Unlike yourself, apparently, RB Ginsburg didn't discriminate - - SHE wanted to achieve equal protection for everyone. This, from the article:

In 1973, Ginsburg took on another Supreme Court case. Sharron Frontiero was an Air Force officer whose husband, Joseph, had been denied the housing and medical benefits that female spouses of male Air Force officers received automatically...

It was in Frontiero that Ginsburg gave her first oral argument before the Supreme Court. “I knew that I was speaking to men who didn’t think there was any such thing as g****r-based discrimination and my job was to tell them it really exists,” she has said. To make the point to the nine men who were sitting on the bench, she quoted the nineteenth-century women’s-rights advocate Sarah Grimkè: “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” She apparently succeeded...

Ginsburg’s team won the case. Yet they did not convince a majority of the justices that sex discrimination should be treated exactly like racial discrimination...

While at the ACLU, Ginsburg played a role in 34 Supreme Court cases, and won five of the six cases she argued before the court — Frontiero, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Califano v. Goldfarb, Duren v. Missouri, and Edwards v. Healy. Many of her cases involved sex discrimination against men, which she felt might rouse more sympathy among the male justices, and show that discrimination hurts everyone.

Ginsburg sometimes said that one of her favorite cases involved a man whose wife died in childbirth, leaving him alone to care for their newborn son. Stephen Wiesenfeld’s wife had been the primary breadwinner, and upon her death, he went to the local Social Security office to inquire about survivors’ benefits for a parent and learned that he didn’t qualify because he was a man. Ginsburg convinced the Supreme Court that the section of the Social Security Act that denied fathers benefits because of their sex was unconstitutional. She won a unanimous decision.

!!! IS NOT !!!

Too bad you're ill-informed because you've got that wrong - - many DO care, including her conservative colleagues.

Some folks, both ladies and gents, are too young to have experienced how difficult work was for women in the earlier days (from the article):
_______________

Ginsburg attended Harvard Law School, where women were barred from living in the dorms and from using certain campus facilities. When the dean hosted a dinner for the first-year women, Ginsburg recalled, “He asked each of us to stand up and tell him what we were doing taking a seat that could be occupied by a man.”

Discrimination dogged her early career. After t***sferring to Columbia Law School, she graduated first in her class, but she had trouble getting a job. She later accepted a position teaching civil procedure at Rutgers Law School, where her employers informed her that she would be paid less than her male colleagues because she had a husband who earned a good income. She and other female professors filed a federal class-action discrimination case against the university, and won. For fear of demotion, she hid her pregnancy with her son, James, until after her contract renewal. Simply living her personal and professional life at a time of openly discriminatory policies for women had positioned her to fight.
_______________

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/in-memory-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-1933-2020/

I'm not trying to reverse anything. I was simply trying to understand what you said in some kind of context. And what you said did not indicate that you were talking about one particular experience of yours. Thank you for clarifying.

That said, it's unfortunate that the two sides were mad at each other - - were they mad at each other for the type of funeral, the type of service, or for some other more deep-seated reason - - what purpose did anger serve ???

No, Faux Noise has been discredited, not CNN or MSNBC, except in the minds of the Right Winger's...

Is there a difference between the way you put it and the other way around ???

IOW, if half the family is Jewish and the other half "converted" to Catholicism ???

What about families that are half Catholic and half Jewish, and no one "converted" ???

I'm just not clear on why you phrased your hypothetical the way you did, and...

...the "style" of burial is often times different, although it is sometimes the same, but both religions do participate in funerals, so I'm trying to understand your point.

I should add that I've been there, done that, and have not experienced that of which you speak.

Now wait a moment - - you don't get to assign your own definition, and then make a judgment as if your definition is the only one.

You're talking about a group of learn-ed rabbis, accepted by their congregations as being able to speak for Reformed Judaism. Their goal, as stated, is integration of the congregation with a modern outlook in mind.

This is the same kind of difference that we can find in folks who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution vs folks who believe that the Constitution should be a living document which ought to reflect that times have changed from over 240 years ago.

The committee of rabbis isn't going against their God any more than American citizens who believe that the Constitution changing with the times is going against intentions of the "founding fathers". I believe the Federalist Papers and other historical documentation certainly indicated that the founding fathers expected the Constitution to survive by the very nature of its inherent fluidity.

Yep, you called it. Mr "t's" supporters don't even believe it when they hear it in his own words !!!

This IS true, in Reform Judaism:

L***Q E******Y

ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & G****R IDENTITY

As early as 1977, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution that called for “legislation which decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults, and prohibits discrimination against them as persons.” They further resolved to “undertake programs in cooperation with the total Jewish community to implement the above stand.”

Similarly, the Union for Reform Judaism passed a resolution in 1977 stating that “homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under the law” and affirming their opposition to “discriminating against homosexuals in areas of opportunity, including employment and housing.” In the decades following the adoption of these two resolutions, the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have passed over a dozen resolutions on this subject, covering a range of issues from same-sex marriage to the inclusion of L***Q Jews in Jewish life. In addition, the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, a joint instrumentality of the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, passed a resolution in 2003 on the inclusion and acceptance of the t*********r and bisexual communities and an additional resolution in 2014 on the rights of t*********r and g****r non-conforming individuals.

More here:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-l**t-issues-reform-judaism

And even after the SUV, the motorboat and the helicopter, they still think God will save them - Jesus at the wheel !!!

Donald Trump's conversations with Bob Woodward about c****av***s, Black L***s M****r and nuclear war

Inside Donald Trump's 18 recorded interviews with Bob Woodward for his book "Rage" - 60 Minutes - CBS News

(Excerpt from "60 Minutes" - - Sunday, September 13, 2020)

This past week, the Washington Post published Woodward's calls with the president, and Woodward was criticized for not reporting, back in February, what Mr. Trump had said about the v***s being deadly. Woodward says he didn't know at the time whether Mr. Trump was right. In our interview, we asked about another controversy—contained in the last line of the book.

Scott Pelley: It might disappoint some of your fans that you reach an editorial conclusion at the end of this book, something that reporters are not supposed to do.

Bob Woodward: Yes. I say the president is the wrong man for the job.

Scott Pelley: But, you're known as the reporter who doesn't put his thumb on the scale. And yet, at the end of this book, you do just that.

Bob Woodward: it's a conclusion based on evidence, overwhelming evidence, that he could not rise to the occasion with the v***s and tell the t***h. And one of the things that President Trump told me, "In the presidency, there's always dynamite behind the door." "The real dynamite is President Trump. He is the dynamite."

The president's final call came too late. He asked Woodward to include the August peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, but "Rage" was already off to the press. Woodward took the opportunity to level with the president.

Bob Woodward: And I said, "It's a tough book. There are going to be things that you are not gonna like, judgments that I made." And he, at the end, said, "Well, I didn't get you on this book. Maybe I'll get you on the next one."

President Trump during August 14 phone call with Bob Woodward: …but it looks like I don't have it on this book, but we'll get you sometime later, I guess.
Bob Woodward: It's tough, sir. Thank you very much.

Scott Pelley: And after you told the president that it was, in your words, a tough book, what did he do?

Bob Woodward: An hour and a half later, he tweeted out that the Bob Woodward book is gonna be f**e.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-bob-woodward-rage-60-minutes-2020-09-13/

It couldn't have anything to do with the obscurity of your comment - - NAH !!! Oh don't trubble yerseff; 'tweren't no nevermind...

The trumplemeister's admissions to Bob Woodward about his C****-** knowledge ought to devastate his followers. It just isn't believable that he wasn't trying to start a panic, when what he was doing was speaking to a panic in 180° of the t***h.

Sadly, he's simply a disgrace...

Oh my, the latest calculations from Trump's own words is that he watches conservative TV about 8 hours a day. How does a president have time to do that? Well, we know he gets his news from TV because he has repeated it more than once, and the source was only and always conservative news entertainment figures such as Handy Shawn, Tucked-up Carlson or Laura Ungramatic. When deviating from Faux Noise, Not-So-Brite-Bart and Rash Limburger are two other favorites.