?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Rashi laptop

Mitch Daniels question for the religious right

Posted on 2011.05.17 at 09:40
Current Music: Gonn - Hey Joe

I don’t know if anyone has addressed this; if so, I would appreciate a link to it.


Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana, is one of those often mentioned in regards to the GOP Presidential nomination for 2012. He is still ‘thinking’ about it. My question is this. He married his wife, Cheri. They then divorced. Cheri married another man, but that relationship broke up, and she and Daniels reconciled and remarried. A happy ending right? Except that this situation is explicitly covered in Deuteronomy 24:1, where it is expressly forbidden. The same word- to’evah- meaning ‘abomination’ or ‘abhorrence’ is used that is used to describe other forbidden relationships (including a man sleeping with another man ‘as with a woman’ whatever that means) in Leviticus 18. So Daniels, from a Biblical perspective, is in a marriage that is just as forbidden by the Bible as a gay relationship might be. Nobody seems to care. Double standard, or what?


Comments:


Daniella
sunflower_sky at 2011-05-17 15:07 (UTC) (Link)
Good point. As a Jew, all I can say is that those rules don't apply to a non-Jew (same goes for homosexuality), but I'd like to see what a Christian would respond...

~D
(Anonymous) at 2011-05-17 15:20 (UTC) (Link)
Right, as a Jew it is a weird thing, but right wing Christians often use Lev. 18 and the idea of toevah as a justification for banning gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and the like. If you are going to do that, you should do it across the board.
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 15:27 (UTC) (Link)
Right, as a Jew it is a weird thing, but right wing Christians often use Lev. 18 and the idea of toevah as a justification for banning gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and the like. If you are going to do that, you should do it across the board.
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:14 (UTC) (Link)
Sexual morality laws do apply to non-Jews, though. They're incorporated by reference in the Noahide laws. I'm not sure if this would be one of them...
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 16:15 (UTC) (Link)
All of them? Really? I didn't think that was the case. I could be wrong.
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:38 (UTC) (Link)
That was just my five-minute understanding of the law, but it appears to be backed up by Hasidic University:

Noahide law on immoral sexual behavior
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 16:40 (UTC) (Link)
One more reason for my misnaged pride. ;-)
In either case, I am interested in hearing someone talk about it from the perspective of those who use Lev. 18 and 20 to forbid gay civil marriage.
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:45 (UTC) (Link)
I'm seeing different opinions on this online, so you may still be right. I personally don't know much about how the Noahide laws are interpreted.
Daniella
sunflower_sky at 2011-05-17 16:28 (UTC) (Link)
I could be wrong, but I think the category of "gilui arayot" only includes incest and adultery. Niddah, for instance, doesn't apply to them, even though it is also among the laws of sexual morality.

~D
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:44 (UTC) (Link)
Hasidic University has a breakdown of what Noahides are expected to abide by in terms of which commandments apply to them under the 7 main categories. They list both "no relations with a woman having her period" and "no remarrying one's divorced wife after she has remarried" as commandments applying to Noahides. They've got their cites there.

OTOH, there's apparently a noahide wiki, and it doesn't list remarriage-after-divorce/marrying-someone-else as prohibited.

I personally am not learned at all in this.

electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:15 (UTC) (Link)
A hypocritical republican? NO WAY
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 16:19 (UTC) (Link)
Well, I'm assuming that at least some small fraction of the religious right is just misguided rather than hypocritical, and they should oppose Daniels. After all, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, then Eve and some other guy, and then Adam and Eve again, myright?
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2011-05-17 16:45 (UTC) (Link)
I'm assuming that at least some small fraction of the religious right is just misguided rather than hypocritical,

you're more generous than i am...
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2011-05-17 17:44 (UTC) (Link)
It's not an issue of hypocrisy, but rather one of internal consistency or inconsistency within Christianity. What you need to do is ask a scholar of Christianity how they decide which laws still apply now (after the Messiah has come, in their opinion), and which do not. I imagine the answer may not make much sense, as much in Christianity makes no sense, but still, he may well be within the bounds of his religious beliefs. For your question, what is and is not in the 'Noahide Laws' is totally irrelevant, since the person in question considers himself a continuation of the Jewish religion in a post-messianic age, not a ben-Noah.
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2011-05-17 17:50 (UTC) (Link)
Wikipedia article on the subject is fascinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 17:58 (UTC) (Link)
That is an interesting article; Dual-covenant theology was pushed by the late John Paul II, and has more influence in current Roman Catholic thinking than this article implies, but I am not sure exactly how that works. Thanks for showing me that!
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 17:52 (UTC) (Link)
I know that it isn't relevant. There are those in the religious right who, on occasion, act as if certain halakhot apply. I have heard them say that those in Lev. 18 and 20 apply not because of a legal force, but because they are an abomination (to'evah) and so have a moral force even if not a legal one for them. I am curious to see if they actually believe this, and if so will apply it across the board. I do not know if Gov. Daniels himself has used Leviticus as a justification to his opposition to same-sex civil marriage or to the general acceptance of homosexuality. But, as I say, others have, and if they don't apply the same standards here then it is an issue of hypocrisy.
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 17:53 (UTC) (Link)
p.s. it is an academic question; I wouldn't vote for Gov. Daniels anyway, based on his performance as G.W. Bush's budget director.
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2011-05-17 18:01 (UTC) (Link)
Then what you need is research into Gov. Daniels. He would only be a hypocrite if he opposes homosexual unions on the basis of Lev.18 BECAUSE of the use of the word 'toevah.' On the other hand, he could believe that homosexuality is a moral law and 'remarrying a wife after she was married to someone else' to be a ceremonial law. Don't ask me how one would reach that conclusion. But then it would make him theologically confused rather than a hypocrite.

What I'm saying is, you are right do judge favorably. People can be wrong or misguided without being stupid, evil, or hypocritical, and my general assumption is to start from there (just wrong).
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-17 18:03 (UTC) (Link)
My original point was not about what Gov. Daniels himself believes, but about those members on the religious right who do use Leviticus to speak about gay marriage and homosexuality. I think that those people are acting hypocritically.
Release the Kraken!
delerium69 at 2011-05-23 17:40 (UTC) (Link)
Double-standard. They'll twist anything to suit their needs.
Jonathan
theservant at 2011-05-23 17:42 (UTC) (Link)
The bastard isn't running, so there goes my chance at the theological big time.
Previous Entry  Next Entry