|
|
|
May 9, 2003/Iyar 7 5763, Vol. 55, No. 37
Letters to the EditorMay 9, 2003
Society must strive for a higher moralityEditor:I'm surprised Barry Cohen finds that if the majority of people chose against the practice of a particular behavior (polygamy), this discounts the behavior's value, correctness or morality. ("Beyond Santorum's society," Jewish News, May 2) Judaism itself obviously fails this test of societal participation. Such judgment should not condemn us to irrelevance or legal sanction. And if it did become illegal to practice Judaism, doesn't history teach that is unrelated to our existence? Aside from the high standard Judaism sets for marital fidelity, historical evidence suggests serial monogamy is a recent choice of "our" society and does not find support in the rest of the animal kingdom. Of course, humans must be expected to behave differently from other animals, but genetic similarities reveal how antithetical to our nature this is, and thus suggest why we continue to find it difficult. The alternatives to lifelong monogamy don't just include serial monogamy but polygamy and polyamory in many forms. As we begin sliding down the proverbial slippery slope and accept variations like serial monogamy, homosexual marriages, adoptions and workplace "family" benefits, the challenge is to bring scientific and religious insight to bear and to keep our eye on what we want to become, not necessarily where we've been. Hal Siegel Scottsdale Editor: Whatever one may personally think of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-Pa.) recent controversial comments about sexual morality, his placing of homosexual and incestuous activities on the same plane reflects Jewish tradition. One can argue about whether secular law should reflect morality. But a pure libertarian will oppose laws against not only homosexual relations but incest - intimate relations between a brother and his sister, for example, or a father and his adult daughter - as well as polygamous and polyandrous (multi-husband) arrangements, and bestiality (which has its advocates, like Princeton Professor Peter Singer) no less. By contrast, many of us believe that moral ideals should be enshrined in law, that doing so teaches young people important lessons. And we understandably fear the message that would be conveyed were states to be constitutionally prohibited from having such laws. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion, but it does not abandon the concept of morality. And the prospect of our society being constitutionally compelled to cut its moral moorings is not something to countenance lightly. Rabbi Zvi Holland Phoenix Community Kollel/Aish Hatorah Scottsdale Editor: I read Barry Cohen's May 2 commentary, and I must say that I am most disappointed. I am upset the paper devoted such a large space about something that doesn't mean much at all as it relates to Jews. People are people and they will do what they want to do in spite of what some senator or law says they may or may not do. For example, there used to be laws against abortions and women got them anyway. On the other hand, I do not recall any editorial comments about the racist, anti-Semitic remarks made by Sen. Jim Moran of Virginia about how "Jewish influence" pushed the United States into the war with Iraq. If given a choice about which remarks represent a more "clear and present danger" to American Jews, can there be any doubt that Moran's comments are of greater concern than anything that Santorum may have said about gays? I am amazed that the Jewish community is not screaming for Moran's resignation. Moran's remarks and accusations would have fit right in with the Hitler movement. Why doesn't the paper speak out about something that directly affects American Jews? Jewish News has misplaced priorities. S. Bert Gorman Peoria
|
