Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 19:24:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Serious Question To Whomever: Could somebody please explain the rationale behind making "Statement of the Leadership Conference" in general? I just got a draft of one on "Death and Dying" and I'm not sure that the movement should take a stand on this and certain other political issues. Isn't this pretty similar to dogma? What if you don't think helping death is the moral, humanistic thing to do? I don't want to become a full Madrikh or eventually a humanistic rabbi with a complete set of orthodox humanist positions to which I must adhere because "the sages of my generation" (ie the leadership conference of SH Jews) have thus declared. Please give me some dialogue on this. Thanks. Adam [ Part 2.178: "Adam and "Aid in Dying" (fwd)" ] Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:17:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Walter Hellman To: Adam Cc: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Adam and "Aid in Dying" On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Adam wrote: > I'm not sure if everyone knows about what I'm talking. I'm referring to > statements by the International Institute or the Society or the > Leadership Conference regarding certain issues. Statements have been > released regarding intermarriage, who is a Jew, etc. My concern is > taking stands on issues where both sides of the issue can be accomodated > in a humanistic context; this case is "Aid in Dying," but others could or > have cropped up. I'm curious what people think about this. I hope that > cleared things up. > Adam Adam's message brings up the basic question of who or what determines the values of an organization or group of people. It goes without saying that if the leadership of an organization puts out position statements, those statesments will be seen as representing the entire organization. If those position statements lose touch with the membership, the organization's very existance will be at risk. This is why most organizations are very careful about putting out statements on controversial issues. Social issues will always be connected with religious frameworks, such as ours. It would be unreasonable to expect the leadership of SHJ, representing this religion NOT to have positions on important issues. The critical part of Adam's view is that HJ can accomodate, within its own philosophy, views different than that put forth by the leadership with regard to the Aid in Dying issue. Is this the case? It was as a result of questions such as this that I posed a previous question, "Is anything sacred in Humanistic Judaism?" It is hard to know what HJ can accomodate without having some clear answers on core values which cannot be violated. I think that we will understand our core values better by airing viewpoints on real issues such as the one raised by Adam. While I understand that the "leadership" of SHJ actually consists of representatives of the affiliated communities, as well as the core leadership, I think that on-line debate of issues would add another layer of input to the decision making process which would be of great value. So, Adam, let me suggest that you might summarize the "official" position on Aid in Dying, your position, why both are reasonably "accomodated" in HJ, or why the tenets of HJ do not apply to this issue. Others will then be in a better position to comment. Walter Hellman Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 14:33:05 -0400 From: Mate1920@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Official Position Statements There is a National Society Board meeting next weekend, and I will visit with Marilyn Rowens, the president of the Leadership Conference. I will also discuss the matter with Sherwin Wine with respect to the overall Movement (The Leadership Conference consists of Madrikhim and Rabbis, I believe). I can attest to the procedures we follow with respect to tthe Society as a whole. When the National Ethical Concerns committee wants to issue a statement (as it is currently doing with respect to the School Prayer issue) , it submits it to the Executive Committee of SHJ or the Board-- and it is then circulated among all communities for comment and suggestions. A final statement is then formulated, approved and issued. Whether a similar proceure is followed withgin the Leadership Conference, I do not know--but would guess it would be similar. The basic point Adam raises -- and acknowledges the problems inherent in it -- is can (or must) a 100%, unanimous opinion ever be achieved on any subject. I would doubt if this is achievable. However I, for one, would not require that my personal philosophies be accepted and met by any organization or Movement as a prerequisite of my joining or my being active therein. I do not believe (and I have been involved with organizations of one kind or another for more than 60 years) that this is possible. And I do not think that would prevent me from being a leader or advocate for that organization. It is possible, as Adam points out, that someone seeing an individual position may disagree and run from the organization. That would be unfortunate and may just be a fact of life. Far more relevant, it seems to me, is that if the Movement satisfies my basic philosophy and understanding and feelings about Judaism, I cannot ask that ebvery i be dotted and every t be crossed. Humanistic Judaism has given me something I can believe in and get immersed in for the first time in my long life. Although I have always considered myself very Jewish, not until I learned about SHJ, was I ever affiliated with any Jewish group. And for that reason I will have Sherwin Wine Bar Mitzvah me in California on my 75th Birthday come this October. Or do we now call it an Adult Confirmation Ceremony? Well, that puts my 2 cents in -- Adam, thanks for bringing up the subject and I fully appreciate the concerns you have. Let's talk it thru. Bert Steinberg [ Part 2.183: "Re: Response to Adam (fwd)" ] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:31:10 -0700 (MST) From: Grey Staples To: Michael Kleiner Cc: Secular Humanistic Judaism Subject: Re: Response to Adam We appreciated reading your post and wish to voice our agreement. It's unfortunate that the volume of mail from the groups to which we subscribe has already made our participation in the HJ group difficult. We're here, though, and are very glad that Humanistic Judaism articulates our beliefs so well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Grey and/or Pauline Staples Grey office: (602) 990-1769 * * greystap@enet.net (Phoenix, AZ, USA) Pauline office: (602) 241-1006 * <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< hellman@teleport.com Internet Public Access User Hillsboro, Oregon USA [ Part 2.184: "Offical Position statements (warning: it's a long one) " ] Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Offical Position statements (warning: it's a long one) I want to first thank Walter for his considered reply to my hasty outpouring of sentiment on a serious issue, but I also want to try, if I may, to change examples or better still, to change the focus of this discussion. Because the Leadership Conference's statement on "Aid in Dying" is still in draft form, I would prefer not to use that for a larger discussion. Instead, perhaps we could choose a different example, like Abortion. In the case of Abortion, my sentiment is that the large majority of Secular and Humanistic Jews would favor a position of "Pro-Choice." However, I certainly feel that it is possible to be "Pro-Life" and still be a Secular Humanistic Jew in a Secular Humanistic Congregation. The same can be said in general terms regarding Aid in Dying, but as I said before I would prefer to stay away from that until the statement is final. The best way to address this general issue, though, would be to stick to abstract, general debate. In other words, instead of arguing whether a specific statement regarding Abortion is a valid expression of a Humanistic Jewish position, I would prefer to debate the phenomenon of issuing these statement in general. Choosing a particular example would just help illustrate the general debate. So to do that, I will examine the case of Abortion, albeit in a VERY brief and unofficial way. I am not sure if a statement exists regarding this issue yet, but if it does I'm sure someone will please let me know. Abortion debate often hinges on when the fetus acquires concerns that outweigh those of the mother; in other words, when does the right of the new form of life to live outweigh the rights of the mother or mother to be to her own life? Just about everyone agrees that after birth, the mother cannot kill the child just so she can have an easier life. However, the issue is more complicated when you try to draw the line BEFORE birth. Is 3 months enough? Is 6 months? What about viability unassisted outside the womb? Is there some special act of combination of genetic code that is the true essence of human life that occurs at conception, thus rendering the fetus basically a human, thus immoral to kill by aborting? When deciding when a fetus becomes a person or enough of one to warrant some protection, to some degree this is a statement of belief or personal inclination. And this is where the possible difficulty comes in in deciding on a position statement. What does it mean to have a position statement on issues like Abortion or for that matter on any other issue? If you've noticed, I haven't objected to ALL statements, such as those regarding things like Jewish Identity. I feel that there are issues on which it is utterly essential to have some form of clearly-expressed consensus both for public relations and private issues. However, I want to make a distiction between essential and NON-essential issues. I would have no difficulty with statements regarding the power and importance of people to affect their and everyone's lives. Neither would I disagree with positive statement regarding the centrality of the Jewish experience in our understanding of our Jewish Identity, nor would I have a problem with a statement explaining our basic views on the historical significance of Jewish religious practice. The difference, I feel, with statements on issues like Abortion is the following: My perception was that ours was a movement with a minimal amount of dogma, and this is one of the great attractions for me to this movement. I am not really afraid of internal inquisitions against heresy. What I am concerned about is the public perception of these statements as a collection of firmly-held dogmatic beliefs of Secular Humanistic Jews, and when eventually I become a Secular Humanistic Jewish leader and I do NOT happen to believe a piece of this dogma, the Secular Humanstic Jewish movement will appear to be weak or inconsistent. If a statement of Secular Humanstic Jewish leaders says, "In our educated opinion, the position of Secular Humanistic Judaism on Abortion should be Pro-Choice" and I happen to be (which I am not) Pro-Life, not only will I feel conflicted, but if I am true to my opinions I will have to present this conflict to the world as part of Secular Humanistic Judaism. My current feeling is that the purpose of these statements is to state ONLY the central beliefs that bind us ALL together, not to present the views of the majority at that time on every issue, if for no other reason then the fact that that was the source of the Mishnah and Talmud: the considerations of a particular generation cross-applied throughout history to all Jews. There may be predominant viewpoints on certain issues like Abortion. It may be the opinion of the majority of EVERY community that something is right or wrong. But I would hate to see one of 4 scenarios ever happening. 1) The movement (or its leadership) decides that the issues like welfare, income tax refor, or social security are so intrinsically linked to its Humanist philosophy that it must take a stance, and then we become more known for our political-social agenda than for our membership in the Jewish community. We are members of a cultural ethnic group, and as such cannot have doctrinal statments on certain issues as can orthodox religious groups that accept unquestioned the dictates of authority. 2) Someone doesn't join a group or congregation because they see our statement on a specific issue and they don't agree with that position. This may have already happened, or this may never happen. But it's possible, because they might see this official position and misunderstand the debate that goes on behind them and after them. 3) The movement becomes divided along lines on political issues, and the really important philosophical issues become forgotten. In Jewish history there has been no shortage of ideological splintering for small reasons. I would hate to see a division of Politically-Conservative Humansitic Jews from Politically-Liberal Humanistic Jews for political reasons when both views can be contained in the same movement if multiple viewpoints are clearly accomodated. 4) As I described before, a leader is forced to compromise their beliefs for the perception of homogenaity, or the perception is one of anarchy when in reality there is much stability based on commonly-held beliefs. A few words in closing. I want to make clear that my first and foremost concern is what is best for the Secular Humanistic Jewish movement. If someone can prove what I said completely wrong, I will be happy to admit it and be a better person for it. In fact, in writing this I myself have thought of several arguments (in opposition to what I just presented) in favor of such position statements. However, I would like to get some response to this lengthy initial presentation before I go any further. If you have managed to read this far, thank you for your time, and I hope you can give me and the rest of us your opinion. Adam [ Part 2.185: "Re: Response to Adam (fwd)" ] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 13:14:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Michael Kleiner Cc: Secular Humanistic Judaism Subject: Re: Response to Adam I want to thank Michael for his response, and I also want to begin by saying that in the intervening few days since I posted that very long statement against making statements, I have managed to convince myself of the opposite position. I think that Michale is absolutely right: philosophy must not exist in a vacuum, it must be connected to action and events. Some people have asked me what I think of the Vatican's interference in the Population Control summit. I feel that that was appropriate because for him, contraception and abortion in particular are serious moral issues, and it would have betrayed his philosophical principles to stand idly by. In the same way, I NOW feel that it is certainly legitemate for us to live our lives by our principles and present these statements. My concern was that the very phenomenon that Michael pointed out about Israel a few years ago might happen on the small scale in our movement, but on reconsideration, I realize that Secular Humanistic Jews have enough confidence in their own opinions to not refrain from being heard. I'm sure that in many groups there is plenty of dialogue on any issue. There's not much that can't be discussed. I also realized that it would be ridiculous to ONLY issue statements about our philosophy. If we have a shared philosophy, we should have a shared position on certain issues like Abortion, etc. And Michael is right that if one person disagrees, that will not cause a rift but on the contrary, by debate on how our principles should be applied to a particular issue, we reaffirm those very principles in the process, as Walter said in his first posting on this subject. I hope no one takes this to mean that discussion is closed" on this topic. There are still questions of method or content, of issues to be chosen (Michael mentioned a few). I just wanted to make clear the flux in my opinions. As in many things, in explaining my gut response logically, I found what I should logically feel, and that is the position in which I want to end.