By Sam Greenberg
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Sunday, August 1, 2010
Updated, August 2, 2010: The Slifka Center’s own Rabbi James Ponet '68 officiated at Chelsea Clinton’s uber-hyped wedding at an estate in Rhinebeck, N.Y., on Saturday, according to multiple news outlets.
The Clinton family tried to keep the details of the event secret from everyone but the hundreds of guests in attendance, who included Ponet, Yale’s Jewish chaplain and director of the Joseph Slifka Center. He was joined by Rev. William Shillady in leading the interfaith ceremony between Clinton, who is Methodist, and her Jewish husband, Marc Mezvinsky.
“It was a...
#1 By Joanna Wurzler 8:04p.m. on August 1, 2010
They look so beautiful and so much in love.
Joanna Wurzler,
Tampa,FL
#2 By Xan Tanner 8:26a.m. on August 2, 2010
They really do. It makes me believe Love is REAL! And Marc really did look handsome.
#3 By Yale 08 9:46a.m. on August 2, 2010
How exactly do you conduct a Jewish-Methodist wedding?
#4 By natalie 11:22a.m. on August 2, 2010
We are all God's children. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds.
#5 By Recent Alum 12:48p.m. on August 2, 2010
An atheist from a Jewish background marries an atheist from a Methodist background in a wedding that makes a mockery of both religious traditions. One wishes that the couple at least had the decency to make this a purely secular wedding... but then again, decency and Clinton have never gone too well together.
#6 By Alum '04 1:47p.m. on August 2, 2010
Rabbi Ponet is great--mazel tov to all.
#7 By Marta 5:41p.m. on August 2, 2010
How come a rabbi desecrates the Shabbat in a public mock-wedding?
There is a sense of decency in reform rabbis in Israel. There are don'ts
They could have a civil and nice ceremony, they could have a Methodist ceremony, but not a Jewish "wedding". Rabbi Ponet has hurt the kavod of the reform movement.
#8 By Really Yale... 6:58p.m. on August 2, 2010
...THIS is news?
#9 By Stuffy 7:55p.m. on August 2, 2010
@ # 5 "makes a mockery of both religious traditions"
Stuffy?
"Religious traditions" were created by human beings, so why can't they be revised or amalgamated by human beings?
PK
M.Div. '80
#10 By Cyndalah 8:19p.m. on August 2, 2010
When I was married over 30 years ago, I was a devout Methodist, marrying into a very Conserva-dox family. I became a Jew by Choice when I was ready to do so on my own terms. What I would like to relay as being in an inter-faith marriage, the couple, not the lives of the parents are the important ones. If these two adults appeased their families, it's on their heads. Somehow they will find the path for their siritual happiness, hopefully with a common religin that will lead them, if and when they plan a family. Having this spiritualness is their business....have they actually proclaimed that they are atheists? It's not fair to judge them on their family's history..they are entitled to their own.
Mozel Tov to the newlyweds! May they have a happy and joyous life together, that's the key to their future. They deserve to have their privacy, although we really want to know how the wedding and festivities went:))When you're Jewish you want to know everything!! Just ask any Jewish Mother-In Law!!
#11 By joerlivstja 10:18p.m. on August 2, 2010
What gives anyone the right to judge or dictate by what traditions people should get married?! Isn't it possible that Chelsea and Marc are deeply in love, but their own religious traditions are also important to them?! They seem to love and respect each other and respect each other's religious traditions. You should try it sometime.
#12 By Yale 08 10:18a.m. on August 3, 2010
@#10- so you were a "devout Methodist" but gave up Jesus to become Jewish? How does that square with Methodism?
@#11- we all have the responsibility to use right reason to judge the prudence of the actions of others. That is what people do in civilized society.
Unless you want to ask for a definition of "is"...
#13 By yale10 10:46a.m. on August 3, 2010
Marta- how dare you assume and jump to conclusions. The ceremony took place early Saturday evening, at the end of Shabbat and was done tastefully and with absolute respect for Jewish traditions. Rabbi Ponet holds his own and his community's Jewish beliefs in high regard and has done them proud.
#14 By YaleAlum 11:16a.m. on August 3, 2010
I am disgusted by those who feel the need to ridicule Rabbi Ponet for giving Marc a Jewish wedding that fit his life and was no doubt meaningful to him. What has made Rabbi Ponet such a successful leader of Yale's Jewish community and doubtlessly is a reason why the Clintons selected him for their wedding is the way he manages to make Judaism relevant and meaningful to people from all types of backgrounds and in different religious situations.
#15 By Slifka Boy 11:52a.m. on August 3, 2010
@#14,
Judaism isn't meant to be "relevant"
The world was already old when the covenant was made.
#16 By Perfect Post 12:43p.m. on August 3, 2010
Many posters here are critical of the groom. The groom, unfortunately, knows very little about his Jewish heritage. He proudly wore his "talit" and a "kippah", and believes that he fuffilled the Jewish requirements. The "Rabbi", however, does know better. Regardless of his own background, he knows that most Reform clergymen, will not perform weddings on Shabbat. Many others, will still not perform an intermarriage.. By lending his imprimatur, he is, in effect, teaching the groom, that his actions are acceptable. So, a 4,000 year old chain is broken.
Shame on you, "Rabbi" Ponet. For a brief moment in the limelight, you've broken our chain. From Avraham to Moses, to King David, Ezra, the Maccabees, through the Roman Exile, Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms, and to the crematoria and back, we've survived as Jews, And now, thanks to you, the Mezvinsky branch of Jews, has reached a dead end. Shame! Shame ! Shame!
#17 By Communist/REALDemocrat 2:27p.m. on August 3, 2010
The only "wedding" they should have had was a certificate from the government (no religion) and there should have been a party open to all Workers ! and no food except that given to them by the glorious government ! Van Jones should have presided over the ceremony as well and there should be a bust of obama, Mao, Lenin and Stalin to watch over the event ! Shame on these burgoise hypocrite hippies. Up the Protelatariat ! Down with DINO clintons wealth !
#18 By Star 4:11p.m. on August 3, 2010
Yale10: Marta was correct & I wondered the same question. Shabbat ended at or after 8:58pm (local time). Numerous reports said that the wedding concluded before the end of Shabbat (including an official email that was sent announcing the conclusion of the wedding and the newly married couple status). Notwithstanding the media reports, one look at the photos of the couple post wedding vows shows sunlight on everyone. If the wedding occurred after sundown plus 1 hour (which is the conclusion of Shabbat), it would have been dark outside.
#19 By cc'09 4:44p.m. on August 3, 2010
lovely ketubah
#20 By WakeUp 6:24p.m. on August 3, 2010
Rabbi Ponet is a great guy, but I'll bet you the service went on so long that Roger Clinton had to call his narc-anon sponsor.
#21 By Steven 7:32a.m. on August 4, 2010
In my opinion as a Jew, I believe that their wedding ceremony and the Rabbi that officiated created a desecration of G-d's name and Judaism. The Reform rabbinical seminary and movement supposedly "sanctifies" and sanctions something that is against the precise wording of the Bible itself from which Judaism's laws directly came from. That the Reform institution approbates and sanctions interfaith marriages is a slap in the face of the Bible and G-d's words to Moses. This is written in the Bible clear as day , that this kind of marriage union is gravely prohibited for Jews and the Bible and its laws to the Jews has been believed to have been given by G-d himself - despite the seemingly widely and falsely believed claim that the Rabbi and they were doing the "right" thing by "Jewish" law.
#22 By Lee Smith 1:31p.m. on August 5, 2010
A further step in the deterioration of rational categories and meaningful differences --- it's the law of entropy in action. It takes energy and motivation to preserve differences such as Judaism and Christianity, but in the absence of effort, things blend together, ice melts, Shabbat becomes just another day, walls tumble, and bland sameness is created that descrates thousands of years of effort to maintain meaningful distinctions. A local "kosher-style" deli had bagels hanging on the Xmas tree one year --- no doubt we will find a similar tree in the Yale Jewish center this December, being decorated merrily by Rabbi Ponet. And while we are at it, lets give yale grads the same salaries as GED recepients, after all -- all is the same and there are no meaningful differences.
#23 By Andi 1:44p.m. on August 5, 2010
As a Jewish women, brought up in a Conservative Synagogue, whose grandparents were orthodox, I find everyone's narrow minded opinion the reason the Jewish people are diminishing in number. We have become intolerant, unforgiving, and judgmental. Is that what G-d wants? Seems to me, that isn't in the Torah anywhere. If we take everything that literally, we all need to sacrifice our eldest son, to see if G-d provides a ram instead. Does everyone leave the 4 corners of their land unharvested to be left for the poor? And do we pay all labor at the end of each day of work? I guess maybe we are all "cafeteria" Jews who do what is convenient for ourselves, and decide what others are supposed to do. I say Mazel Tov to Chelsea and Marc. And let's show the world we are a tolerant people, as we expect others to be. This is 2010. Do we want Judaism to be eradicated by 2020? Let's keep this attitude up and it might be.
#24 By Precise wording @ 2l 4:35p.m. on August 6, 2010
#21 says of the wedding ceremony presided over by Rabbi Ponet: "[it goes]against the precise wording of the Bible itself from which Judaism's laws directly came from.[sic]"
No less an authority than Roland H. Bainton, Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale for 42 years, author of 36 books, including the critically accalimed biography of Luther "Here I Stand" (Abingdon Press), pointed out to me in person in 1980 that Deuteronomy 20 is no less than a proof text for GENOCIDE. (So much for the authority of the Bible and rigid adherence to the text):
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (King James Version)
"16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:"
Loosen your tie a bit and lighten up.
Paul Keane
M. Div. '80
#25 By Yale 08 11:00a.m. on August 7, 2010
Andi,
The Jewish population diminishes because for most non-Orthodox Jews, their Judaism is synonymous with liberal social views. They aren't reproducing.
When your religion doesn't seek converts, and you don't have babies, then you go away...
#26 By Alum 4:22p.m. on August 8, 2010
@24. Sir: Lighten up yourself. Put aside your simplistic, out-of-context reference to Deuteronomy. A reference to the conquest of Canaan and your distaste for your understanding of it is a much different matter than adherence to basic precepts of the religion regarding the family, such as: marriage; when a "Rabbi" should participate in a marraige ceremony; and the continuation of peoplehood. The continuation of the Jewish people may or may not matter to you or Prof. Bainton. It does matter to some of the readers here.
#27 By Celebrate/Proliferate 11:49a.m. on August 9, 2010
@ # 26
I have no objection to proliferation of the Jewish people or any other people. I have great objection to mindless, rigid adherence to 2000 year old "sacred" texts, whether of the First Testament or The "Second" Testament (as my Jewish friends refer to the "New" Testament, apparently offended by Christianity's limp attempt at one-upsmanship).
Loosen that tie.
Celebrate!
Proliferate!
PK
M.Div. '80
#28 By JE '11 8:50p.m. on August 9, 2010
My parents were married in a secular ceremony because the country they lived in at the time did not permit interfaith marriages. Their marriage has lasted far longer than any of the marriages of my more conservative relations on both sides, and they've produced four good Jewish children.
I suppose many of you wouldn't consider my brothers and I Jewish. But luckily for us, we live in a country with great rabbis like Rabbi Ponet who will allow us to marry as we choose. See you next year in Jerusalem.
#29 By Veritas 2:19a.m. on August 10, 2010
At the end of the day, we're all carbon-based blobs with much less than 1% chemical variation among us, and we're trying to segregate ourselves based on tangential beliefs? We're really arguing against interfaith marriages? This is disappointing coming from anyone, but coming from this country and this school, it's not just disappointing: it's deeply embarrassing.
#30 By Yale 08 12:12p.m. on August 10, 2010
@Veritas,
Your positivism is more frightening.
#31 By #21 12:03p.m. on August 11, 2010
What else is there to expect from some graduates of this great "enlightened" "progressive" institution of higher education. In that process you never actually studied any semblance of actual religious study. You deceive yourself by concocting what you believe is true and aligns with your societally brainwashed beliefs. How about taking some good courses in the various theology departments? Most university educated Americans are completely uneducated about religion anymore - it's looked down on. No "rational" person can believe that this entire natural planet came about as a product of the big bang theory, if people would stop and think for themselves - they wouldn't be as ignorant. I'm signing off as I do not want to continue to invite "brainwashed" ignoramuses to a forum of their ignorant popular dogma. Ignorance and self imposed "feel good" popular values are bliss - I see why this country is in the kind of state that it's in. Basically it's Soddom and Gommorah. I am truly embarrassed to have people like this as citizens, neighbors, and leaders of a country whose founders and legislators were scholarly and deeply religious people at the same time - the founding fathers in today's "enlightened" and "progressive" America would be branded dangerous religion preaching and adhering fanatics.
#32 By Veritas 6:46a.m. on August 13, 2010
@#31 -- We disagree on two main points: 1. that the founding fathers would be considered dangerous and religious (they were, in fact, mostly Deists, which means they accepted the existence of a god and no more) and 2. the definition of "rational".
@Yale 08 -- Perhaps positivism is frightening, but it's useful for gaining perspective. If we're gonna restrict marriages, why not start with the more salient characteristics, like race? Anti-miscegenation laws, anyone?
#33 By A bit more. 11:09a.m. on August 14, 2010
@ 32
Not quite.
PK
de•ism
–noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
the•ism
–noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
#34 By devil05 12:00p.m. on August 16, 2010
How could a Rabbi help officiate a wedding on the Sabbath day? It is against all Jewish law.
#35 By Veritas 2:32a.m. on August 17, 2010
@PK -- Fair. Let me rephrase that, "...which means they accepted the existence of a god but LITTLE more."
No comments:
Post a Comment