Obligatory Oprah Was On Remsen Street Post

By on November 1, 2011 7:15 pm in Brooklyn Heights

Yeah, we know our pals at Bocoaland spotted Oprah here last week. Now, the Brooklyn Paper adds its coverage:

Brooklyn Paper: Oprah Winfrey journeyed to an orthodox Jewish congregation in Brooklyn Heights to take a gander at the shul’s state-of-the-art mikvah — a ritual bath for religious Jewish women.

“It’s a very spiritual thing,” said synagogue member Ed Weintrob. “You’re supposed to build a mikvah before you build a synagogue.”

Winfrey chose the “chosen people” to film a segment of her new TV show “Oprah’s Next Chapter,” and visited both Borough Park and Brooklyn Heights to hang out with some Hasidic Jews.

Residents gathered outside to catch a glimpse of the TV baroness, though, face it, jaded Brooklyn Heights residents have seen a few bold-faced names in front of the Remsen Street shul (yes, we are talking about you, former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni!).

Share this Story:

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • nabeguy

    There is only one true faith…and Oprah is her name-o. Guys, get a room…or at least a confessional!

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Topham Beauclerk- “They have the numbers to get their way and, as anyone familiar with American politics must acknowledge, the religious do get their way.” This does not acknowledge that members of different faiths (and even within faiths) disagree about politics. I think you may be equating fundamentalist Christians (who are often the unhealthy zealots we are both reproachful of) with ordinary people of faith. So, when fundamentalist Christians are trying to stop a mosque from being built, who is religion there? And how is it granted preferential treatment to other concerns?

    The belief in the goodness of the human soul is far more paramount to concept of faith than even the acceptance of the Resurrection. And, in the instances you mentioned, those may fall again in the category of “can’t be proven either way”.

    But my main point comes down to this. I’ve got several friends with backgrounds and even advanced degrees in science and engineering. Some of them find the concept of religion extremely frustrating, even infuriating- especially the way a flock may be controlled or otherwise “fleeced” by their caretakers due to not thinking for themselves. So don’t think for a moment that I don’t appreciate or respect your point of view on religion in general. BUT, not a one of those guys would go up to their mother and tell her she’s a damn fool for going to the cemetery to talk to grandma…

  • Tony

    @Master of Middagh, You are the biggest fool I’ve ever read on the site. And that is indeed saying something.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Tony- That’s no way to talk to a neighbor. What’s your damage? And what makes you think me any more or less foolish than yourself?

  • Winstion Smith

    I have to agree, Master Of Middagh your arguments are baseless, parochial and incomplete. You do indeed sound like a complete fool.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Winstion Smith- Which argument? That’s it’s bigoted to insult people of faith? And how are my points anything like what you claim? I’m sorry, but YOU’RE the one who appears the fool to make such accusations without backing it up.

  • Topham Beauclerk

    Master of Middagh:

    My last comment: your thinking is muddled and slides too easily into the irrelevant personal.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Topham- It isn’t irrelevant at all to expect you to not disrespect people of faith who are strangers to you when you wouldn’t dare do it to the people you personally care about. Those are facts that get right to the heart of our disagreement.

  • Winstion Smith

    Master Of Middagh, basically all your arguments. Sorry, I’m not going to indulge you with an explanation as it is clear it would go over your head and you would dismiss it with your dogmatic platitudes. (Besides I have better things to do with my time). My comment was for the enjoyment of others, I really don’t care what you think.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Winstion Smith- And that’s why your remark lacks any credibility. It only adds up to the equivalent of: “I disagree with your views, so you must be a fool.” What have I said which was “dogmatic”, as you put it? And nobody enjoyed your comment- so, mission failed on that score too…

  • David on Middagh

    Second post in this thread was trolling, and MoM fell for it, big time.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @David on Middagh- It’s only falling for it if you don’t notice it. Some people aren’t afraid of fighting trolls. But I am glad you agree with me that his post WAS out-of-line. You have trouble just coming out and saying you support me, street-mate, but I get your message- thanks! :)

  • WillowtownCop

    I only read a few posts – I have not had my coffee yet this morning.

    How is a religious ritual that some people choose to participate in to “bond” or whatever any different than mountain climbing that some people choose to participate in to bond with their fellow mountain climbing fans? Should we ban mountain climbing because people have died and it excludes those who chose not to participate – and the disabled?

    I’m not religious myself but if I ever decided I wanted to be I suspect most religions would be happy to have a convert. I don’t think a church or temple or mosque would turn anyone away who wanted to attend services. Just because you choose not to believe or attend doesn’t mean they are deliberately excluding you. And even if they were, private organizations don’t have to include everyone. If the mountain climbing club thinks you’re a blowhard and doesn’t want you hanging around, they can exclude you from their hikes.

  • Tony

    Why do I think you’re a fool, MofM? Because your arguments are amateurish, clumsy, bumptious, nonsensical and poorly written. It is obvious you know nothing about religion. Worst of all, you don’t even have the discipline to engage in honest debate with Topham. You distort everything he writes, chastise him for things he never says, go off on tangents that have nothing to do with his arguments, and then punctuate your threads with lines like “You’re just not in my league, bub.”

    That’s why.

  • Regina

    Master Of Middagh sorry to bust your bubble but Topham’s points are clear and concise yours are rambling and inaccurate. he is clearly the victor. and ps i did like Winston’s comment.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @ Tony & Regina- I’m sorry, you two. But saying something STILL doesn’t make it so if you refuse to back it up.

    It’s funny that neither of you have anything to say about my POINT- which is that it is bigoted to universally castigate people of faith. Regardless of what you may THINK of my discussion style, I’m STILL right! Beat that, suckers! If tangents from that argument were engaged in, you’ll notice that they weren’t instigated by me, if you paid attention.

    “Rambling and inaccurate” are in the eye of the beholder. I’m surprised neither of you considered the possibility that it was a weakness in YOUR comprehension skills; because you’ve given me good reason to doubt you paid any attention to what I actually wrote, judging from your derision.

    So yeah, Tony- you ARE kinda foolish. Firstly for engaging in a discussion you didn’t bother to follow before jumping in and another for claiming I don’t understand religion when I clearly do and when you’ve got nothing to back that up.

    My personal credentials PROVE that I am a cogent and effective advocate and my IQ of nearly 150 is evidence that I’m not quite as foolish as you mistakenly believed…

  • Western Brooklyn

    My comment, 2nd from the top:

    “Do ancient religious/tribal rituals help bring us all together, or keep us separate? Isn’t it time to move on?”

    Note the operative word “all” in the phrase “bring us all together.” How can we ALL be brought together if the people in the countless religions & cults practice their OWN SEPARATE RITUALS?

    Why would I or anyone else want to come together with people who indulge in different rituals based upon fear, ignorance, & superstition?

    Must I like and respect any group that proclaims themselves to be “god’s chosen people”, like the folks that Opra visited in the article? No, I do not!

  • Western Brooklyn

    @Master Of Middagh,

    You claimed above that the brutal Crusades were not about religion!?

    From Wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight Muslim Seljuk Turks expansion into Anatolia; these Turks had cut off access to Jerusalem….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

    Stop playing fast & loose with facts!!!

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Western Brooklyn- “Stop playing fast & loose with facts!!!” That’s what YOU need to do! Also from the SAME wikipedia article: “The term “crusade” is also used to describe religiously motivated campaigns conducted between 1100 and 1600 in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication FOR A MIXTURE OF RELIGIOUS, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REASONS.” (emphasis added). You’ll even find, when you bother to examine the articles of each of the main crusades individually, that there was a MIXTURE of reasons- religion serves merely as a backdrop, in anything.

    As far as your ritual problem is concerned- these are NOT separate rituals. The last time I checked, anyone is welcome to participate in such communal practices. So, how is that divisive? If you think these rituals are just silly or “superstitious” as you put it, you don’t have to participate, just like you don’t need to be a mountain climber if that’s not your thing, like WillowtownCop suggested.

    Let me make this clear again for you- no one is asking you to participate or believe any religion; but it is not your duty to insult people who belong to religions because you don’t believe in them. It is rude and bigoted and you’ve never addressed that. You talk a big game here on the blog but I know you don’t make such remarks in public to people- face-to-face. You wouldn’t dare because you KNOW it’s wrong to discriminate against people based on their beliefs.

    Here’s a wikipedia article YOU need to read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Western Brooklyn

    Also, on another thread, I’m glad to discover you and I share similar views on the homeless. Tell me- does your compassion extend to all the homeless or only the ones who aren’t foolish and superstitious enough (as you would characterize them) to pray to God for help?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    bigoted |ˈbigətid|
    adjective
    obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
    • expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

    Looks like you fit the definition too Master Of Middagh.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Arch Stanton- Not at all, but I’m glad you brought that up- thanks!

    Would you say that an Abolitionist was “expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance”. No- you wouldn’t. Why? Because their cause was against slavery. My problem is with bigotry against members of religion. Do you see why you might be kinda stupid for even suggesting that a person is bigoted for COMPLAINING about bigotry? Yeah, exactly…

    I’m perfectly open-minded about the opinions of other and, if you paid attention, I went to great lengths in one of my posts to explain that I don’t have a problem with people who don’t like religion, just people who want to go around trolling anybody who may happen to belong to a faith or visit a house of worship for spiritual solace. But you’re suggesting I should be more open-minded about being more close-minded to people (that being people of faith). Ahem…

    Thank goodness I knew you were joking with you post Arch, because I assume you’re smarter than THAT, at least…

  • Western Brooklyn

    @Master Of Middagh,

    Also from the same article: “Several hundred thousand soldiers became Crusaders by taking vows; the Pope granted them plenary indulgence. Their emblem was the cross–“crusade” is derived from the French term for taking up the cross. Many were from France and called themselves “Franks,” which became the common term used by Muslims.” ….

    Sounds like RELIGION was the catalyst & very convincing pretext for all the bloodshed, not serving, “merely as a backdrop, in anything” as you stated!

    Also sounds like you’re a provocateur, rabble-rouser, & windbag!

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Western Brooklyn- It is unreasonable for you to suggest that ANY conflict, including the Crusades, was started for ONLY ONE REASON. I’ve already shown you that multiple factors were at play and all you do is come back with another useless Wikipedia quote which only shows that religion was A factor, not THE ONLY factor.

    But ALL of that is moot- because you STILL don’t have the right to be rude to anybody just because they happen to belong to a religion. If you’re gonna comment again, address THAT, bigot!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    MOM, read the definition, that is exactly how you are coming across.

    Given that definition, I think it is reasonable to say Abolitionist were bigoted, they were convinced in their beliefs and intolerant of the then status quo system of slavery. Bigoted does not necessarily mean racist, you can have bigoted opinions about anything. One can be a “PC” bigot too. The reality is, most people are bigoted to some degree.

    You said:
    “But ALL of that is moot- because you STILL don’t have the right to be rude to anybody just because they happen to belong to a religion”
    Not true, everyone has the right to be rude or say anything they want about any subject to anyone (as long as it is not threatening or likely to cause physical harm) Freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment of the constitution (look it up), etiquette is not a requirement.
    You are pathetic in your attempts to rewrite history. The crusades were for the most part religious wars, read a history book. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crusade.
    And what about the Spanish Inquisition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
    How dose that fit into your phantasmagoric history book?

    Earlier you said “Nobody’s religious beliefs do you any harm” What about the 9/11 attacks, were those not motivated by religion?

    We are fighting religious wars right now.

    Call me bigot.

  • Master Of Middagh

    @Arch Stanton- Ok, bigot! I’ll call you that all day if you like.

    And as far as the RIGHT to be rude- I was talking about the ETHICAL right, not the LEGAL right. Trust me, I know WAY more about the law than you ever will. You get paid for your legal acumen? No? I can give you lessons…

    Since you’re so hung up on definitions and you put your faith in Wikipedia so much, here’s the REST of the definition of bigot that you chose NOT to include in your one-sided argument (funny how you missed it): ” The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders.” So- the common usage for the term means it’s intended to be applied to what are essentially racists (like you!). Your use of the term to broaden it to include those who sought to abolish slavery is entirely new- NOW who’s making stuff up? In your case, it’s now actually been proven! :)

    And my point that religious beliefs don’t harm anybody STILL stands- their beliefs didn’t hurt anyone, their actions did. You want to get specific about rights and freedoms? How about the right to thinking whatever you please? Oh, right- you only believe in freedom of thought for people who AGREE with you, because you’re a bigot…

    And finally, once again, you’ve forgotten that even if a group uses religion as an excuse for war, that is hardly ever (pretty much never) the main cause of the conflict. Are you really that ignorant that you think warmongers are in earnest about their faiths? One could as easily claim that WWII was over religion as the Crusades. There is no one single factor involved in any conflict for you to comfortably lay the blame entirely at the feet of religion. And I know you know this, so I really can’t believe you’re being serious and must assume that you write such ridiculous things as part of some joke…

    …bigot.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton

    MOM, people speaking their mind is not unethical, If one person finds another persons opinions or comments to be rude that is their problem. I did not find Western Brooklyn’s original comment rude but you did. So if the comment was rude to you but not to me the wrong only exists in your mind. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning? No one can ever know who will be offended by something they say. Freedom of speech is never unethical.

    I did not look up the definition of “bigot” on Wikipedia, I copied it from the dictionary. The dictionary had no such additional definition.

    You called me a racist? Where on earth did you get that? Just another false assumption you pulled out of thin air. I am not a racist and I never made a racist comment on this blog.

    You said “And my point that religious beliefs don’t harm anybody STILL stands- their beliefs didn’t hurt anyone, their actions did” I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. You are trying to put the cart before the horse, a pathetic attempt at that. Their actions are founded in their beliefs, duh.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlsiLOnWCoI Arch Stanton
  • Master Of Middagh

    Arch Stanton@- “Freedom of speech is never unethical.” Actually, when I typed the word “ethical”, I meant to write the word “moral”. So, sorry I made you waste your time arguing against that- but that’s what you get for focusing on semantics and not the heart of the matter. You say that if something is rude for one person, but not to another, then it isn’t rude? Huh? That;s ridiculous. Where do you get that from? No, dude. When you call a black person the “N” word to their face (like I’m sure you love to), just because it doesn’t offend your bigoted friends, that doesn’t mean it isn’t rude anymore. When you put down an entire group of people (such as a race or people of faith), it is disingenuous for you to suggest that such behavior is not rude and bigoted and should not be welcomed.

    You claim to not be a racist? Fine- then don’t ally yourself with people who think it’s ok to publicly castigate any person who isn’t an atheist. If you didn’t realize that’s what the issue was about, then you shouldn’t have butted in in the first place. You and I actually tend to agree on everything (such as compassion for the homeless), so I don’t know why you picked a fight in the first place. I’m no holy roller, if that’s what you thought it was; I’m just not going to sit by and be cool with people who want to make niggling little rude remarks about people who profess a faith every time a faith-based story comes up- especially if they think it’s their duty to do so. That’s intolerant and it’s racist and you shouldn’t associate yourself with that line…

    The 9/11 terrorists, being murderous zealots, aren’t really relevant to this discussion about whether it’s ok to call grandma a fool as she’s leaving church or temple or what-have-you. But, to satisfy you for sake of argument, zealots are people who twist the positive teachings of religious meanings to further what are essentially political ends, not religious ones. The terrorist attacks were motivated by Osama Bin Laden’s lust for power, not a fervency of his faith.

    I didn’t click on your link because I won’t do so without you telling me what it is first- something tells me it might be rude (or even racist!).

  • Western Brooklyn

    Indeed, Arch! Next M.O.M. will tell us the insane Inquisition had nothing to do with organized religion!

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →