks later when I was at the supermarket, I bumped into the mother and, now as a matter of interest, I asked her why she had taught her daughter to cut off the ends of the ham. Did it help cook the ham, etc.. She said that she didnt really know. That was the way her mum had taught her.

As luck would have it, two weeks later I was visiting the old folks home and met the granny. By this stage I was frantic and wanted to know why these women were cutting off the ends of ham before cooking it. I shook the old dear, "Why did you teach them to do this?!! Does it help cook the ham? Does it make the ham nore tender? Does it make the ham tastier?"

The old dear said, "Naw! It was just that in those days I had a tiny wee oven. It wouldn'ae fit."

Not many people realise that Chaim Herzog, sixth president of Israel, was born in Belfast.

Helio - you should make the effort to visit the Belfast synagogue. I went for the first time to see This Is What We Sang during the last festival. The building is, internally at least, a little jewel of sixties architecture and the lay-out is intrigueing. There seems to be a regular programme of events, films, exhibitions which would give anyone interested an introit.

It may be without significance but, on your theory of Jewish/Huguenot conversions, my mother's family was part Huguenot and, on that side, I have several ancestors who had the Christian names Isaac or Israel.

P, that's very interesting. There is a short account of a visit to the Belfast Synagogue on the .

It seems like a very tiny congregation, which is a pity. Perhaps we should all go along some time to help swell the numbers and show solidarity with one of our oldest and smallest minorities?

The religious make-up of the Supreme Court was discussed in Americana. The court has 9 judges - 3 are Jewish and 6 are Catholic. Not one is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP). All 9 have studied law at either Harvard or Yale law schools, and 1 comes from a poor background. In Congress the percentage of representatives who are Protestant is 50 percent (this has fallen from 75 percent).

Matt Frei discussed the matter with law professor Noah Feldman (starts in 15th minute).

/programmes/b00swljp

Surely the point of the Supreme Court, or any collection of 'experts' is to have the best?

Instead of pointing out the religious and racial demographics, see how many had top-notch educations, performed Law flawlessly and excellently and earned their right to sit there.

To cloud the issue with someone suggesting that any body should be demographically proportional excludes people on the grounds of race, religion or background. Are you seriously suggesting that if a place came available, you -must- give it to a WASP, even though there might be a black muslim with better qualifications.

Jellyboy, I think when you tell that story you're supposed to at least begin with "there's a story told" otherwise people might think you're suggesting it actually happened to you when we all know it didn't. The story's as old as your heresies:

And what exactly is it supposed to have to do with the issue?

I think the content tells you it is anecdotal, Chrissy. And if you dont "get it" why dont you sit down and think about it for a while, reflect on it, maybe even pray about it. Maybe the penny will suddenly drop.

RJB, I hate to say it, but Rice Chrispie has nailed you on that one. Nice story though :-)

Of course I "get" the story. I got it the first time I heard it twenty years ago, though I think the version was about a cat and a temple. The value of customs or traditions have to be examined or questioned - standard liberal fare trying to suggest all traditions are stupid.

I'm just not sure what point is being made regarding the US Constitution. Okay, the Constitution was drawn up in a different age, but, not a dim and distant past. We know the history, we know each amendment and most importantly we know the mechanism for changing it. The legal method is by amendment; the liberal method is by pretending words mean something else or by using terms that aren't in it as if they were (like "the separation of Church and State") to justify all sorts of shenanigans.

And I still think you tried to pretend the story actually happened to you.

Maybe you didn't really dump the Eucharist in the sea - maybe that was an anecdote about St John Bosco and his vision of the Eucharist and the ship.

Speaking of anecdotes - funny story from Christmas about five years ago. Listening to news on Radio Ulster. One of those temps they bring in on holidays reading news about a guy being bitten by his own pet snake. Apparently "a special anecdote was flown in from Scotland".

So, Chris, what are the mechanisms you use to change what is in the bible? Custom and practice?

Chrissy,
I first heard the story 20 years ago too. I used it at many weddings, on radio, in articles for magazines, in my book and generally anywhere that it might annoy religious stuck-up-sticky-beaks. I would guess that it is centuries, not decades old, as there have always been SUSBies.

Had I said, "This was written by Hans Kung..." You would have replied, "Ha! He's dismissed by anyone of any consequence!" Had I said it was by Hans Christian Anderson, you would have claimed that he was a gossip. What ever.

On whether I was trying to claim authorship of it. No. (And this is for you Helio too.)Every time I used that story at a wedding or where ever, by the time I got to, "Two weeks later, I happened to be visiting the old folks home...", the listeners would burst out laughing. They realise at that point that it is a STORY, that it didnt actually happen. (The triple set up... the englishman, irishman and the scotsman...)I was crediting you with the intelligence of others. Yeh I know, presumption is a sin.

The story stands. By using it I was attempting to expose, not the arrogance, but the stupidity of those who claim that they are the sole inheritors of truth and knowledge because they follow tradition.

The bit I especially like is that it is the Granny who finally exposes their stupity, not some tambourine wielding liberal. How ironic. Yip, God has a sense of humour.

In your favour, when you have to explain a joke, it probably wasnt funny.

Jellybelly, And the connection with the US Constitution and the discussion about Kagan is what? I've no problem with the story and it's great to question the point of customs, but again, what's it got to do with the issue in the thread? And what's the name of your book?

Helio - the bible itself as it was written over centuries is about ongoing revelation - that's why it's dodgy quoting the odd text here and there, particularly from the Old Testament. And that's why Christ left us a Church. But obviously you can't change a bible the way you can change a constitution (unless you're protestant reformers and want to leave out the bits you don't agree with).

Chrissy

Your post # 12. "If it doesnt meet the needs of society, you change it."

My post # 13 was a response to it. Where's the problem?

It's not a problem, I just don't see how you can equate the US Constitution with a custom of unknown origin which doesn't mean anything because the context has changed like the story of the hams.

I think the story is filled with meaning. You'll hear a very similarly constructed story this Sunday. A story which didnt actually happen either, a story in which the context has changed, but one that is still full of meaning and relevant.

LOL, RJB - No, Chris is right. It's like the time this chap told a joke about bread and wine being his body and blood, little knowing that some weirdos would take it literally ;-)

# 29

I am reminded of a little formula, attributed to Queen Elizabeth I, I learned while preparing for confirmation; it is simple yet marvellously subtle and totally conveys the very essence of Anglicanism. I can go along with it 100%.

"His were the lips that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what those words do make it,
I verily believe and take it".

And the rest of us can fake it.

;-)