Celebrity Deaths

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that the Archie Bunker type racism isn't acceptable, whether those ideas were common among working class men of a certain generation or not?

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one?

Everybody in a free society has the right to tell you anything.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that racism isn't acceptable?
link to original post

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about me, and about racism.

I was under the impression it was about deceased celebrities, and that we were discussing their lives and their work, like the intelligent and accomplished people who frequent this site might be interested in, instead of recriminations against other site members, like other kinds of people might be interested in.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that the Archie Bunker type racism isn't acceptable, whether those ideas were common among working class men of a certain generation or not?
link to original post

What you mean to say is, it's not acceptable today at this time where we live. But it's still very acceptable in much of the world and has been throughout history and always will be. You cannot change Human Nature.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that the Archie Bunker type racism isn't acceptable, whether those ideas were common among working class men of a certain generation or not?
link to original post

What you mean to say is, it's not acceptable today at this time where we live. But it's still very acceptable in much of the world and has been throughout history and always will be. You cannot change Human Nature.
link to original post

Funny, since people were marrying girls as young as 13 in some states 60 years ago, I didn't expect the following:

Quote:

During George Washington's time (mid-18th century colonial America), the average marrying age was around 20 for women and 26 for men, though it varied, with many marrying earlier than later European counterparts, and Washington himself married Martha at 26, while she was a 27-year-old widow.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that the Archie Bunker type racism isn't acceptable, whether those ideas were common among working class men of a certain generation or not?
link to original post

What you mean to say is, it's not acceptable today at this time where we live. But it's still very acceptable in much of the world and has been throughout history and always will be. You cannot change Human Nature.
link to original post

Funny, since people were marrying girls as young as 13 in some states 60 years ago, I didn't expect the following:

Quote:

During George Washington's time (mid-18th century colonial America), the average marrying age was around 20 for women and 26 for men, though it varied, with many marrying earlier than later European counterparts, and Washington himself married Martha at 26, while she was a 27-year-old widow.

link to original post

Something that is rarely mentioned is that almost half of the white immigrants to America in George Washington's time arrived as Indentured Servants and weren't allowed to marry until they had fulfilled their four to seven-year obligations. It was almost impossible for a lad from an Irish farm to save up enough money for passage on a ship.

Yikes, it happened AGAIN! 😱😳 I randomly looked up All In The Family theme song and Rob Reiner about THREE days ago and Rob Reiner died two days ago! 😱😳 I randomly looked up Cheers Theme song about THREE days before George Wendt's death too! 😱😳 RIP to Rob and George! 💡

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yeah, why can't you seem to grasp the idea that the Archie Bunker type racism isn't acceptable, whether those ideas were common among working class men of a certain generation or not?
link to original post

What you mean to say is, it's not acceptable today at this time where we live. But it's still very acceptable in much of the world and has been throughout history and always will be. You cannot change Human Nature.
link to original post

What you meant to say about what I meant to say was that the fictional Archie Bunker may have been one of the most memorable characters in all of TV history, but a real person who believes or excuses or dismisses anything Archie Bunker believes in is an odious person whose beliefs have no place in civil, modern society.

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't

Quote: billryan

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't
link to original post

This is correct however that's if the woman doesn't convert to Judaism

While conversion is discouraged in the religion, those people who are insistent are usually welcomed in for their diligence.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.

Archie was physically and mentally abused by his father, but defended his father for teaching him "good." Hopefully, the cycle of abuse ended with him.

Quote: billryan

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't
link to original post

As many people profess to believe that a man can self-identify as a woman and thus be a woman; I would hope you would be broad-minded enough to believe that a man with a male Jewish parent should be allowed to identify as Jewish. Without you declaring that they are not Jewish.

Scientifically, there is no difference between a "man's blood:" and a "woman's blood" when designating ancestry. Are the children of a mixed (black-white) marriage considered to be white when the Mom is white? Are there different rules for different racial groups?

My grandmother was a Russian Jew, my father was half-Jewish, and I am one-fourth Jewish. And none of my Jewish friends have ever told me that I am not part Jewish or made me feel unwelcome in a Jewish community in any way. This is not an ancient religious matter decided by the nonsense of medieval voodoo rules.

You have no authority or standing to offend me or anyone else by telling us that we are not Jewish.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.
link to original post

Good illustration of generational attitudes. Archie was of the WWII gen in the show, which means he would have been born around 1920. That also happened to be the year the first commercial radio station went on the air so having a radio on the kitchen table was a big deal, and his generation was the first to grow up with broadcasting and being exposed to ideas from without their immediate community. His father would have still been on the Victorian norms, but the WWII gen were liberals and it was actually Archie and his contemporaries who were in charge of the social changes of the 60s and 70s. The Baby Boomers weren't old enough yet to have any power. But because of the political upheavals in the aftermath of the Depression (which made the 60s riots look like a hen party) they were very suspicious of radical politics, and saw the radicals of the 60s as being similar to and as dangerous as the fanatics they were fighting in the wars.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't
link to original post

As many people profess to believe that a man can self-identify as a woman and thus be a woman; I would hope you would be broad-minded enough to believe that a man with a male Jewish parent should be allowed to identify as Jewish. Without you declaring that they are not Jewish.

Scientifically, there is no difference between a "man's blood:" and a "woman's blood" when designating ancestry. Are the children of a mixed (black-white) marriage considered to be white when the Mom is white? Are there different rules for different racial groups?

My grandmother was a Russian Jew, my father was half-Jewish, and I am one-fourth Jewish. And none of my Jewish friends have ever told me that I am not part Jewish or made me feel unwelcome in a Jewish community in any way. This is not an ancient religious matter decided by the nonsense of medieval voodoo rules.

You have no authority or standing to offend me or anyone else by telling us that we are not Jewish.
link to original post

Jewish law dictates who is or isn't a Jew and it has nothing to do with their religious commitment. If your mother was Jewish, you are a Jew. You are a person of Jewish ancestry, but most branches of the faith will tell you you aren't Jewish simply because you had a Jewish grandfather.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.
link to original post

Archie wasn't bigoted. Archie denounced the KKK when he ended up at a meeting that he did not know where he was going. Archie just stayed with his own, which is what you did back in the day. He was no more bigoted than George Jefferson next door.

There is an episode where two black guys break into the Bunker's house and they actually laugh more at Mike because he thinks he knows it all because he went to college and learned it.

Quote: billryan

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't
link to original post

As many people profess to believe that a man can self-identify as a woman and thus be a woman; I would hope you would be broad-minded enough to believe that a man with a male Jewish parent should be allowed to identify as Jewish. Without you declaring that they are not Jewish.

Scientifically, there is no difference between a "man's blood:" and a "woman's blood" when designating ancestry. Are the children of a mixed (black-white) marriage considered to be white when the Mom is white? Are there different rules for different racial groups?

My grandmother was a Russian Jew, my father was half-Jewish, and I am one-fourth Jewish. And none of my Jewish friends have ever told me that I am not part Jewish or made me feel unwelcome in a Jewish community in any way. This is not an ancient religious matter decided by the nonsense of medieval voodoo rules.

You have no authority or standing to offend me or anyone else by telling us that we are not Jewish.
link to original post

Jewish law dictates who is or isn't a Jew and it has nothing to do with their religious commitment. If your mother was Jewish, you are a Jew. You are a person of Jewish ancestry, but most branches of the faith will tell you you aren't Jewish simply because you had a Jewish grandfather.
link to original post

Sorry, that's not exactly how it works. The important thing to know is that there is no Jewish pope, all of these rules are interpreted by the congregation and the individual. So if a congregation says "Yeah, you're one of us" you're a Jew. I was confused the first time a person told me he was a "Jewish atheist" and goes to a temple anyway, but that's how it works for them; you're Jewish by dint of any Jewish congregation accepting you. On the other side you have the ultra-Orthodox who might say that anyone who doesn't do as they do have abandoned their covenant and aren't really Jewish.

I'm not Jewish, but nobody would guess that by my dating history.

I'm no expert on their religion, but I did co-own a bar named McHebes, my fraternity's nickname as our membership was half Irish, half Jewish when it was formed. None of the established fraternities admitted either, so they started their own. Before college, I had two Jewish friends, one whom I had known for years before I found out he was Jewish. College was an eye-opener. The majority of my pledge class was, as were most of the sorority sisters. Overnite, I entered a very different social circle.
My understanding is that Jewish law is set out in the Halacha and is very clear on who is considered Jewish. Unless it recently changed, it was people whose mother was Jewish and converts who followed a specific course of action. Several of my fraternity brothers married into Jewish families that required them to be circumcised as adults.
Do Jewish people no longer follow that law, or has it been changed?

Quote: gordonm888

You have no authority or standing to offend me or anyone else by telling us that we are not Jewish.
link to original post

Nor do you have any standing or authority to dictate what the rules are when the entire Jewish religious establishment has ruled on this and determined you are not Jewish.

Orthodox and Conservative Judaism (the majority of organized Jewish religious authority):

Maintain matrilineal descent as Jewish law (halakha)
A person with only a Jewish father is not considered Jewish without formal conversion
This isn't my opinion or a casual tradition - it's codified religious law going back to the Talmud (around 200-500 CE)

Reform Judaism (1983):

Officially adopted patrilineal descent - recognizing children of Jewish fathers as Jewish if raised with Jewish identity
This was hugely controversial and created a split in how different Jewish movements define membership

Reconstructionist Judaism:

Also recognizes patrilineal descent

You cannot disqualify the authority or standing of others when those authorities with standing have specifically disqualified you from inclusion.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Sorry, that's not exactly how it works. The important thing to know is that there is no Jewish pope, all of these rules are interpreted by the congregation and the individual. So if a congregation says "Yeah, you're one of us" you're a Jew. I was confused the first time a person told me he was a "Jewish atheist" and goes to a temple anyway, but that's how it works for them; you're Jewish by dint of any Jewish congregation accepting you. On the other side you have the ultra-Orthodox who might say that anyone who doesn't do as they do have abandoned their covenant and aren't really Jewish.

Yes, that is how it works. There is no "Christian pope", he is leader of one sect, Catholicism. Judaism has chief rabbis and rabbinic counsels, it is exactly the same.

Jewish congregations may in specific instances choose to violate the dictates of their central authority. This occurs in ALL major monotheistic religions. That doesn't mean they get to decide how their faith is defined over the dictates of their elders.

Converts are to be treated exactly the same as those born to the tradition. That's one of the mitzvot. Which makes it the same as Catholicism; a convert is exactly the same as Francis X. So a congregation can declare that anyone raised as such and chooses to come to their temple, is same as a convert and is one of them. Every rabbi is entitled to his own opinion and probably has several, and whatever the guy you choose as your rabbi teaches, that's how it is for you. Same as for Christians, you can go to a theologically orthodox or theologically liberal church, or be Catholic, or unchurched, whatever suits you, and they all teach it differently but you're still Christian even though some of them will claim that the others are not.

Jewish can be a culture, a religion, or an ethnicity. There are many branches of the religion, but almost all of them follow the Law.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Converts are to be treated exactly the same as those born to the tradition. That's one of the mitzvot. Which makes it the same as Catholicism; a convert is exactly the same as Francis X. So a congregation can declare that anyone raised as such and chooses to come to their temple, is same as a convert and is one of them. Every rabbi is entitled to his own opinion and probably has several, and whatever the guy you choose as your rabbi teaches, that's how it is for you. Same as for Christians, you can go to a theologically orthodox or theologically liberal church, or be Catholic, or unchurched, whatever suits you, and they all teach it differently but you're still Christian even though some of them will claim that the others are not.
link to original post

I don't think so.
Anyone can self-identify as a Jew if they want. Anyone can call themselves a Rabbi. Anyone can call themselves an AP player or a daughter of Zion. It doesn't make it so.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

A person isn't Jewish because their father was Jewish. They are Jewish through their mother's blood, not their father's.
If Carl Riener married a non-jew, his children wouldn't be considered Jewish by most branches of the religion.
Jesus is considered a Jew because his mother was, even though His father wasn't
link to original post

As many people profess to believe that a man can self-identify as a woman and thus be a woman; I would hope you would be broad-minded enough to believe that a man with a male Jewish parent should be allowed to identify as Jewish. Without you declaring that they are not Jewish.

Scientifically, there is no difference between a "man's blood:" and a "woman's blood" when designating ancestry. Are the children of a mixed (black-white) marriage considered to be white when the Mom is white? Are there different rules for different racial groups?

My grandmother was a Russian Jew, my father was half-Jewish, and I am one-fourth Jewish. And none of my Jewish friends have ever told me that I am not part Jewish or made me feel unwelcome in a Jewish community in any way. This is not an ancient religious matter decided by the nonsense of medieval voodoo rules.

You have no authority or standing to offend me or anyone else by telling us that we are not Jewish.
link to original post

As someone forced to do 5 years of Hebrew school, that is indeed Jewish law. I remember seeing it your way when taught it. I still disagree with the idea only offspring of Jewish mothers are Jewish. If a mixed child has only a Jewish father the child isn't Jewish.

But that's the law. It comes from the idea that the mother raises the child while the father goes out to work so the mothers influence is superior due to time invested in the child's upraising. It's a 5000 years old tradition.

That said if you convert to Judaism the point is moot. I actually know a family of Jewish children who have no Jewish blood in them. Their black parents believed Judaism was their preferred religion and followed through in their conversion. They attended Synagogue religiously and raised their kids that way

I only know because when I started dating primarily black women as a teenager, my Jewish parents figured if they were gonna be stuck with a bi-racial grandkid at least he could still be Jewish and tried to hook me up with one of the black daughters of the family. She was quite stunning actually but when I discovered she was more "Jewish"than I was, that ended that. She was very strict and Kosher while I celebrate Passover with an order Shrimp n Broccoli with Pork Fried Rice

Quote: GenoDRPh

but a real person who believes or excuses or dismisses anything Archie Bunker believes in is an odious person whose beliefs have no place in civil, modern society.
link to original post

You seem to think that just because it's true today that it will be true forever. No it won't. It was perfectly fine in 1970 to feel the way Archie did, that's why the show was a hit, there were lots of people like that and everybody knew one. Things will change and much of what we believe today will be looked at as stupid and archaic not that long from now.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.
link to original post

Archie wasn't bigoted. Archie denounced the KKK when he ended up at a meeting that he did not know where he was going. Archie just stayed with his own, which is what you did back in the day. He was no more bigoted than George Jefferson next door.

There is an episode where two black guys break into the Bunker's house and they actually laugh more at Mike because he thinks he knows it all because he went to college and learned it.
link to original post

Archie's character certainly changed over the years, but I think it is fair to say he was a bigot when the show started. Archie, the bar owner, was a much nicer man than part-time cab driver Archie. I think it's typical of the generation. In the 1960s, my family's bar didn't allow blacks. In the 1970s, black union workers were allowed, but not really welcomed. Unescorted women weren't allowed until the mid-1970s and English only started as the Colombians moved into the neighborhood.. Looking back, the policy was obviously bigoted but the people and policies evolved. My parents and most of their generation held racial and religious views in their younger days that aren't acceptable in today's society. I'm not sure either of my parents ever voted for anyone who wasn't Catholic.
I don't recall Mike growing nearly as much as the other characters.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.
link to original post

Archie wasn't bigoted. Archie denounced the KKK when he ended up at a meeting that he did not know where he was going. Archie just stayed with his own, which is what you did back in the day. He was no more bigoted than George Jefferson next door.

There is an episode where two black guys break into the Bunker's house and they actually laugh more at Mike because he thinks he knows it all because he went to college and learned it.
link to original post

Norman Lear specifically wrote Archie as a bigot. To say so otherwise is a delusion.

And everyone knows it's sock, sock, shoe shoe. Always has been and always will be.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

but a real person who believes or excuses or dismisses anything Archie Bunker believes in is an odious person whose beliefs have no place in civil, modern society.
link to original post

You seem to think that just because it's true today that it will be true forever. No it won't. It was perfectly fine in 1970 to feel the way Archie did, that's why the show was a hit, there were lots of people like that and everybody knew one. Things will change and much of what we believe today will be looked at as stupid and archaic not that long from now.
link to original post

You argue best when you argue my point. There i nothing nostalgic or admirable about such archaic beliefs they are best left in the past.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Quote: darkoz

Quote: rxwine

2 dead people found at address associated with Rob Reiner.

One is same age as Rob Reiner. That's all that is being reported.
link to original post

Confirmed as of 15 minutes ago.

It's Rob Reiner and his wife. Stabbed to death. Homicide investigation started.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/12/14/rob-reiner-wife-michele-found-dead-los-angeles-home/
link to original post

Hmm, First thing I thought, is he's Jewish. Don't know if there is a connection. Dad was Carl Reiner. Kind of a famous family. Well, at least if you're not Gen z
link to original post

Carl Reiner was Jewish so of course Rob Reiner is Jewish. So Meathead came to a bad end. All in the Family was the funniest show on TV and I doubt if you could show a single episode of it now in prime time. Every episode was politically Incorrect and offended somebody.
link to original post

There were some nice guest stars in the series. Sammy Davis of course, and Reggie Jackson was in an episode with prolific character actor Barry Gordon as his lawyer.

You couldn't do the Archie Bunker character at all now, and mostly because of his positive characteristics. He had some archaic attitudes (which were just barely archaic in 1971 when the series debuted) but aside from that he was a very kind and decent fellow. And that's the part that would cause alarm, because with the melodramatic absolutism that holds sway now portraying him as anything but unalloyed evil would be taken as an endorsement of the archaic attitudes.
link to original post

There's a reason why "archaic"attitudes" are called "archaic". Best to leave them in the past.
link to original post

Best, for whom? Who has the right to tell me that a new idea is better than a traditional one? Most such arguments are just appeals to authority, and power.

This played out a lot in the interaction between Archie and Meathead. Archie had the ideas common among working class men of his generation, and Meathead was into the goofy hippie stuff. And both were equally at a loss to explain to the other how their way was "better," even to the absurdity of the order in which you put on your shoes and socks. That's because neither one really was better, just how it is seen from different perspectives. Those goofy hippies are all old men now and they are all different from their former selves as well.
link to original post

Archie just had traditional attitudes. The meathead thought they were all wrong, being the baby boomer he was. Meanwhile, Archie's entire world was changing around him. The USA had just lost a war, something that really never happened before unless you say we lost the War of 1812. The economy was changing as Nixon took us off the gold standard and inflation started to run wild. Archie lived in a neighborhood that was starting to decline when it was once working class. Worldwide geopolitics was changing wildly. Then he had to deal with a guy who married his daughter yet was not even working, something that never would have happened in Archie's time. The meathead helped out so little that he gave money to IIRC McGovern instead of helping with household expenses.

And, if you do not know to put on a sock and a sock instead of a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe you are a meathead.
link to original post

Archie was Archie because that's what his father taught him. Even though his father was an abusive bully, Archie thought his father was never wrong. Archie couldn't think for himself and was stuck in amber. So if by traditional you mean bigoted, you are correct.
link to original post

Archie wasn't bigoted. Archie denounced the KKK when he ended up at a meeting that he did not know where he was going. Archie just stayed with his own, which is what you did back in the day. He was no more bigoted than George Jefferson next door.

There is an episode where two black guys break into the Bunker's house and they actually laugh more at Mike because he thinks he knows it all because he went to college and learned it.
link to original post

Norman Lear specifically wrote Archie as a bigot. To say so otherwise is a delusion.

And everyone knows it's sock, sock, shoe shoe. Always has been and always will be.
link to original post

I never gave it any thought to the order so I dressed.

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.

I have not worn socks in years. Don't miss them at all.

Quote:

I never gave it any thought to the order so I dressed.

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

I mean, imagine if something happens and you have to run out of the room in an emergency. With sock sock shoe shoe, you with have both feet on an equal plane at least half the time.If it's sock shoe sock shoe, at least half the time you'd be wearing only one shoe. And try dealing with an emergency with one shoe on.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote:

I never gave it any thought to the order so I dressed.

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

I mean, imagine if something happens and you have to run out of the room in an emergency. With sock sock shoe shoe, you with have both feet on an equal plane at least half the time.If it's sock shoe sock shoe, at least half the time you'd be wearing only one shoe. And try dealing with an emergency with one shoe on.
link to original post

That has happened to me a few times (usually just something small like someone banging at the front door insisting on being answered right away.)

It's too rare to be concerned with.

It reminds me of the line from Burt Lancaster in Airport. When asked why the airport wasn't prepared for such a huge snow storm, he replied when you get one only every 20 years, you don't spend a lot of money on heavy equipment that will sit around for decades. You wait for that big storm and just deal with it the best you can.

I'm paraphrasing from memory so don't hold me to the quote.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote:

I never gave it any thought to the order so I dressed.

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

I mean, imagine if something happens and you have to run out of the room in an emergency. With sock sock shoe shoe, you with have both feet on an equal plane at least half the time.If it's sock shoe sock shoe, at least half the time you'd be wearing only one shoe. And try dealing with an emergency with one shoe on.
link to original post

That has happened to me a few times (usually just something small like someone banging at the front door insisting on being answered right away.)

It's too rare to be concerned with.

It reminds me of the line from Burt Lancaster in Airport. When asked why the airport wasn't prepared for such a huge snow storm, he replied when you get one only every 20 years, you don't spend a lot of money on heavy equipment that will sit around for decades. You wait for that big storm and just deal with it the best you can.

I'm paraphrasing from memory so don't hold me to the quote.
link to original post

Well, the Scout's motto is "Be Prepared"!

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

but a real person who believes or excuses or dismisses anything Archie Bunker believes in is an odious person whose beliefs have no place in civil, modern society.
link to original post

You seem to think that just because it's true today that it will be true forever. No it won't. It was perfectly fine in 1970 to feel the way Archie did, that's why the show was a hit, there were lots of people like that and everybody knew one. Things will change and much of what we believe today will be looked at as stupid and archaic not that long from now.
link to original post

You argue best when you argue my point. There i nothing nostalgic or admirable about such archaic beliefs they are best left in the past.
link to original post

Including most of the current ones we have. How long did gender specific pronouns last, about 20 min? And you were all for them as I recall.

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

No. When you escape the fire, you switch, so when the FD gets there, you have a shoe on one foot and a sock on the other. Isn't that better than a sock on each foot?

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: GenoDRPh

but a real person who believes or excuses or dismisses anything Archie Bunker believes in is an odious person whose beliefs have no place in civil, modern society.
link to original post

You seem to think that just because it's true today that it will be true forever. No it won't. It was perfectly fine in 1970 to feel the way Archie did, that's why the show was a hit, there were lots of people like that and everybody knew one. Things will change and much of what we believe today will be looked at as stupid and archaic not that long from now.
link to original post

You argue best when you argue my point. There i nothing nostalgic or admirable about such archaic beliefs they are best left in the past.
link to original post

Including most of the current ones we have. How long did gender specific pronouns last, about 20 min? And you were all for them as I recall.
link to original post

What, surely you remember 1970! Didn't you know-it-all back then at that age, yourself?

bjpa.org:

"Paternalism in the Jewish context is a complex issue that involves both traditional and modern interpretations. Historically, Jewish identity has been determined by patrilineal descent, meaning that a child is considered Jewish if they have a Jewish father. However, in the 21st century, with the rise of intermarriage, this has led to a debate about the inclusivity of patrilineal descent. The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) in 1983 made a significant decision to include children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers in the Jewish community, marking a shift from traditional Jewish law. This decision has sparked discussions about the implications of patrilineal descent on Jewish identity and the role of paternalism in Jewish life."

from: https://www.kesherjournal.com/article/patrilineal-descent-in-determination-of-jewish-identity/

"For nearly two millennia, rabbinic law has dictated that Jewish identity is determined by matrilineal descent alone. In the face of unprecedented levels of intermarriage, in 1983 the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) broke with this dictum and issued a resolution making the American Reform Movement the first major branch of modern Judaism to also grant Jewish status to the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. It was a momentous decision with broad-reaching effects upon modern Jewry that continue to unfold to this day.1"

The Patrilineal Principle in the Hebrew Bible

It is not hard to see that patrilineal descent is the operative factor in establishing Jewish identity throughout Torah. The covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to the sons of Jacob, and throughout Scripture, the God of Israel is referred to as “the God of your fathers.” Biblical genealogies almost always follow the father’s line. In Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage, David Rudolph states that “the patrilineal definition of Jewish identity . . . is the standard established by God in the Torah.”2

One can find examples of the patrilineal principle throughout the Tanakh. King David’s great-grandmother was a non-Israelite named Ruth, and his great-great grandmother was a non-Israelite named Rahab. King Solomon’s son Rehoboam, who succeeded his father and ruled Judah for seventeen years, was the son of an Ammonite woman. Upon his death, he “rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of David” (1 Kgs 31 NKJV). The child of an Israelite father and a non-Israelite mother was unquestionably an Israelite, but Leviticus 24:10–16 demonstrates that this was not the case when the mother was an Israelite and the father was a Gentile. In this passage, the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father is significantly identified only as “the son of an Israelite woman,” contrasting him with the “son of Israel” with whom he contends.

There is no evidence in the Torah — and only very little inconclusive evidence in the entire Tanakh — that the mother’s identity ever played a role in determining the Israelite status of offspring. In The Beginnings of Jewishness, Shaye Cohen’s seminal study of Jewish identity in antiquity, he states, “The preexilic portions of the Tanakh are not familiar with the matrilineal principle.”3 The fact that the patrilineal principle was operative in ancient Israel is unsurprising, given that it was a patriarchal society with male-headed households at the center of its structure (Num 1:12–19).4


1 Sylvia Barack Fishman, “Fathers of the Faith? Three Decades of Patrilineal Descent in American Reform Judaism,” The Jewish People Policy Institute, 29 March 2013, http://jppi.org.il.

2 David J. Rudolph, Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage: A Guide for Couples from Two Traditions (Baltimore: Lederer, 2003), 131.

3 Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 264.

4 Joshua Kulp, “English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin,” https://www.sefaria.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

No. When you escape the fire, you switch, so when the FD gets there, you have a shoe on one foot and a sock on the other. Isn't that better than a sock on each foot?
link to original post

Can't run as fast with a shoe on one foot and only a sock on the other.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

What would be stupid is if there is a fire, I don't grab the shoe and sock that's literally in my hands and just run outside with it and put them on when I'm safely in the street.

Quote: gordonm888

bjpa.org:

"Paternalism in the Jewish context is a complex issue that involves both traditional and modern interpretations. Historically, Jewish identity has been determined by patrilineal descent, meaning that a child is considered Jewish if they have a Jewish father. However, in the 21st century, with the rise of intermarriage, this has led to a debate about the inclusivity of patrilineal descent. The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) in 1983 made a significant decision to include children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers in the Jewish community, marking a shift from traditional Jewish law. This decision has sparked discussions about the implications of patrilineal descent on Jewish identity and the role of paternalism in Jewish life."

from: https://www.kesherjournal.com/article/patrilineal-descent-in-determination-of-jewish-identity/

"For nearly two millennia, rabbinic law has dictated that Jewish identity is determined by matrilineal descent alone. In the face of unprecedented levels of intermarriage, in 1983 the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) broke with this dictum and issued a resolution making the American Reform Movement the first major branch of modern Judaism to also grant Jewish status to the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. It was a momentous decision with broad-reaching effects upon modern Jewry that continue to unfold to this day.1"

The Patrilineal Principle in the Hebrew Bible

It is not hard to see that patrilineal descent is the operative factor in establishing Jewish identity throughout Torah. The covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to the sons of Jacob, and throughout Scripture, the God of Israel is referred to as “the God of your fathers.” Biblical genealogies almost always follow the father’s line. In Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage, David Rudolph states that “the patrilineal definition of Jewish identity . . . is the standard established by God in the Torah.”2

One can find examples of the patrilineal principle throughout the Tanakh. King David’s great-grandmother was a non-Israelite named Ruth, and his great-great grandmother was a non-Israelite named Rahab. King Solomon’s son Rehoboam, who succeeded his father and ruled Judah for seventeen years, was the son of an Ammonite woman. Upon his death, he “rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of David” (1 Kgs 31 NKJV). The child of an Israelite father and a non-Israelite mother was unquestionably an Israelite, but Leviticus 24:10–16 demonstrates that this was not the case when the mother was an Israelite and the father was a Gentile. In this passage, the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father is significantly identified only as “the son of an Israelite woman,” contrasting him with the “son of Israel” with whom he contends.

There is no evidence in the Torah — and only very little inconclusive evidence in the entire Tanakh — that the mother’s identity ever played a role in determining the Israelite status of offspring. In The Beginnings of Jewishness, Shaye Cohen’s seminal study of Jewish identity in antiquity, he states, “The preexilic portions of the Tanakh are not familiar with the matrilineal principle.”3 The fact that the patrilineal principle was operative in ancient Israel is unsurprising, given that it was a patriarchal society with male-headed households at the center of its structure (Num 1:12–19).4


1 Sylvia Barack Fishman, “Fathers of the Faith? Three Decades of Patrilineal Descent in American Reform Judaism,” The Jewish People Policy Institute, 29 March 2013, http://jppi.org.il.

2 David J. Rudolph, Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage: A Guide for Couples from Two Traditions (Baltimore: Lederer, 2003), 131.

3 Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 264.

4 Joshua Kulp, “English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin,” https://www.sefaria.
link to original post

Well I always knew my Rabbis were full of crap.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

No. When you escape the fire, you switch, so when the FD gets there, you have a shoe on one foot and a sock on the other. Isn't that better than a sock on each foot?
link to original post

Can't run as fast with a shoe on one foot and only a sock on the other.
link to original post

Why are you running? Did you set the fire?

Quote: billryan

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

No. When you escape the fire, you switch, so when the FD gets there, you have a shoe on one foot and a sock on the other. Isn't that better than a sock on each foot?
link to original post

Can't run as fast with a shoe on one foot and only a sock on the other.
link to original post

Why are you running? Did you set the fire?
link to original post

As I see it, if John McClane can take on Hans Gruber barefoot, I can escape a fire barefoot.

That Christmas movie came out 17 years after the All In The Family premier, and 37 years before 2025. 37 years before All In The Family, few people had even seen a television. Our memories of these things are confounded by the fact that it was a very different person experiencing them back then, in a different world.

Gil Gerard who played Buck Rogers in the cinema and TV show of the 80's has died from Cancer

He was 82.

Quote: billryan

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

No. When you escape the fire, you switch, so when the FD gets there, you have a shoe on one foot and a sock on the other. Isn't that better than a sock on each foot?
link to original post

Can't run as fast with a shoe on one foot and only a sock on the other.
link to original post

Why are you running? Did you set the fire?
link to original post

Speaking for myself, I'm somewhat allergic to fire.
If it gets on my skin, I get a nasty rash.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

What would be stupid is if there is a fire, I don't grab the shoe and sock that's literally in my hands and just run outside with it and put them on when I'm safely in the street.
link to original post

Stupid would be carrying out a shoe and sock and not something more important. Sock, sock, shoe, shoe. Keeps you safe.

I once left a building I was staying at which caught on fire at 3am from a lightning strike. Wore only sweatpants and carried out two indoor cats in freezing rain.. Got more injuries from the cats before I tossed them into my car, but girlfriend was happy.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: darkoz

For me it's sock shoe sock shoe. Who wants to lift their legs twice.

Conversely when I take them off it's shoe shoe sock sock.
link to original post

That's stupid. Suppose there was a fire and you had to run out fast. You would be outside with one bare foot.
link to original post

What would be stupid is if there is a fire, I don't grab the shoe and sock that's literally in my hands and just run outside with it and put them on when I'm safely in the street.
link to original post

Stupid would be carrying out a shoe and sock and not something more important. Sock, sock, shoe, shoe. Keeps you safe.
link to original post

Well you can't have it both ways otherwise the whole argument is stupid.

You shouldn't put sock, shoe, sock, shoe because if there's a fire you don't have time for the other one, but if there's a fire you have time to start running around the house looking for valuables.

Which is it? An emergency I have to get out the house immediately or an emergency I got time to run around gathering things?

If there's an immediate fire, flames literally visible to me, I'm running out with whatever is in my hands (which would at that moment be a sock and a shoe ).

On the other hand, if nothing is terribly imminent, I'm throwing on the other sock and shoe so I can grab valuables before I run out

And what valuables could I possibly save with such an imminent fire I don't have time to put on one sock and shoe? My 65"flatscreen? 3000 comics in 8 cardboard boxes? My leather sofa?

Let the argument make sense!

Grab your gun. It's America!