A Tzimmes in a Teapot

As a general rule, Jesus is not a particularly well-understood figure in Judaism. Since the topic dovetailed with my undergrad thesis, I spent lots of time examining Jewish attitudes towards Jesus in college-- ranging from the medieval polemic Toldot Yeshu, to philosophers like Profiat Duran, Jacob Emden and Moses Mendelssohn. I also looked at Enlightenment and Reform thinkers like Graetz, Geiger, Kohler, and the rabbis Wise (I.M. and Steven), as well as Yiddish modernists like Melech Ravitch, Itzig Manger, Peretz Markish, Abraham Sutzkever, Lamed Shapiro, Zalman Schneour, H. Leivick, Sholem Asch, and even Uri-Zvi Greenberg, all of whom incorporated depictions of Jesus into their writing at various points.

So when I hear that Shmuley Boteach has a book coming out about how Jews should relate to Jesus, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical already.

It's not that the topic should be off-limits. It's that Shmuley is neither a scholar, nor a historian, nor, indeed, even a philosopher. He is a salesman, a popularizer. These things can be fine, but when the "products" you decide to sell are people's deeply-held beliefs, it can lead to a volatile mix-- just ask Sholem Asch, who got tossed out of the Yiddish canon for his series of Christian novels. This is also not helped by the fact that Shmuley is one of the Jewish world's most self-aggrandizing and least humble personalities (also like Asch!), a man who never met a media outlet he didn't like, and who can't write an op-ed without either name-dropping a celebrity friend he hangs out with or trying to sell his new book, TV show, or half-eaten sandwich.

Simply put, Shmuley is not the right person to try to market Jesus' Jewishness. And all the more so since he apparently knows very little about the field he is purporting to comment on. As fellow Judeoblogger Izgad points out, there has been a ton of scholarship on "the historical Jesus" over the past 100-plus years, from both Jews and Christians. And unless new material is discovered, at this point it's frankly rather hard to draw any new conclusions about Jesus' identity or ideology without just making stuff up. The Gospel accounts are often vague or contradictory, and their value as reliable evidence is already questionable. Shmuley mines Haym Macoby at length and casts Jesus as a patriotic Pharisee, but it's not the only conclusion one can draw. One early Reform intellectual, I.M. Jost, saw Jesus as a brilliant man trapped by Pharisee culture, which he secretly despised. Heinrich Graetz, by contrast, thought Jesus was an Essene operating on the fringes of rabbinic Judaism. (Most Reform thinkers followed Abraham Geiger's idea that Jesus was a principled Pharisee fighting Sadducee literalism and corruption, a theme echoed by Asch in his novels.)

Frankly, the Gospels are just not all that clear. You can read Jesus any way you want to and find textual evidence for it-- that's part of the reason why there are so many Christian denominations in the world. One quick example is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In it, he says that he has not come to abolish the law-- and this claim is backed up within the sermon, as he procedes to create various fences around the Torah, just like the Pharisees did. On the topics of murder, adultery, oaths, and divorce, his pronouncements are far stricter than the Biblical prohibitions or rabbinic interpretations of the day. But at the same time, some of his reformulations of other themes are either more liberal than standard Pharisee teachings (kashrut being one good example), or so radically reformulated that they can't really be compared (loving your enemy and an eye for an eye come to mind). And elsewhere in the Gospels, we see Jesus doing various things that are clearly at odds with Jewish law, such as violating the Sabbath to pick food. He doesn't really justify himself there or clarify why he's doing it, he just does it.

When you look at his actions, the conclusion seems to be that when it comes to Jewish law, Jesus is (by Pharisee standards) inconsistent. Some things are very important, and some things aren't important at all. Does that make him beyond the pale of Judaism for his time period? I'm not knowledgable enough about second Temple-era Judaism to comment, but I sure do wish that when talking about the "historical Jesus" more people would take the time to read what the Gospels say he did and said, as well as get historical context about the mileu he lived in, so they can understand what was and wasn't controversial about what he was doing, instead of reading him through historical prisms from 2000 years later.

And this leads us back to Shmuley. At the end of the day, though I would prefer Shmuley stop writing books altogether, and certainly about topics as dicey as these, I find it absolutely laughable that segments of the Orthodox community sees Kosher Jesus as such a threat that they are banning people from reading it or wringing their hands that now evangelicals will think they've got a rabbi on their side. Evangelicals have been pushing Jesus on us long before Shmuley and if they're expecting an uptick in saved souls thanks to this book, I think they'll be disappointed. Besides, Shmuley lives for publicity and it's a particularly bad move to give him any excuse to claim his new "groundbreaking" book is making him the target of persecution. If you're going to talk about his book, talk about why it's either bad scholarship or extremely obvious marketing pandering.

At the end of the day, the Jewish community have to figure out what it is they don't like about Shmuley and his book. If it's that it's a crappy book, and that there are much better-- and substantive-- things to say about the topic, that's one thing. If it's that they're personally not interested in it, that's fine too. But if part of the backlash to this is that they're worried people are going to convert over it, I would say calm down and give your fellow Jews some credit. Even if that was his goal (and it's clearly not), Shmuley simply isn't that good a writer.

P.S.

If people are interested in getting a more scholarly Jewish view of Jesus, or of actually "building bridges" between Jews and Christians like Shmuley says he is, one good resource to check out might be this book. I haven't read it yet, but I'm intrigued. God knows it's got to be better than Kosher Jesus.

Caution: Blowhards at work

I present a befuddlement in three acts:

Act One- A "post" from Shmuley Boteach's blog pops up in my news feed. I use the term loosely, because rather than his usual lazy pattern of just reposting his op-ed columns, this time Shmuley opted to plug a book signing at a Barnes and Noble where he will be whoring his latest book and reminding everyone how great he is (in three weeks, no less, just in case you wanted to put it on your calendar). I notice that in said book signing plug Shmuley chose to call himself "America's Rabbi."

Act Two- I rage at Mrs. Yid for a good minute about what kind of arrogant doofus has the chutzpah to call himself "America's Rabbi"-- because like Highlander, there can be only one-- and that someone should really find some way to legally prohibit him from doing this anymore.

Act Three- I get a tingling sensation in the "idiocy storage" center of my brain. I wonder where I've heard such an egocentric, grandiose title used before. I do a little poking around my bookmarks and find this guy-- John Hagee's pet Jew, Aryeh Spero, who calls himself, what else, "America's Rabbi."

Epilogue: I cross my fingers that Shmuley and Spero hear about each other and decide to solve their copyright dispute in one of two ways: A, a giant lawsuit that exposes both to be giant gasbags to the public and financially compromises them so they can't spend as much of their resources being bozos, or B, they challenge each other to a charity Krav Maga match (or for those purists of you out there, Abir).

Hey, I wonder if one of them can pass for Sephardic. Then we could follow Israel's example and have two Chief American Rabbis. To the victor goes the silly turban!

Jews and Evangelicals: Head vs. Heart

The other day I discussed Ben Shapiro's column about Rick Perry's "The Response." In that column, Shapiro claimed that, among other things, "public displays of faith strengthen the unity of our nation."

Only problem is, when your religious display has fundamentalist preachers with exclusivist views of salvation, it kind of brings the unity down.

For instance, John Hagee, who gave a prayer at Perry's rally. Yeah, that guy. The guy that was so nutty John McCain was forced to disavow him (after toadying up to him) during the last election. Swell.

It's interesting to follow some of the threads here. Hagee runs Christians United For Israel, an organization that many Jews are a tad wary of. Of course, some think CUFI is just great, like the self-proclaimed "America's sellout rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, who liked the CUFI dinner he went to in July so much he sang its praises in his op-ed column.

The Christians United for Israel dinner in Washington, DC was an experience I won’t quickly forget. Until you sit in a room with five thousand Christian lovers of Israel and absorb their enthusiasm for the Jewish state and the Jewish people you would be hard pressed to think it possible. But there I was, surrounded by Christians from all over the nation waving Israeli and American flags, pledging eternal love and support to the most vilified country on earth. The speeches came fast and furious. The statements bold and unapologetic. Israel must never trade land for peace. Every attempt to do so has led to terror bases for Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel is one of the freest and most democratic nations on earth. President Obama better stop pressuring Israel or pay for it at the polls. Iran is an existential threat to both Israel and the United States. Those who treat the Jews poorly are abandoned by G-d, as history has shown time and again. The American University campus has become a hub of anti-Israel hatred. We’re deploying our legions to fight it.
Sheesh. I could scarcely sit down. Nearly every line deserved an ovation.

What? I can see how statements of support are good, but these are specific policy positions being phrased as moral absolutes. "Israel must never trade land for peace?" If Israelis get pissy about Diaspora Jews dictating terms to them, why would a bunch of US Evangelicals be any better? And "deploying our legions to fight it?" Wow, nothing like some fun holy war imagery to warm the cockles of the heart.

Lest you think it was just Hagee's people at this thing, Shmuley sets the record straight:

The crowd was anything but monolithic. The head of CUFI’s campus operations is a young African-American student who pledged his life to fighting for Israel. Shades of all colors were to be found in the audience with a smattering of yarmulkes dotting the landscape as well. Glenn Beck, the keynote speaker, is a Mormon even though the vast majority of participants were evangelical Christians who are often suspicious of Mormonism. An orthodox Rabbi gave the opening benediction. My friend Dennis Prager addressed the crowd the night before the banquet, and my friend Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, gave a moving historical account of Christians over the last century who were moved to support Israel based on Biblical teaching. 

That's right, people. Count it, that's four whole Jews including Shmuley including a "smattering" of yarmulkes! Bam. Diversity, baby. Right there. (Ok, to be fair it seems like there were some others, too. Not sure why Shmuley didn't mention them. Maybe they weren't famous enough?)

Incidentally... if broad support is good for Israel, wouldn't it be really, really great to try to have a wider swath of Christians (both denomination and political orientation-wise) be included in CUFI? I mean, it's cool that they had evangelicals AND a Mormon, but given that evangelicals are only 26% of the population, it might be good to try to encourage the CUFI folks to have a big tent. As opposed to, you know, consigning everyone else to hell. Just a thought.

And here we get into some of the weirdness:

 “I am an Israeli,” declared CUFI founder Pastor John Hagee, swearing to forever defend Israel against attack at the risk of life and limb.

Right, except you're actually not. Just like Glenn Beck isn't a Jew. No, really, apparently this needs to be clarified:

But what brought the crowd to its feet for a lengthy standing ovation, which included the waving of the Israeli and American flags and the blowing of the shofar, was Beck’s pledge to stand by Israel at any cost. “Today I declare: Count me a Jew, and come for me first,” he told the cheering crowd. “Let us declare: I am a Jew.”

Now, Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg points out that this is meant to be an act of solidarity against Jew-haters, in the same vein as the (apocryphal) King-of-Denmark-wearing-a-yellow-star-story. Fair enough. But again, I personally find that there's something a little disconcerting about such a passionate embrace of Jews and Israel by evangelicals-- to the point of claiming those identities and labels for themselves even when they aren't true. Maybe it's a style thing, maybe it's an intellectual thing, but it rubs me the wrong way. It feels over the top. It feels disconnected from reality. Which, given that issues of fantasy vs. reality, the true meaning of words, and of course, who are the "real Jews" are all big issues dividing Jews and conservative Christians already, is maybe not the smartest rhetorical style to employ.

In fact, this may be the key to understanding some of the fundamental differences between Jews (certainly liberal Jews) and their would-be conservative Christian allies. In a sense, Jews are the intellectual Yeshivish to the Christians' more folksy, heartfelt Hasidim. Head vs. Heart. (While the "liberals think they're smarter than everyone else" trope is a longstanding cultural jibe, anyone who has spent time with or studied populist religious movements such as Hasidim or evangelicalism knows that these groups have plenty of elitism in their own way.)

The reality is, most Jews, certainly in America, tend to connect with their religion on a level that is more intellectual than mystical. Ditto for personal identity, relations with Israel, etc. Mystical and spiritual levels may exist as well, but for the majority, these are intellectual matters, approached in a serious manner. Hearing about Christians dancing the hora, blowing shofars, talking about defending Jews from a future Holocaust and proclaiming themselves Jews and Israelis by virtue of the fact that they think we're cool-- this does not come across as serious, but as pageantry. And to the degree it is taken seriously by the participants, it's actually kind of distressing as it shows how far the gap between the two cultures is.

As I've said previously, I don't think Christians supporting Israel is bad. Certainly it's preferable to hatred or animus. But the kind of support CUFI seems to want to offer, the kind of relationship they are cultivating, which views everything within a specific political and religious lens, is somewhat alarming. Because Israel does not seem to be appreciated or related to on its terms, but CUFI's. Granted, this is something many American Jews may also be guilty of, but, not to seem self-centered, I feel that as Jews, our investment in what happens there, at least on the level of collective Jewish engagement, is somewhat higher than your average American Christian. At the end of the day, I don't think CUFI cares about-- or understands--  the modern, secular-ish, Green Line part of Israel. When people like Glenn Beck or John Hagee say they love Jews and Israel, exactly who are they talking about? All the attention seems to go towards the quasi-Messianic vision articulated by Likud and other parties to its right. I would feel much more comfortable with CUFI if its policy was to support Israel, period, not agitate for specific political policies that they think its government should stick to.

Shmuley writes about Beck's speech specifically addressing the often-repeated concern that Christian support of Israel is primarily focused around End-times theology:

“It’s not only the support we offer Israel,” said Beck, “that matters. The reason for doing so is also important. We can’t do this because we think it will bring final salvation or for any other reason. Rather, it’s about love. Why did Ruth declare to Naomi, “Where you go I’ll go. You’re G-d is my G-d. Where you die I’ll die, and there I’ll be buried. Because she loved her. This has to be about love.” His words directly addressed the discomfort some Jews feel with Christian support for Israel as being based on end-of-days prophecy and a necessary precursor for the return of Christ.

There is nothing wrong with love, but this is love coming from strangers. Before you say you're Israeli or you're a Jew, show us you understand what that means. Do you even know the people you claim to love/identify with? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of CUFI's supporters and participants are really fans of Jews who fit into their cultural reference-point: religious and politically conservative. This poses something of an issue, as most of the world's Jews are not Orthodox (at best, the Orthodox are a third, at worst, a seventh), and the vast majority are politically liberal. Given how fond evangelicals seem to be of using holy war language, I have to say, it's a little tricky to square away how they can dislike us so much when discussing anything else, but we're supposed to take their word for it that they actually really, really like us because we happen to be Members of the Tribe. Again, it comes off as either disingenuous or verging on psychotic.

I guess what I'm saying is, show us you guys aren't nuts. Sorry if that sounds mean, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that when first meeting someone I'd much rather start with a hello and a handshake than getting a bearhug and being told that we're long-lost twins.

P.S.

In keeping with his long tradition of using his op-ed columns to pimp himself out, Shmuley has a new book coming out. This one's about Jesus, and in keeping with his long tradition of having zero creativity, he's calling it Kosher Jesus.

The book seeks to offer to Jews and Christians the real story of Jesus, a wholly observant, Pharisaic Rabbi who fought Roman paganism and oppression and was killed for it. While many Christians will be confused by its assertion that Jesus never claimed divinity and not only did not abrogate the Torah but observed every letter of the Law, they will find comfort in my tracing most of Jesus’ principal teachings back to Jewish sources, this before he was stripped of his Jewishness by later writers who sought to portray him as an enemy of his people.
...But the book is also for Jews who remain deeply uncomfortable with Jesus because of the Church’s long history of anti-Semitism, the deification of Jesus, and the Jewish rejection of any Messiah who has not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies... But as Christians and Jews now come together to love and support the majestic and humane Jewish state, it’s time that Christians rediscover the deep Jewishness and religious Jewish commitment of Jesus, while Jews reexamine a lost son who was murdered by a brutal Roman state who sought to impose Roman culture and rule upon a tiny yet stubborn nation who will never be severed from their eternal covenant with the G-d of Israel.

As always, I'm totally unclear who Shmuley thinks his audience is. Lord knows it's sure not anyone in my house.

Hat-tips: Dovbear and JewishIsrael.

Choosing Authenticity over Honesty

Lots of people care about being authentic. In a cultural or religious context, some people are positively obsessive about it. In Jewish circles, this can manifest in different ways-- be it the Reform struggle over what a Reform prayer service "should" look like, or the Orthodox infighting in Israel over whose conversions are (or aren't) acceptable. Throwing his hat into the ring this week is eminent leap-before-he-looks master Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I admit before going into this that I have a strong anti-Shmuley bias, not because he's always wrong but because he's always so damn full of himself. That said, let's hear Shmuley educate us about "Living Judaism in the West Bank."

To start, Shmuley wants you to know he objects to the word settlers.

The first thing you discover about the residents of Hebron, whom the world derisively describes as settlers - as if Jews living in their own ancient capitol are newcomers - is their warmth, friendliness, and hospitality. 

This, of course, is pure politics. The fact that Hebron is an ancient Jewish site has zero ramifications on its Jewish occupants' legal status, which is at issue. Neither, incidentally, does the fact that they were friendly and said hi.

All around us children were playing, utterly carefree, on pristine playgrounds. So many Jews in Hebron have been killed in terror attacks over the years. Yet the residents in general, and the children in particular, live unafraid. They are also liberated from hatred.

Ah yes, that must be why we never hear about any conflict in Hebron. Nope, not ever.

When their friends die - as did the four two weeks ago - they mourn them, bury them, commemorate them, and get on with their lives. There are no calls for revenge attacks, there are no mass demonstrations braying for Arab blood. Their response, rather, is to demonstrate, in the most peaceful manner, that they are there to stay.

Except when they machine-gun a college, attach bombs to buses, attack foreign volunteers, NGOs and diplomats visiting Palestinians, break into people's houses and beat them to a pulp, desecrate Muslim graves, or just go rioting in the streets. You know, little things like that. Honestly, Shmuley, do you just not do basic research, or do you not expect us to bother with Google? Look, either you're stupid, gullible, or just a terrible liar. Those are your choices, decide now.

Shmuley goes over the tragic history of Hebron (no argument here), and points out that the Muslim residents are not exactly friendly to their Jewish neighbors. Fair enough. However, the argument that the settlers' biggest problem is that the media hates them-- as opposed to the decades of ongoing, double-sided violence which anyone can look up and verify for themselves-- is nothing but blatant partisanship.

There are no fluctuations in the commitment to pray by the graves of those who gave the world monotheism.

Yet these residents have been demonized by the entire world. They face daily character-assassination in the media by those who would decry their simple desire to walk in the footsteps of Abraham. 

Oh please. Sorry Shmuley, the settlers aren't saints. They're real people, making real choices, and some of them, frankly, are bad ones. They're armed, hostile, and antagonistic. I'm not saying I wouldn't be some of those things if I was in their shoes (though, personally, I would never put my family through such a situation), but let's at least call an automatic-rifle-wielding spade a spade.

Abraham, at whose tomb I prayed with my children tonight, is the father of all peoples, Jew and Arab alike. The Arabs are my brothers, equal children of G-d in every respect. And Arabs and Jews must learn to live peacefully together in the land. 

Quite right, which is part of what makes the Hebron situation so upsetting and painful. On an ideological level, I agree with Shmuley that well-meaning Jews and Muslims should, in principle, have the right to live where they want as part of the two-state solution. However, let's also think about what this entails: In any final status agreement, Hebron will be part of a Palestinian state. If the settlers' real attachment to Hebron is its religious significance, and not as part of a political stance or ideology, this would mean committing to becoming Jewish citizens of a Palestinian state. I have yet to see or read any evidence that indicates any members of the Hebron community think this way. They are not interested in being part of a two-state solution, certainly not in Hebron. Part of the settlers' raison d'etre in Hebron (or at least a very satisfying side-effect) is the smug knowledge that their presence acts as a permanent spoiler to Palestinian sovereignty in the city. Any appeal to "tolerance" is mere cynical sophistry. To have Shmuley parrot these recycled arguments as if he's discovered some new truth is both boring and pathetic.

It is not the spiritual-seeking settlers who threaten the peace, but rather the murderous groups of Hezbollah and Hamas, who wish to make all of Israel judenrein.

Again, you're either being disingenuous or incredibly naive, take your pick.

Could it really be that a community who simply wish to live aside the earthly remains of Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, are obstacles to peace?

As long as they see themselves as human Israeli "outposts" whose job is to preclude a Palestinian state, yes. By definition.

But don't take my word for it. The next time you're in Israel, come and immerse yourself in the city chosen by Abraham as the eternal resting place for a wife he so loved to forever rest in peace.

And there you have it: anyone who opposes the Hebron community does so because they hate that Jews, especially religious Jews, are living in a place that has historical and religious significance to Judaism. It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the settlers' own questionable behavior or troublesome ideology, it's all anti-semitic, anti-Israeli, and anti-Orthodox bias. To Shmuley, the mere fact that the settlers are living in Hebron (and, of course, that they were nice to him) already seems to elevate them. They aren't hardliners, they're spiritual. They aren't intractable, they're committed to "walking in the footsteps of Abraham." The way Shmuley tells it, the Hebronites are hippies on a commune, as opposed to hardcore radicals whose beliefs, actions, and choices continue to cause massive problems for their neighbors and fellow citizens. In short, Shmuley sees the settlers as good, authentic Jews, living where Jews "should" live. Everything else, even terrorism against their neighbors, is secondary (i.e., doesn't exist).

Take my advice, Shmuley: drink less Kool-aid. Even if it's kosher.

Battle of the Court Jews

I know, it's not nice to call people Court Jews. Or Uncle Jakes. Or suck-ups, or pansies, or whatever. And, to be fair, Shmuley Boteach isn't always a Republican/Christian tool. He's just generally weird.

Anyway, it's interesting to compare Shmuley's reaction to Ann Coulter's bit of theological opining with Dennis Prager's and Yaakov Menken's. And fun to see who can be more simplistic and self-righteous. Let the games begin!

We start things off with one of the lesser-predictable CJs, Shmuley. Though actually, in cases of perceived antisemitism, Shmuley has a pretty well-established track record- he usually gets very mad, very loud, and more than a tad off-track. Not that it's a bad thing to get mad, just that he often goes on to say things that make the situation worse (see his famous "Jews aren't the problem in Hollywood, SECULAR Jews are the problem" riposte to Bill Donohue). Thanks for representing the tribe, Shmoo.

Shmuley, understandably, is a tad pissed by Ann's dopey comments. Unfortunately, his response does not involve calling her a media-whoring jackass, which she is, or identifying that, as her defenders are saying, this is a fairly incontrovertible position among traditionalist Protestants, and thereby use it as an opportunity to discuss some of the stickier issues in the Protestant-Jewish alliance. No, Shmuley always has to go for the one-up-manship. He does this by trying to demonstrate that he is more knowledgeable about Christianity than the Coulters of the world- specifically, that Jesus was a Jew, and exclusively practiced and preached Judaism.

Jesus derived all his principal teachings from Judaism. His aphorisms are restatements of earlier biblical verses, and his allegories are mostly teachings of the rabbis that are found in the Talmud.

Pretty much, but this isn't the same as:

Judasim was the faith practiced by Jesus for his entire life, and from which he never wavered.

This discounts all the areas of the Gospels where Jesus and his disciples deliberately break the law. I wrote about this subject a number of times in college, and basically concluded that the problem is a lack of clarity from Jesus on how he defines the law. Shmuley quotes extensively from the Sermon on the Mount to demonstrate how Jesus cribs it from rabbinic sources, but clearly doesn't understand how it functions rhetorically. The Sermon is significant because it defines the contours of Jesus' teachings as going even farther and stricter than the rabbis. Now, this does not preclude Jesus from still upholding the law, in fact it strengthens many of them- at least, the ones he mentions. But most of Jesus' supererogatory amendments are to ethical, not ritual, laws, and there's nothing, other than his ambiguous statement that "I have come to fulfill, not destroy" that tells the reader where he stands on ritual law. By contrast, the Gospels record quite a few occasions where Jesus and his followers violate associated purity and Shabbat laws, with nary a cross word from the big guy.

Shmuley goes so far as to bring out the big gun, the best example of Jesus breaking Shabbat, the cornfield incident. Shmuley tries to maintain that this still demonstrates Jesus' Jewishness because he uses a Jewish argument to justify himself.

In trying to prove Jesus' break from the rabbis and tradition, the New Testament relates that Jesus allowed his apostles to desecrate the Sabbath. But in justifying the desecration, Jesus famously says: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This pronouncement is actually a classic rabbinic statement.

Jesus' disciples were in a field and they picked corn, which indeed violates biblical law. And while the New Testament does not give us the story's background, the nature of Jesus' answer to the critical "Pharisees" seems to supply us with a clue.

He refers to an incident in the book of Kings where David is fleeing his enemy with a few loyal men. Their lives are in danger and they have no food. David allows his men to eat the showbread in the Temple in order to save their lives, even though they were not priests and were thus not permitted to eat the showbread. What Jesus is thereby inferring is that he has allowed his students to break the Sabbath and pick corn because their lives are in danger and they are in desperate need of food.

The Talmud says, 'The Sabbath was handed over to you, and you were not handed over to the Sabbath.' This maxim, directly echoing Jesus' words, is found throughout the Babylonian Talmud, for example in Yoma 85b. The Talmud takes it for granted that human life must be saved at all costs, and the question of keeping the Sabbath when life is endangered is quickly brushed aside.

All of this is technically true, but Shmuley himself is brushing aside the larger question of what this example means. At best, Jesus is playing rabbinic pilpul. At worst, he's acting like a Jewish Rasputin or Jacob Frank, claiming to be fulfilling the law by violating it. Suggesting that this definitely proves his position on Jewish law one way or the other seems quite a stretch.

What I find so annoying about all this isn't just Shmuley's lazy scholarship, but the fact that he's side-stepping the issue. If what Coulter said was offensive, then he should talk about that on its merits, not waste his time trying to show that she's a poorly-educated Christian because she doesn't know how Jewish Jesus was. It makes no different if he was an Orthodox Jew or a Hare Krishna, that isn't the point. The answer to assholery is to identify it as such and explain why, not cry that Christians should be nice to Jews because they kind of are Jews, kind of. We don't need to prove Jesus' Jewishness to justify ourselves to Christians, and the implication that we do is a very old world, shtetl-ish, "please, benevolent Christian lord, save us from the mob" kind of thinking that I for one find rather unattractive.

Now that we've dipped our toes in with Shmuley, it's time to really go for a dunk in the Minstrel Mikvah. Yaakov Menken, you're up!

What happened was that Donny Deutsch, a Jewish talk-show host, asked her what her dream America would look like. And she said it would "look like New York during the Republican National Convention." Note, of course, that for her to want everyone to be Republican is not considered offensive. No one would dare condemn her for thinking her political ideology is correct. After all, Teddy Kennedy and MoveOn.org have the same flaw in a very different direction.

This is crap. See the longer Prager fisking below.

But Deutsch isn't satisfied with the answer. He says no, no, not just the politics, what's the country going to look like. And she says "Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter…" Hey, did you notice? Her model Democrat is a kike!

Hang on, Cross-Currents censors comments like Satmars burn billboards, but KIKE gets in? Nice quality control there, guys. That's super heimishe for the frum yiddishe bochers. And what a coincidence that her model Jew is perceived by many as a total stooge for the Republicans and their Judeo-Christian hegemony. Isn't that a little like Bill Donohue saying his favorite Jew is Cardinal Lustiger? Or Shabbetai Zvi?

Deutsch isn't done, so he keeps after her until she says "Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they…" and we'll never find out what else they are, because that's when Deutsch leaped down her throat.

Truly, the greatest tragedy for man's intellectual advancement since the day Moses smashed the tablets, or Dickens' wife burned the first draft of Tale of Two Cities. Maybe someone should write a piyyut about it for Yom Kippur Yizkor Service: Cossacks, Inquisition, Hitler, Ann Coulter getting interrupted! Gasp! ("Forgive us, pardon us," Thump, thump, thump.) Or it could go in the Al Cheit.

In reality, Coulter shows a pretty liberal Christian perspective. Deutsch says to her "So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?" Her answer: "Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not." Catch that? Her view is that a better America would be a more religious America.

Cop-out. She goes on to say that the ideal model is Christianity.

She also says, "We believe your religion, but you have to obey." Judaism isn't wrong according to her version of Christianity (as I said, she is pretty liberal).

Compared to who, the Klan? Most Christian denominations believe some version of this, even Catholics. They also have the good sense to shut up when it comes to "who's really right," knowing it doesn't go anywhere good.

Is this a surprise? In the words of Iago, the obviously, stereotypically Jewish-sounding parrot in Disney's Alladin—the Jewish character is the one with the mile-long shnozolla, and no one gets upset at that—"I think I'm just going to die from that surprise!" [Yeah, he's Jewish all right.]

A few things:

A- Yaakov watched a movie? Does his Rav know?

B- That movie doesn't promote Jewish values: it whitewashes Islam and the Arab world (no dhimmis), glamorizes a life of crime and homelessness, promotes witchcraft and sorcery, encourages materialism and deception, and of course, Princess Jasmine's outfit is definitely not tznius.

C- A Disney movie? Doesn't he know Walt was a huge antisemite? What's next, buying a Ford? Or maybe a Mercedes, God forbid?

D- The actor playing Iago, Gilbert Godfried, is a huge Jew, but the voice was not specially created for that character- he's like Fran Drescher; that's how he ALWAYS talks (more's the pity).

E- Parrots have large beaks. That's just the way their face looks. Are we going to claim Pinnochio is a MOT next? How about Flipper?

F- Not to state the obvious, but a parrot cannot be Jewish.

It's completely acceptable to think your politics are right and everyone else's is wrong, but to think your religion has it right is evil and backwards—even if she acknowledges that practicing Judaism would contribute just as well to making America a better place. Again, the true target here isn't Coulter, but religion, and the true intolerance here is coming not from Coulter, but from Deutsch.

Wrong again. Menken's answer to people supposedly out of context is to take Coulter out of context in order to suggest she's actually a semi-ecumenical religious liberal. Nobody's buying it. Look at the larger context of what she's saying and it seems fairly apparent she buys into a "Christianity-dominant" model of faith. Her right and prerogative, obviously, and not worth pillorying her, IMO. But to congratulate her for being a jackass and act as if she's actually pro-Judaism, as Menken seems to be trying to do, gives a whole new meaning to the term denial.

Last, and always least, my favorite whipping boy after Abir, Chuck Norris, Bill O'Reilly, and Rabbi Lazer, there's good ol' Dennis.

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association's Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

Ah yes, who could forget Dennis' magnum opus, "We aren't really sure why people hate Jews but since they do, don't forget to marry one."

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

Well, one could argue that Christian chauvanism is a form of antisemitism, which has been an accepted Jewish view for quite a while. Hence Jewish apprehension about things like Christian Dominionism, Dispensationalism, End-Times stuff, and of course the Christ-Killer myth.

And, not to contradict ol' Dennis, but while suggesting someone's entire belief system is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt isn't hate, per se, but is sure isn't a compliment. "Thank you Miss Ann, may we have another?" Besides, using Dennis' criteria, he has no business shitting on George Soros for being anti-Israel/Jewish, either.

What damage has she ever done to Jews?

Your answer to this probably depends on whether you think people like John Hagee, Pat Robertson or Tim LaHaye have ever done anything to Jews.

What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith?

Stupid question. There's nothing inherently wrong with most philosophical positions, in theory. However, in practice, there are a number of ways in which having a "Conquistador"-style view of religion (or politics, for that matter), can be, shall we say, less-than-fantastic.

First, it demonstrates the potential to have a huge degree of self-righteousness, blindness to all one's faults, etc. Second, it suggests the possibility of a limited, simplistic, or even strawman interpretation of other positions. Not even Prager would suggest that Coulter came to her conclusion regarding Christianity's superiority to Judaism only after a careful period of religious study of the two faiths.

Third, and perhaps most important, lies in the delivery and the audience. The lack of a martyrdom and persecution tradition in Hinduism probably means they don't react to conversion talk in the same way as, say, Hugenots.

Is there one liberal who doesn't believe that a conservative would be better -- "perfected," if you will -- by embracing liberal beliefs and values?

This reminds me of the time Dennis said that smearing someone's good name was equivalent to raping them. On behalf of all the liberals I've met, and I've met a lot, let me be the first to call Dennis Prager a giant moron. While many liberals (and conservatives, for that matter), may think their political opponents are wrong, I don't think I've heard anyone used the "perfected" line. But that's bullcrap hyperbole strawman rhetoric for you. I'd also point out that usually there's a substantial difference from talking about perfection or, say, damnation in political contexts versus spiritual or religious ones.

Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter's and most other Christians' primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

Actually, both are problematic because both are either-or scenarios. A better alternative is suggested by Judaism, with its scenario of a base consensus of agreed behavior and laws, which creates in effect a broad coalition of the righteous, all of whom will be rewarded. A sort of common-ground bipartisanship, if you will. An example might be Dems & Reps working together on Health Care, Natl Security, or reminding the Prez that he wasn't elected Pope of America. Forget turning everyone liberal. I neither need nor particularly want that to happen. I'm not on a crusade to turn Alabama into San Francisco. I'd settle for common sense and civil discussion back in politics and government. If we can't agree on abortion or gay marriage, let's at least try to fix public education or housing, or SOMETHING. I'd prefer negotiated and principled compromise to forced conversion. But maybe that's just me.

I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter's words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?

First, who actually said that? Are you sure it wasn't just the voices in your head? Second, how are you responding to Coulter?

There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or liberal boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an "apartheid" state in the very title of his anti-Israel book... But for many Jews and liberals, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the right, especially from Christians on the right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.

Prager's right that boycotting is a stupid move from the ADL. Blanket labelling of people as anti-semites is also a bad move. Much better would be a detailed analysis and explanation of why something or someone is antisemitic, or a debate. That goes for Carter, W&M, and Coulter. Hell, throw Ahmedinajad in there, too.

She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are "perfected." I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America.

Take your Jewy well-poisoning elsewhere, Dennis. The reason the comment is offensive is fairly obvious; if Jesus-accepters are perfected, where does that leave the rest of us? She doesn't say, but chances are it's somewhere below perfection. That's her perrogative, but it's hardly surprising that this might raise some people's hackles, particularly given her delivery.

As a practicing Jew, I do not agree with Ann Coulter's theology any more than those attacking her do. But I am neither offended by her nor frightened by her or her beliefs. She believes that Christianity is better than Judaism. So what? Why is that in any way different from liberals thinking that liberalism is truer and morally superior to conservatism? Or conservatives thinking that their values are superior to liberal values?

To a certain extent, it's not, not that this necessarily justifies it, as I said above. However the fact that it's about religion and identity rather than merely, "If Democrats had brains they'd be Republicans" makes it substantially more PERSONAL, particularly given the bad track record Jews have had with Christians thinking they were less than perfect due to their position on Jesus. It's an old wound, and apparently still pretty raw. It doesn't make her antisemitic, but it does suggest she either isn't that bright, or revels in being an asshole (or some combination thereof, which, based on past behavior, seems pretty likely).

Liberals not only believe that conservatives are philosophically imperfect, but they often believe that conservatives are bad human beings (something in no way implied by Coulter about Jews).

Now we get to jump off the deep end. Yes, Dennis, all liberals think conservatives are eeevil- totally unlike the firebrands on the right, especially the nutjob Protestants like Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, Reed, and so on. They just love liberals, right? Ask someone who calls abortion "a Holocaust" how they feel about liberals; I guarantee you you'll be in for a treat.

Howard Dean has said that conservatives don't care about children who go to bed hungry.

So you have a thick skin as a Jew, but not as a conservative? Conservatives say Hillary's the godamn anti-Christ!

Liberals yearn for a world without conservatives at least as much as most believing Christians want a world without non-Christians.

As usual, Dennis is now applying characteristics that may apply to a group of liberals to the whole, something just fine for him to do but which would cause him to scream bloody murder were anyone to do it to his beloved Christians or Conservatives. The only argument left is his cherished chestnut, "but wait, liberals also do STUFF!"

The difference is many liberals are immeasurably more likely to impose their views on others than Christian Americans are.

Uh huh. So slavery, Jim Crow, Nativism, hell, restricting abortion and gay rights, those are all liberal causes? Yeah, Dred Scott, that was one hell of a liberal decision, Dennis. Come off it. Everybody in any position of power generally uses that power to advance their ideological views. Go tell a Planned Parenthood worker in the South (or a gay couple) that Christians don't impose their views on people. You self-righteous, hypocritical, totally oblivious, black-pot-kettle doofus.

Liberal judges impose their views -- e.g., on same-sex marriage -- on society.

Judge. Roy. Moore.

And liberal educators force young students to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the former vice president's hysterical beliefs about impending doom -- and offer no countering viewpoint.

Abstinence-only sex-ed. Intelligent Design. "Evolution is just a theory" stickers in biology notebooks. And of course, bezerk PTA Moms petitioning school libraries to remove Harry Potter books.

Next he'll be complaining liberals solicit money over the Internet.

this past Sunday night I was the keynote speaker at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Since 1981, the church, led by Pastor John Hagee, has had an annual "Night to Honor Israel." ...Those are Ann Coulter's people, and they are, by and large, the best friends the Jewish people have today. And since Judaism teaches that we judge others by their behavior, not their beliefs, this Jew thanks them. And fears those who fear them. One day, God forbid, should there be real anti-Semitism in America, these hysterics will have cried wolf so many times that no one will listen.

Fair enough, don't call things antisemitic if they're just assholeish, but also don't whitewash the complexities of Jewish-Christian interaction in America just because John Hagee likes dancing the horah. Uncritical friends of America, or Jews, IMO, are not particularly valuable or useful- or, frankly, sincere. Like Jews for our accomplishments. Like us because we're nice people. Like us for philosophy, or even our religion. Don't like us because you think God will squish you if you don't. The issue is about respect. It still is unclear why and how conservative christians like Jews so much- and for many of us, the answer seems to be that they see us as reflections of themselves, and God's chosen people, and all the rest of that end-times stuff. Great. But that means they don't see us as real people, and don't see our religion or beliefs as authentic or worthy. And yes, that is sort of a problem if you're going to present them as our new best friends because they don't say we're going to hell (exactly), and they give money to Israel. it reduces us to cartoon characters and, bluntly, Court Jews, Jesters.

And that isn't a relationship I think is good for us to be in.

Shmuley vs. Hitchens

June was apparently a very busy month for the Rabbi. For one thing, he debated Christopher Hitchens. Or, rather, he got mad at Hitchens' book and reminded himself of this one time they had a debate. Same thing, really. Most of Shmuley's irritation at Hitchens seems to come (surprise, surprise) from the utter disdain he holds religion in. For instance, in their debate, Hitchens commented that

Stephen Hawking had more wisdom in his tiny little finger than all the pages of the Bible combined.

Even the Apocrypha?

Well, as you might imagine, our old pal Shmuley wouldn't let that stand.

I responded that the great, wheelchair-bound physicist was fortunate that religion rather than evolution had influenced British morality...He is a very incapacitated man, and some evolutionary biologists maintain that a life like his should never have been preserved in the first place.

So there, Hitchens. If evolutionists were in charge, there wouldn't even BE a Stephen Hawking to compare to the Bible! Religion-one, Evolution-zero.

Whereas the Bible establishes the infinite value of every human life, healthy or diseased...

As long as you aren't black, Indian, Canaanite, or a woman...

...no less an authority than Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA, suggested that babies should be considered alive only two days after birth, during which time they could be examined for defects. If defects were found that were sufficiently deleterious, the infant could presumably be eliminated with impunity because it had not yet become alive.

Similarly, Crick proposed redefining death as occurring at a predetermined age such as 80 or 85, at which time the person would automatically be declared dead and all his property pass on to his heirs.

Wow, that's some pretty weird stuff there, Shmuley! Now tell me, when was Crick installed as Chief Pontiff of the Evolutionary Church? What's that you say? Hmm. It seems Shmuley's Crick is just a crock. By comparison, there are many religious institutions where whatever the nuts at the top say goes.

As Shmuley points out, without a divine source like the Bible, good and evil are just words, and morality is relative and determined by whoever shouts the loudest. Blah, blah, blah... predictable Hitler reference...

the whole point of the Ten Commandments is the establishment of absolute, divine morality. These are not laws legislated by man and subject, therefore, to human tampering. They are the absolute rules that dare never be changed - at any time, at any place, under any circumstances.

Except for things like "observe the Sabbath," which, through the power of eruvs, cholent, and this stupid thing, we seem perfectly content to tamper with.

Blah, blah, blah... another Hitler reference... Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot... oh, here we go:

The number of people killed by the secular atheist regimes of the 20th century dwarfs by far those killed in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history.

And therefore everything about religion religion is good! Gotcha. Religion- two, Evolution/Secular Atheist Regimes- zero.

WITH ITS famous pronouncement that all humans are created in the image of God, the Bible establishes the absolute equality of all humankind, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. Charles Darwin, however, thought differently, "The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Hang on. You're using a throwaway comment by Darwin to discredit evolution? How about the countless quotes we could offer up by racist European Christians? Or Jews? (There's that great Maimonides comment about Cushites, after all.) Jesus H. Joshua, Shmuley, that's just lazy cherry-picking.

Shmuley concludes by reminding us that scientists really liked Hitler, and that the ONLY basis for believing that all human life is of equal value is the Bible. Good to know.

Shmuley kills my Brain (and plagiarizes himself in the process)

What is it with Conservative pundits? You'd think that today, of all days, they'd be touting all the great things about America (a-la FOX). But instead, we're just hearing gripes.

Enter Shmuley Boteach, rabbi to America in general and Michael Jackson in particular. If there's one thing we can always count on Shmuley for, it's that he's guaranteed to have something interesting to say. This week, though, Shmuley's a little disappointing, ranting about one of his pet gripes, that religious education in America isn't free.

America is simultaneously the richest and poorest country in the world. Richest because it has the world's largest economy and highest standard of living. Poorest because of a toxic culture that exploits women, worships damaged celebrity, and addicts children to money and materialism.

Hang on, America's toxic culture is the "worst" in the world? Even if we're to claim that celebrity-obsession is worse than, say, lauding jihadism or totalitarianism (Pakistan, China?), when did our problems become 'the worst'? Ever hear of the UK?

What America needs is a healthy infusion of values, which can only come from a values-based education. But due to the brick wall that has been constructed between church and state, public schools have been prevented from teaching the social values that are the hallmark of a religious education. A country that does not instill in its young a sense of destiny and purpose will founder.

So, first, you claim that people can only learn values through school (so much for autodidacts). And then you argue that it should be the job of the public schools to teach them? The schools that can't even get things like history, geography and basic math right? Oh yeah, this'll be great. Incidentally, Shmuley, how exactly would one teach values curriculum? How does one get a credential for values? Who decides this? Haven't you been paying attention to all the hoopla being stirred up over schools just trying to teach sex ed?

The pendulum has swung so far in one direction that even the pledge of allegiance is being questioned as to its constitutionality, since it mentions God. The public school systems do not allow even the hint of an allegiance to a higher power who demands virtuous action and moral excellence.

Maybe it's just me, but having gone to private schools my whole life, and secular ones at that, I don't see how God OR a pledge have any role (or at least, necessity) in the classroom. I just don't. If nothing else, my experience would seem to demonstrate that the absence of such things leads to degeneracy (though perhaps my anonymous Abir commentator would disagree). Besides, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out so many years ago, letting religion into the classroom opens up a major can of worms that, frankly, we don't need there. If you include God, then you need to include everyone's deities. You have to deal with determining which religions and practices are legitimate, and the inevitable clashes that will sprout up between the kids. Why bring that into the schools? For what benefits?

What's left? Parochial schools have been deputized with the task of conveying values to our children.

Schools shouldn't be where parents turn to teach them values in the FIRST PLACE! The parents, family, and community should be giving them values, not some random teacher.

The problem, of course, is that most parents simply can't afford skyrocketing tuition. And parents who wish to raise kids with a spiritual and values-based education are doubly punished by having to pay high property taxes, not one penny of which can go to pay for tuition.

Sorry, Shmuley, but there's no reason my money should go towards sending your kids to yeshiva or some other kids to a madrassa, anymore than your money should go towards paying for MY family's jaunts to a clambake or a hunting trip. Everyone deserves an education, but religious training? That's extra.

Thomas Jefferson said that a liberal democracy relies on enlightened citizens for its survival. How ironic, then, that parents who wish to instill in their children a passion for ethical virtue are penalized for their efforts.

Requiring you to pay your way is not a penalization, Shmuley. You are making a choice, and it's particularly galling to hear someone as financially successful as you bitch and whine about how hard your life is because you have to pay taxes AND send your kids to school. Incidentally, Shmuley, this is not a religious versus secular thing. My parents were in the same boat as you for all my education, and they didn't consider it a form of secular oppression.

This isn't a religious discrimination thing, this is a basic consequence of paying tax. You pay taxes and they're used for public institutions, sometimes even including some you may not wind up using. You bitching about paying for schools is just as stupid as a subway commuter complaining about having to pay for road asphalt and stop signs. That doesn't mean the state is discriminating against them for not having a car, it's just a consequence of making certain choices.

A radical solution must therefore be sought. The status quo cannot be preserved. If it is, American kids will continue to be raised with a materialist education that acknowledges their minds and bodies but ignores their spirit and character.

And because, of course, everyone who goes to a religious school comes out as an exemplary member of the community...

To provide the religious education that should be the birthright of every American child, I propose that the three major religions of the United States, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, start local education superfunds in every community to provide a free parochial education for every student that seeks it.

And how are you going to figure out where to send the kids? Who gets to decide this? Which Christians are going to get to determine which churches/schools are legitimate? Or the Jews? Good luck getting Orthodox rabbis to sign on to asking their communities to sponsor a Reform classroom. You're absolutely nuts if you think that you're going to get unified interdenominational cooperation on projects as widespread as what you're envisioning. And what about families with multiple religious traditions? Or with none? Why should their kids be deprived of values-education just because they don't want to have to learn them through a God-filter?

In the same way that going to church is free (even as people volunteer to pay membership dues), the same should be true of receiving religious instruction in school. A values-based education should not be the preserve of the rich, and knowledge of a higher power should not be the inheritance solely of the well-heeled.

And, of course, only people who go to religious schools will know anything of either values or a higher power. You'd think with all the kids going to public school in this country, there'd be a heck of a lot more atheists running about.

Again, there's that foolish conflation of religion with values.

CONSIDER the following: rich Catholic kids go to the finest suburban Catholic schools and receive quality educations. They are exposed to religious mentors who nurture not just their minds but their souls. But their poorer peers have to settle for an education where even the mention of God is banned.

A big part of the quality of those educations is the fact that they are well-funded and have good teachers and curriculum, NOT that they teach religion classes- which is why you have parochial schools all over the country whose student bodies include children from OTHER RELIGIONS!

There is scarce justice in a system in which families who affiliate with a great world religion can expose their children to its teachings only once a week on a Sunday because they lack the funds to do so the rest of the week. This is an injustice not only against the children but even more so against the church itself that is bound by such a system to raise even more lapsed than committed Catholics.

Bullcrap. That's like saying it's an injustice to force nudists to put on clothes when they go to school. If you want a specific kind of education that matches your religious beliefs, send your kids to that school. You don't get to demand that other people pay for it, or that schools make extra time to include religion in the classroom. And, again, sending your kid to a public school doesn't mean they're stuck in a giant, secular box for the whole week. If you want to impart values, do it on your own time.

Since when did a religious education become the preserve only of the rich? And this is an objection that can be raised regarding all of America's great religions. How will kids find God if they are not raised with it, and how can they be raised with it if the full extent of their religious commitment is not daily exposure, but Sunday services once a week?

Since when did a religious education become the responsibility of the state? I would think you'd want to keep the state OUT of religious education, Shmuley. At least your suggestion about the communities doing it themselves by fund-raising has some merit, though it's hardly very realisitc. Incidentally, the argument that the only way to know anything about God or religion is to have it shoved in your face 24-7 is ridiculous.

This absence is especially acute in the Jewish community, where numerous studies have proven that the strongest bulwark against assimilation is a Jewish education. Period. Nothing can guarantee the survival and continuity of the Jewish people more than the Jewish day school movement.

Will we allow the foundation of our people to founder because of unaffordable tuition? And if trips to Israel for Jewish teenagers are now covered free of charge as part of a Jewish "birthright," then should not a Jewish education be the same? Intensive Jewish education is for the most part available only to well-off families or those who undergo the sometimes humiliating exercise of going before scholarship committees to prove that they cannot afford tuition.

These problems may be true, but the answer to this dilemma is to have the Jews raise money, start those schools and get motivated parents to send their kids there, NOT demand that the government do it for them, especially since the government's not going to have a damn clue what the hell it's doing.

BUT THE SAME truth pertains to the vast numbers of evangelical Christians who, by and large, home-school their children. They do so because they wish to avoid the toxic influences that are inherent in many of the public schools. And who can blame them?

*Raises hand*

Do parents who are adamantly opposed to sex before marriage want their children exposed to a school culture that teaches contraception rather than abstinence? No parent wants to feel that they are sending their children to a school which is inimical to their own values.

So keep your kids home, or start your own schools- just like the yeshivas and madrassas.

Still, there is a price to be paid for educating your children in isolation. Kids need friends to develop social skills and there is a certain camaraderie that only people of the same age group can share. A far better solution would be for Evangelicals to finally begin a serious day school movement, which is at present absent from evangelical life. A superfund administered by the leading evangelical organizations should be able to raise enough funds to provide nearly every Christian child with a religious education, with his peers, in a God-fearing environment.

Oh yeah, it's much better to raise them in same-faith-only enclaves, I'm sure that that will help their socialization. Granted, you have similar problems in any private school environment, but talk about keeping your kids isolated. Hey, let's bring shtetls back, while we're at it!

IF THIS model were replicated across the US, with every religious community taking charge of its own children's education, cultural conditions would change dramatically. A generation of kids accustomed to deeper and more wholesome fare will not readily gravitate to the toxic offerings of today's exploitative culture. The market they will create for more wholesome fare will then influence TV, music and the media to offer something healthier.

Fair enough, Shmuley. But you don't need religion to teach people values, and the suggestion that the only way to impact the "toxic" culture is to infuse religiously minded kids into the market is fallacious.

Incidentally, if this sounds familiar, there's a reason. It's recycled from this article he penned in 2005:

The United States, alone among the great democracies of the world, shows utter contempt to religious parents by making them pay twice for their children's education, refusing to put even a single dollar of their tax money toward their children's religious schools.

Really, Shmuley, at least put in the effort to come up with some new arguments.

Point for you, Shmuley

ShmuRabbi Shmuley Boteach wins this week's "Odious Douche Award Ridiculous Rant Award". The winning submission? This laughable op-ed:

When I was a young boy, all I wanted to see was two parents who loved each other. A daily vitamin also would certainly have done me a world of good. But only my parents' happy marriage could have provided me with peace at my center and the more secure personality I sorely lack. I would take the diarrhea and cough any day over the permanent sense of brokenness that affects children of divorce.

Ok, Shmuley, I'm sorry your parents got divorced and that it screwed you up, but seriously, you might want to get some counseling for these self-esteem issues. I don't think this whole column-thing is doing it for you.

Obviously, breast-feeding is not the same as carrying on an extramarital affair. But when a mother gives her breasts to her son and takes them away from her husband, the effect on the marriage can feel the same.

What?

In the end, there are two effects of breast-feeding that we often refuse to acknowledge. One is the de-eroticization of a woman's body, as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than romantic purpose. This is not to say that breast-feeding isn't sexy. Indeed, the maternal dimension is a central part of womanliness. But public breast-feeding is profoundly de-eroticizing, and I believe that wives should cover up, even when they nurse their babies in their husband's presence.

"Come on down to Yankel's Burqas! Best Burqas in Crown Heights! Tell them "Shmuley sent you" and get a 5% discount!"

I believe this same problem comes up when men witness childbirth up close. There are certain poses in which a husband should not see his wife.

That's interesting; I believe you've been smoking your yarmulke. Friendly advice? Lay off the velvet, try suede.

By all means, be there for the entire labor, as I have been for the births of each of my eight children. But I strongly agree with the advice of the ancient rabbis that husbands should not be staring at the actual delivery. That is just too erotic a part of a wife's anatomy for it to become a mere birth canal.

The erotic nature of a wife's body is one of the principal elements of attraction in marriage. When a husband ceases to see his wife as a woman, and begins to see her as "the mother of his children," a negative trend has begun in his mind that can only subvert his erotic interest.

Shmuley, I'm telling you as a friend- get some help, dude. Believe or not, most marriage problems are NOT because the husband saw his wife's hoo-ha when she gave birth. Then again, maybe it has something to do with HOW MANY births there are- obviously, Orthodox Jews with 6 to 10 kids are at a much higher risk of suffering from "utilitarian wife disease" than, say, Reform Jews with their 1.6 kids. Maybe that higher birthrate thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Edit: Modifactions made after some comments by Irviner Chassid. Also, to reitterate, I would say the basic principle being articulated here is solid, almost to the point of being obvious- ignoring your spouse, for anything or anyone, will get you into trouble. The problem is that Shmuley takes this and then runs somewhere fairly absurd with it.