Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri
From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (David)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: More Law of Return
Message-ID: <1467@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 09:10:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1467
Posted: Tue Sep  4 09:10:22 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Sep-84 04:42:25 EDT
References: <12849@lanl-a.UUCP>
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 31

Thanks to Bill Peters for clarifying an implication I apparently
(and inadverdantly) left open in my article. The papers are indeed
submitted to the local shaliakh who forwards them to Jerusalem and
awaits word from them - the potential oleh/olah does not have direct
contact with the rabbinate. I take Bill's word for it regarding who
processes it in Jerusalem. The bottom line though, judged from the
results, must be that a lot of variance exists in the handling of
these applications? Due perhaps to bureaucratzia?

For authoritative (??) answers, the potential oleh/olah should
inquire of the local shaliakh (again - beware of bureaucratzia).

I must question the conclusions regarding orthodox concern for
marriage of "goyim", etc. however. I refer readers to numerous
and recent articles in the Jerusalem Post. I would agree however,
that such arguments could be in some measure a smokescreen for
religious ambition? The arguments are there. The question is 
their validity. (It is well worth noting that this is only one
of a number of such arguments brought up in these JP articles - 
several of which readers may find worthy of discussion.)

One point which I feel is unfair, and perhaps inadverdant, is
the use of Kahana as the sole example of religious parties.
Certainly he is not representative of religious parties. If
anything, it would seem to me that he be treated separately
from any of the other parties?