Religions Contempt and Control of Women
Wed, 2007-08-29 05:51
#1
remind
Religions Contempt and Control of Women
Wed, 2007-08-29 05:51
#2
remind
After, the last thread on whacked Christians imposing a "consent" to be spanked by their husbands, and now this, I thought a discussion could insue regarding religions devaluing and mis-treatment of women by almost all, if not all, religions.
quote:
A woman claiming she was coerced into a sexual relationship by a rabbi is suing the rabbi and a prominent Toronto synagogue for $1.3 million.Richmond Hill resident Yona Nadler, 52, is suing Rabbi Tobias Gabriel and the Beth Tzedec Synagogue for breach of fiduciary duty and the pain and suffering she claims the relationship caused her and her marriage.
[b]The lawsuit highlights an issue that has pushed some religious institutions into writing codes of conduct that govern relationships between clergy and members of their congregations.[/b]
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/250889]http://www.thestar.com/News/a...
Wed, 2007-08-29 09:48
#3
This rabbi sounds like so many others who abuse their position of trust in the community in order to control and/or be sexually gratified by those in a position of relatively less power. Priests, politicians, doctors, dentists, teachers ... the list goes on and on.
Is the guy despicable? He sure seems to be. Should he be made to resign? SHell yes. But I don't buy the "coersion" claim by this 52 year old married woman whose extramarital affair has left her family life, and emotional well-being in ruins.
If the guy was pressuring her for sex, she had many avenues of recourse, including filing a complaint with the synagogue. This devoutly religious woman knew, or certainly should have known, that having sex with her rabbi behind her husband's back was wrong on a number of different levels, and should have known that his harassing behavior would not be tolerated. This rabbi is being forced to resign and he has been suspended. Can the Catholic Church, with its history of whitewashing the horrendous abuses of its clergy reasonably claim that it responded appropriately to complaints from parishoners? Gosh no. Not even a bit (until forced to very very recently).
Conservative and orthodox Judaism in general, and this case in particular, really doesn't consistently offer that good a point of comparison with other conservative and orthodox religious faiths which dictate that women are to be ruled and dominated by their husbands who maintain their wives as domestic chattel for the purposes of service, procreation and sexual enjoyment.
Looks like this woman is trying to avoid taking responsibility for bad decision-making. I feel badly for her, and think the rabbi is a real shit, but I don't think she has much of a case against him, or the synagogue.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:08
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
[b]This rabbi sounds like so many others who abuse their position of trust in the community in order to control and/or be sexually gratified by those in a position of relatively less power.[/b]
Ummm, this dude is the [b]CANTOR[/b]. He's a hired singer at the synagogue. He is not the rabbi of the synagogue - in fact, under Judaic custom and law, he is no kind of spiritual leader.
Anyone who graduates from certain Jewish colleges and receives a certificate known as "s'michah" can call themselves "rabbi". It's like calling yourself "Doctor" if you have a PhD. It does not in any way mean that they lead a congregation or ever will. All it means is that they've graduated from a certain course.
I can well understand the synagogue firing this cantor for his actions, as might any employer discipline or dismiss an employee who seduces or just takes up with a valued customer - but to suggest there was a hierarchical relationship between the two is just an error.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:11
#5
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
[b]
... I don't buy the "coersion" claim by this 52 year old married woman whose extramarital affair has left her family life, and emotional well-being in ruins.If the guy was pressuring her for sex, she had many avenues of recourse, including filing a complaint with the synagogue. .[/b]
The Rabbi, being in a position of authority and trust, could use Legalism and authoritarianism in conjunction with blackmail, psychological manipulation, the synagogue's patriarchal organisation, fear and shame (past or present experiences of the woman he may be privy to) to get what he wanted. The woman may not have had much choice, from a psychological and personal point of view.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:20
#6
I know we cross-posted, but let me please emphasize:
He was not "the Rabbi".
He was not "her Rabbi".
He was the cantor. And he taught a class for wannabe cantors. It's like a 52-year-old complaining that their tennis instructor seduced them. The instructor may be a shitbag; the instructor may be liable to termination by the tennis school; the instructor may have ruined the person's life; but unless the instructor committed some criminal offence (extortion, sexual assault, stalking, rape, whatever), or unless the victim was under-age, what's the big deal here???
[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:26
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ummm, this dude is the [b]CANTOR[/b]. He's a hired singer at the synagogue. He is not the rabbi of the synagogue - in fact, under Judaic custom and law, he is no kind of spiritual leader.[/b]
Not true, he is a Rabbi, just not the Chief Rabbi of the synagogue though, and he taught lessons in being a Cantor, and he was known to have done this before.
And apparently it is a deeply conservative synagogue, as such, I agree with TH.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:29
#8
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ummm, this dude is the [b]CANTOR[/b]. He's a hired singer at the synagogue. He is not the rabbi of the synagogue - in fact, under Judaic custom and law, he is no kind of spiritual leader. but to suggest there was a hierarchical relationship between the two is just an error.[/b]
That's not true. In many cases the rabbi is also the cantor, especially in smaller congregations. A rabbi - whether also a cantor or not - is not a priest. But a rabbi does hold a position of respect and trust. She is one who leads the congregation in prayer - spoken or sung, teaches, counsels and is generally involved in the community. A rabbi does have to achieve a level of scholarship, but rabbis are not intermediaries between worshippers and god the way priests are.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:29
#9
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Not true, he is a Rabbi, just not the Chief Rabbi of the synagogue though, and he taught lessons in being a Cantor, and he was known to have done this before.
And apparently it is a deeply conservative synagogue, as such, I agree with TH.[/b]
"Not true"? Remind, I'm trying to help you out here, because you obviously don't understand the terms "Rabbi" or "Conservative" (which is a rather liberal branch of Judaism, despite the name). If you want to feel scandalized by this non-story, however, I guess I'll leave you to it. I do encourage you, however, before you say that something I've said is "not true", to look it up.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:33
#10
remind
I did, I reread the article, are you saying the Star is wrong?
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:36
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
[b]In many cases the rabbi is also the cantor, especially in smaller congregations.[/b]
Yeah - but not in this case! That's just a diversion. This man [b]is not[/b] "the Rabbi" of this synagogue. He's the Chazzan. That's like the choir leader in a church, singing solos.
quote:
[b]A rabbi - whether also a cantor or not - is not a priest. But a rabbi does hold a position of respect and trust.[/b]
That is utter nonsense. The janitor could be a rabbi. It's not a position, it's a degree. A Chazzan (cantor) holds no position of "respect and trust" in a synagogue, other than the fact that people might respect his musical abilities and trust her/him to hit the right notes!
quote:
[b]She is one who leads the congregation in prayer - spoken or sung, teaches, counsels and is generally involved in the community.[/b]
The Chazzan leads the congregation in prayer in a Jewish synagogue - but the Chazzan [b]DOES NOT[/b] teach or counsel or get involved in the community by virtue of their position. That's the Rabbi that does that. The Chazzan is [b]not[/b] an authority figure in anyone's wildest imagination.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:39
#12
Polly B
quote:
13. If you enjoy sinning, the choir is looking
for you.
I couldn't help it. I got this from the Beth Tzedec website....I just had to post it.
[url=http://www.beth-tzedec.org/joke/]Someone should update this website.[/url]
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:44
#13
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I did, I reread the article, are you saying the Star is wrong?[/b]
No, remind, I'm saying you are wrong:
quote:
Gabriel, [b]who was hired as a cantor[/b] by Beth Tzedec, has accepted an agreement with the synagogue that will see him resign at the end of the year, Kwinter said. He will be paid until then, he added.Gabriel, [b]who is not the synagogue's chief rabbi[/b], has been suspended and will no longer work at Beth Tzedec, Royce said.[/qb]
This is the same as saying that [b]he is not the rabbi[/b], period. He doesn't work for the synagogue as a rabbi. He's the cantor - the chief singer.
quote:
[b]In July 2006, Nadler was the only female in Gabriel's class for student cantors at the Bathurst St. synagogue when Gabriel became "friendly and flirtatious," according to a statement of claim filed by Nadler and her husband, Samuel, at Ontario's Superior Court last month.[/b]
That's a class teaching people to sing the liturgy. He's not a spiritual leader - and he wasn't teaching her to be a spiritual leader either!!
By the way, if this were an Orthodox synagogue, it would be inconceivable to have a woman cantor or to teach women to be cantors. That's to Rebecca's remind's comment about "deeply conservative"... It's Conservative with a capital "C". It's like calling Joe Lieberman "deeply democratic" or George Bush "deeply republican"!!
ETA: Very sorry for the typo, I had attributed remind's "deeply conservative" comment to Rebecca - now corrected.
[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:51
#14
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]The Rabbi, being in a position of authority and trust, could use Legalism and authoritarianism in conjunction with blackmail, psychological manipulation, the synagogue's patriarchal organisation, fear and shame (past or present experiences of the woman he may be privy to) to get what he wanted. The woman may not have had much choice, from a psychological and personal point of view.[/b]
TH, it may be that this rabbi used all of those means, and more, but those claims have not been made publicly. I'm basing my opinion on what's in the Star article. Also, being deeply religious in a conservative congregation does not necessarily mean that a rabbi holds unquestioned power and authority. It's not like other faiths or sects where the leader,priest, preacher or mullah of a conservative group of worshippers is holy and revered. In fact, blind unquestioning faith is somewhat antithetical to Judaism.
Wed, 2007-08-29 10:52
#15
Thanks for the link, Polly - brilliant!
And on that note, [url=http://www.beth-tzedec.org/our_clergy/;jsessionid=D93393B5C4C07AB2032CAE... you have the photos and bios of the synagogues three Rabbis, the Program Coordinator (she also happens to be a Rabbi, but that's not her job here), the Rabbi Emeritus, and the two "Hazzan" (Cantors). The Cantors might very well have rabbinical degrees (like the Program Coordinator), but they're not "Rabbis" of the synagogue - they're singers.
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:12
#16
OK I know this is difficult...I agree completely with Unionist
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:19
#17
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
By the way, if this were an Orthodox synagogue, it would be inconceivable to have a woman cantor or to teach women to be cantors. That's to Rebecca's comment about "deeply conservative"... It's Conservative with a capital "C". It's like calling Joe Lieberman "deeply democratic" or George Bush "deeply republican"!![/b]
The synagogue in question is not an orthodox synagogue, and thanks, I'm aware that orthodoxy currently prohibits women from being rabbis and cantors because orthodox jewish women and men pray separately. This is changing, however, very slowly. There are no ordained orthodox women rabbis, but there are women who fulfil that role in women's prayer groups. All of which is beside the point, oh quibbling one.
Also, I don't believe I've used the phrase "deeply conservative" anywhere. Please feel free to point out where I have. And whether I used the upper case or not in conservative or orthodox (I don't capitalize many words that others do) is also extremely irrelevant.
Reform is the liberal branch of Judaism. Conservative is not liberal per se - it only seems progressive when compared to most mainstream faiths, many of which are hopelessly mired in antiquated doctrine.
Unionist, unless you are a rabbinical scholar, rabbi or cantor, or even a member of a conservative synagogue, your pointing out "errors in fact" made by others isn't very credible.
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:20
#18
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]I know we cross-posted, but let me please emphasize:He was not "the Rabbi".
He was not "her Rabbi".
He was the cantor.
yep we did
Thanks for the distinction unionist.
quote:
The statement of claim says Nadler relied on Gabriel as "an authority figure to give advice to her, to guide her and to protect her from harm."
from the article
Can the cantor also serve the role of counselor, advisor, and be considered an authroity figure?
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:29
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
[b]
Also, I don't believe I've used the phrase "deeply conservative" anywhere. Please feel free to point out where I have.[/b]
You didn't. Remind did. My blunder, I apologize for that.
quote:
[b]Unionist, unless you are a rabbinical scholar, rabbi or cantor, or even a member of a conservative synagogue, your pointing out "errors in fact" made by others isn't very credible.[/b]
Rebecca, I am extremely well versed in these matters and spent 13 years of my life studying them. I apologize again for mistaking remind's post with yours on "deeply conservative". But if you, or anyone, tries to suggest that the role of a Chazzan is remotely similar to that of a Rabbi, or a priest, or even of a schoolteacher with young persons under their charge - that is ridiculous. That's why the Star scandal looks totally phoney to me.
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:36
#20
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]Can the cantor also serve the role of counselor, advisor, and be considered an authroity figure?[/b]
Not in Jewish halakhah or custom or tradition. If this individual decided to view this dude as "an authority figure to give advice to her, to guide her and to protect her from harm" - then (if true) that was part of their relationship or maybe her own personal feelings. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was a cantor in her shul!!!! Kindly refer again to my example of tennis instructor.
By the way, in a Conservative synagogue, even if it had been the Rabbi (which it wasn't), Judaism just doesn't establish that kind of authority relationship.
Let's say my next-door neighbour is a retired Mayor and Nobel-prize winner and composer and renowned biologist. She is a wonderful person, respected and trusted by all, and people come from far and near to seek out her opinion. One day, while I'm over for coffee and cookies, after many failed efforts, she finally seduces me. When my spouse finds out, I sue my neighbour for $1.3 million.
Please.
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:48
#21
Polly B
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
One day, while I'm over for coffee and cookies, after many failed efforts, she finally seduces me. When my spouse finds out, I sue my neighbour for $1.3 million.Please.[/b]
Actually, it would be your spouse doing the suing. In this case, her spouse has claimed that the damage this did to [i]his[/i] marriage is worth $100,000. I wonder how you calculate a dollar figure on something like that?
Wed, 2007-08-29 11:52
#22
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]I wonder how you calculate a dollar figure on something like that?[/b]
roll 2d6 and multiply by $10, 000
Wed, 2007-08-29 13:32
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]I couldn't help it. I got this from the Beth Tzedec website....I just had to post it.
[url=http://www.beth-tzedec.org/joke/]Someone should update this website.[/url][/b]
Heh. Most of those are also jokes I've seen posted as church bulletin bloopers. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-08-29 13:36
#24
Ok, folks, [url=http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:agKPfjraLeAJ:www.jtsa.edu/about/com...'s the real story[/url] (before it disappears from the Google cache...). This 64-year-old grandfather got his rabbinical s'michah - in December 2005!!! And his job functions never changed at the synagogue! From Feb. 2006:
quote:
Congregants at Beth Tzedec Congregation are still getting used to referring to their chazzan sheni as Rabbi Gabriel, instead of the more familiar “Cantor Gabriel.”Rabbi Tobias (Tobi) Gabriel was ordained from the Jewish Theological Seminary on Dec. 15, an accomplishment all the more impressive for the fact that he kept up with full-time synagogue duties while commuting by plane twice a week to classes in New York, just over 800 km away. Not to mention that, at age 62, the father of three and grandfather of seven is decades older than most of the students in his graduating class.
Doesn't sound as if his "spiritual authority" changed much just because he went to grad...
Tue, 2008-06-03 17:07
#25
The sad truth about everything I have read so far on this issue is that everyone is completely missing the mark.
The rabbi/cantor's position or authority or veracity is not relevant to what happened.
What is missing the fact that this clergy member of the Beth Tzedec had had affairs with other women in the past and that the head rabbi as well as others were aware of his behaviour.
They covered for him then and they continued to cover for him in this event as well.
Remember that two women were mentioned in the law suit, and that two women were acknowledged by the Beth Tzedec as having been abused by this sexual predator.
The truth is that the Beth Tzedec continues to cover up by keeping the head rabbi on staff, even though the board of directors know that he was involved in the cover up for years before all this came out as a result of the law suit.
I think that a law suit would have inevitably happened.
I think that it was the only course of action left open to those people who were seeking justice, and ran into, a cover up.
Remember, Nixon was impeached because of his cover up, not because he was a burglar.
Tue, 2008-06-03 17:14
#26
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]What is missing the fact that this clergy member of the Beth Tzedec had had affairs with other women in the past and that the head rabbi as well as others were aware of his behaviour. [/b]
Having affairs is a sin? At my age, it would be a mitzvah!
Seriously though, if you're saying there's no issue of abuse of authority (and I didn't see evidence of any at the time as I stated in this old thread), why shouldn't everyone have affairs?
[i]P'ru, ur'vu, umil'u et ha'aretz![/i]
Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land!
As I said, it's a mitzvah, one of the taryag (613) commandments, Genesis 1:22.
What God hath put together, let no human put asunder.
As for the cover-up: Adam and Eve got turfed from the Garden for covering up. Haven't we suffered enough for their indiscretion?
[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2008-06-04 11:21
#27
I have no idea what you are talking about.
First I did not address the issue of abuse, because it is self eveident both from the legal point of view and the moral.
From the legal point of view if it were not against the law the law suit would not have happened.
In some states in the U.S. this "rabbi" could have done jail time.
Just as doctors and others in positions of power and trust have intrinsic authority, so too do religious leaders.
This is accepted fact in law and by medical doctors and mental health practicianers.
From a moral point of view it is clear and acknowledged, that married men should not be chasing after other women.
This "rabbi", this religious leader, this teacher of morality, had a history and a pattern of behaviour of chasing after married woment. This clearly showed he had no concept of right and wrong.
All of the above is not only self evident, but worse, his behaviour was known by his fellow clergy, and they covered up for him.
They, therefore, are equally guilty of not knowing the difference between right and wrong, and should not be trusted as moral and religious leaders.
Why the board of directors at the Beth Tzedec have not changed their leadership is beyond me.
Wed, 2008-06-04 11:23
#28
I think people are confused by the label "Conservative." Conservative Judaism is middle of the road Judaism and there is much more common ground between Conservative and Reform Jews than with Orthodox.
Wed, 2008-06-04 13:03
#29
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Having affairs is a sin? At my age, it would be a mitzvah!Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land!
As I said, it's a mitzvah, one of the taryag (613) commandments, Genesis 1:22.
What God hath put together, let no human put asunder.
As for the cover-up: Adam and Eve got turfed from the Garden for covering up. Haven't we suffered enough for their indiscretion?[/b]
This made me burst out laughing in my office. Well done! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-06-04 13:20
#30
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]I have no idea what you are talking about.[/b]
You mean the Hebrew bits?
quote:
[b]From the legal point of view if it were not against the law the law suit would not have happened.[/b]
Actually, if it were against the law, someone would have called the police. Which law did you have in mind? Other than the laws of body chemistry, I mean...
quote:
[b]In some states in the U.S. this "rabbi" could have done jail time.[/b]
In some states they would have used lethal injection on both of them. Thank God they did the deed in Ontario!
quote:
[b]Just as doctors and others in positions of power and trust have intrinsic authority, so too do religious leaders.[/b]
"Religious leaders"???? The man is a (literally) f***ing [b][i]CANTOR[/i][/b]. Do you know what that means? It means he can carry a tune! He's a crooner!
quote:
[b]From a moral point of view it is clear and acknowledged, that married men should not be chasing after other women.[/b]
They can only chase if the women are running. I believe the facts in this case are that she was standing still. Or perhaps seated, not sure of the details.
quote:
[b]This "rabbi", this religious leader, this teacher of morality, had a history and a pattern of behaviour of chasing after married woment. This clearly showed he had no concept of right and wrong.[/b]
If so, then he's not guilty by reason of insanity! You think I don't watch T.V. courtroom dramas? I know my law!
quote:
[b]All of the above is not only self evident, but worse, his behaviour was known by his fellow clergy, and they covered up for him.[/b]
Again with the "covered up". It's just plain modesty. Is that a crime now too?
quote:
[b]Why the board of directors at the Beth Tzedec have not changed their leadership is beyond me.[/b]
Because they're all in it together! So to speak.
Wed, 2008-06-04 18:53
#31
Again all of you are missing the point.
The law of the land is both civil and criminal.
Clearly civil law in Ontario was broken, and possibly criminal law in some states was broken by him, not by her.
All of you are creating ridiculous arguments and ignoring the reality.
He is guilty on a civil, and in some jurisdictions on a criminal level.
But regardless, he is guilty on a moral level based on his chosen profession as a rabbi.
He is a cantor, yes, but also a rabbi, and in both cases a religious and moral leader.
He is far more than simply someone who can carry a tune.
That is a totally ignorant and/or uninformed comment designed to obscure the truth.
As to the cover up, none of this would have happened if the people in charge would have enforced the rules they profess to live by many years ago.
Don't forget these people profess to be moral leaders.
Wed, 2008-06-04 21:15
#32
...Just look on wikipedia if you don't believe Unionist. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazzan]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazzan[...
BEHOLD! It is fairly well corroborated information. However, I beseech you, O truth, to continue this hilarious line of reasoning. At least it is getting some of the funniest posts I have seen here in many a moon.
Thu, 2008-06-05 05:30
#33
Papal Bull,
I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
Your technical definition of a cantor is correct.
So what?
He was also a rabbi.
So what?
His functions in the synagogue were also that of a teacher, and he also officiated at many different life cycle events.
The point is that after 13 years of working in the synagogue, he did much more than simply lead some of the services, and his position within the community was definitely that of a religious leader.
As such, his behaviour did contravene moral and professional codes of ethics.
His behaviour did contravene civil legal laws.
In some US states his behaviour contravened criminal law.
As a teacher, and a rabbi, and a cantor, he did have boundaries which he should not have crossed.
He crossed those boundaries many times over many years with at least 2 women, and possibly more.
And his bosses knew about it and covered for him.
Your remarks make no sense, and are not at all to the point.
Besides, why would you want to defend this adulterous, liar?
Thu, 2008-06-05 05:51
#34
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]His functions in the synagogue were also that of a teacher, and he also officiated at many different life cycle events.[/b]
What do you have against sex education?
quote:
[b]The point is that after 13 years of working in the synagogue, he did much more than simply lead some of the services, [/b]
Much much more, I would agree. There are services, and then there are services.
quote:
[b] ... his position within the community was definitely that of a religious leader.[/b]
I've already pointed out in a previous post, on the issue of "chasing", that the "position" in question is not made clear by the media reports.
quote:
[b]Besides, why would you want to defend this adulterous, liar?[/b]
All right, I'll grant he might have slipped up on the 7th commandment bit. But why are you calling him a liar?
Thu, 2008-06-05 05:53
#35
I think it depends on the culture of the organization, too.
Going by my own religion...
In some churches, the choir leader is just another person at church doing their part, without any authority over anyone else. At my church, the organist and the choir leader were both like that - they weren't considered to have "positions of authority".
In some congregations, however, there ARE people who are considered kind of like elders, you know? People who have a lot of power within the church don't necessarily have that because of their official position, but sometimes it's because of their social standing. In some churches, the choirmaster position is a big deal. It can be a position of authority, especially if people within the church see the choirmaster as particularly gifted by God, or spiritual.
I have no idea what the case was in this synagogue. But I would be surprised if there weren't similar sorts of variances between different congregations in synagogues as there are between churches.
Perhaps the reason this guy decided to get his title of "rabbi" is because he already held an unofficial position of authority within the congregation's society, and he felt that was something he was "called" to do (excuse the Christianese there [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ) because of what he was already doing.
Or, maybe he really was just Joe Cantor who didn't hold any perceived position of spiritual or societal authority over the others. It's hard to know.
My guess, considering that he was an older man who plays a vital part in the worship services and was leading music classes for aspiring cantors, and that he achieved a degree of learning for which he recently became able to be addressed as "rabbi" makes me think that there was some authority there.
[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Thu, 2008-06-05 06:11
#36
Michelle, this is a [b]Conservative[/b] congregation (which really is a synonym for "liberal", as pointed out earlier), not a Hassidic sect. Rabbis are not representatives of God or anything remotely similar in the Jewish religion. There is no central authority to which they are answerable. They are hired as knowledgeable people about religion and tradition, and as community organizers. People don't go to rabbis for advice about family problems etc. They don't confess their sins to them. Conservative rabbis don't exhort people as to how to live their lives (any more than a politician does in pleading her/his cause).
If someone is dazzled by a cantor - or even by a rabbi - it would be akin to someone getting charmed or seduced by a performer or rock singer or visiting author or ... You get the picture. To use the word "authority" in this context would be a complete and utter falsification. There are no authorities of that kind in Judaism, with the exception of course of the ultra-orthodox sects and the role of the "rebbe" in the Hassidic sects.
Thu, 2008-06-05 08:51
#37
Unionist, you are right and wrong.
First a conservative synagogue in Canada, is very conservative, not liberal.
In comparison to orthodoxy, then you are right.
But in comparison to reform you are wrong.
Also there is a strong difference between a conservative synagogue in Canada, and a "conservative" synagogue in the US.
The Canadian version is much more conservative.
As to authority, this is really the essence of the issue.
This adulterous scum bag did not have the same institutionalized authority as a priest in the Catholic church.
Such a structure of authority dose not exist in the Jewish religon.
He had the same kind of authority that comes from being a person in a position of high regard and respect, which is naturally given to rabbis, cantors, doctors, teachers, etc.
Those people in all of the above mentioned professions enjoy a status of respect, which if they were manipulative and dishonest they could use to their advantage when dealing with their clients and students.
This "authority" is recognized as existing by both the medical profession and the law. The members of such professions and their governing bodies, have established boundaries for their personal interaction with the people who come to them because of their profession.
He did have this moral authority both because of his profession and because of his long standing position within the synagogue and the community.
And why did I call him a liar.
Any man or woman who cheats on his spouse is by definition a liar.
Again why so much effort to defend this scum bag?
Thu, 2008-06-05 08:57
#38
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]This "authority" is recognized as existing by both the medical profession and the law. The members of such professions and their governing bodies, have established boundaries for their personal interaction with the people who come to them because of their profession.[/b]
If a lawyer seduces her client (talking about two consenting adults here), she'll be booted out of the bar association? News to me.
quote:
[b]Any man or woman who cheats on his spouse is by definition a liar.[/b]
So the good Cantor's sex partners are liars. How would you like to punish them?
quote:
[b]Again why so much effort to defend this scum bag?[/b]
You want the truth, the truth? Because I don't see what he did wrong. And because seduction lawsuits launched by cuckolded middle-aged people sounds like some kind of Victorian novel. And because, at the end of the day, I believe that love conquers all.
Thu, 2008-06-05 09:35
#39
You again twist and turn to avoid the truth.
He did seduce two women, and he was kicked out of the cantorial and the rabbincal assembly.
The same would happen to a doctor and also to teachers, and under certain circumstances to lawyers.
He is not being punished for being a liar, it is simply the reality of what he is. Your question is silly.
You seem angry.
Why?
If love conquors all what happened to the "love" for his wife?
If love conquors all, did he hold the same "love" for both women who brought the law suit?
And if you really don't see what he did wrong, then you really have a problem.
Would say the same thing if your spouse cheated on you?
Would you also say that you don't know what your spouse did wrong?
Your real problem, it seems to me, is with the fact that there was a law suit.
If the Roman Catholic church had not covered up for their sexual preditors, law suits would not have been necessary for the victims to get justice.
Probably this law suit came about because of the same type of "cover up" behaviour by the people who were in charge.
I have no idea where you get this "cockhold" thing.
There were two women that launched the law suit.
Is this scum bag a friend of yours?
Thu, 2008-06-05 09:45
#40
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]
Probably this law suit came about because of the same type of "cover up" behaviour by the people who were in charge.[/b]
Actually, it seems as if the "victim" is now part of the "cover-up".
She sued for $1.3 million. Did you know that? Why did she want all that money? To heal her marriage? To cure her hurt feelings? Seems like a strange approach, no?
Worse yet, she [url=http://416-777-7777.com/News/GTA/article/267699][b]settled out of court[/b][/url] - money changed hands. And by doing so, she guaranteed that the whole story would never become public.
Amazing what a little money will buy. Ain't it, the truth?
quote:
[b]Is this scum bag a friend of yours?[/b]
Before I answer that: are you married to one of the women?
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:19
#41
Here is how a law suit works. The lawyer will ask for a settlement for X amount of dollars. The other side refuses to settle. Because the case will now go, presumably, before the courts, the lawyer now asks for much more than the original settlement offer.
These money discussions usually take place amongst the lawyers. The person bringing the suit follows to, and listens to what the lawyer does on their behalf, because the lawyers are experts and the client is not.
Affidavit of documents are exchanged. These documents help both sides determine who was wronged, how much they were wronged, and what it was worth to the plaintiff.
After all information has been gathered, both sides then determine if the case goes to court or if it canm be settled outside of court.
In sexual harassment/sexual assault cases, generally the victim does not want to go to court, for very good reasons. (I am going to assume that those reasons are self-evident here).
The eventual outcome is a settlement out of court. Why out of court? It saves the victim a hell of a lot of trauma, and two, and more importantly, it saves the company or defendant the publicity that they definitely do not want.
Unionist, I usually agree with most of what you say but your last post does not even begin to show an understanding of how, in cases of a sexual nature, the very outcomes you describe as seemingly sinister, are actually very very common and often have very little to do with the victim.
[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:24
#42
No I am not personally involved with any of the participants.
But I am a professional who feels that professionals need to be held accountable, or we are all brought down, and we all loose the respect that should be ours.
Society relies on its professionals. If someone chooses such a profession as a rabbi or a cantor, he must be held to higher standard.
As to the money of the law suit, that is probably very misleading.
When civil law is broken, money is the only recourse.
The amount of money asked for in law suits must always be high, or they are not treated seriously by the people being sued.
And if it was settled quickly, it usually means that the people suing agreed to the first offer that was made to them.
The first offer is usually very low.
This usually means that the people involved were seeking justice, not money.
Again, I have no direct knowledge, but I do have experience, and these are my opinions.
Again, why are you so interested in defending this person that betrayed his wife, his children, his profession, and his congregation and his religion?
He brought shame and disrepute to himself, his colleagues, and the religion that he was supposed to believe in.
Such a person dose not deserve loyality.
Because his professional colleagues covered for him, makes this so much more serious an issue.
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:29
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]
In sexual harassment/sexual assault cases, generally the victim does not want to go to court, for very good reasons. (I am going to assume that those reasons are self-evident here). [/b]
You know, Stargazer, I've been indulging in a lot of horsing around in this thread, and maybe I shouldn't have because I know nothing about what happened except what was in the media. My main aim was to explain to everyone that this character Tobias was not any kind of authority figure in Conservative Judaism.
But while I agree with your description of the process in general, I do take issue with your assumption that "the victim does not want to go to court" in this particular case. It was the "victim" in this case who went public, so that everyone knows who she is (Yona Nadler), where she lives (Richmond Hill), how old she is (52), and that she "cheated" on her husband. This was not some assault victim going to the police and hoping to keep her circumstances as discreet as possible (which sometimes can happen, too often not). It was a civil suit where she was looking for money and not at all reluctant to make her name and story public.
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:45
#44
Again the only thing you said that makes sense is that you should have taken it more seriously and that you know very little.
Launching such a law suit is not evidence of a willingness to go public.
When a law suit is registered it becomes public record, open to anyone who knows where to view these things.
Most law suits never get publicized.
But if there was a cover up, then this was the only avenue left open to the victims.
This professional used his position to sexually exploit women.
Make no doubt about it, these women were his victims.
His family were his victims.
His colleagues and his religion were his victims.
The synagogue he worked for covered for him so that he could continue to do so.
Remember there were two women. One of them did not go public. One of them had to put her name on the document.
No, I think that there was no desire to go public, but there was desire to get the institution to live up to its responsibilities.
Again, why are you so eager to defend this fraud?
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:49
#45
One more thing, your "desire" to make it clear that a cantor in conservative Judaism is not an authority figure also exhibits a total lack of knowledge of a cantors position in general, and of this cantor in particular.
Thu, 2008-06-05 10:59
#46
quote:
This was not some assault victim going to the police and hoping to keep her circumstances as discreet as possible (which sometimes can happen, too often not). It was a civil suit where she was looking for money and not at all reluctant to make her name and story public.
I'm not familiar with this particular case (I confess, I have not read it actually) so I can see that things as I described them may not have happened that way. However, you do not need to go to the police at all to initiate a civil suit. Oftentimes the victim will want to settle quickly and get the whole ordeal over with. The lawyers are the driving force here. Launching a civil suite does not mean anyone is looking to go public. In fact, the opposite is often true. I guess I just don't think it was fair to claim that settling out of court, or the amount of money that may or may not have changed hands, is some sinister plot cooked up by the victim. The generalizations are not helpful and are in fact, inaccurate.
Settlements out of court will generally come with a nondisclosure agreement.
I don't know what happened in this case.
Thu, 2008-06-05 11:03
#47
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]Again, why are you so eager to defend this fraud?[/b]
Because his relationship with his accuser was that she was in a cantorial class and he was giving her singing lessons.
Because "seduction" between consenting adults in circumstances like this is not the business of the public.
Because his parents, like mine, were refugees from the Nazis.
And because I prefer the approach of the Rabbinical Assembly which issued his semicha:
quote:
The R.A. has a “zero tolerance” policy toward rabbinical impropriety, said its executive vice president, Rabbi Joel Meyers, “but the goal is not always to just say, ‘Sorry, you’re finished.’ As rabbis, we absolutely believe that teshuvah [repentance] is possible. The question is whether there is a commitment to changed behavior.”
Think about it.
- From an article by fellow babbler Sheldon Gordon in [url=http://www.forward.com/articles/11548/]The Forward[/url].
Thu, 2008-06-05 11:23
#48
I am truely sorry if I have in any way insulted or offended you.
You clearly have some kind of emotional involvement here.
You continue to find irrelevant issues to obscure the truth.
His parents being refugees from the Nazis in no justifies his behaviour.
You choose to ignore his professional responsibilities.
The owness is always on the professional to know the boundaries and not to cross them.
To trivialize his status as a teacher by saying he was giving singing lessons is to intentionally refuse to deal with the true nature of the relationship.
If you choose to walk around with blinders on, no one can help you to see.
As to the quote from Joel Meyers, this was a generalized comment not made directly in reference to Tobias Gabriel.
His history of behaviour with more than one woman indicates a pattern of behaviour, and thus repentance is probably not possible.
But then again this is irrelevant.
He is a fraud.
He is an adulterer.
As a cantor and a rabbi much much more is rightfully expected from him.
He failed everyone around him.
You simply can't apologize that away.
Thu, 2008-06-05 11:45
#49
quote:
Originally posted by the truth:
[b]I am truely sorry if I have in any way insulted or offended you.[/b]
It doesn't help to apologize if you continue to be insulting and offensive.
You can debate this issue without attacking the person you're debating with. Unionist has answered your question over and over again, as to why he's "defending" this person. You need to stop asking now.
If you want to discuss this issue and share your point of view, fine. But that doesn't mean you get to ask over and over and over and over again what someone else's motivations are for disagreeing with you.
Sun, 2008-06-08 05:26
#50
Hi Michelle, I have been away for a while.
I really wasn't trying to attack anyone, but I found it extremely frustrating dealing with irreverance for an issue that I felt demanded the proper kind of understanding.
After all, what kind of person says that she dosen't see what Gabriel did wrong by having numerous affairs and cheating on his wife.
Would she condon her husband cheating on her and say that she dosen't see what he did wrong? Obviously she wasn't being honest.
Just as obviously Unionist's comments were not designed to better understand what happened, but rather to garnish support for a man that brought disrepute to an institution and a profession and a religion that I hold dear.
If it is true that her parents were refugees from the Nazis then she should try to honour them by demanding more of our moral and religious leaders not by using them as an excuse for such immoral behaviour.
Gabriel, and others like him, who have exploited women, who have exploited their position for their own sexual gratification, deserve our condemnation not our support and certainly not our loyality.
People like Gabriel are a blight on society.
It is both sad and dangerous when society refuses or fails to see the inherent wrong of such behaviour.
Such blindness invites more illegimate behaviour.
The truth of his actions and others like him must be exposed and recognized for what it is, or we are all at risk.
Blogs have become important forums for the exchange of ideas. As such they are a powerful media, and should be used with care and a higher sense of responsibility to advance a better society, not to advance the support of villaneous behaviour.
Sun, 2008-06-08 06:23
#51
I think irreverence is an important asset if you are going to deal with religion and its clergy.