tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-234994132024-03-12T17:32:09.814-07:00Friar YidPlaying Devil's Advocate since 2006.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.comBlogger912125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-34228096759807317172013-08-23T06:00:00.000-07:002013-08-23T06:00:12.705-07:00Bibliogestions: Summer 2013Quick takes:<br />
<br />
- I just finished Samuel Heilman's 30-year-old <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gate-Behind-Wall-Pilgrimage-Jerusalem/dp/0827605552/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-7&qid=1377148167">memoir</a> about doing his early sociology fieldwork among Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem. I rather enjoyed this short meditation-- verging on a Misnagdic approach to 71 1/2 Mystics-- on the frustrations of a rationalist modern Jew trying to integrate himself into the world of Talmud study-- to stop observing others long enough to let the process of studying touch and change himself. Heilman passes between various study circles in Mea Shearim, dabbling among the Breslovers for a few chapters, all the while struggling and doubting his own bona fides as an Orthodox Jew if he cannot truly engage in what he sees as the quintessential Jewish act. What I found most refreshing was the relative ease and fluency in which Heilman was able to enter the worlds of the Jerusalem Haredim. I'm not sure whether this was due to Heilman's Hebrew skills, his cultural knowledge, or the differences in social context in the mid-80s versus today, but it was a refreshing and warm portrait of a community that today is more than often painted in shrill caricatures (including, according to some of his critics, by Heilman himself!). And, while the details are obviously different, I saw quite a bit of my own spiritual search in Heilman's, and found some of his insights and experiences quite fascinating. It was also entertaining to note how more culturally fluent I've become in the last 10-plus years.<br />
<br />
- It turns out Mitnagdim did more than just stay in their study houses. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hastening-Redemption-Messianism-Resettlement-Israel/dp/0195305787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319994147&sr=1-1">Arieh Morgenstern</a> uses institutional records among the Yeshivish community in Israel to chart decades of proto-Zionist work an immigration beginning in the early 1800s. While a bit dry, I found Morgenstern's work well worth the effort, as it helps provide valuable context for the early Yeshivish population in Israel (and Europe). Morgenstern shows that beyond Torah study, many Mitnagic leaders and laymen were also involved in messianism, political activism (and infighting), and settling Israel before Herzl and "modern" Zionism came onto the scene. I originally found Morgenstern's book through a few <a href="http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/597/features/the-messianic-aliyah/">articles</a> about the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/The-Hurvas-symbolism">Hurva synagogue</a>, which is closely tied with the history of Lithuanian Jews in Israel. Even if the book is a bit much for you, I highly recommend the articles.<br />
<br />
- On a similar note, I recently finished <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Untold-Tales-Hasidim-Discontent-Institute/dp/1611681944/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1374006763&sr=1-1">David Assaf's</a> book on the seamier side of Hasidic history. Like Morgenstern's book, the fact that it took me about 3 years to read the whole thing took a little bit away from its impact, but on the whole I found it quite readable, engaging, and refreshing in terms of looking at Hasidic figures and culture from a scholarly lens, rather than a specific polemical or hagiographic perspective. Assaf got a lot of attention (and a fair amount of criticism) when his book first came out (particularly the Hebrew edition) as being just a series of sensational attacks on Hasidism, but my take on it was that the focus was more on trying to uncover, if not "the truth" behind specific personalities and events, then at least to trace the history of the <i>accounts</i> and stories about them (particularly useful is his contrast of Hasidic sources, maskilic sources, and historical records, when available, to try to get to the bottom of various stories). For instance, what happened to the Seer of Lublin in 1814 when he fell out the window of his house? What caused the fall? Hasidic stories have represented it as a miraculous but aborted attempt to bring the messiah. Contemporary maskilic works suggested he was drunk. There is even a possibility it may have been a suicide attempt. Which one is true? Ultimately, Assaf isn't sure, but it's an interesting journey along the way.<br />
<br />
As a family historian who is often most intrigued by the scandalous stories, I recognize and understand the urge and tendency to try to protect the memories of one's ancestors, ideological or biological. Similarly, I think there can be a danger in giving too much validation to the desire to snoop through other people's dirty laundry in the name of "truth" (something today's culture is all too willing to perpetuate). That said, I think that Assaf's work is worthwhile, and of particular value as a corrective to the "Artscrollization" of Jewish history which presents every European Jew before the Holocaust as pious, Orthodox, and uniformly uninterested (to say nothing of untroubled) in modernity. In the hagiographic view, it is as if pre-Holocaust Jews were living outside of time. Learning about the lives of various rebbes as well as their children who actually engaged with (and struggled with) modernism does not diminish my respect for them or their ideas, but rather makes them more approachable, understandable and real. Towards the end of the book, Assaf quotes a fellow historian who notes that from the mid-19th century onward, there was a noted phenomenon among the children of rabbinical dynasties investigating "other paths" (ranging all the way from religious Zionism to socialism to communism). As the other historian puts it, "The sons and daughtes of the zaddikim were the first to sense that their fathers' paths had no future..." One interesting aspect of this, though, is that in essentially all the hasidic dynasties, the oldest son, as the heir, continued the role of rebbe, but oftentimes their younger siblings, not having specifically prescribed roles within the community or succession structure, were more or less "free" to pursue other religious and political directions. Whether this was uniformly true or not, it's a fascinating point that merits further study and offers much food for thought. Readers don't have to agree with everything Assaf writes to find his book useful and interesting, if only as greater context for Jewish history of the period.<br />
<br />
- <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Elijah-Adventures-Mystical-Masters/dp/0060642327/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1374009259&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=stalking+elijah">Rodger Kamenetz's</a> second book was good, but not quite as filling as his first. While I value Kamenetz's commitment to Jewish exploration and spiritual meaning and found some of his descriptions of various Jewish mystical teachers interesting, in the end it was challenging for me to relate to many of them. Part of this may be that Stalking Elijah also coincides with Kamenetz becoming more ensconced in the Jewish Renewal movement, so most of the voices in this book come from that orientation, as opposed to Jew in the Lotus, which contained a wider range across the spectrum. It was interesting to get a snapshot of the Renewal movement's biggest personalities in the mid-90s, and some of the points raised, such as the challenge of keeping Judaism relevant as well as authentic to Jews hungry for more practice and meaning than what they find in your run-of-the-mill synagogue, are certainly still relevant.<br />
<br />
I respect Kamenetz's willingness to dive into some of the deeper ends of the Judaism pool, such as Kabbalah and meditation (which does have historical precedent in Judaism, check out Aryeh Kaplan if you're not convinced), but for me this book epitomizes some of the gaps between various cross-sections of liberal Judaism: broadly speaking, you have many middle-aged Jews who are either not very connected to "traditional" Jewish practice and go through the motions, or you have the ones who are both dissatisfied and mad about it, and so they are willing to go as far as they need to in order to reconnect themselves to the tradition. (A lot of this, IMO, is also a result of living through, or being influenced by the ripples of, the 1960s and the radical experimentation in many areas of American culture.) That's all well and good, but it doesn't quite work for people that are either young enough that they don't have a soulless 1950s Jewish strawman to rebel against, and/or are of a more intellectual bent as opposed to an emotional one. Honestly, out of all the people Kamenetz spoke with, the voices I found most relevant and useful were Rabbis Jonathan Omer-Man, who specializes in meditation and Kabbalah, and Art Green, a Jewish mysticism scholar and former dean of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the non-denominational Hebrew College. In short, personalities that are open to mysticism, but are still intellectually grounded. The inability or unwillingness to fully let go, to need to ground my faith and practice in the intellect, may be a personal failing, but it's how I approach Judaism, and as a result, while Stalking Elijah had some interesting a-ha moments, I don't think it's going to stay with me as long as Jew in the Lotus.<br />
<br />
<br />Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-86838341872230792612013-08-21T22:03:00.000-07:002013-08-21T22:07:30.741-07:00Evolution-- my parents' and mineMrs. Yid and I visited my parents last weekend at their new house. It's in a retirement community, a mock-Italian village in the middle of rural California a few hours from the city. The combination of the hills, tile roofs, massive construction projects going on and imported vineyards and olive groves give it a quasi-surreal feeling, like a cross between the Truman Show and a West Bank settlement. I've taken to calling it Kiryat Geffen.<br /><br />Anyway, the weekend was nice. It was easy to chat and read Saturday afternoon and avoid TV (still working on the no-screens on Shabbat thing), and after dark Mama Yid's new Jew-Bu friend Shoshana came by and we all did Havdalah. This also coincided with my mother saying she wanted to look into possibly going to services at some point and asking whether I would recommend she check out the Reform place or "this Chuh-BAD thing." Oh, Mom.<br /><br />It's been a rather intense summer for them. For all of us, really. My parents moved from their house of 25 years to Kiryat Geffen. The move has been in the works for 2 years and we've all been working hard to get them out on time. The last few weeks of June I was over there every day, helping to pack them up. In the process I went through a lot of old family trinkets, too. The very last day, I went by and gathered up a few odds and ends. I also had one last thing to take: the family mezuzah. I pried it off the door and took it home, to keep for future generations. I'm the chronicler; it's my job.<br /><br />This past Sunday, Mrs. Yid and I put up a new mezuzah on my parents' door. Baby steps, always baby steps.<br /><br />The other night Abbot Yid was in town and took me out for sushi. When my order came (mackerel plus an assortment of sushi), I noticed that one of them was a shrimp. I asked him if he wanted it. While he was chewing, I could tell he was mulling something over.<br /><br />"I have a question," he said.<br /><br />"Shoot."<br /><br />"I'm still trying to figure out what's going on with you and Mrs. Yid. You know, with the clothes and keeping kosher and all that. Because, not to be judgmental or anything, but in my mind, someone keeps those rules because they believe they come from God, and you guys don't strike me as believers."<br /><br />I had known this was coming, and I was actually happy to have a chance to explain in a low-pressure setting.<br /><br />"Well, lots of people describe Judaism as a mixture of belief and practice. We've been in the process of learning a lot ABOUT belief and practice and we decided we wanted to start trying some of it on. We're in the process of digesting theology but it seemed like if we were going to give it a real try, we would need to take on some practice, too. Because if we're going to try to live Jewishly and raise Jewish children, we need to have some idea of what that means.<br /><br />"If you look at it on a continuum, with 10 being totally religious and educated and 0 being totally secular and ignorant, if you're starting at a 10 and you decide to only practice on a 7 or a 5 or whatever, you have the knowledge and the background to make those decisions and adjustments-- you know HOW to scale down. But if you're starting at the other end, it's a lot harder to find a right medium for yourself if you don't try different elements of practice.<br /><br />"And for me, it's also a mindfulness piece. Actually doing something, putting an action to the concept, is powerful. Keeping kosher, even if only in baby steps, not only has us think about the whole process of Jewish eating, but also about how we want to eat ethically (for instance, our recent decision to stop buying Empire products due to their environmental abuses).<br /><br />He seemed intrigued. I continued:<br /><br />"Similarly, I think it's really valuable for liberal Jews to be visible, as Jews. At first I was worried about doing something wrong or reflecting badly on Jewish people. But I think it's also an opportunity. If my students or neighbors or friends have good experiences with a visible Jew, a Jew identifying as a Jew, then so much the better. I don't want the only people with yarmulkes on being the Orthodox."<br /><br />"Now you're sounding like a missionary." He grinned.<br /><br />I shrugged. "If I can be a good example, so much the better." I didn't use the phrase Kiddush Hashem (Abbot doesn't know it), but that was the basic idea.<br /><br />I still don't think he quite gets it, but I think he's getting closer. And there's something very nice about that.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-85308665832838524002013-07-16T15:14:00.004-07:002013-07-16T15:33:16.430-07:00Searching for authenticity-- and a way to express it<div class="MsoNormal">
I've finally bit the bullet and started wearing a kippa full-time. Yes, even at work (hooray for summer school-- an easy way to take baby steps). Initially all my co-workers kept asking me if it was a holiday (previously I only wore on on holidays). I had wanted to have a good answer (and I'm still working on one for when school starts), but the first time someone asked me about it this summer, all I could come up with was, "I'm practicing." (Technically true, and slightly witty, but hardly the clearest answer.)<br />
<br />
My friend Avraham, who has been wearing a kippa full-time for years and was my inspiration that I, as a "not perfect, and not Orthodox" Jew, could still wear a kippa if I wanted to, works as a scientist, so after the first few times he was asked about it, everyone at work knew he wore one and just moved on.<br />
<br />
One of the challenges of deciding to wear a kippa at work and being a teacher is that every year my class turns over, which means I will need to re-explain myself. I don't mind this, but it's something I need some time to mull over to decide how best to do it. I've spent several years worrying about how people would react to me wearing a kippa in public-- and while it's true, as Avraham said, most people either ignore it or have reactions ranging from neutral to positive, I still worry about the perception of either pushing Judaism on my students, or of simply being "too Jewish." Though I'm about 95% sure that most of this is due to my parents' reactions and baggage (especially Abbot Yid's) and my own personal anxiety, it's still something to work through.<br />
<br />
That said, so far it's gone well. My new students in summer school (4th graders) asked me about it the first few days and I presented it as a family tradition, which they seemed to be fine with. Now they've made a game of counting how many kippot I own.<br />
<br />
Looks like I'm going to need to go on a trip to the Judaica store. :)<br />
<br />
Another thing that's come up this summer is Tisha B'Av. Last year I was off so it was easy to observe Tisha B'Av. This year, I'm working and so I needed to arrange for a substitute. As someone that struggles with excessive anxiety, especially relating to work, I really hate to take time away from work, particularly when I know it will impact other people. Every extra step I have to do, calling a sub, writing up plans, negotiating lessons with my partner teacher, adds another layer of doubt as to whether it's worth it to take off.<br />
<br />
But because I had decided to fast, I knew it would be better if I wasn't at school. So I went ahead and took the day and now I'm home writing this.<br />
<br />
When my colleagues knew I was taking a day off, everyone wanted to know what the holiday was. The trick here, as some of you who work with non-Jewish co-workers know, is that Tisha B'Av is a holiday that doesn't have a very simple summary like "New Year's." It's a very specific, very Jewish-focused holiday, and on top of that, it's post-biblical. (At least for Shavuot I was able to tell my Catholic supervisor, "I think you call it Pentecost.") When I told my partner teacher, "It commemorates the destruction of the Jewish temple," her eyes just glazed over. "Well... have a happy... holiday?" Bless her for trying.<br />
<br />
Luckily when I told my students I'd be out they didn't want to know <i>why</i> there was a holiday, they just wanted to know the name. One had a great reaction:<br />
<br />
"Tisha B'Av? That's a fun sounding name! When I see my neighbors this afternoon, I'm going to wish them a happy Tisha B'Av!"<br />
<br />
This is why I teach.<br />
<br />
Of course, it wasn't until after school was over that I realized that there's a very recent analogue that my students (at least my older ones) would definitely understand: Tisha B'Av is like the Jewish 9/11. Not <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayd.htm">literally</a>, of course-- but as a conceptual bridge to understand national mourning and commemoration, I think it works rather well. Will have to chew on this more.<br />
<br />
Anyway, all this is to say that even though things are still a work in progress (like Shabbat, and making it to services more than a couple times a month), I still find a lot of value in trying-- and even though my parents don't quite understand where I'm coming from, I think they're finally respecting me for wanting to claim the tradition as my own and to work to make a meaningful practice for myself and my family. I don't want readers (you still exist, don't you?) to think that I spend all my time worrying about what other people think; rather, it's that my decision to start living more openly and publicly as a Jew means that I also want to be able to articulate some of those decisions to others-- both because I think the questions are legitimate, and because, as part of that discussion process, I'm not just explaining to them, but also to myself.</div>
Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-4319194324802516672013-05-19T11:45:00.002-07:002013-05-19T11:45:52.534-07:00Bibliogestions: Spring 2013I've taken a long vacation from politics, which is probably from the best. The governments of America and Israel continue to disappoint, terrible things continue to happen in the world, and every time I turn on talk radio on my drive to work, my urge to punch the dial rises. (Mrs. Yid has banned me from playing anything on the AM dial when she's in the car.)<br />
<br />
On the other hand, work and personal study/practice have been going well. I blogged about the latest shul-happenings over at TCFS, but I've also been pleased at having been slowly getting through some meaty Judaica books over the last few months. Here are some highlights:<br />
<br />
- <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Messiah-John-Freely/dp/1585675547/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1368983308&sr=8-1">Shabbetai Zvi</a> was really, really nuts. But also a pretty interesting figure inasmuch as he was able to convince as much as 1/3 of the world's Jewish population that he was the Messiah. John Freely, a Turkish historian of British extraction, though not Jewish, does a great job delving into the medieval background of the time as well as the place. He also capable dissects Zvi's theology and helps chart his legacy among his various branches of followers. I feel like this was great background to prep me for reading about Jacob Frank.<br />
<br />
- <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Alone-Yehuda-Amital-ebook/dp/B005233RL4/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368987081&sr=1-1&keywords=yehuda+amital">Yehuda Amital</a> was a true mensch and a great model for our time. Personally traditional in practice, he understood the primacy of ethical behavior and cooperation with people as well as institutions that he didn't always agree with. Perhaps one of the best examples of a principled moderate within the last 50 years, in so many different spheres and contexts: politics, culture, religion, the Holocaust, and more. Amital doesn't shy away from wrestling with harsh truths and sometimes contradictory values, and frequently comes to some sort of decent, if not always perfect, compromise. He's also quite admirable to me in that he tried to avoid creating a cult of personality around himself and emphasized the need for his students-- and by extension, everyone-- to think independently for themselves.<br />
<br />
Amital would be the first to admit he wasn't perfect, and his principled moderation has its limits. If you believe in certain absolute values, be they territorial maximalism a-la Gush Emunim, or full equality for women and GLBT Jews, for example, Amital poses a bit of a conundrum. There were causes that were important to him that he seems to have subjugated in order to not go too far against the status quo. In some ways, it's easy to look back on his actions with nostalgia and say, "If only we could all be more moderate like him." But at the same time, I recognize that there are absolute values worth fighting for, and sometimes they require the willingness to fight the status quo, and not always try to change it from within. However Amital's ability to be honest about conflicting values and at least try to balance them (while still, in principle and practice, trying to be open to other points of view) makes him a very powerful, inspiring, and IMO, <i>modern</i> figure that more Jews could benefit from learning about and from.<br />
<br />
- Elie Wiesel continues to inspire my Jewish imagination. Wiesel isn't for everybody, and sometimes his style can be a little off-putting, but I think I have enough right-to-left brain that I'm basically able to admire his poetics (particularly impressive given it's in translation) while also not letting it distract from the ideas. After having a couple of Wiesel books kicking around for a while I finally got around to finishing them and was quite impressed with the force of personality and imagination of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Souls-Fire-Portraits-Legends-Hasidic/dp/067144171X">early Hasidic masters</a>.<br />
<br />
It may just be my own biases, but I think Wiesel is at his best when describing the "darker" rebbes who lived in poverty or conflict but who still had wonderful human qualities rather than the fancier rebbes like the Rizhiner, who depending on your POV come across as verging on exploitive and pompous (despite Wiesel's attempts to present their opulence as a "facade", such as the claim that the Rizhiner wore golden shoes but no soles on the bottoms). Simcha Bunim of Pryzucha, the Kotzker, the Seer of Lublin and the Holy Jew are the men that speak most to me, because they do not seem to be hiding the pain of life behind the curtain of joy. They know what true pain is and continue in spite of it (or sometimes don't). I find that far more powerful than other personalities who seem like they basically don't have as much to wrestle with.<br />
<br />
For this reason I was particularly interested by another Wiesel book which focused specifically on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Melancholy-Ward-Phillips-Lectures-Literature/dp/0268009473/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1368982816&sr=1-1">Hasidic masters and melancholy</a>. In examining Pinhas of Koretz, Naftali of Ropshitz, the Seer of Lublin, and Baruch of Medzebozh, Wiesel shows the other side of the great leaders, the darker, pained, and human sides, and how each of them dealt with these issues, with various degrees of success. I was reading this book while coming to terms with my own mental health issues and history (and exploring medication), and found it to be very resonant.<br />
<br />
- Finally, I also read-- and greatly enjoyed-- <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Half-Mystics-Kabbala-Today/dp/0684843250/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1368983071&sr=1-1">9 1/2 Mystics</a>, a book I had heard about for a while but only remembered as being "the one with an anecdote about naked Gershom Scholem." I really enjoyed it, it reminded me a bit of Jew in the Lotus but is far more grounded in Jewish contexts. The author, Herbert Wiener, is both an educated and liberal Jew as well as an intellectual and spiritual seeker, and those qualities, combined with his strong perseverance as well as good luck to have been around and writing in the 1940s-80s, results in a fascinating compendium of interviews with some of the greatest mystical minds of the last century: Weiner helped organize lectures for Scholem, studied with Steinsaltz, chatted with Buber, visited the Belzer court, had several audiences with M.M. Schneerson, and challenged Zvi Yehuda Kook on how close or far he had reinterpreted his father's teachings. Most fascinating from an Orthodox sociology POV is Weiner's experience and reportage of various Jewish groups that have since gone through major developments, such as Rav Ashlag before the Kabbalah Centre boom, Chabad when Schneerson was still alive and kicking, Breslov before they became as visible as they now are (and before the Uman pilgrimage became the new Jewish Woodstock), and of course Zvi Yehuda Kook back when he was still a man and not yet a departed saint.<br />
<br />
Not only does Weiner's book contain fascinating insights into what Jewish mysticism - or mysticisms-- is and could be, but, much like Arthur Hertzberg's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jew-America-Peoples-Struggle-Identity/dp/B0091JX7LA/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368989056&sr=1-5">Jew in America</a>, also does a wonderful job of showing the living history of a religion and culture still being formed, reformed, and endlessly debated. Anyone who's interested in the topic or any of the personalities I mentioned will find it a fun read.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-73730864572946691832013-03-06T18:48:00.000-08:002013-03-06T18:48:02.953-08:00Profoundly Not OkReal life has been busy, so the blog hasn't. More to come, but first... geez. We've talked about Lazer Brody's lack of sense, timing, and self-awareness many times before. We've also discussed the fact that often Lazer seems to genuinely want to use his words to help people heal, which I respect.<br />
<br />
But here's the thing, Lazer. Stuff like <a href="http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2013/03/nathan-and-raizy-glauber-of-blessed-memory.html">this</a>... It doesn't help. At all.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: red;">We've been flooded with letters of grieving people asking about the meaning of this. All I can say is that <b>Nathan and Raizy were undoubtedly flawless tzaddikim whom Hashem chose as ritual sacrifices for all of Klal Yisroel.</b> Such a tragedy obligates every single one of us to wake up, assess ourselves and return to Hashem.</span></span></blockquote>
You know what isn't going to bring anybody close to anything remotely resembling traditional Judaism? Suggesting that innocents being killed in tragic, senseless accidents is part of God demanding ritual sacrifice. In such a tragedy anybody with an ounce of sense and humility is obligated to do nothing more than say a prayer for the dead, support their families, and shut their damn mouths.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">The couple's last name - </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;">Glauber</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; text-align: justify;"> - is Yiddish for "believer". We have nothing else to lean on but our emuna, our belief in Hashem.</span></span></blockquote>
Stop. Just stop. Stop the pat answers, stop pretending to know what God's "plan" is to make horrible car accidents make sense, and stop leaning on gematria or surname etymology or any other nonsense a first year yeshiva students learns in Half-Assing your Drash 101. People are dead, and this is not ok. Give condolences, start a charity fund, but PLEASE, no more. People are watching and hurting, and this... isn't helping anyone.<br />
<br />
<br />Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-36347735880053226422013-01-16T21:46:00.000-08:002013-01-16T21:46:05.077-08:00Some people shouldn't make history movies<br />
As friends who know us IRL can attest, my wife and I are rather different. One area where this comes out is in our movie preferences. I tend to like movies that are more story or character driven, whereas my better-looking half enjoys what she calls "stylish world-building" through costumes, sets, what have you. I like Braveheart, she likes Eraserhead, that sort of thing.<br />
<br />
Since I read a lot of history, I am particularly engaged by movies that tell historical stories well. Everything doesn't have to be at a college thesis level of accuracy, but it is nice to see directors, writers and producers taking their source material seriously, especially when it's a heavier subject or one that continues to have a lot of modern-day implications/ramifications.<br />
<br />
And then there are... the other guys. The guys that don't seem to feel any obligation to the history behind their stories, who become so wrapped up in the story they've made up or decided to tell that the real history is forced to take a back seat. A way back seat.<br />
<br />
One of the directors whose approach to history I absolutely can't stand is Tarantino. Firstly, because I just don't like his work. I dislike his aesthetics, I dislike his writing, he and I have vastly different ideas of what makes something funny, and so on. But more than that, he just seems to take such a low-brow approach to telling history that it's like you're punished for knowing anything about his subjects. When I saw <i>Inglorious Basterds</i>, it didn't fill me with Jewish pride, and it didn't make me sit back and chuckle at the "clever" inversion of Jewish power tropes. It made me angry that Tarantino thought the best Holocaust story worth telling was some crap about fake Jewish commandos beating up Nazis with baseball bats. There are countless real stories of real people he could have used, at least for a starting-point, dealing with real emotions, real consequences and real history, and instead the Holocaust became a set piece for him to talk about... scalping? About how it's fun to kill Nazis? Feature Brad Pitt in a bad mustache and worse accent? Make Hitler jokes?<br />
<br />
I found Basterds frustrating, but at least it wasn't as fundamentally upsetting Benigni's <i>Life is Beautiful </i>was. I found that movie offensive on just about every level, and have continued to struggle to understand how people saw anything to like in that movie. I'm sorry, but I have a really hard time letting myself drift into fantasy when WE'RE AT AUSCHWITZ. It just kind of kills the fantasy for me, and causes me to wonder about the mental health or empathy levels of the people that can. I don't like set piece movies as a general rule, but there's some history, especially tragic history, that seems really inappropriate to use for these purposes. I don't need to see the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucker_Punch_(film)#Plot">Sucker Punch</a> take on Hiroshima or the Irish Potato Famine.<br />
<br />
So too, I am very skeptical of Tarantino's latest poject,<i> Django Unchained</i> (I will admit upfront I have not seen the movie and am going on the comments of others). From what I've read it sounds like Tarantino has again decided to take a major topic in world history and use it as a background to insert irritating and context-less characters whose primary motivation is to be awful to each other. Color me unimpressed.<br />
<br />
There are two big reasons why I find Tarantino so distasteful on these kinds of movies. First of all, he seems to be almost proud about swooping in from the wings to tell someone else's story without any background of what the real history was or what its ongoing impacts are on the people it happened to. Tarantino's blase approach puts very little effort into understanding how Jews understand or process the Holocaust, or blacks understand or process slavery. History is treated as infinitely malleable and apparently you can have your characters do anything, no matter how unfactual, and because it's "alternative history," we're supposed to buy it. For Tarantino there's apparently no difference between doing a movie about the Holocaust and adapting Twilight or Roald Dahl.<br />
<br />
But then at the same time, he likes to get on his high horse and lecture the communities he's writing about, telling them that somehow his brilliant take on their history has some redeeming, high-art quality that not only everyone should appreciate and acknowledge, but that may even be able to help those communities move on from those tragic events. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-django-reax-2-20121228,0,1771716.story">Black teenagers should watch Django</a> to understand slavery was bad, and Jews should watch Basterds to understand that Nazis are bad. And once you understand slave owners and Nazis are bad, you are supposed to understand that killing them in excruciating detail is awesome. And then you have a movie. Tarantino wants it both ways: on the one hand, his work isn't supposed to be serious history, so it can't be challenged for being fictional or just plain wrong, but on the other hand, it's ground-breakingly deep and can heal generations-old wounds. Tarantino's history has no substance but still wants to be treated as important commentary. It doesn't work, and if history matters to you-- be it yours or someone else's-- it comes across as lazy and dismissive. "Your real stories aren't important or interesting, Jews or black people-- let me tell you why my made up crap is so much better." It's basically one step away from what Mel Gibson tried to do with the Hanukkah story (though then again, being a fundamentalist, at least Gibson might have stuck to the text a little more). To me at least, it reads as incredibly arrogant.<br />
<br />
This is where I feel Tarantino actually starts hurting the history he supposedly wants to talk about: he can claim that his alternative history is clever or satirical, but that only works when the audience knows the real history to start with, and I'm not convinced most of them do. And because he isn't invested in understanding his subject matter through the eyes of the people it happened to, he doesn't really have a whole lot of standing to comment on it, so his POV comes across as very skewed. For example, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/hollywoods-jewish-avenger/307619/2/">Tarantino doesn't understand</a> why Jews might have a problem with violently killing or gratuitously torturing Nazis because he's never bothered to find out how real Jews reacted to the real life atrocities and traumas of losing their families. He can't relate to it, therefore he dismisses those feelings and representations in film (hand-wringing, as he calls it) as unrealistic. He's decided he knows how people would "realistically" react to that situation, and that's all there is to it. Never mind that there's a lot of documentation showing that most Jews didn't react to the war with revenge, and that the ones who did weren't doing it for fun or thrills but as a deeply pained response to intense trauma at having their entire society annihilated. Tarantino complained about there being no Holocaust stories that talked about fighting back, but the truth is that he's never bothered to look. He could find any number of real stories about real people and examine what they did and why they did it. Those would be stories with context, depth, and integrity, because they could examine and present real moral dilemmas and conflicts. But Tarantino doesn't do those kinds of stories, because he feels that moral dilemmas seem "like a movie, not real life." Which I personally find hilarious because when I look at Tarantino characters, all I see are caricatures and cartoons. Spielberg and Edward Zwick are far from perfect directors, but I'd take <i>Munich</i>, <i>Defiance</i> and even <i>Schindler's List</i> over <i>Basterds</i> any day. Tarantino likes to present himself as a genius director, but he really just comes across as a gore-obsessed lunkhead.<br />
<br />
Tarantino's approach to story and characters would frustrate me no matter what his topics were, but it's especially problematic when he decides to apply his low-brow, high-blood method to the Holocaust and slavery. He can claim he's just trying to entertain people, but a lot of people who see his history movies are coming in ignorant and leaving even more ignorant, but now thinking they now know more than when they came in. Black people don't need to see Django to understand their history, they need to be able to get as much of a national platform as Tarantino and get to tell their own stories through their own eyes. I don't buy the claim that people who care about history should be happy that Django (or Lincoln, which I haven't followed as closely) are "at least making people think about the Civil War." No. We can do better, and should want film-makers to do better. I don't accept that my only choices are Ken Burns' coma-juice or Tarantino's genocide-poitation.<br />
<br />
When alternative history is done for the purposes of comedy or obvious fantasy, then I suppose it can be successful (or at least stands more of a chance). Cowboys vs. Aliens and Robin Hood: Men in Tights both come to mind. But movies that present alternative history in a realistic or plausible manner, by directors that claim they're actually honoring their subject matter by throwing in tons of crap that never happened, risk doing more harm than good. If you want to make a silly action, romance or horror movie, then go ahead. You can even use slavery or Nazis in it. But be explicit that that's what you're doing, and don't pretend like you're helping whoever's history you decided to rip off for your back-story.<br />
Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-70603034602503882112013-01-11T06:44:00.003-08:002013-01-16T21:47:30.126-08:00Wrapping up the Year<br />
So, how about 2012? Here are some things I meant to blog about but didn't get to:<br />
<br />
<b>Personal stuff</b><br />
<br />
- First of all, I prepared a gigantic Hanukkah presentation for my middle-schoolers and it went quite well. Highlights included funny music videos (Matisyahu, Maccabeats and Eran Baron-Cohen), lots of latkes and donut holes, and re-enacting the death of Elazar Avran with a student volunteer, an expo marker, and me as the mortally wounded elephant.<br />
<br />
Some people object to an ecumenical Hanukkah message, pointing out that the holiday celebrates people who were emphatically not tolerant of others. I think the history can be presented either way-- in the context of a classroom, I think it's legitimate to frame it as a conversation-starter about personal and national rights-- specifically, the right to be different and live/worship as you please (or as I framed it, rather than seeing it as a Jewish Christmas, Hanukkah is better understood as a Jewish mash-up of July 4th and Thanksgiving-- combining national as well as religious significance and rights). Would Judah Maccabee have been ok with the various expressions of Judaism we see today? Probably not. Then again, I know plenty of Jews-- myself included-- who wouldn't be very ok with killing a guy for worshiping an idol or running around forcibly circumcising your neighbors. I reserve the right to pick and choose.<br />
<br />
- On a related note, we visited Mrs. Yid's mispocha. We were informed we would be attending midnight mass with the family. We wore our respective Jewish headgear (scarf and kippa). As Mrs. Yid predicted, there were precisely zero questions and comments from my in-laws, so it's impossible to tell what they thought of it. (Note that this is the exact opposite of what happens with my parents, who are nothing if not vocal-- about everything.) To celebrate Christmas, the church rang bells and set off fireworks. Since this was 12:30 am, I'm sure this did not endear them with their neighbors.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I have flown with a kippa on. It is the first time in a long time I have been "randomly searched." Mrs. Yid notes that she has been "randomly searched" every time since covering her hair a year and a half ago.<br />
<br />
I find it much easier to wear a kippa in public when I am somewhere I have never been and around people who don't know me. Food for thought.<br />
<br />
- Our friend Avraham had his adult bar mitzvah along with 6 other congregants. Half of the b'nai mitzvah class were converts, and many of them were dedicated, longtime members. It was very cool to see hear all the different stories and paths that have brought people to Judaism in general and our shul in particular. Also, after shul Abbot Yid called me and asked why I hadn't picked up earlier that morning. When I told him we were at services he scoffed, "Oh, I'm sorry, you were busy BEING HOLY!" I continue to wonder when he will get over this stuff. Probably never.<br />
<br />
- I am leading Carlebach davening this Shabbat. Wish me luck!<br />
<br />
<b>National/Media stuff</b><br />
<br />
- Dennis Prager has a university. Considering he spends his time <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/a-yeshiva-boy-and-christmas/">writing crap</a> like how "as a Jew, I love Christmas because it makes me feel tingly all over," this pains me greatly.<br />
<br />
- Israel is having an election. All the candidates seem either outright incompetent or supremely unsatisfying. I am intrigued by the shake-up among the religious, left and nationalist right political sectors, though at this point it seems way too early to tell what will come from any of it. (Though big kudoses to Shas for managing to be racist against Africans and bigoted towards Russian converts in the same election cycle. Mazel tov, jerks.)<br />
<br />
- With all the school shootings happening, it's a strange time to be a teacher. I find it very irritating that so much of the national media/random pundits feel qualified to blather on about what teachers "should" do during a school shooting without apparently knowing anything about school safety procedures. At every school I've ever taught at, the training focuses on putting classes into lockdown mode until the threat is identified and/or contained, then evacuating. As cold as it may sound to people, this procedure and training helped keep Newtown from being an even worse massacre. Can there be additional steps added? Sure. But don't tell me that teachers are should be pulling a Rambo when everything they hear from the school is, "lock your door and keep your kids safe." And yes, while I realize the issue may be more complicated than merely gun supply, that does seem to be a far more logical place to start than random pat answers like saying we should "<a href="http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=42452f97-f8e4-475f-98c9-0083811664c4&url=conscience-not-guns-n1469001">focus on morality</a>" (how?) or that it's because we've taken God out of schools (explain the 60+ US school shootings before 1962, Huckabee).<br />
<br />
I don't see easy answers to the school shooting issue, but I do think that some combination of increased gun control legislation, mental health resources and refocused school security systems would be a good start. I don't think arming teachers or passing blustery laws that score political points but don't change the reality on the ground are good answers.<br />
<br />
- Lastly, conversations regarding Newtown and theodicy have helped me better articulate some aspects of my understanding of God. Namely, why the notion of God causing disasters makes so little sense to me. (Adapated from a Dovbear comment I made a few weeks ago.)<br />
<br />
If you look around, the world does not seem to be controlled. If God is a factor, it seems to operate as an undercurrent, not an obvious force. As such, my conception of God is not focused on the idea of a miracle-maker or a punishment-dealer. My God is one of suggestion and hope. When I daven, I always take a moment to insert a personal prayer where I ask for blessings for my family, for my friends, for my coworkers, for the leaders of the world, and for myself. I ask for health, for happiness, for peace, and for wisdom. But those blessings aren't for miracles, and I don't expect them to be fulfilled miraculously.<br />
<br />
For me, prayer is an articulation of hope, and by speaking to God I am trying, in some small way, to reach out to whatever forces may influence the universe. It may do nothing more than make me feel better. It may help reaffirm to me what my goals for myself, others and the world are and thereby spur me a little step closer to making them come true. I don't pray for God to move mountains, but to touch people's hearts, to make them care about each other and about doing the right thing. I pray that somehow, this force we call God will help influence good and brave people, so that eventually they outnumber and overcome the evil and apathetic and help tip the scales of history.<br />
<br />
To me, that is God's job, not making it rain, helping me win the lottery, or shielding people from terrible events-- because I believe that those things by necessity will always happen. But if there is a God and he does influence the world, my greatest hope is that he will help us, impact us, empower us, to become better about preventing our own tragedies and reaching out to those touched by them. That's the God I believe in.<br />
<br />
Shabbat shalom.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-67888601280274465372012-11-29T22:09:00.002-08:002012-11-29T22:09:48.938-08:00When editors take a napDid the Jerusalem Post just decide it doesn't need editors? You'd think after that ridiculous front-page <a href="http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2010/04/get-some-copy-editors.html">typo</a> a few years ago they'd realize someone should probably look at their stories before they post them all willy-nilly. Who do they think they are, me?<br />
<br />
Anyway, here's the latest <a href="http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=293796">head scratcher</a> from the Post:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nNyTIJzKKcQ/ULhNXNzcArI/AAAAAAAAANU/2uLP0Zlw4UE/s1600/YK.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nNyTIJzKKcQ/ULhNXNzcArI/AAAAAAAAANU/2uLP0Zlw4UE/s320/YK.png" width="245" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
If you don't know, the man in the picture is Yoel Kraus, a longtime activist from Neturei Karta in Jerusalem, a guy so anti-Zionist he has his own cow so as not to taint his holy stomach with "Zionist milk." <a href="http://www.demotix.com/news/1016710/guardians-city-ultra-orthodox-anti-zionism-jerusalem#media-1015598">No, really.</a><br />
<br />
So here's the million dollar question: what's the relevance of showing a picture of a well-known Israeli activist who as far as I know has never left his zip code with a story happening in Poland? Were they trying to go with a random "background shot" of a Haredi guy and just wound up picking Kraus? How did no one spot this?Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-77668146311602071742012-11-28T22:17:00.000-08:002012-11-28T22:17:37.111-08:00The Wars of the Jews, cont.Garnel wrote a nice comment. I had so much to say it became another post. Whoops.<br />
<br />
Garnel writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Here's what I see as the fundamental difference between the Orthodox and the non-orthodox.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">The Orthodox ask: how can I be a good Jew? Let me open up the halacha books and find out.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">The Heterdox ask: how can I be a good Jew? Well, my values include X, Y, and Z so I'll say that those values are Jewish values and be a good Jew.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Now obviously this is not about conscious statements but when you hear heterodox people talking about how supporting gay marriage or unrestricted abortion is a Jewish value then you get the impression that heterodox Judaism is defined as "Here are my values, and I'll call them Jewish". And then an adjective in front appears.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">In addition, there's a branding disagreement. For the Orthodox there's a clear definition of Judaism - matan Torah, one God, supremacy of halacha, etc. Now within Orthodoxy there is a battle being wages over a bunch of peripherals, stuff you identify in your post like the rationalists vs the irrationalists (eg. Slifkin controversy) but the basics are what define Judaism.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">So when someone comes along and says "Well I'm a Reform Jew so I practice Judaism even though I don't believe in Matan Torah" we look over and say "Well that's like saying that Sprite you're holding is really a Coke because you want to have Coke but not to actually buy it.</span></span></blockquote>
My response:<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thanks for your comment, Garnel. It's nice to be able to
discuss topics like this without things getting too heated.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think that your description of heterodox Jews is true in
some cases. However just like there's a range among Orthodoxy, there's a wide range of what makes someone a heterodox
Jew (for the purposes of this discussion I'm separating secular Jews from heterodox Jews, whom I define as people that attend a synagogue at least once a year and/or have membership in a synagogue), ranging from minimally engaged 2-times a year Jews all the way up to
heterodox rabbis, and I think most intellectually honest people would be hard-pressed to claim that children can spend
eight or twelve years in heterodox Jewish day schools and come out of that not
knowing anything about Judaism. You may question the prism through which the
information or the message is diffused, and you may be correct that the areas
emphasized may not be the same as in an Orthodox school, but you have to at
least concede that some heterodox Jews have a basic, even fairly detailed,
knowledge of Judaism-- though their interpretations of what "Jewish
values" are may differ from many Orthodox perspectives. (I realize plenty of heterodox Jews don't send their kids to day schools, but for this discussion I'd like to talk about them a little bit to at least establish that committed/educated Jews exist outside of Orthodoxy.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Furthermore, I think it's not unreasonable for people to
integrate their Jewish values with other values or causes that are important to
them, particularly since there are plenty of areas where modern and Jewish
values/principles overlap. Tikkun olam gets a bad rap as being overused, but
part of being a good Jew <i>is</i> being a good person, and many mitzvot can legitimately be thought of as "good deeds." We may disagree over the
specifics of mitzvot ben adam l'makom, but everyone agrees, at least on paper,
that mitzvot ben adam l'chaveiro are important. Visiting the sick, giving to
charity, not humiliating others, being stewards of the environment, etc...
These are all modern values as well as Jewish ones and I don't see why people
interpreting their actions as least partially through a Jewish filter is such a
bad thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, some people may just take their contemporary values and
call them Jewish. On the other hand, people who are more educated and thoughtful about Judaism and its values may be better able to articulate where their modern values and some
Jewish values differ. My guess is that any day school graduate who's taken even
quasi-serious Talmud classes (which are required among most of them) would be
able to give you a list of issues they've encountered in their studies that
they find problematic. In some cases people may be opting out of some Jewish
practices out of apathy or disinterest or assigning other values Jewish status
or significance out of ignorance, but the mere fact of choosing does not
indicate ignorance. It can just as easily be the result of informed choice, of
learning about Jewish values, finding some in conflict with modern values they
sincerely believe in (one major one being egalitarianism), and making a
thoughtful decision best aligned with their personal conscience. You can
personally disagree with that approach, but it's not fair to dismiss it as just
being a case of liberal Jews not knowing what they're talking about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, if someone takes a reductive approach to their Judaism
and says that Judaism is solely defined by working at soup kitchens, planting
trees or marching for Darfur, then I think that's unfortunate and I disagree
with that view as being shortsighted and misinformed-- however I think you can
make the same error in the other direction by spending all of your time
checking for bugs in your lettuce, exercising your OCD, or studying Talmud to the exclusion of
everything else, a-la <a href="http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-smartest-isnt-always-best.html">Rav Elyashiv</a>/<a href="http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/02/the-ocd-rebbe-of-satmar-567.html">Yoel Teitelbaum</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Pinchas_Scheinberg">Rav Scheinberg</a>. That's part of the reason why though I have a different
relationship to halacha, I have a lot of respect for the Modern Orthodox world
because they really do attempt to strike a serious balance between two worlds, and I think that balance, to one degree or another, is quite important: The stereotype of Orthodox Jews is that they're overly legalistic and insular, while heterodox Jews are all supposedly super granola hippy types
who don't know their Hillel from a ham sandwich. The reason these stereotypes exist is because they illustrate some uncomfortable realities, but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes <i>are</i> reality.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my case, I fully realize that I do not live a fully
halachic lifestyle and have no problem saying so-- part of this is because
there are parts of halacha I disagree with, and part of it is that I don't
accept halacha as being a fully binding system. By that same token, I also have
no problem admitting that there are parts of traditional Judaism I don't
follow. The issue, as I see it, is that so many people, particularly
institutional leaders (but also laypeople) are so personally invested in their
branding that no one is willing to admit that there is not a single Judaism,
there are multiple ones. It's a spectrum, and not just a horizontal spectrum,
but a vertical one, as well:</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png" width="367" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">Something like this, for the sake of having a visual model.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Do you
focus on ritual mitzvot or ethical mitzvot, or do you try to cover all of them
to the best of your ability? My firm belief is that people select their
priorities and the rest follows suit. Most people do simply not have enough
mental, financial, or temporal resources to apply themselves equally in all
aspects of Judaism, and if some folks are going to attack Jews who spend their time
engaging in activism but don't put a lot of effort into, say, text study, they
should have the honesty to focus their next criticism on textually literate
Jews who ignore the principles of justice that those same texts spend so much time talking about.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The point is that everybody chooses. People choose what
theology they actually believe in, what stuff they pretend to believe in for
appearance's sake, and what stuff they just plain ignore. So honestly, part of
the issue with branding is not that Reform Jews are maintaining "I'm
practicing Judaism;" it's that Orthodox Jews will never admit that
Orthodox Judaism is not synonymous with Judaism (TM). That meta-brand, if you
will, is bigger than any one movement, even Orthodoxy. I see
"Judaism" as being the collective output and worship of klal israel,
and so I have no problem acknowledging my Judaism is not Orthodox Judaism-- I've never claimed anything to the contrary-- but I'd
never be willing to say "my Judaism is not real Judaism," which seems
to be the subtext of what you're saying when you use the example of a Reform
Jew saying "I practice Judaism." The reality is all of us are
practicing <i>forms</i> of Judaism. The Judaism you have is different from what
Abraham had, from what Moses had, from what the Maccabees had, and in some ways,
even from what Rashi or Rambam had. Claiming otherwise because you need to
believe in an infallible, perfect chain of Torah is the kind of thinking that
leads to people saying Moses wore a streimel or that Ever's tent was actually a
yeshiva.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don't believe we're talking about Coke versus Sprite here (which would be something like comparing Judaism and Hinduism).
The better model is Coke and Pepsi. Are they both colas? Well the ingredients
vary and there are clear differences (at least according to my soda-drinking
friends), but even the most rabid Coke/Pepsi partisans have to agree that yes,
they're both the same <i>kind</i> of soda. And while I have no problem admitting I'm a
Coke and not a Pepsi, I will get annoyed if I start being told that the only
true cola is Pepsi and that it's been that way for time immemorial.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Hmm, for some reason I'm now craving something fizzy...)<o:p></o:p></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-21131703406777645072012-11-28T06:00:00.000-08:002012-11-28T06:00:15.076-08:00Committing to EngagementGarnel had a post last week about the <a href="http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2012/11/committing-to-lack-of-commitment.html">Reform and Conservative movements</a> that was framed around the idea that non-Orthodoxy's raison-d'etre is a "lack of commitment." He believes that this, in turn, is precisely the reason why so those movements are losing members. As he put it,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">how do you build a strong feeling of commitment to a philosophy based on a lack of one? </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">A movement that makes any actual Jewish practice optional can't expect to raise large numbers for a rally. No one is going to pack a stadium with a crowd shouting "We want to do whatever we want and still be considered good Jews!" Yes, there will always be candidates for their so-called rabbinic programs but how many dedicated pro-feminist and pro-gay people who also have a liking for Bible studies are there out there? And how can they connect to congregations that see a lack of connection as part of their Jewish identity?</span></blockquote>
Let's start by putting aside the strawmen of non-Orthodox Jews perpetually searching for the perfect rabbi who will give them permission to do whatever they want while still being declared "good Jews." I don't know anyone who lives that way and if they do, I hope they get some help. While we're at it, we can also shelve the line about liberal congregation members viewing "a key part" of their identity being a "lack of connection."You know, because the whole point of joining a community is so you can keep feeling good and alienated. (Is Garnel confusing unaffiliated and non-Orthodox here? Is he vaguely alluding to the challenges of non-Orthodox kiruv? I can't tell.)<br />
<br />
Anyway, this was the part that really tweaked me:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Reform needs Orthodoxy (we supply them with all those OTD's) but the American Jewish community does not need inauthenticity. <b>It needs an open admission that a lack of interest in proper Judaism is not in itself a genuine form of Judaism and to stand up and create real standards that define them.</b></span></blockquote>
First, I agree with Garnel that the primary problems in American Jewish life today are a lack of interest and engagement in Jewish education, culture, identity, and so on. There's no question that the liberal movements are shrinking, though there are plenty of reasons offered as to why.<br />
<br />
However, no one is served by simplistic, reductionist and ultimately dishonest depictions of what liberal Judaism-- or liberal Jews-- believes.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the movements themselves: from my research and experience, both personal and academic, I strongly disagree that the ethos of non-Orthodox movements is "a lack of interest in proper Judaism". Quite frankly, this gives Orthodoxy more credit and importance in the eyes of the non-Orthodox than it deserves. Liberal rabbis don't go to seminary for six years to spite the Orthodox. I don't wake up on Saturdays and go to shul because I'm thinking, "Yay, I can't wait to go do Judaism WRONG!" The engaged non-Orthodox Jews I know have many <b>affirmative</b> reasons they choose to be Jewish, and choose their particular path in Judaism. In my experience, "I don't want to be Orthodox" isn't often on the list.<br />
<br />
The simple matter is, for many American Jews, including those with strong Jewish educations and who are committed to Judaism and Jewish identity, Orthodoxy is not even an option. A skeptical or scientific POV-- which is increasingly common these days-- is largely incompatible with the philosophical and theological demands of Orthodoxy, and if you don't have those as a motivator, it becomes extremely difficult to take on mitzvot that have practical ramifications in your daily life-- to say nothing of the fact that Orthodox belief and practice contain some things that, to modern eyes are, at best, extremely challenging, and at worst, deeply problematic, even offensive. And, as Garnel wrote in his post about YCT, Orthodox culture is increasingly <a href="http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-yct-does-right.html">less open</a> to differences of opinion or practice. So given all that, why would anyone who hasn't had some sort of mind-blowing experience where they're suddenly convinced of its existential correctness choose Orthodoxy? The mere suggestion is a total non-starter. And yet many Jews still feel that being Jewish-- in some form-- is important to them. They value it. So they find some middle point. That's the motivation. The binary nature of his post suggests that if a Jew isn't willing to be Orthodox they might as well leave Judaism entirely. I don't see how that helps them, or the Jewish people.<br />
<br />
Is there superficiality in liberal communities? Of course. Is there ignorance, apathy and laziness? Yes again. However, the more I read about the various layers within Orthodoxy, the more it becomes apparent that these issues are not limited to liberal Judaism. No community is safe from apathy or disengagement, not even the Haredi communities which do their best to ensure continuity by stigmatizing the outside world and keeping their children as segregated as possible.<br />
<br />
Garnel may see non-Orthodox Judaism as illegitimate and clueless, and I don't deny that the movements have their issues, practical as well as existential. However I see the major divide in klal israel not being over a lack of interest, but a lack of a common worldview, both of existence and of Judaism itself. Orthodox Jews view existence through the prism of halacha and Orthodox theology first, and apply this same rubric to their views of what Judaism is. Non-Orthodox Jews, to varying degrees, view existence through other perspectives (modern, post-modern, scientific, materialist) and then try to graph Jewish law and theology onto it as best they can, which necessarily creates a multiplicity of Judaisms as well. If you genuinely believe in a literal Torah mi-Sinai and that the Torah is literally true as well as infallible, then you're probably not going to take issue with halacha, no matter how at odds it might be with your internal reason or personal ethics or preferences, because it came from God. On the other hand, if you don't share those foundational beliefs, then a lot of halacha just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and so you're naturally going to use your brain and conscience to the best of your ability to figure out how best to live your life in a way that makes sense to you. For some people this approach will incorporate many elements of halacha, for others, less. But that, I am convinced, is the dividing line: is there one objective truth, or not? And if there is, is it Orthodox Judaism's truth? Statistics suggest that most Jews don't think so.<br />
<br />
On a personal level, I consider myself very "interested" in Judaism, and continue to <a href="http://toocoolforshul.blogspot.com/2012/11/milestones.html">work towards becoming</a> a more educated, thoughtful, and committed Jew. I read the parsha, I study Talmud, I go to shul, and I'm still working on my Hebrew. But since I don't share the foundational beliefs of Orthodoxy, and since I find much in Orthodox practice and culture personally objectionable, my practice is not focused around Orthodox standards, and never will be. Not because I'm "not interested" in Judaism, but because I do not see Orthodoxy as the only "proper" manifestation of Judaism-- not least because I don't believe a single proper Judaism exists in the fist place! What some seem unable or unwilling to realize is that for many like me, this viewpoint doesn't stem from an emotional defiance or specific hostility, but sincere belief. You can come up with all sorts of caused for this belief, but it's there, and I refuse to accept a scenario in which my only choices are "belong to a community that you fundamentally disagree with" or "don't be Jewish."<br />
<br />
A lot of times in these types of discussions people will use terms like legitimate, authentic, or the increasingly popular "true." I do believe in concepts of authenticity, but in my view Judaism is too large and too varied to have a single authentic expression. There are traditional beliefs and practices in Judaism, certainly, but those have evolved over time and many would be unrecognizable to, say, a Jew living in the first Temple era, much less one of the patriarchs. I don't think anything can be called Judaism, but I do think that a lot of times people give "tradition" more legitimacy than it's necessarily entitled to. The reality is that there are many ways to do ritual, many ways to find God and/or meaning, and yes, even many ways to observe halacha-- remember that this was part of the reason the rabbis got mad at Yosef Karo for writing the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam for putting down the Principles of Faith.<br />
<br />
So while I do believe that you can do things "authentically," I also believe that authenticity is only really meaningful in context-- you can have an authentic Orthodox Jew and an authentic Reform Jew, for instance. They may be doing different things but both are being authentic to their traditions, beliefs and understandings, and that doesn't bother me-- because I see both as being part of Judaism. Obviously, if you disagree with that premise, you have a problem. But that's primarily an Orthodox dilemma, because despite the successes of the B'aal Teshuvah movement and Orthodoxy's claim to "true authenticity," when most American Jews leave their liberal temples, they don't head for an Orthodox shul, they stop going to shul altogether.<br />
<br />
That said, while most American Jews have no interest in being Orthodox, many are still attached, in various ways, to being Jewish. So what are their options? If some had their way, these people would "self-deport" and never engage with anything Jewish again. Like it or not, it is through the liberal communities that many Jews come into some form of observance that they otherwise would not participate in at all. Some may think that if they aren't frum or doing things to frum standards whatever they do is treyf anyway; I say if Jews are studying Jewish texts, celebrating Jewish holidays, being involved in Jewish worship, etc, it's a win. Again, it comes down to your perspective: is it better to do something rather than nothing? Because realistically, for many American Jews, that's the choice. Not Orthodox or liberal, but liberal or nothing. Frum folks not liking it doesn't make it not true. So the question becomes: if the choice is liberal or nothing, how does choosing the latter benefit klal israel?<br />
<br />
Let's go back to commitment: Obviously, a major focus of being an Orthodox Jew is being committed to halacha, and this is an area where many liberal Jews may differ from them. However I don't believe that liberal Jews are committed to a "lack of commitment"; I think they're committed to being Jewish, and, in some form or another, staying Jewish, in spite of having a complicated, even antagonistic, relationship with Jewish tradition. At their core, affiliated liberal Jews believe in staying connected and engaged with Judaism even if they don't take all of it as gospel; indeed for many of them, it is the precise act of giving themselves permission to look at the tradition in a non-literal and non-binding way that is crucial in helping them to stay connected. I realize that may not make sense to some of our Orthodox compatriots, but I think that's the crux of what many liberal Jews believe. They can criticize if they like, but my sense is that's much closer to the truth than "committing to non-commitment."<br />
<br />
I agree that there are some big problems in American Judaism today. But I don't think they center around a lack of "authenticity"-- because that implies that most Jews see Orthodoxy as authentic and still choose not to follow it. That's not what I see going on. I think Reform and Conservative and the others need to figure out how to be authentic to their core principles and spread those messages. If people respond to them and the movements grow, so much the better. If not, then hopefully the present generation of alienated Jews will figure out some kind of connection that works for them. Maybe in a generation's time we'll see a non-Orthodox field less dominated by one or two movements and instead a more equal split between the four major ones. On the other hand, maybe what we're seeing right now is another generational/ideological split like we saw 100 years ago during the huge immigrations of Jews to America. Perhaps when all is said and done, it will leave the liberal movements smaller but stronger, with the more apathetic/less engaged members ultimately deciding to cut the chord. I don't know, and honestly, I don't have a particular preference for how things shake out. I have found a path that works for me and my family and since I don't claim to have access to <i>the one true way</i>, I don't feel all that worried about the existence of unaffiliated Jews in the world, or about whether liberal Judaism will survive in the long-term. People will live their lives the best way they see fit, and if liberal Judaism can speak to them and engage them and touch them, so much the better. If not, then not.<br />
<br />
The irony, though, is that while some Orthodox like Garnel rightfully chastise liberal Judaism for sometimes being too idealistic, they simultaneously seem to believe in a fantasy in which somehow if Reform and Conservative suddenly disappeared, it would lead the masses of unaffiliated and uneducated Jews to suddenly choose Orthodoxy and Orthodox standards as the guidepost for "legitimate" Judaism. That's just as utopian as anything the early Reform rabbis said about the demise of Orthodoxy.<br />
<br />
The truth is that the Orthodoxy ship has sailed, and most of the Jewish people opted to stay on the dock. The question is where they go next.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-52061208444422595262012-11-27T21:03:00.000-08:002012-11-27T22:45:36.599-08:00Who decides?One of the blogs I have on my sidebar is by Mark Paredes, a Mormon blogger at the Jewish Journal who writes about Mormon-Jewish issues. I was going through some of his recent archives and found an article from last month in which Paredes talked about Mormon-Jewish dialogue. That's all well and good, and Parades makes some excellent points about how to do interfaith communication right (for starters, if you want to understand what members of a religion believe, your first step should be to ask members of the faith to speak for themselves, not their critics). However I couldn't help but notice a paragraph where Paredes mentioned the <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/jewish_mormon_dialogue_three_wonderful_evenings_in_los_angeles#comments">one continual sticking point</a> between our communities:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">I deliberately left out any mention of proxy temple ordinances in my speech, which Rabbi Wolpe was quick to note. I took the opportunity, which I will also avail myself of here, to announce that I will no longer discuss the proxy ordinances issue in future presentations. <b>Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it.</b> A small group of Jewish leaders has blown this issue way out of proportion for 20 years; even they decided last year to move on to agenda items that actually affect living Jews, instead of worrying about what a few disobedient Mormons are doing in their own temples. I’ve blogged several times on this issue, and don’t plan to spend more time or effort explaining it. Instead, I will refer curious Jews to the rabbis at the Simon Wiesenthal Center so that they can tell them by what authority they are authorized to speak on behalf of the dead and explain just why they felt it was necessary to carry on this campaign for two decades with the help of an anti-Mormon researcher.</span></span></blockquote>
This is where I start to lose respect for Paredes, because while it is true there are plenty of other meaningful and important topics to discuss about the Mormon-Jewish relationship, the fact that Paredes has decided that he's sick of talking about this is galling as well as troubling. I thought part of the point of Paredes' talks is to promote dialogue; so I'm rather confused about the logic of barring proxy baptisms as a legitimate discussion item just because Paredes is sick of the topic. Guess what, Mark? SO ARE WE. The reality is the reason this continues to be a sore point is because members of your community keep doing it; your response should be to encourage your church to better police its members rather than chastise Jews for daring to be offended that you continue, <b>after 20 years</b>, to apparently not care that you're doing something lots of us find offensive.<br />
<br />
At his suggestion, I took the time to look up some of Paredes' old posts on the issue. Not surprisingly, they weren't all that satisfactory. Parades repeatedly points out that Mormons believe that their relatives are required to have proxy baptisms, and then usually <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/mormon_proxy_immersions_for_the_dead_39100728/">pats the church on the back</a> for being so magnanimous to exempt "Jewish Holocaust victims," even though other people would like their relatives' names taken out as well:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No one thinks that more than a handful of Mormons (out of nearly 14</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">million today) continue to defy the Church’s policy on name </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">submissions. In other words, we have 99.9999% compliance. While the </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">LDS Church is hierarchical in nature, it is not a police state. If a </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">rebellious member insists on submitting the name of a Jewish </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">non-relative for temple ordinances, his efforts will likely be</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">successful. When the Church is made aware of the improper submission, </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">it can and does act to remove it from the ordinances database. </span><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Indeed, this is a special promise made only to Jews, though others </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">have requested it as well. After all, Mormons should not be submiting </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the names of any non-relatives—whether Catholic, Buddhist, </span></b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Brazilian or Zulu—for temple ordinances.</b> However, if a Jewish name </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">is submitted improperly, the name will be removed if a request is </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">made. This unique arrangement is a testament to the respect and love </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">that Mormons feel for the Jewish community. Our leaders have had to </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">walk a fine line between accommodating Jewish leaders’ wishes while </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">affirming our obligation to perform temple ordinances for our kindred </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">dead, and I think that they have largely succeeded.</span></span></span></blockquote>
How big of you, Mark. The fact that you guys have decided to give a medium-sized crap about Jews who died between 1939 and 1945 really makes me feel better in the light of the tiny crap you give about Jews who died in all other years (to say nothing of Catholics, Buddhists, or Zulus who lived or died at any time). Wow, too bad my various ancestors who were baptized had to go and die in New York instead of Auschwitz like their cousins. Just our bad luck, I suppose.<br />
<br />
Every time the issue is raised, Paredes repeats the party line. Only a handful of Mormons are doing it, the LDS leadership wants to respect Jewish wishes, they can only do so much, etc. He also tries to skirt the issue by pointing out that Mormons perform <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/answers_to_a_rabbi_part_3_baptizing_dead_jews_39111209">other rites</a> with dead people's names that people usually aren't as vocal about:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">When I first started discussing posthumous temple rites with Jews, I quickly noticed that they only raised objections to the ordinance known to Mormons as “baptisms for the dead.” Even though Mormons perform several ordinances for the deceased, Jews focused almost exclusively on that one. [<b>I have never heard a Jew object to the eternal marriage by proxy of a husband and wife who perished in the Holocaust</b>, for example].</span></span></blockquote>
Funny thing, Mark, <i><b>that doesn't make me feel better</b></i>. At all.<br />
<br />
Paredes raises this point as a way of saying that the LDS proxy baptism doesn't mean that the person has actually "become" Mormon, just that it's been offered. But by issue is that the very act of using the person in a religious ritual is perceived, and felt, as a violation. The fact that the Mormons don't see it that way doesn't change this, and the fact that some people think it's not a big deal doesn't change it, either. If someone does something offensive to someone else, it is offensive. You as the offender do not decide when it stops being offensive. You can either work to stop it, or you can be honest and say you don't care. But you most certainly don't get to be mad when we keep bringing it up. The continued insistence by Mormons that proxy baptisms don't matter and that we have no right to be bothered by it, bothers me more than the rites themselves. It's another layer of theological arrogance, best shown in an article from nine months ago when <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/mormon_temples_and_jews_the_swc_charade_continues_39120226">Paredes attacked Elie Wiesel and the Wiesenthal Center</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Last week the charade involving a group of leaders in the Jewish community and the LDS Church’s practice of proxy immersions reached a new low. Elie Wiesel, one of the towering moral figures of our age, found out that his father and grandfather’s names had been submitted by a disobedient member of the church for temple ordinances. The church quickly canceled the submissions, but not before Mr. Wiesel had called on the church (via the Huffington Post) to stop performing temple ordinances for all Jews, not just Holocaust victims. He then asked Mitt Romney to “speak to his own church” about the issue. With all due respect to Mr. Wiesel (and considerable respect is due), <b>he would probably do more good by suggesting to certain Jewish leaders that they mind their own business.</b></span></span></blockquote>
Apparently Jews are only allowed to be offended by topics vetted by Paredes. Who knew?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">In the early 90s, a group of Jewish leaders approached the church after discovering that a few members had submitted – in violation of church rules – names of Holocaust victims for LDS temple ordinances. Although these ordinances do NOT confer membership in the church, the leaders <b>claimed</b> to be offended.</span></span></blockquote>
They <i>claimed</i> to be offended. Apparently in Paredes' worldview, other people don't have the right or autonomy to actually have their own opinions when it comes to his church.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">Had I been in charge of the LDS delegation to the initial [1995] meeting, it would have been a short one. I would have started off by asking the leaders what authority they had to represent dead Jews. The answer? None. </span></span></blockquote>
Stupid question that deflects the issue. Obviously no one can "truly" speak for the dead; they're not here. However one can look to the beliefs of a community, of families, and in some cases, of the dead themselves to guess what they <i>might have wanted</i>-- assuming that this is your actual goal. If your goal is find ways to justify behavior that members of that community find offensive, then you play stupid games like this. In the Jewish community, this issue has always been framed as one of a lack of respect-- a lack of respect of Jewish beliefs, and a lack of respect for what the dead most likely would have wanted. Paredes' response exemplifies the Mormon response: we don't care what you think. In Paredes' world, Wiesel has NO RIGHT to be offended that his father and grandfather, who were clearly devoted to Judaism and as far as he knows had <i>zero</i> interest in converting to anything or being used as part of another religion's rituals, were used in this way. He's simply not allowed. Just like Daniel Pearl's family isn't allowed to be offended on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html?_r=0">his behalf</a>.<br />
<br />
Here's a question: what authority do Mormons have to do <i>anything</i> with dead Jews? None other than the authority they claim, which is exactly the same argument Jews claim. The difference is that as the descendants of the people whose names the Mormons are using in their ceremonies and who are part of the same community as the dead, it seems to me that if anyone has more authority to speak for the dead, it's the Jews and not the Mormons. Paredes skirts the issue by saying the Jews are being arrogant by presuming to speak for their own relatives. As I've said several times, the best comparison I can think of to proxy baptism is peeing on someone's grave. Who's to say that your great-grandfather wouldn't have been totally into urine play?<br />
<br />
Let's turn it around: Hey Mark! I've got a new religion that has some special rites I'm supposed to do. Yeah, and I have a quota to fill, so I'm going to need some help from your family on this. Oh come on, what's the big deal? For all you know, maybe your grandparents secretly wanted to be exhumed, put into a glass casket, and used in an Aztec-themed rap video? You know, if you keep complaining about this, I'm going to start feeling persecuted!<br />
<br />
The only leg Paredes has to stand on in this whole discussion is a claim he makes regarding the 1995 agreement between a Jewish delegation and the LDS church:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">the church offered at that time to “freeze” names of all known Holocaust victims for purposes of temple work if the Jewish leaders would agree. Unfortunately, they chose the second option of taking upon themselves the responsibility of notifying the church whenever they discovered the submission of a Holocaust victim’s name. The Jewish leaders knew from the beginning that the option they chose would mean that many names, and sometimes the same names, would continue to pop up in the database. In a stunning moment of candor, someone with detailed knowledge of the early discussions acknowledged to me that one of the reasons that the Jewish leaders chose this option was so they could continue to hold church leaders’ feet to the fire on this issue and eventually reach their ultimate goal: to have the LDS Church declare that Judaism was sufficient for salvation, and temple ordinances were not necessary for Jews.</span></span></blockquote>
Sorry Mormons, you may feel burned because some leaders you worked with 20 years ago suggested that we'd settle for you "exempting" Jews who died within a six-year time period. But, yeah, the truth is that we do not want you doing anything with our dead, Holocaust or otherwise, because it bothers the hell out of us, and it's not ok, and it's never going to be ok, and if you want us to shut up about it, then you're going to need to stop doing it, and if you're not going to stop, then we're entitled to complain about it. If you fell for that then it's your own fault.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">Rabbis Hier and Cooper have no standing whatsoever to demand that a church change its religious practices because they’re offended by them. They tried that with the Catholics (e.g., the resurrected Good Friday prayer), and were politely told to mind their own business. </span></span></blockquote>
Sorry Mark, you're missing the point. If people are legitimately offended something in another religion, they're entitled to continue to make noise about it. That doesn't mean the other religion is obligated to respond or change, but neither do you have the authority to stop your critics from talking about it. Additionally, the details here are substantially different from the Good Friday example. That's one prayer, it happens once a year, and it's a broad theological statement. The proxy baptism issue is deeply personal and is continually happening all the time.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">There are 14 million Mormons, and <b>in the idealized world of the SWC, computers at LDS genealogy centers would somehow be able to detect when even one of them is about to improperly submit a Jewish name for a temple ordinance. This is ridiculous, and they know it.</b> I have a question for them: Why can’t they do something to address the problem of agunoth in the Orthodox community worldwide? Everyone knows that it’s outrageous, and rabbis throughout the world denounce husbands who refuse to grant divorces to their estranged Jewish wives. Why can’t Rabbis Hier and Cooper force every Orthodox husband to toe the line on marriages? Because the husbands have free will, that’s why. </span></span></blockquote>
Funny thing, Mark: last I checked, the LSD church operates according to a hierarchy, whereas Judaism is historically, almost comically, decentralized. Furthermore, your ritual has become digitized. The LDS church owns the databases, they operate all the temples, and they perform the ceremonies. They could do a moratorium on proxy baptisms until their system is better centralized. They could establish new processes to ensure that LDS members who violate church agreements are punished for it. They could increase the burden of proof on people submitting names, requiring them to document their line of descent better. Perhaps most importantly, they actually <i>could</i> establish a "do not baptize" list, documenting every person they've had to take off, and ensuring that if someone tries to baptize them again it raises a red flag. You can do that with computers now. So it's not an issue of can't, it's an issue of won't. If they recognized this as a serious issue, these are some things they could do. Instead, they've told Jewish people who find names to contact them and they'll take them off the lists-- but only if they fall into the one specific category they've "exempted." That's it, even though Paredes admits that the only names that should be submitted, much less used in the ceremonies, are people with Mormon descendants. Is it any wonder some people don't think that's good enough?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">The rabbis have also threatened LDS leaders with protests on more than one occasion unless their demands were met. This is a violation of both ethics and decency that is beneath the dignity of rabbis of their stature. <b> In spite of this persecution</b>, Mormons can take consolation from the fact that Jews, even Holocaust victims, are still not exempted from the requirements of LDS temple ordinances. </span></span></blockquote>
There you have it: in Paredes' world, when Jews complain or even <i>threaten</i> to protest, it constitutes <i>persecution</i> of Mormons. And people accuse Jews of having a victimization complex? Grow the hell up.<br />
<br />
The reality is that the LDS church will probably not stop doing this, and so at a certain point you do need to figure out when to move on and how to build positive and productive relationships with other religious groups. But Paredes isn't doing himself any favors by silencing discussion on the topic by essentially saying that "it's not a big deal and you're not allowed to think it is, because <i>I'm</i> done talking about it."<br />
<br />
Remember, the whole argument Paredes and the LDS church are trying to advance is that their church is incredibly pro-Jewish, believes in connecting with Jews, supports Israel and all the rest. Well you can't really say all that and demand all this credit for being such good friends with the Jews if when some Jews criticize you your reaction is to say, "I don't want to hear it!" and throw that same supposed friendship back in their face. You can't claim to be sensitive to Jewish feelings and concerns if your response to Elie Wiesel expressing hurt and pain at finding out that his father and grandfather were, in his eyes, at least, dishonored, is to dismiss him by calling him old and suggesting the problem is that he's senile and being taken advantage of by opportunists in the community. Yes, it couldn't possibly be that <i>he has a point</i>!<br />
<br />
If Paredes wants to build bridges he needs to recognize that this will continue to be an issue among (some) Jews because <i>we care about it. </i>Paredes does not get to decide when or if Jews cease to care about it, and he most certainly is not in a position to dictate to the Jewish community how they "get" to feel. He can choose what he's willing to discuss publicly, but if he's looking for Jews to say this is ok, I have news for him: as someone affected by this issue, this is not and will never be ok with me. I do not appreciate you using my ancestors' names in any of your rituals, I do not think they would have appreciated it, and there is nothing you can say that will negate that feeling. Furthermore, removing the names, in my opinion, is not the solution. That's not what I want. What I want is for you to reform your procedures for these rituals and stop using non-Mormons' names in your rituals except for the tiny amount of cases where it is "required" by church doctrine. Until that happens, you can expect to keep hearing about it. Feel free to be pissed about it. I know I am.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-55320343119649000942012-11-25T12:00:00.000-08:002012-11-25T12:00:04.476-08:00Growth SpurtsLast weekend Mrs. Yid and I attended our first-ever synagogue retreat. I blogged about it more in-depth at <a href="http://toocoolforshul.blogspot.com/2012/11/milestones.html">TCFS</a>, but one of the big things that happened was that I was asked to lead services on Friday night, and I did, and it was wonderful. Not only am I proud about leading services (which I really, really am), but also about all the other ways in which I put myself out there, beyond my comfort zone. I talked to people I don't usually talk to, engaged in ways I usually opt out of, and even drove back from the hotel (50 miles on the highway without incident; keep in mind I've only been driving since August)! Work has been intense but is also going well; again, I'm doing things that are challenging, sometimes downright difficult, but the important thing is that I'm doing them, and thereby getting the benefit of overcoming the obstacles.<br />
<br />
This last year has been a big year of growth for me, and it's a really good feeling. Some of it, like driving, is something that I had been meaning to do for a long time and was just holding me back. Some of it, like my job, is something I've been working at for a while and is very rewarding to finally start to see some results in. And some of it, like becoming more involved with shul, and even leading a service, is something that I almost can't believe I've done; it doesn't <i>feel</i> like something I'd be able to do. I know I'll never be a social butterfly, but for the first time in a long while, I'm starting to realize that I'm capable of stretching myself farther than I gave myself credit for. And that's a great feeling.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-90973238048479072482012-11-25T09:00:00.000-08:002012-11-25T09:00:01.841-08:00Post-election thoughtsI've been meaning to do an election post, but hadn't gotten to it. I was never all that political, but there's something about being overloaded with election crap for months and months that just makes me want to beat every political talking head with campaign signs until they go into a coma. Anyway, here are a few brief thoughts:<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, after hearing about how close the election might be, I decided I wasn't going to waste any energy or emotion on the TV idiots like I did in 2000. Instead, on election night, Mrs. Yid and I had a quiet dinner and then watched a silly horror movie, deliberately not checking any news until it was over. (Partially this was out of principle, partially because I find it incredibly irritating to watch newspeople killing time while they pretend they have new information when they damned well know they don't.)<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the right overestimated how fed up/scared/brainwashed the American people are (and I have been listening to the conservative radio station in the car for the last two weeks as they spin and spin it, trying to explain how a majority of Americans-- slim, but still a majority-- could possibly disagree with them). The triumphalist Jewish Republican pundits also apparently also drank the pre-election kool-aid: counter to <a href="http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2012/11/israelis-have-opinions-should-you-care.html">Abraham Katsman's</a> optimistic claim that Romney would get over 30% of the Jewish vote, he actually stalled out right around 30%, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4302640,00.html">giving Obama 70%</a>. It's true that these are lower numbers than Obama got last time (74-78%), but it's hard to tell how much of that is due to issues with Obama vs. the Democratic party itself (and considering that Katsman was predicting Obama not clearing 60%, still nothing to sneeze at). It is possible that we are seeing the seeds of a gradual Jewish drift to the right, but if that is happening, it's either happening extremely slowly or in such small numbers as to not matter. I do think that eventually there will be less of a reflexive/automatic Jewish attachment to liberal politics, which on a philosophical level is probably a good thing, but I don't see it going past 40% to the Republicans anytime soon, if ever. The reality is that most Jews are liberal, and that even ones who may lean fiscally or socially conservative are not crazy enough for the hard-right conservatives running that wing of the party these days (though if the party decides to disassociate itself from the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/six-reasons-why-the-2012_b_2091038.html">culture nuts</a>, that may have some ripple effects). One last gloat: Katsman, I <i>told</i> you American Jews don't decide their vote based on Israel. (Nor should they, IMO.)<br />
<br />
I recently saw a documentary about the polarization of US politics, and so though I'm happy my candidate won, it's really got me thinking about what's best for the country on a national level. Though I definitely have liberal pet causes, I also genuinely believe that the country is better off when governed through some sort of centrist consensus, particularly in the Legislature. The reality is that while you have crazies in both parties (and legitimate issues with both parties, as well as their media proxies), I still believe that a majority of the country is reasonable and relatively sane. Now that the dust has settled, I'm hoping that some sense will start permeating into Congress and lead to some genuine bipartisan action to fix some of the real issues we're all dealing with, rather than everybody double-downing on the rhetoric and ideology to appeal to their fringes.<br />
Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-67360092312342109512012-11-24T22:32:00.004-08:002012-11-24T22:32:54.175-08:00Israel Thoughts<br />
I followed the recent fighting in Gaza rather closely, and though it's unclear whether Israel's made any long-term gains from it, I'm happy that the Israeli casualties were relatively low. It's interesting to compare my reactions to the fighting to my reactions in previous years: during Intifada II I was fairly critical of Israel, but over the last few years my sympathies for the Palestinians and focus on the IDF's foibles have shifted. I still recognize that the IDF isn't perfect-- and there are plenty of cases I've heard about over the years where I question individual actors' judgment-- but it's also quite clear that at least when it comes to Hamas, there aren't a lot of options at the Israelis' disposal. Two days before the cease-fire, Mrs. Yid and I were driving home in the car and I happened to put the radio onto a public access show run out of Berkeley, and the hostility toward Israel was so infuriating we both started yelling at the radio. It's quite a contrast to my first days of becoming aware of Middle East politics and discussing such topics online with people, often taking the Palestinian side, or at least playing a very strong devil's advocate for their position.<br />
<br />
I don't think I've drank the hasbara kool-aid, but after a lot of years of reading and talking about Israel and becoming closer with relatives there, I now feel more identification with it and the Israeli people. I certainly don't think of myself as Israeli, but I feel that I understand Israel much better than when I was younger. At the same time, I've tried to work to better understand <a href="http://forward.com/articles/166163/a-palestine-that-israelis-cant-see/?p=all">Palestinian</a> and <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/in-israel-arab-mks-seek-the-impossible-voters.premium-1.472482">Arab-Israeli</a> <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/forsan-hussein-brandeis-in-the-exceptional-rise-of-a-gutsy-arab-kid-from-the-galilee-many-harsh-truths-for-israel/">issues</a> and <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-would-be-new-leader-of-israels-arabs-urges-full-integration-with-israel/">viewpoints</a> as well, and I think that's important, too, if only so one can be educated about all the things going on there. While I continue to have sympathy towards Palestinian civilians I also recognize that the politicians and fighters in their society bear a large measure of responsibility for the ongoing conflict with Israel. Listening to the idiot on the radio talking about Hamas "bottle rockets" and comparing Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto and Israel to the Nazis, I realized that people like that are why it's becoming so hard for honest liberals to feel like they have a place in the discussion. It <i>is</i> true that we need to be talking about Palestinian deaths, and it is true that no military is infallible, but as soon as you've started minimizing Hamas' behavior or making ridiculous accusations or comparisons, you've lost any credibility-- or at least, you should have. I don't know whether the crazy rhetoric was just more subtle during my high school years or I wasn't listening to those kinds of people, but now I feel like I better understand what the real issues are-- and what they aren't. Israel isn't perfect, but it sure isn't genocidal (though it does have its share of <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/right-wing-mk-s-facebook-friends-suggest-ways-to-liquidate-arab-mk.premium-1.479055">morons</a>). And, while some may accuse me of naiveté or squishiness, I don't think most Palestinians are, either-- though I do think they require major social and political shifts to get to a point where coexistence starts looking like a reality. I'm worried about the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/23/gaza-cycle-aggression-generations?intcmp=239">next generation</a> of Palestinians and how they get from where they are today to where people would like them to be.<br />
<br />
What I've mostly tried to do over the last few years, though, is become more thoughtful about how and when I offer my opinions about what goes on in Israel and proto-Palestine. Because I realize that while I'm entitled to an opinion, it doesn't mean a whole lot if I'm not there, on the ground, living through what people there are living through. My opinions-- and especially, my advice-- don't mean much, because I'm not the one on the line. Though it's natural for people outside the region to want to help or feel a strong urge to contribute to the discussion, sometimes I think we'd all be better off if we took a step back and tried to listen more, instead of lecturing the Israelis and Palestinians about what they need to do to bring peace. As with so many others, I still hope for peace and resolution in my lifetime, but I realize that those dreams have to be shared and realized by the people actually living through the fighting-- and who have the most to gain or lose.<br />
Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-25340285549682625712012-11-05T12:00:00.000-08:002012-11-05T12:00:04.975-08:00Israelis have opinions! Should you care?That's the existential question posed by two articles I found. One by Abraham Katsman <a href="http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/romney-wins-in-a-landslide-at-least-in-israel-what-it-means/">points out</a> that 85% of American Israelis voted for Romney.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">Israel has become a “red state” through such a solidly Republican vote. <b>In fact, if Israel were in the United States, it would be the “reddest” state in the entire country. </b> Redder, even, than Utah, or Wyoming or Oklahoma. Significantly redder. That should be a startling development for the Democrats, who once owned the pro-Israel vote.</span></span></blockquote>
Not really. The Israeli left has been on the ropes for anywhere between the last 9 and 13 years (depending on how you count), whereas American Jews tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I personally think part of the reason for the difference (along with the security situation, which obviously plays a role) is that the Israeli political system allows for a much wider range of representation than the American two-party system. In any event, the Israeli left is in rather bad shape right now, whereas the American Jewish left, while perhaps losing some market share to the center-right, is still clearly the dominant force in the American Jewish political scene. Also, this whole thought experiment is incredibly stupid in the first place, as if Israel was part of the United States, its whole political landscape would be reshuffled as some of its most existential issues (security, synagogue & state, Jewish demographics, the West Bank territories, etc) would be drastically different if not off the table entirely. Hey, what if Israel was part of Mars?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">Second, <b>that 14% for Obama is 40% lower than the vote he received from Israel in 2008. That should worry his campaign. Even if his support in the Jewish community in America has eroded by only half that much, he may have trouble clearing the 60% mark. </b> An interesting historical note: for almost a century, every Republican candidate who received 30% or more of the Jewish vote was victorious–and it looks like Romney will win well over 30%.</span></span></blockquote>
Sorry, you're wrong. <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281750,00.html">Polls</a> are showing Obama will likely take 75% of the Jewish vote. Romney will probably only get around 25%, like McCain before him.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">the Israel-based voters–who overwhelmingly voted Romney–were unusually highly motivated to vote. Compare that to the 5% participation rate in the rest of the world–voters who lean towards Obama–and quite a contrast emerges between the relative levels of motivation to vote between supporters of each candidate. This appears to be an extreme example something U.S. polls now show: <b>higher motivation to vote corresponds to higher likelihood of voting for Romney. </b> And motivation correlates with turnout. That is a doubly good sign for Republicans.</span></span></blockquote>
I guess, but I'm still unconvinced this means much. In 2008, Obama got almost 69,500,000 votes, compared to McCain's 60,000,000. Unless all those voters are from swing states (and they're not), 80,000 votes just isn't all that significant-- unless, of course, you're an operative for the Republican party and are trying to convince people that Romney has more Jewish traction-- and therefore, more general traction, period-- than he actually does. Incidentally, who does Katsman work for? Ah yes, he's a lawyer for Republicans Abroad Israel. Color me shocked.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Not surprisingly, the primary motivating issues in the Israel-based vote are Israel-related issues</b>, such as candidates’ policies on Israeli defense and security, the American-Israeli relationship, the status of Jerusalem, the peace process, and policies regarding Iran and its nuclear program. 82% of respondents considered such issues most important, and 88% of those voted for Romney. <b>If voters with such concerns so heavily favor Romney among Israel-based Americans, there may be a corresponding higher-than-expected Romney vote among U.S.-based voters concerned with the same issues.</b></span></span></blockquote>
EXCEPT that most Jews don't vote based primarily on those issues. Because, you know, they don't live in Israel. I guess this might help him with Evangelicals, but guess what, he was already going to get that vote.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What does it all mean? In the short-run, this is all great news for Romney and the Republicans. But in the longer run, it is healthier for both Israel and America when strong pro-Israel support is solidly bipartisan. Such a one-sided vote as we just had means that something is out of whack. In fact, several high-profile Democrats have complained that Israel support is becoming a partisan, Republican issue.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This vote, however, highlights what those complaining Democrats are missing. It’s not that the Republicans have somehow driven a wedge between the Democrats and the pro-Israel community; it’s that the Democrats, led by President Obama, have drifted far enough away from their once-solid support of Israel that even life-long Democrats are crossing the aisle.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Right, except that some of the harshest Jewish Democratic critics of Obama's first term are now <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/115306/the-alan-dershowitz-syndrome">endorsing him</a>. Whoops.<br />
<br />
So what does it all <i>really</i> mean? Not a lot, other than that a lot of Israelis don't like Obama (and, <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/115491/americans-in-israel-vote-gop">possibly</a>, that a lot of the increased voter registration in this election was done by Republican organizations with the goal of getting more votes for the Republican candidate). However much Katsman tries to spin it, the reality is that both parties still support Israel as an ally, so the contention that the Democrats have abandoned Israel and the only remaining party for Zionists is the Republicans is just hogwash. If the vote is really so one-sided, it indicates that either a lot of those who voted (including registered Democrats) either personally dislike Obama or have been turned off of the Democratic party, or that the Republicans have been better at spreading their message than the Democrats. Let's be honest, how many people actually believe that the "best" candidate or party is always the one that gets the most votes?<br />
<br />
Additionally, as mentioned before, American Jews are <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/etzioni-jewish-voters/index.html"><b>not</b> single-issue voters</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px;">For the vast majority of Jews, Israel ranks surprisingly low in their considerations as voters. Early in 2012, </span><a href="http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/04/jewish-values-in-2012/" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">the Public Religion Research Institute found</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px;"> that among self-identified Jewish adults, 51% of those registered to vote cited the economy as the most important issue driving their voting decision. Fifteen percent cited the growing gap between the rich and the poor, while 10% cited health care and 7% the deficit. <b>Only 4% cited Israel as the most important issue to their vote.</b></span></span><b> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px;">As David Harris, Executive Director of the nonpartisan American Jewish Committee, put it, "</span><a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-20/politics/politics_obama-jewish-vote_1_jewish-voters-obama-israel-return" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Jews are multi-issue voters.</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 19px;"> The notion they are single-issue voters is simply wrong."</span></span></blockquote>
That kind of deflates the main contention of Republicans like Katsman. Israelis can-- and should-- vote however they want. But however much they'd like us to, American Jews are unlikely to base their vote on what their Israeli cousins say.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-55747298557814985172012-11-05T05:30:00.000-08:002012-11-05T05:30:01.221-08:00Election MishegossNot the Presidential one, I know/hope everyone already has their mind made up on that one. I mean local California stuff. As is my blogging minhag, it's time to revisit my favorite crank not named <a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/felafel-on-rye/its-halloween-lets-all-idol-worship-tonight/2012/10/31/0/">Tzvi</a> or <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/why-a-good-person-can-vote-against-same-sex-marriage/">Dennis</a> (don't worry guys, I'll get back to you): <a href="http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2008/05/fun-with-republicans.html">Dr. Terrence Faulkner, J.D., Esquire</a>. (Yes, he has used all of those titles at some time or another. Do you think he went to law school?)<br />
<br />
My favorite thing about Dr. F isn't that he's the only 55 year old I know who sounds like he's 85. It isn't that he can always be counted on to oppose just about anything remotely progressive (or even moderate). Or the fact that he doesn't seem to understand how to construct an argument or talk to people in a way that makes them listen, rather than tune you out. No, the best thing about Dr. F is that you can always tell what book he's reading by the arguments he writes for the voter's guide.<br />
<br />
In 2006, explaining why he opposed a city resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney, he wrote about how Lincoln had also been unpopular, and that if any President should have been impeached, it was James Buchanan. Nothing like bringing up other bad Presidents that have been dead for 150 years to stay on topic, right? In 2008, carping on about a city proposition to amend the charter to emphasize diversity in hiring, Dr. F invoked Greek mythology and General Custer.<br />
<br />
So how could he possibly top that?<br />
<br />
The proposition: amending the city charter so that the positions of City Attorney and Treasurer are elected at the same time as Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney. Mrs. Yid and I went back and forth on that one for a little while; while we kind of like the idea of having staggered elections so there's more overlap, we also noted that generally the "off-year" elections tend to have lower turnout, and there's a cost-saving benefit of consolidating two elections into one.<br />
<br />
Not surprisingly, Dr. F disagreed. His rhetorical tool of choice?<br />
<br />
The freaking Peloponnesian War.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">About 507 BCE (or B.C.) the Athenian statesman Cleisthenes introduced a new form of government into ancient Athens. All free males of the city were allowed to appear, speak, and vote in the governing Ecclesia which met outdoors some 40 times per year on the hill of Pnyx across from the Acropolis. Democracy was born-- admittedly with many flaws and limits.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">Democracy works best when the people are paying very careful attention.<br />This proposed amendment... would create longer ballots and a situation in which less attention would given by [sic] the voting public to the individual candidates to be elected and the offices to be filled.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">...If the Fathers of the Athenian Democracy-- the law reformer Solon-- the voting reformer Cleisthenes-- and the great Pericles who rebuilt the beautiful temples of the Acropolis-- were to return to San Francisco, I think they would all vote "NO!" on misguided Prop D.</span></blockquote>
That's his argument against. His rebuttal to the entire Board of Supervisors is even better. All it does is quote Pericles' funeral oration from Thucydides' <i>Peloponnesian War.</i> Way to use that classical education, Doc. Tell me, during that impressive classical education, did they by any chance ever point out that since Solon, Cleisthenes and Pericles never lived in California, it would in fact be impossible for them to "return" here? Just wondering.<br />
<br />
Now, lest you think I just hopped back over here to bash on a lone Conservative crank, fear not! I am capable of being even-handed. For instance, we have the proud left-leaning local paper the Bay Guardian, which helpfully published their tear-off voter guide for people to use.<br />
<br />
Let's look at two of their <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/2012/10/03/endorsements-2012-state-ballot-measures">endorsements</a>, shall we? Prop 30 and 38 both have to do with funding California public schools:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><br /><b>PROPOSITION 30<br />TEMPORARY TAX INCREASE<br />YES</b><br />Why are we voting on — and watching the various interests spend about $30 million on — a simple tax increase that in most sane places would be vetted and approved by the state Legislature? Two reasons: California has an archaic and insane rule mandating a two-thirds vote of both houses for a tax hike, which is impossible as long as a few Republicans are still in Sacramento — and our crabby old oddball of a governor, Jerry Brown, insisted in his last campaign that he'd never raise taxes without a vote of the people.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">Prop. 30 is an amalgam, a mixture of what Brown first wanted and what the more liberal supporters of a tax on millionaires were proposing. The guv had to come the table when it looked like the millionaire tax might have enough support to compete with his plan; he made a few concessions, and everyone signed off on this plan. It raises taxes on people with incomes of more than $250,000 (good) and hikes the sales tax by a quarter-cent (not so good) and would bring in $6 billion a year until it expires in 2019.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">A bit of perspective: When former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger whacked the vehicle license fee his first day in office, he cost the state about $4 billion a year, with the stroke of a pen.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">And in a state with more billionaires than any other place in America, a fabulously rich place with the world's eighth-largest economy, the notion that we have to argue about raising $6 billion in taxes is farcical.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: red;">Nevertheless, it's crucial to pass Prop. 30. The money will prevent catastrophic cuts to education and social services. Prop. 30 won't move California a single step forward — but it will keep us all a few inches away from the abyss.</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">Brown has gambled his governorship on this — and if he loses, he'll take a good part of the state's future with him. We live in strange and unpleasant times; vote Yes on 30.</span></blockquote>
All right, seems straight-forward enough. What about the other proposition?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><br /><b>PROPOSITION 38<br />TAX FOR EDUCATION<br />YES</b><br /><b>There's so much wrong with Prop. 38, starting with its origin. It's another billionaire plaything, the work of the wealthy Molly Munger, who decided, on her own, that the state should raise income taxes to pay for better schools.</b></span><b> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: red;">Yes, the state should raise income taxes on the wealthy. Yes, some of that money should go to education. But this is not the optimal way to go about it.</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">Because nobody but Munger and her pals vetted the measure, it's got problems. For starters, it's not a tax increase on the rich — it's a tax increase for just about everybody. If you make more than $7,300 a year, your state income tax would go up. Granted, not by much: The sliding scale starts at 0.4 percent (about $30 a year for the very low end of the scale, and the wealthiest will pay much more) but still: the tax burden in this state (with its high sales-tax rates) falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class, and Munger's measure should have exempted all but the top earners. And it's got a popular, but troubling distribution scheme — between 60 and 85 percent of the estimated $10 billion a year in new revenue will go to K-12 education. The schools need the money — but so do cities and counties who pay for public health, affordably housing, public safety and a lot of other priorities.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">But the question facing the voters isn't whether Munger is a self-serving brat who went her own way on this, or whether there are flaws in the measure. It's whether the state ought to raise taxes to pay for education. With all the duly noted reservations, the answer to that question has to be yes.</span></blockquote>
Ok, so the Guardian endorses both propositions. Here's the problem: only one of them can pass. Per <a href="http://www.kqed.org/news/politics/election2012/statepropositions-guide.jsp">California budget rules</a>, when two conflicting income tax measures pass, the one with the most votes wins. So if Prop 38 wins, Prop 30 by definition does not win... which means it triggers $6 billion in cuts from the education budget.<br />
<br />
Reading the explanation of the "endorsement" of Prop 38, it sounds like the Guardian Staff understands this and really just want to alert their readers that we need to find a long-term solution to the education issue... but then <b>why endorse both propositions </b>when they cancel each other out? When did literacy stop becoming a requirement to work at a newspaper? Did the writers and editors just not communicate on this one? It feels like a mistake. But then why is it still on their <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/2012/10/30/guardian-clean-slate-2012">online version</a> and why has no correction been issued? What the hell, people?<br />
******************************************************************************************************<br />
Did you enjoy this, dear readers? I hope so. Now make sure you go and vote. I don't even care if your vote cancels mine out, just make sure you go do it. Don't be one of <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/03/164102300/nonvoters-the-other-abstinence-movement?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20121103">these</a> smug morons.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-7148225592735500812012-11-04T17:00:00.000-08:002012-11-04T17:00:02.249-08:00A little ironyAm I the only one that got a chuckle out of this?<br />
<br />
1924: Kafka dies. Despite his explicit instructions to burn his works, Max Brod instead publishes all of them.<br />
<br />
1968: Max Brod dies in Israel. Despite his explicit instructions to donate Kafka's work, his secretary Esther Hoffe instead kept the collection.<br />
<br />
2007: Esther Hoffe dies. Her daughters inherit the Kafka collection.<br />
<br />
2012: Israeli court orders Hoffe family to <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hc88sQqihT4H1iqy8lb56N0BpWWQ?docId=CNG.ea900d58bb25acbb22b1563afa808e4f.881">hand over the collection</a> to t<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">he National Library of Israel, <span style="color: purple;">"<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">after establishing that that was the original intent of Kafka's friend."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
So here's the question: if original intent is the primary determinant... why does Brod's intent matter more than Kafka's? Other of course, then the fact that Israel wants the Kafka collection.<br />
<br />
Too bad there are no more Kafkas left. I would have rather seen it go to one of them than posthumously rewarding Brod for ignoring his friend's last wishes.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-45621315905073576872012-11-04T14:42:00.003-08:002012-11-04T14:53:18.408-08:00Who needs a point? I'm mad!How I long for the days of college... when I had no job, no clue what I was going to be doing with my life, and where every five minutes I got dragged into some stupid but incredibly animated discussion about how some group on campus was "doing it" wrong, whatever the hell "it" was.<br />
<br />
Seriously, I think that college should be deferred until freshmen are in their mid-20s rather than fresh out of high school. At least it might temper everyone's self-righteousness a tad.<br />
<br />
For instance, this article in the Harvard Crimson by a freshman, <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/10/11/harvard-orthodox-jews/">Daniel Solomon</a>, who feels Hillel is too frum for him.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I had not been transported to Downton Abbey, but as I arrived at the Harvard Hillel for Shabbos dinner during Visitas, I felt like I had stepped into a time machine. Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews in severe three-piece suits and sideburns dominated. I cast about for a minute, looking for a place to sit, glancing to find another member of my endangered species: a Reform or Conservative Jew.<br />My experience speaks to an unsettling truth about contemporary Judaism in the United States: While more and more secular Jews abandon any form of religious observance, the Orthodox population is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/nyregion/new-yorks-jewish-population-is-growing-again.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">exploding</a>, leading to the marginalization of the once-robust Reform and Conservative movements and the upending of traditional notions of Jewish identity.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Now, it's true that the two largest and growing Jewish groups today are secular and Orthodox-- but that's not Orthodoxy's fault, it's the liberal movements. America isn't Israel or Britain. There is no official legal status, title or funding that the Orthodox get that is denied to the rest of us. Most of the time, liberal Judaism isn't competing with Orthodoxy, but rather with a general disengaged apathy.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Our faith is about the only thing Reform and Conservative Jews share with the Orthodox, and what the Orthodox stand for is anathema to us. For secular Jews, Jewishness has long been centered on culture, bagels, Yiddishisms, loud arguments, and impassioned liberalism taking precedence over the synagogue.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"> </span></span></blockquote>
Dude, I'm sorry to say it, but that doesn't sound like a particularly deep "culture;" it sounds like a parody. I'm surprised you didn't include watching Seinfeld or saving money on your taxes in that list. If your Jewishness centers around such hallowed cultural traditions as arguing and bagels, you're entitled, but I'm not sure why you're acting as if this is something that merits a high-five. It's also a little deceptive to blur the line so casually between liberal and secular Jews. If some of the old-timey Jewish secularists like Abe Cahan, Simon Dubnow, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Zhitlowsky">Chaim Zhitlowsky</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itche_Goldberg">Itche Goldberg</a> were around and heard you summing up Jewish culture as "bagels," they'd kick your ass from here to next year.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">The Orthodox are obviously more devout. However, the most crucial difference between the three streams of Judaism is that the Orthodox, particularly the ultra-Orthodox, tend to see themselves as American Jews while their Reform and Conservative counterparts view themselves as Jewish Americans. This dissonance can be traced back to Reform’s founding document, The Pittsburgh </span><a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pittsburgh_program.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Platform</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">, which in 1885 famously declared, “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.” Consequently, the Orthodox busy themselves more with medieval concepts like mesirah—a prohibition on ratting out Jews to secular authorities—than with tikkun olam—the Jewish idea of social justice.</span></span></blockquote>
Here is where Solomon just seems to start attacking the Orthodox for the hell of it. It's not relevant to Harvard, nor particularly to the issue of liberal or secular Jews. Rather than actually talk about substantive and contemporary issues of identity among different groups of Jews, Solomon jumps all the way back to the Pittsburgh Platform, which your average young Jew probably thinks is a new OS being developed in Pennsylvania in case Windows 8 fails to excite people.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="color: red;">Some have tried to draw sharp distinctions between the East Ramapo and Williamsburg crowd and the “Modern Orthodox.” Those differences are cosmetic, not ideological—the Grover Norquist snarl to the Paul Ryan smile. There’s nothing modern about keeping men and women separated at prayer services, or preventing women from singing Torah. There’s nothing modern about embracing strict interpretations of Jewish law. There’s nothing modern about having an all-Hebrew prayer book; the Vatican, one of progress’ most prominent bogeymen, long ago abandoned the Tridentine Mass.</span></span></blockquote>
Neither is there anything modern in failing to do rudimentary research on a topic before you start talking about it. Modern Orthodoxy is called modern not because it's cutting-edge, but because, when located within the Orthodox spectrum, it embraces <i>aspects</i> of modernity, such as education, philosophy and nationalism. And I'm sorry, but suggesting that the siddur should be the dividing line of modernity? Solomon is sounding less like a Reform Jew and more like a random internet troll.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="color: red;">Reform, meanwhile, has drifted away from the Pittsburgh Platform, which, in a Lutheran spirit, de-emphasized ritual and elevated faith. One 90-year-old cousin of mine, when he feels so inclined, relates tales of his synagogue days. He wasn’t bar mitzvahed; he was confirmed. He didn’t wear a yarmulke. His temple’s prayer service had more English in it than mine does, and at congregational luncheons shellfish and pork were on the menu.</span></span></blockquote>
But here's the rub: High Reform ultimately didn't work. If it had, then the Reform movement would have stuck with it. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift away from the Protestant-influenced, some might say, "over-enlightened", just-plain-trying-too-hard ethos that was High Reform towards a liberal Judaism that feels comfortable engaging with Hebrew, becoming familiar with Jewish law and history, and whose first instinct when they encounter something they disagree with to think about it rather than toss it out the window. In short, liberal Judaism has grown up, and is trying to take a truly modern approach by combining the best aspects of contemporary culture with the best aspects of traditional Jewish culture. Is Solomon mad that Reform has "sold out?" If so, why, exactly? And what does any of this have to do with Hillel?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Today, the revolutionary spark is gone, and previously junked practices like keeping kosher and observing the Sabbath are coming back into vogue. Undoubtedly, this is due in part to the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel. But embracing anachronisms won’t stanch the bleeding, and it certainly won’t get more secular Jews into Hillel.</span></span></blockquote>
Undoubtedly according to whom? What do the Holocaust and Israel have to do with keeping kosher? Are you suggesting that people are doing these things out of guilt? I suppose it's possible, but what's your source, besides you?<br />
<br />
The biggest problem with Solomon's essay isn't just that he doesn't seem to really know what he's talking about, it's that he doesn't know who he's mad at. He'd be much better off focusing on his own personal experiences and explaining how Hillel is or isn't reaching him than pretending to have this huge grasp on the social politics of American Judaism. The bottom line is that there's a simple option for people who don't feel connected to the nitty-gritty of Jewish practice: Just don't do it. But what's strange is conflating his irritation with his own "endangered" movement with the Orthodox, and then pushing it even farther and placing the blame at Hillel for somehow contributing to this by... allowing Orthodox Jews at its Shabbos table?<br />
<br />
According to Hillel's website, its goal is to "provide opportunities" for Jews to explore and celebrate their heritage and culture. It isn't supposed to make people religious or even to specifically to "attract" more Jews into it. It's simply supposed to be there if you want to use it. That suggests that it has a vested interest in being as open and welcoming to as many Jews as possible, to cast a big tent. I don't understand why that's a bad thing.<br />
<br />
There were <a href="http://finkorswim.com/2012/10/15/hillel-at-harvard-a-response-to-daniel-j-solomons-article-in-the-harvard-crimson/">several</a> <a href="http://whotheeffisjeff.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/339/">decent</a> responses around the web, by <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/10/18/harvard-baffling-caricature/">secular</a> Jews, <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/10/18/harvard-hillel-orthodox/">Orthodox</a> Jews, and those <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/10/18/harvard-rabbi-response/">in between</a>, but I felt like many of them took too much of Solomon's bait. The issue isn't just that his piece was unfair to the Orthodox (two shekels he doesn't know <span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Soloveitchik</span> from Sieradski), but that, despite his comment about his Reform Temple, it seems unclear if he even knows all that much about liberal Judaism, either.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think there's a bigger problem here than this kid's tirade against Orthodoxy. If you read between the lines, it appears that he was trying to show that liberal/secular Jews are feeling marginalized and adrift amid Jewish institutions that are leaning back towards observance and tradition as foundations for Jewish community. In my view, his piece did far more harm to his own cause than it did to the Orthodox. On behalf of young(ish) liberal Jews everywhere, I'd like to say this: we aren't all this dumb, this whiny, or this entitled. Really.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-83888817522046462532012-10-14T18:33:00.001-07:002012-10-14T18:33:20.357-07:00Burying the lead in more ways than oneThe Conservative movement has been trying to stay relevant to younger Jews, and to be honest, it's hard to tell if it's working. On the one hand the movement seems to understand it needs to have some core principles if it's going to try to stake out a proper position between Orthodoxy and Reform, but on the other hand it seems like it can't decide what those principles are or how they should be realized.<br />
<br />
One of the books that highlights this frustrating struggle is the new "Observant Life," written by various members the Rabbinical Assembly. As <a href="http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national-news/guide-living-serious-jewish-life">Jonathan Marks</a> (no big admirer of liberal Judaism) writes, the Observant Life purports to try to show the rich spectrum that is Conservative Judaism today:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">...it is aimed, in addition to Conservative Jews, those “in a liberal Orthodox environment and a more traditional Reform environment, and people who are outside the denominational world but are interested in the question of observance. This is also for those interested in the big picture [of how observance] functions when you look at it all at once.”</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">...“The Observant Life” is also respectful of, even charmed by, folkways and traditions that are not specifically Orthodox, halachic or Conservative, but meaningful in any case, such as the post-Shabbat Melave Malka, or the custom of men immersing themselves in the mikveh before Shabbat.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">...The book makes it clear that to these more than 30 authors (some writing more than one chapter), halacha is more “than an endless list of rules.” <b>As the book explains, alongside Conservative theology there is always the human dimension, meaning the law doesn’t always have the last word: “The mara d’atra [the synagogue’s rabbi and/or halachic authority], ideally with the support of the lay leadership, will define the halacha of the synagogue by balancing the law with a community’s customs, values and vision.” </b></span><b> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #45818e;">Therefore, intermarried Jews or gays, for example, may be called to the Torah and be welcomed to serve as synagogue leaders (in non-religious “role model” positions), despite their halachic status being still subject to debate, because “very few, if any, synagogues within the Conservative movement require strict halachic observance as a condition for honoring people during worship.”</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">Nevertheless, despite these and other liberal opinions, readers may be intrigued to learn from “The Observant Life” that Conservative Judaism can be more conservative than some might think. For example, “no halachic authorities regard abortion as a Jewish woman’s right to exercise at will. … Absent extreme circumstances, abortion is usually forbidden.”</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">...The book doesn’t shy away from such complex halachic riddles, even if cases are obscure or esoteric. While many halachic situations are presented as an ideal, there is another ideal, that “rabbinical restrictions are conditioned on the public’s ability to meet their stipulations.”</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">Even more of an overriding principal, says Rabbi Cohen, is that halacha and observance are not in one realm while ethics and relationships are in another. Loving God and loving other Jews are of a singular piece, he says, as are ritual laws and the ethical ones. “The Observant Life” draws on both these heavenly and earthly considerations to the extent that it becomes clear that there never really was a boundary between the two.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #45818e;">“To be an observant Jew,” he says, “you need to embrace both.”</span></blockquote>
<br />
That's all well and good, but one of the things Mrs. Yid and I noticed while thumbing through our copy was that in the midst of trying to convince themselves of how halachic they are, the authors of the Observant Life seem to be missing a larger point: I don't object to nitty-gritty, but for me, the book fails to answer some big picture questions like why should one be Jewish, and more to the point, why should one want to live within a halachic framework, much less the Conservative one, specifically. While the concept of trying to create one text to represent the perspective of Conservative Judaism on contemporary issues is nice, ultimately the result winds up feeling unwieldy and rambling rather than relevant. I think the project would have been much improved had the editors taken the book's three sections and instead published a series in three parts: one focusing on Conservative prayer and ritual, one on Conservative approaches towards modern society (such as the secular justice system, commerce, and intellectual property), and the last one on modern Conservative thought involving questions of Jewish identity, specifically focusing on descent, marriage and sexuality. Instead the book comes across as a bloated exercise in minutiae, leaving some of the more immediate questions of the day, such as intermarriage, patrilineal descent and LGBT Jews to get lost in the shuffle alongside whether Jews should be nice to animals (yes), if Messianic Jews count as Jewish (no) and if file sharing is ok (also no). If someone is just dying to find out about the Halacha of Napster, how about putting together an online database/wiki of random responsum? Young Jews in your synagogues have some actual pressing issues that need addressing, and you're dickering around answering questions no one's asked!<br />
<br />
As an intermarried Jew with LGBT Jewish friends and patrilineal family members, I have several stakes in this. Not only are young Jews intermarrying at greater numbers than any generation previous, but lots of them are also trying to figure out what this means in terms of their eligibility to be part of a Jewish community. Ditto for many LGBT Jews. Part of the reason clarification on these points would be helpful, as Marks' fellow Jewish Week writer <a href="http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/conservatives-walking-intermarriage-tightrope">Julie Weiner</a> points out, is because at present the movement's positions seem to be clear as mud:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">when it comes to intermarriage, the Conservative movement is ambivalent if not outright schizophrenic. Its rabbis are forbidden even from being guests at interfaith weddings, let alone officiating at them. On the other hand, well aware that most Conservative synagogue members (not to mention the rabbis themselves) have many intermarried friends and family members — and that intermarried families will soon outnumber in-married ones in the larger Jewish community — most Conservative rabbis seek to welcome intermarried couples after the wedding.</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Two books out this year highlight the movement’s split personality: <a href="http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/story/observant-life?tp=185" style="text-decoration: none;">“The Observant Life,”</a> a compendium of “Conservative Jewish wisdom” published in April by the Rabbinical Assembly, and <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/intermarriage-charles-simon/1113140665" style="text-decoration: none;">“Intermarriage: Concepts and Strategies for Families and Synagogue Leaders,”</a> to be released later this month by the movement’s <a href="http://fjmc.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs</a>.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">“The Observant Jewish Life” addresses a range of contemporary topics, each chapter penned by a Conservative rabbi. It is scholarly and just a bit forbidding...When it comes to intermarriage, the book cites a range of opinions; however, it clings to the view that intermarriage should be discouraged, even if it cannot be prevented.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">“Concepts and Strategies,” by contrast, starts from the assumption that, in the words of journalist (and Conservative synagogue member) Jeffrey Goldberg, “The war against intermarriage is over and intermarriage won.” Goldberg is quoted in the book’s preface, by Harvey Braunstein and Stephen Lachter, the founding lay leaders of FJMC’s Keruv [outreach] Initiative. Braunstein and Lachter argue that “our Conservative movement has not moved forward quickly enough and is now faced with a critical need to adapt to the changing world or become irrelevant.”</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">In essays written by Conservative rabbis, lay leaders and some voices from outside (although not to the right of) the movement, “Concepts and Strategies” (107 pages) offers suggestions ranging from “shifting the conversation from marrying Jewish to raising Jewish children,” to explicitly welcoming interfaith families on synagogue websites and publications, to offering alternative aufruf ceremonies for interfaith newlyweds and a “non-Jewish gentleman’s drinking club” to enable supportive gentile husbands to bond with the rabbi.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Meanwhile, the RA’s “The Observant Life”... urges a more cautious tightrope walk. Membership, notes Rabbi Craig T. Scheff (Orangetown Jewish Center in Rockland County) in a chapter on “synagogue life,” should be “restricted to the Jewish spouse,” while at the same time, the non-Jewish spouse should be “welcomed warmly and made to feel like part of the larger synagogue community.”</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Elsewhere in the volume, contributors voice their opposition to intermarriage, while at the same time discouraging people from antagonizing the intermarried. In a chapter on marriage, Rabbi David J. Fine (Temple Israel in Ridgewood, N.J.) writes that “studies have shown conclusively that intermarried couples overwhelmingly do not raise Jewishly committed children,” and notes that “Conservative Judaism endorses the ancient Jewish prohibition of intermarriage.”</span> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky (Manhattan’s Ansche Chesed) writes that “we must lovingly invite” interfaith families that maintain a strong commitment to Judaism “into our communities and not ignore them, but their example does not negate the overwhelming evidence that intermarriage correlates with weak Jewish commitment.”</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Rabbi Scheff cites papers and responsa from the 1960s through 1980s forbidding intermarried Jews from leadership roles, key staff positions or “special honors” at synagogue, but notes that in recent years “dissenting views” have been heard. “Today most synagogues value above all other concerns the need and wish to draw all Jews to synagogue life without subjecting an individual’s desire to serve the community to harsh or exclusionary standards,” he writes.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">As for hot-button issues like non-Jewish spouses participating in lifecycle rituals or synagogue newsletters acknowledging intermarriages, Rabbi Scheff writes that Conservative opinion on the former “ranges from absolute permission of such involvement to absolute prohibition,” while practices on the latter “vary from synagogue to synagogue.”<br /><b>A survey conducted recently by the FJMC confirms the diversity on these hot-button matters — and finds that, in yet another indicator of Conservative ambivalence vis-à-vis intermarriage, even congregations that are inclusive and flexible on ritual matters do not advertise this fact in their newsletters and websites.</b></span><b> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">...</span><b style="color: #cc0000;">“Almost all of the congregations are more welcoming to the non-Jewish spouse and intermarrieds when it comes to bima choreography than they communicate through their websites,” </b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Rabbi Simon notes in an article (not in the book) about the survey.</span></blockquote>
<br />
What it seems to come down to is that at the end of the day, there is a split between where the Conservative leadership is and where its congregants are. To the rabbis' credit, on a day-to-day basis many of them act as true mensches, welcoming couples and families who may not fit the typical mold and encouraging them to be part of their communities. That should be honored and celebrated. At the same time, however, the fact that the leadership of the movement seems to not want to acknowledge what its synagogues are doing leaves one with the feeling of a cognitive dissonance that seems neither healthy nor desirable. The website issue seems to be a microcosm of the same dilemma: "On the one hand we don't really care if you're gay or intermarried or whatever because we really just want to have more people joining the shul, and if you're a good congregant it doesn't really matter to us. But god forbid we put that on our website because who knows what people might think?" Frankly, I don't think I'd be able to stand belonging to a shul like that. Part of what makes Beth Elderly work for me and Mrs. Yid is that there's never been any pressure on us and people there live out their values of inclusiveness: one of the prominent Young Guard members is intermarried. He's also on the Board. The former President of the shul was intermarried; after 20-plus years of being part of a welcoming, non-judgmental Jewish community, her husband converted. Every time we go to services, we see plenty of faces in the pews that don't look like us. Many of those people converted. Some haven't. All are welcome, and all are valued. This is what it looks like when a Conservative community decides to show its values instead of hiding them because it's worried about pissing someone off.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure who the Conservative movement is trying to kid or look good for but it seems like a huge waste of time and energy. Instead of pretending that it's an Orthodox-lite, how about growing a spine and openly proclaiming that, following Conservative principles and the modern-day needs of Conservative Jews, its understanding of halacha has evolved-- just like it has for driving on Shabbat or any other number of issues.<br />
<br />
The Conservative movement keeps talking about how it wants to stay relevant and appeal to young people. The way to do that is to address the key issues they care about. The rabbis don't necessarily need to agree with them on every point (after all, not all young Jews-- even on the liberal spectrum-- agree about all of this). But you have to at least show us that you're working on it. Otherwise, all you're really doing is showing us that you're too wrapped up in your own issues and priorities to notice ours.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that while ideologues are wringing their hands over what people to their right might think if they admit that their rabbis welcome intermarried or gay Jews, those same Jews (and <a href="http://forward.com/articles/154650/what-would-you-call-me/">their kids</a>!) are feeling tired of the double-speak and the subtle suggestion that they need to stay in the closet. If the movement doesn't get its house in order, there's a good chance some of those wonderful, talented and engaged people will go elsewhere-- either to other shuls, or potentially, no shul at all. Instead of cranking out a phonebook of Conservative halacha, how about focusing on the key points that young people are most concerned with-- and then working on creating a culture of transparency so that individual congregations who are more liberal than others don't feel like they need to hide it?<br />
<br />
<br />Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-43585428882970714092012-10-14T17:18:00.003-07:002012-10-14T17:20:20.436-07:00I'm not perfect; so shoot meHope you all had happy holidays. I got sick right after Yom Kippur so I couldn't celebrate everything the way I would have liked to, but Mrs. Yid and I did our best to power on through.<br />
<br />
I have a bad habit of getting sick right around the holidays. In previous years it's kept me from fasting. This year I was able to fast and then the next day my immune system took a nose-dive. I blame the new germs from my new job.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Mrs. Yid, bless her heart, decided that she was going to make Sukkot happen-- so she went to Home Depot, got some lumber, and built us a sukkah on our new balcony (we promised our building super that we would take it down within a week). And I have to say, it turned out really great.<br />
<br />
The funny thing was that this year not only did I get sick, I totally lost my voice. Needless to say, I wasn't in a very <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot#Special_prayers">ushpizin-y</a> mood. But Mrs. Yid wanted to eat in the sukkah, so I wasn't going to tell her know. Not only did she make us several excellent dinners, she also managed to get through the Hebrew to invite the guests in on various nights! Though my vocal chords were dead, inside I was bursting with Yiddishe-Mama levels of pride.<br />
<br />
The shul was hosting a Sukkot party and sleepover that we had both been looking forward to, but I knew there was no way I was going to make it. But I told Mrs. Yid there was no reason she shouldn't go if she wanted to, and again, she stepped up to the plate and went for it! I was happy she didn't let me rain on her parade, and also that she went off and did Jewish stuff without me. I'm glad at least one of us got to shake the lulav.<br />
<br />
Now I know some of you may be wondering, what's with this new, positive Friar? Where's his dark heart hiding? Well I will admit I'm trying to do a little better with that. That said, I did notice a <a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/felafel-on-rye/an-etrog-tree-doesnt-grow-in-brooklyn/2012/09/30/">Sukkot column</a> from Tzvi that seemed worth mentioning if only for a second:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/felafel-on-rye/an-etrog-tree-doesnt-grow-in-brooklyn/2012/09/30/" rel="bookmark" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Permanent Link to An Etrog Tree Doesn’t Grow in Brooklyn">An Etrog Tree Doesn’t Grow in Brooklyn</a><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px;">If it did it would die. Just the way the Diaspora is destined to die. The etrog tree doesn’t belong in Brooklyn. The climate isn’t right for it. It’s the same with the lulav, hadasim, and aravot.* The four species which we are commanded to take for ourselves on the Festival of Sukkot are indigenous to Eretz Yisrael, just as the Torah is indigenous to Eretz Yisrael, and the Jewish People are indigenous to Eretz Yisrael. </span></span></blockquote>
<br />
Tzvi, you really need to get a fact-checker. The issue is not that the etrog is a particularly Zionist citrus but rather that it needs a climate both dry and sunny. There are commercial etrog farms in <a href="http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/26699/Americas_Next_Big_Etrog_Farm/">Arizona</a> and <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/80571/etrog-man.html">California</a>, as well as Italy and Morocco. Incidentally, up until Mubarak was toppled, the primary source of palm fronds for Sukkot-- both in the US and Israel-- was Egypt. Seems like the four species are sending us some mixed messages.<br />
<br />
Apparently Tzvi's editor anticipated that nit-pickers like me exist because he added this to the bottom:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><em style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">*Editor’s Note: The author’s point is metaphorical and is not intended to mean that factually none of the four minim (species) grow in Brooklyn or outside of Israel.</em> </span></blockquote>
<br />
Nice catch! Thanks for explaining that Tzvi's only being a metaphorical moron and not an actual one. Boy would my face have been red.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Tzvi goes on for a while about how you can only really celebrate Sukkot authentically in Israel-- which I don't necessarily disagree with, except that as usual, his so-called proof is terrible. Namely, that Diaspora Jews are supposedly afraid or embarrassed to actually build their sukkahs in a public place.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">This past week in Israel, in whatever direction you looked, chances are you saw a succah booth. On front lawns, in driveways, in parking lots, on restaurant sidewalks, on the terraces of buildings, and on rooftops. In the Diaspora, the opposite is true.<b> Unless you happen to be in one of the 5 or 6 Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods scattered around the globe, chances are you won’t see a succah booth at all. Take a walk from one end of Los Angeles to the other and there won’t be a succah in sight. In Paris and London, you would never know that there is a Jewish Festival about to begin. Diaspora succahs, if they exist, are hidden away on back lawns, or in back alleyways, so that the goyim won’t shoot flaming arrows at them and ignite them in a blaze of smoke.</b> In the villas of wealthy Jews, you might discover a succah inside the house under a pull-back roof, so that the neighbors don’t have to know that Orthodox Jews live inside. That’s the sad state of affairs when you are a secret Jew living amongst the goyim.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">Yes, we have many problems in Israel, but we don’t have to hide our succot in the back of our homes. We can proudly construct them in our driveways and front lawns without worrying about vandals or burglars or gentile police. In the Diaspora, a front lawn succah sticks out like the gaudy statues that rich, Beverly-Hills Arabs like to put on their lawns. In Israel, no one takes a second look. Succahs are natural in Israel. They are a part of the landscape. People can dine in them in peace, and sleep comfortably in them all night without the slightest disturbance.</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
I'm not sure that the primary factor in determining whether people feel proud and secure in their Jewishness is putting crap in their front yard, Tzvi. I knew you're a Hasid, but do we all really have to go the Chabad Menorah route with this? What's wrong with a back yard? I don't have a front or a back yard, but I'd much prefer to do things in the back-- not because I'm afraid, but because I enjoy my privacy. Also, I'm pretty sure that Los Angeles, having its share of Orthodox Jews, also has its share of sukkahs. Just a guess.<br />
<br />
In any event, here are some pictures of our shameful sukkah. As you can tell, being Diaspora Jews, we made it extra tiny and camouflaged lest some antisemitic neighbors try to shoot it with flaming arrows (because apparently we moved to ancient Rome when I wasn't paying attention).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEUHNeA6TPI/UHtUacWtRQI/AAAAAAAAAMk/VI4qHNf614A/s1600/DSC00731.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEUHNeA6TPI/UHtUacWtRQI/AAAAAAAAAMk/VI4qHNf614A/s320/DSC00731.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">We were going for an "American Beauty" theme this year.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3fpkFOy0O44/UHtUbAVQkxI/AAAAAAAAAMs/6aYdLNxx4A0/s1600/DSC00732.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3fpkFOy0O44/UHtUbAVQkxI/AAAAAAAAAMs/6aYdLNxx4A0/s320/DSC00732.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hooray for Chinatown schach!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hHh9L9OER18/UHtUZqft_VI/AAAAAAAAAMc/Jb57n4NVPLk/s1600/DSC00730.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hHh9L9OER18/UHtUZqft_VI/AAAAAAAAAMc/Jb57n4NVPLk/s320/DSC00730.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">City Hall can't see us from here, right?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3uR9RuhKYgk/UHtUbxzxGnI/AAAAAAAAAM0/R-nyH_bDQSk/s1600/DSC00735.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3uR9RuhKYgk/UHtUbxzxGnI/AAAAAAAAAM0/R-nyH_bDQSk/s320/DSC00735.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I sure hope this blends in...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tdD2MuhOOd4/UHtUc_uo8gI/AAAAAAAAANE/oOG8HQ_RvI8/s1600/DSC00738.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tdD2MuhOOd4/UHtUc_uo8gI/AAAAAAAAANE/oOG8HQ_RvI8/s320/DSC00738.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If anyone asks, we're just a lot of laundry left out to dry. Also wood.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1yb5kqLpZ3M/UHtUcUzV5xI/AAAAAAAAAM8/nBsJIq1dHwo/s1600/DSC00737.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1yb5kqLpZ3M/UHtUcUzV5xI/AAAAAAAAAM8/nBsJIq1dHwo/s320/DSC00737.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Good thing everyone in our building is blind, right, Tzvi?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: purple; font-size: x-large;"> Happy Sukkot!</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-19694938000765830642012-09-18T21:33:00.002-07:002012-09-18T21:45:36.534-07:00Authoritativeness versus Accessibility(Or, Orthodox vs. Open-Source?)<br />
<br />
I've been reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Design-Politics-ArtScroll-Revolution/dp/0520264266">an interesting book</a> about major Orthodox publisher Artscroll, whose publications have become ubiquitous throughout the Jewish world. While Artscroll books (which are mostly in English) are quite widespread among the Modern Orthodox community, the author, <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01388.html">Jeremy Stolow</a>, has some very interesting statistics indicating their growing "market share" into non-Orthodox populations as well. He even goes so far as to link new Reform and Conservative publications directly to Artscroll's increasing popularity among their congregants:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><i style="text-align: justify;">ArtScroll</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> books are praised as instructive, meaningful, authentic, and even empowering. Its enthusiasts thus claim that an "</span><i style="text-align: justify;">ArtScroll</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> revolution" has facilitated an unprecedented degree of access to Jewish knowledge and confidence in ritual performance among English-speaking Jews, forming a readership that extends from the erudite to the culturally illiterate and that transcends the traditional markers of institutional affiliation or local custom. At a further remove, </span><i style="text-align: justify;">ArtScroll</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> has precipitated a reaction among its competitors that one is tempted to describe as an <b>"ArtScrollification" of the Jewish liturgical field as a whole: most notably, with the recent publication of </b></span><b><i style="text-align: justify;">Eitz Chaim</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> (the new Conservative </span><i style="text-align: justify;">chumash</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, designed explicitly to "respond" to </span><i style="text-align: justify;">ArtScroll</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> 's success), and </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Mishkan Tefillah</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> (the new Reform </span><i style="text-align: justify;">siddur</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, which incorporates many design elements, editorial structure, and instructional material found in </span><i style="text-align: justify;">ArtScroll</i><span style="text-align: justify;">). </span></b></span></blockquote>
At first I thought this was just hyperbole, until he cited <a href="http://forward.com/articles/8465/conservatives-taking-a-page-from-orthodox-prayer-b/">quotes</a> from those movements' own rabbis admitting that part of the motivation to put out those publications was to counter Artscroll's popularity.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #38761d;"><b>Movement rabbis acknowledge that a main impetus for commissioning the new commentary, titled “Or Hadash” and set to be released April 15, was the growing phenomenon of Conservative worshipers using the popular Orthodox prayer book put out by ArtScroll/Mesorah Publications.</b> The trend certainly irked many Conservative leaders, who concluded that the increasing popularity of ArtScroll was not a function of its ideological bent, but the desire of many Conservative congregants to have a prayer book that offered them more than a flowery translation of the Hebrew text.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">...</span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“I’ve been using ArtScroll for about 12 years,” said Steven Rothman, a third-generation Conservative Jew and a member of the ritual committee at Temple Beth Zion-Beth Israel in Philadelphia. “<b>I wanted something with commentary.</b> But the problem with some of their commentary is that it is coming from a strictly Orthodox point of view. I would like to see commentary from a Conservative point of view.”</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Rothman told the Forward that he is excited about the upcoming release of “Or Hadash.” Along with “Etz Hayim,” he said, the prayer book represented a newfound, and long-needed, willingness on the part of Conservative movement leaders to tend to the intellectual and liturgical needs of their followers. <b>“They are finally answering some of the questions about what it means to be a Conservative Jew,” Rothman said. “I’m very pleased that the Conservative movement is opening itself up intellectually to the lay person. That’s not always the way it was before.”</b></span><b> </b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #38761d; font-family: Lucida Grande, Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">...</span></span><span style="color: #38761d; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“It’s clear that many congregants have been complaining to us for a long time that they have felt a real lack of ability to grab hold of a lot of the prayers,” said Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of United Synagogue, the movement’s congregational arm. </span><b style="color: #38761d; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“Some have felt that the ArtScroll really provided them with information that they needed.</b><span style="color: #38761d; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Lucida, Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"> But its approach doesn’t represent what we are or what we stand for.”</span></blockquote>
This, I think, is a key point that many Artscroll <a href="http://www.beyondbt.com/2007/11/15/in-praise-of-art-scroll/">triumphalists</a> often overlook. There is no question that some Jews are attracted to Orthodox texts because they see them as an authoritative voice over Conservative or Reform ones. But my impression is that a large number may also simply be reaching out to sources like Artscroll because they are offering information they want and have had a hard time finding elsewhere-- and not necessarily because they're craving an ideological purity that can only be found in Orthodoxy. In the case of Etz Hayim, the willingness to engage with a lay congregant-- to wade into the issues of commentary and interpretation and to lay out exactly what the Conservative approach or approaches are to the text, not only helps inform people about possible interpretations, but also specifically about what the Conservative movement has to say about it.<br />
<br />
Still, at the end of the day I think many liberal Jews, particularly those who, like me, were not born into a specific movement and whose denominational affiliations and identities are more fluid, are less interested in establishing or even explicating specific ideological boundaries than in just getting some good nuts and bolts information, which we can then use to draw our own conclusions. Personally, my lack of Hebrew skills-- but interest in having access to traditional texts- has meant that I've had to invest a fair amount of effort to find resources that reach my needs. Sometimes Artscroll has filled that niche (I used their <a href="http://www.artscroll.com/Talmud1.htm">Schottenstein Talmud</a> quite often in various Jewish studies classes as a source for midrash), and for that it should be commended and given credit. However my gut is that a lot of liberal Jews who use or have used Artscroll or similar texts (including my Conservative shul's Reconstructionist rabbi) are most interested in what Artscroll <i>can do</i> rather than what it specifically <i>says</i>: Artscroll remains a good, solid resource to help bridge the gap between a desire for information about traditional Jewish theology and practice while still needing explicit instruction. However what that tells me is that the real market is not in polemics or apologetics, but good old information: in a nutshell, it's <b>the open-source mindset.</b><br />
<br />
What is open-source? Generally it refers to the philosophy or approach of having open access to technology, often with the ability to copy, modify or transfer it. The "modification" element is challenging when applied to Judaism (there was a book a few years ago that actually used the term "<a href="http://www.zeek.net/books_03074.shtml">open source Judaism</a>," which I find a little problematic by its implications). That said, I think what we're seeing here is definitely connected to the effects that open source has had on popular culture. These days many people, particularly young people, approach information as something that should be open and accessible to anyone that wants to see it-- and this in turn leads to a lowering of hierarchy. Even in non-Orthodox Judaism, the communal values are very much clustered around who has the most information and knowledge. This then leads to a huge gap between those who know a lot and those who don't-- and the ones without a lot of education or knowledge therefore get to a point where either they start to lose interest or opt out, or they find ways of gaining access to the information. That's where open source Jewish texts-- not necessarily "open source Judaism" comes in.<br />
<br />
As more movements and independent writers start opening the tradition up and making it accessible to less Jewishly literate Jews, I think ultimately we'll find a larger segment of liberal Jews who, if given the opportunity, are interested in taking Judaism more seriously and grappling with it in a more authentic way-- because they won't be operating from an all or nothing, "Orthodox or secular" binary. Having the ability to access Jewish tradition on your terms, whether it be through the <a href="http://www.newsiddur.org/index.html">siddur</a>, <a href="http://www.steinsaltz.org/KorenTalmudBavli.php">text</a> <a href="http://seforim.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-preliminary-review-of-new-koren.html#comments">study</a>, or other forms, is incredibly empowering as well as challenging. Now that you've read the parsha, what do you think about it? Now that you know what your prayers mean, what do you intend to do with that knowledge? What does a liberal Judaism informed by<a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/religion/article/with_poetry_and_scholarship_daf_yomi_talmud_study_grows_beyond_orthodox_201/"> regular or semi-regular Talmud study</a> look like? When liberal Jews are confronted with the knowledge of what their tradition says, they by necessity are required to start becoming more engaged and more authentic-- not more Orthodox, but more informed. "I don't know" is no longer an excuse.<br />
<br />
With the advent of accessible-- but hopefully still authentic-- Jewish texts, we in liberal communities now get to start having some of these conversations. And funnily enough, in a real way a lot of this is thanks to Artscroll- for inspiring or attracting its readers, for irking its competitors, and for inspiring more of us to wrestle with our tradition-- but on our terms and its, not theirs.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-31877968276862909582012-09-17T22:25:00.001-07:002012-09-17T22:25:52.443-07:00Come on down to Crazy TownI don't visit WND much anymore, mostly for my blood pressure. The few times a month I traipse back, hoping against hope they may have become more sane (ok, not really), I get a stark reminder that they're not just conservative, they're downright nuts.<br />
<br />
For example: WND's editor, Joe Farah, likes to tout how much he's a real Christian and believes in Biblical prophecy. He also has a major Judeophile crush on us Hebrews. He also is a complete business huckster who never passes up a chance to plug whatever new thing he's selling.<br />
<br />
Cue this <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/bad-things-happen-on-this-date-every-7-years/?cat_orig=us">monstrosity</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Sept. 17, 2001, marked the beginning of the economic calamity associated with 9/11 with the lowering of interest rates by the Fed resulting in the collapse of the stock market. Seven years later, on Sept. 29, 2008, the next big stock market crash followed – bigger than the previous one – resulting in an economic crisis that continues to this day.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"></span>What does all that have to do with today, Sept. 15?</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">It’s Sept. 15 on the Gregorian calendar, but it is Elul 29 on the Hebrew calendar. And both of those previous economic calamities occurred on Elul 29.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: transparent;">Ok, who's been talking to Farah about the Hebrew calendar? Clearly someone told him about that silly (and </span><a href="http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2005/08/inyomai-dyoma-myths-vs-facts-myth-1-in.html" style="background-color: transparent;">debunked</a><span style="background-color: transparent;">) tradition that everything bad happens on Tisha B'Av, and now he's rolling with this mishegoss.</span></div>
<br />
But fear not! Joe doesn't actually think that something terrible is going to happen just because it's Elul 29.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="color: red;">The good news is that today is not a Shmitah year on the Hebrew calendar. </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Huh?</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="color: red;">On Elul 29 on Shmitah years, the financial accounts are wiped away, debts are canceled and the land is to be given a Sabbath rest, according to Deuteronomy 15:1-2 and Leviticus 25:3-6, with Elul 29 being the last day of the civil calendar year.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Hold it right there, Joe! I know where you're going with this, and... NOOOO.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">The next Shmitah year will end Sept. 13, 2015. And, because of the unprecedented popularity of </span><a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Welcome/The-Harbinger-Paperback-The-Isaiah-910-Judgment-DVD-BUNDLE" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(252, 215, 0); background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">the No. 1 bestselling Christian book in America this year, “The Harbinger,” and the No. 1 bestselling faith movie in America in 2012, “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,”</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"> some people are already marking their calendars.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Are these by any chance the same people who bought TVs and computers before Y2K expecting all the credit card records to be wiped out?</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><b>Jonathan Cahn, a messianic rabbi </b>and author of </span><a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Welcome/The-Harbinger-Paperback-The-Isaiah-910-Judgment-DVD-BUNDLE" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(252, 215, 0); background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“The Harbinger,” and the narrator of “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,”</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"> is the person who first noticed that America’s two great financial shakings occurred on successive Hebrew Shmitah years following the 9/11 Islamist terror attacks on the U.S., the key to the series of limited <b>judgments the author sees as a result of America’s turning away from God just as ancient Israel did before the dispersion.</b></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Of course he does. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">“A clear pattern has been established,” says <b>Joseph Farah, producer </b>of </span><a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Welcome/The-Harbinger-Paperback-The-Isaiah-910-Judgment-DVD-BUNDLE" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(252, 215, 0); background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment.”</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><i>Of course</i> you are!</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="color: red;">“I don’t believe it’s a coincidence what happened in America on Elul 29 in 2001 and 2008. <b>It would be foolish to ignore the possibility that a greater judgment might be in the works – especially if America continues to move away from God and His Word.</b>”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">Almost as foolish as reading an ancient legal procedure meant to promote economic justice and early land management as a financial curse sent by God for not voting Republican?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px;">If that doesn't convince you that God's about to kick some ass, fear not! The messianic rabbis also have the stars on their side. They think.</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">It’s also worth noting that Elul 29, 2015, represents the eve of the Feast of Trumpets or Rosh Hashana at sundown. <b>An unusual astronomical phenomenon, a blood red moon – or tetrad – is expected to occur that evening, according to NASA.</b> The Feast of Trumpets begins a period known by Jews as “the days of awe” that lasts through Yom Kippur a week later.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><b>Hebrew roots pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries</b> in Washington state noted several years ago that a cluster of tetrads will occur in 2014 and 2015 – all of them on Hebrew high holidays. There won’t be any more for the rest of the 21st century.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><b>Joel 2:31 says: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.”</b> Other biblical references can be found in Acts 2:20 and Revelation 6:12.</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #222222;">Ok, first of all, the ancient prophets weren't super savvy about the natural sciences. Hell, the rabbis of the Talmud who came along thousands of years later still thought that salamanders were made from fire and that lice came from sweat. Just because Joel talks about the sun going black and the moon going red doesn't mean he's predicting tetrads. And besides, why focus on the moon? Why not scream doomsday every time there's an eclipse? At least then the law of averages might be more in your favor. I'm sure there's bound to be some <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJ9tZh4R3FEusQ1C_UQ7jxAyAU4g">terrible things</a> that have happened on eclipses over the years.</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;"><b>Whether or not anything significant occurs of a prophetic nature Sept. 13, 2015</b>, Farah said he is immensely pleased with <a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Welcome/The-Harbinger-Paperback-The-Isaiah-910-Judgment-DVD-BUNDLE" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(252, 215, 0); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">the documentary treatment of the message found in the best-selling book “The Harbinger” by Jonathan Cahn, </a>which has remained on the New York Times bestsellers list for all of 2012.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">“If you haven’t seen this movie yet, I urge you to get it, screen it with your family, show it to your friends and arrange church viewings,” said Farah.<b> “This is the most important project I have been involved in through my 35-year media career. This is a message, I believe, God directed me to be involved with for a time such as this.”</b></span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #222222;">Nice covering your butt there. "The apocalypse and/or total financial ruin is going to happen in three years, so buy all my crap talking about it. Then again, it could totally not happen, but you should probably buy my crap anyway just to be safe." Well played. Oh, and something about shmitah. And tetrads.</span></div>
Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-25666670796607192952012-09-02T17:04:00.005-07:002012-09-02T17:04:56.904-07:00Nobody's Perfect- but some folks try harderA recent <a href="http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-mitt-lost-my-vote.html#comment-637738124">comment</a> on Dovbear from SJ perked my interest. SJ was trying to fight the perception that the GOP is anti-women or anti-gay. Rather than point to the increased visibility of <span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">minorities and women in GOP leadership roles, though, SJ decided instead to go on the attack by posting a couple of links to op-eds bashing Democrats for not being as inclusive as they claim to be. Compare this to an op-ed from <a href="http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/editorials/article_3cfdd4b2-f4ac-11e1-b2a0-0019bb2963f4.html">some Montana paper</a> taking liberal pundits to task for demeaning the presence of black, Latino and female speakers at the Republican convention:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="paragraph-0" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">The parade of accomplished minority and women speakers at the Republican National Convention truly stood out, particularly because of the alleged Republican “war on women” theme and relentless accusations of Republican racism. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">But sure enough, there was no shortage of critics showing dismissive regard toward GOP speakers...</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">...Proof is in what people do, and<b> it was Republicans who put these people in office and at the convention podium. People should believe what they see</b>, yet they continue to hear things like this from Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I think we believe that women can see through that nice shiny packaging that the Republicans have been putting out there, through to what’s inside, which is really a disaster for women’s future, extreme policies.” </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">OK. Republican policies are fair game. But diminishing the women who were featured at the convention as “shiny packaging”? With language like that, just who is waging the “war on women”? </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;">... <span style="line-height: 15px;">The prize for insulting, obnoxious temerity goes to Los Angeles Times columnist David Horsey, who essentially accused Republicans of resorting to tokenism — and worse — at the convention.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="line-height: 15px;">“It would be easy to dismiss this as tokenism and window dressing — which, of course, it is — but there is something bigger behind it,” he writes. “Republicans truly believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that the best thing a poor Latino or an unemployed African American can do to better his or her condition is to vote for a party that intends to let rich people keep more of their money. Showing off all those non-Caucasian officeholders is a way of saying to skeptical minority voters, “These guys have chosen the Republican path and just look where it has gotten them!”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="line-height: 15px;">Tokenism, it seems, suggests unworthy people who were plucked off the street and put at the podium as props. But that simply wasn’t the case.</span><span style="line-height: 15px;"> </span>Many of the minority and women speakers named above are accomplished leaders, and in some cases, rock stars in the Republican Party. They deserve to be featured, rather than dismissed as being somehow illegitimate or unworthy.</b></blockquote>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Here's my take: <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17px;">The difference between the parties on sexism and homophobia is that the Democrats rhetoric/ideology aspires towards an ideal (gender and orientation equality) that their actions fall short of. The GOP's actions, by contrast, seem to be more or less aligned with their general philosophies on those issues: some Republicans accept gays on pragmatic/libertarian grounds (though many don't), and women, while valued, seem to be seen by many in the party as supporters, not leaders.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17px;">This is borne out by statistics:</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px;"> In <a href="http://womenincongress.house.gov/historical-data/representatives-senators-by-congress.html?congress=112">this Congress</a>, female Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. In the last Congress, it was closer to 3 to 1. Of course, numbers aren't everything, but they seem to show that in the GOP, women are either not encouraged to seek political leadership roles, or not seen as having the same abilities/qualifications as men (Remember that <a href="http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2007/06/women-know-your-place.html">Pat Boone</a> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px;">article that said any time women were elected to office it was because there were no competent men around to do the job?)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">This doesn't mean Republicans necessarily "hate" women, minorities or gays or that Democrats are incapable of being sexist, homophobic or prejudiced. However, the disparity does suggest that there are some real limiting factors keeping women from being as successful in party leadership-- </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px;">and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is true by, let's say a hundred-fold, for gays.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">That doesn't mean that the speakers at the convention are deficient or unqualified-- but you'd have to be living under a rock to claim that tokenism-- or window dressing, or pandering, take your pick-- isn't at work here. It's at work with the Democrats, too, of course-- I'd say it's become a ubiquitous element of American politics these days. At conventions, on political ads, at debates, you always hear about these random people whose stories and faces are meant to exemplify an entire class of constituents to convince women, minorities, hunters, military supporters, teachers, small business owners, whoever, that this candidate, this party, really understand and care about you, YES, YOU! It's unabashed showmanship, and the fact that minorities were being paraded around to be seen and counted at the convention exemplifies the exact issue the GOP is trying to fight: the perception that it's the party of old white men. The existence of minorities within the party is a good thing, but until they become unremarkable, until their race or gender clearly isn't a major factor in picking them to speak at conventions, the GOP still has a lot of work to do. That's not the speakers' fault-- it's the party's.</span></span></span>Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-42658469431294519102012-08-16T06:00:00.000-07:002012-08-16T06:00:10.653-07:00Standing Up or Standing Out?I've written about experimenting with wearing religious headgear <a href="http://toocoolforshul.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-experiences-some-conversations-and.html">previously</a>, as well as some of the <a href="http://friaryid.blogspot.com/2012/08/kippah-updates.html">issues</a> its raised with my family. I (mostly) understand where they're coming from, but I think they still don't really have a sense of what I'm thinking. They don't understand why I want to "single myself out," "make myself a target," or be so visibly identified as Jewish if I'm "not religious."<br />
<br />
While reading through some op-eds over the past week written by Sikhs in response to the shootings in Wisconsin and their thoughts about wearing visible markers of their identity I saw many of my own thoughts reflected in their words. As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/this-turban-stays-on/2012/08/12/9031e16c-e49b-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_blog.html?wprss=rss_on-faith&tid=pp_widget">Rajdeep Singh</a> put it, "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">devout Sikhs express their religious commitment by wearing a turban, which signifies nobility and a willingness to promote justice and freedom for all peoples,</span>" adding that the turban is a "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">declaration of Sikh identity</span>." In short, the act of wearing identifiable clothing establishes a commitment to identify with-- and live up to the ideals of-- one's religious/cultural group.<br />
<br />
In another article I was reading, this one about <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/kosher-atheists-obama-advisor-emanuel-breaks-with-his-faith-but-still-abides-by-its-rules/2012/08/09/618b49b2-e23d-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story_1.html">kashrut</a>, identity reared its head again:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">Keeping kosher is “a way of <b>asserting that you are a conscious Jew</b>,” explains Rabbi James Ponet, chaplain at Yale University and a family friend, “when you join friends out for dinner but decline the lobster, shrimp, oysters and all the meat entrees [or] when you ask the waiter if the tomato soup” is made from vegetarian stock.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">Echoing Achad Haam’s pithy observation about Shabbat observance, one might hold that more than the Jews have kept kosher, kosher eating has kept the Jews. A Jewish atheist’s children might grow up with a learned distaste for pork and thereby call themselves Jewish.</span></blockquote>
<br />
For me, the twist here is not that one would specifically want to cultivate a dislike for pork in children (much less the pseudo-scientific <a href="http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/magazine/teens-twenties/kashrut/2012/08/03/0/">silliness</a> claiming that one absorbs the "nature" of animals one eats-- who wants to be like a cow or a chicken?) as much as impart a deep respect for traditions and culture of one's ancestors. It's not that non-kosher food is bad, it's that this is part of our heritage and one way of connecting to it and others in our communities.<br />
<br />
For me, that shift in perspective is key: it's not about being observant or religious, per se, at least not in my father's way of thinking. It's about being conscious, serious, and engaged. It's about finding more ways to connect yourself (on your terms), not less. To me, the visibility and accountability-- to oneself as well as others-- are part of that process, whether I meet certain people's litmus tests or not. If there was a particular visual identifier that read, "Jewish but not Orthodox," I'd be all over that. But so far it <a href="http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/09/08_kerre_karlen/images/shanda_large.jpg">doesn't seem</a> like that's really a choice. By taking on the visual aspect, the tradition's "vote" becomes a little stronger, a little less easy to just shrug off. That's not to say that I think that wearing a kippah would make me Orthodox, but I think you have to grapple with the tradition a little more once you're no longer invisible-- to a degree, you lose your deniability, let's say. That's part of what intrigues me about wearing a kippah and being identifiable to myself as well as others, and I think that's also part about what drives my parents crazy-- the idea that I would want to be thinking of myself, and having others think of me, in those terms, nearly all of the time.<br />
<br />
Today's society seems to be somewhat schizophrenic when it comes to identity and differences. On the one hand difference and diversity are understood to be valuable and worthy of respect, but at the same time there are great pressures to conform and homogenize with one's peers. Visibly identifying oneself with one's culture can be kind of scary, as in some ways it's a limiting act-- I am not "just" like everyone else, because I am identifying with this group, as opposed to all of you, who don't. It's not bad, but it can definitely be an act of setting oneself apart-- of standing out, of isolation. I think that's part of my parents' fear, that I will be somehow limiting myself or restricting myself by identifying myself as Jewish in so public a way-- and also, potentially, setting myself up to be viewed either negatively or exclusively as "Jewish."<br />
<br />
But I have to say, I don't think that's all that likely. The people I live and work with are supposed to be exemplars of tolerance, and if the mere act of visibly identifying with my heritage and identity winds up stirring up latent antisemitism, I'd rather have that be out in the open than not. It seems incredibly backwards to use the specter of possible abuse or discrimination as a rationale to avoid identifying with your culture, and again, I don't know whether to place the majority of this hostility on my father's personal baggage or his generational experience of not going against the grain (even as he claims to be oh-so-counter-cultural).<br />
<br />
I don't see why the onus should be on Jews or Sikhs or anyone else to hide who they are, "or else." Amazingly, when I speak about this with my father, the burden always gets placed on me as if I'm inviting trouble by merely putting a kippah on-- "Why would you want to do that to yourself?" he always asks, as if my goal is to be mistreated, as if a kippah is a legitimate stand-in for a kick-me sign. He's also said, "You don't need to rub people's face in it!" To me, the subtext to all this is, "Do you need to be so damn JEWISH?", as I'm proposing dressing up like a Hasid. (To be fair, I did do that for Halloween one year as a kid-- the costume was recycled from my Amish costume the year before. I know, I like beards.)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure he'll ever understand that for me, this growth process is somewhat akin to coming out-- it's part of wanting to be comfortable in my own skin and finding my own way of expressing myself and who I am. And I think there's something very wrong when your basic message to people, be they kids or adults, is, "Why can't you be yourself like everyone else?"Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23499413.post-11401305399451415892012-08-15T06:00:00.000-07:002012-08-15T06:00:10.739-07:00Frustration does not equal ConversionI like to consider myself pretty open-minded. By which I mean that though I have some deeply held opinions when it comes to things like religion or politics, I try to be open to other points of view, if only to understand where folks are coming from (this could be related to why I spend so much time reading Orthodox blogs or why most presents I buy for my wife are memoirs of people growing up in eclectic religious groups).<br />
<br />
So it's been interesting during this electoral cycle to hear the Republican party and its mouthpieces going on about how many of their elusive voter demographics they're supposedly going to bag this time.<br />
<br />
I won't lie, as a liberal late 20-something I have plenty of reasons to not be very happy with Obama-- there are social, military and foreign policy areas where he's made promises he hasn't kept, the economy still isn't very good, and perhaps most galling to the youth vote, has proven himself to be just as corruptible by the game of politics as anyone else.<br />
<br />
So yes, young people, especially those still politically engaged, are definitely annoyed, which is where folks like JustNew Productions come in. The company, run by two quasi-recent college graduates, has gotten a lot of attention for a Gotye parody <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnAp3YxCCw">video</a> focusing on the various ways Obama has disappointed them.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJnAp3YxCCw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
I watched the video and couldn't fault them for their opinions, in fact I share a lot of them. However what's curious about cases like the "Obama that I used to Know" video is how fundamentally Republicans seem to be <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1779253012001/political-parody-obama-that-i-used-to-know-goes-viral">misreading</a> it.<br />
<br />
In this clip, a Fox News lady tries to present the filmmakers not only as deeply dissatisfied but also a symptom of how youth voters are so fed up with Obama they're potentially ready to go run to join the Republicans. However if you look at the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187112/Barack-Obama-Obama-I-used-know-Disillusioned-college-grads-make-political-parody-video.html">lyrics</a> of their song (or watch the interview, where they seem bemused by the tone of the questions and framing by the news anchor), their big problem seems to be not only that Obama isn't doing enough to help them economically, but also that he hasn't lived up to the image he presented to young, mostly liberal voters. These kids are annoyed with Obama's hypocrisy about not closing Guantanamo and discomfited by the fact that he is simultaneously a Nobel Peace Prize winner and has been using predator drones for assassinations. They want to relax drug laws and enforcement, and seem to not be fans of Sarah Palin. They're mad about a lack of results in the economy, but also that Obama hasn't lived up to the foreign and domestic policy he promised them. That's a far cry from wanting to go over to the Republican party-- they don't want to elect Romney, they want Obama of 2012 to start acting like the Obama of 2008! The Republicans can't-- or won't-- comprehend that these kids, and many more like them, aren't disaffected moderates whose votes are "in play," they're pissed off liberals who want Democrats to start living up to the values they keep campaigning on.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, by misreading people like the filmmakers, the Republicans are demonstrating that they don't seem to understand what makes people become Democrats. No matter how much the Republican party tries to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/politics/young-republicans-erase-lines-on-social-issues.html?_r=2&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB">rebrand itself</a>, no matter how many open-minded college students claim that they don't care about social issues anymore and they want a big tent, when the rubber hits the road, the present-day GOP still has a social platform, and on many issues, it is in stark contrast to many young people's positions. Reporters have described Romney's pick of Ryan as "<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-vp-ryan-20120812,0,6300776.story">reframing</a>" the election along ideological lines; the reality is that for people paying attention, it has always been about ideological lines-- specifically, red lines. No matter how much people may dislike behavior by members or leaders of their party, absent better choices, they will probably stick with them rather than vote for a person-- or a party-- who they disagree with even more. That's just human nature.<br />
<br />
While young people may have economic opinions (and certainly are affected by economic policy, as they're discovering), my impression is that economic issues alone don't drive many people's votes-- young or old. It's the constellation of other issues, foreign, domestic, and social, that people have more emotional and visceral investment in. Unless the GOP becomes a radically different party within my lifetime, I am fairly confident that I will <i>never</i> vote for a Republican candidate-- because even if I agreed with them on certain issues, the social values of their party are so fundamentally opposed to my own that it would be a betrayal of my other principles to do so.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, this same phenomenon can be applied to the Jewish vote. Republicans (especially Republican Jews) don't like to hear it, but long as a majority of American Jews still believe in liberal politics, especially on social issues, there's no way the Republicans will get the Jewish vote. That <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/12/beginning-of-the-end-for-liberal-Jewry-Jewish-population-greater-new-york-intermarriage/">may change</a> over time as shifting demographics alter the political landscape, but until most Jews are right-wing Orthodox, it's <a href="http://prospect.org/article/chill-jews-arent-voting-republican">not going to happen</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whether you attribute it to <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/a-letter-to-young-voters/">naiveté</a>, personality, life experience, or something else, if people believe in liberal values, the fact that liberals aren't living up to their names isn't going to make them vote Republican. It may disappoint them enough that they stop voting entirely (which I suppose is a net win for the other side), but more likely they will hold their nose and cast their vote for what, in their mind, is the lesser of two evils-- like everyone else has been doing for a long time.<br />
<br />
Pundits can argue and campaigns can spin all they want; if Republicans think frustrated liberals (not moderates) are going to come out and vote for Romney, they're the ones who are naive.Friar Yid (not Shlita)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10311439778319103094noreply@blogger.com11