Dying with dignity versus living without it

My father-in-law works in end-of-life care, so over the years we've had lots of conversations about the topic. While I personally have not experienced close friends or family going into hospice, I have come to have a greater appreciation for the palliative method over a "preserve life at all costs" approach. Still, I understand that this creates a bit of a mind for medical ethics and for those in the medical profession: one long-standing definition of a doctor, connected with the Hippocratic Oath, is the concept of doing no harm. It is one that I think many Jews can connect with as well-- Judaism is supposed to celebrate and venerate life, and I've read that the implication that comes with that philosophical orientation is that there is a very strong bias against ending life if it can be preserved.

However I think that at the end of the day, both Judaism and medicine have enough depth to them that, if one is interested in making the case, there is certainly enough intellectual ammunition to support a more palliative approach. The big question, I believe, revolves around the notion of what harm is and where "quality of life" intersects with the broader category of "life." Just as there are certain mitzvot that traditional Judaism commands Jews not to violate even if it leads to their death, it would seem logical that there are similar scenarios in which it is appropriate to re-evaluate priorities and, potentially, decide to discontinue treatment (particularly aggressive or debilitating treatment) in favor of a more dignified and comfortable end to the patient's life.

I've been thinking about these issues a lot lately as I've been following the news about R. Elyashiv in Israel. He has been a long-running Internet antagonist for the several years I've been blogging, a perfect example of how the Haredi community, particularly in Israel, seems to value authority over discussion, and isolation over engagement. In recent years, R. Elyashiv has banned books without reading them, technology he doesn't use or understand, and condemned whole swathes of people he has never met. In my eyes, he was the best example of the living anachronism that traditional Judaism must struggle to avoid becoming.

But a few weeks ago I read an article in Haaretz that changed my thinking a little.

On the top floor of a Jerusalem hospital lays a very old man. He is slowly dying, but he won't be left in peace. A small circle of courtiers around him continue to issue in his name edicts and rulings, ensure that his signature still appears on letters and when his medical situation improves temporarily, they will remove him from hospital and seat him in his chair at the synagogue, where everyone can see him. The hospital staff grumbles that all this just prolongs the old man's agony, but there is nothing they can do as the retinue controls all the old man's moves. 

Only a tiny handful of relatives and trustees are allowed to talk with him, and they jealously guard his real mental situation while everyone is told that he is fully lucid and talking with his family and doctors, praying and studying as normal. 

This is how the great rabbis die nowadays. These were the circumstances of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, as the Chabadniks fought over him, manhandling him to the window of his study so he could wave to the crowds on Eastern Parkway, steadily deifying him as he descended into his last coma. His body died in 1994, at the age of 92, but many of his followers still believe he is with us. 

Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach suffered similar indignities when visitors to his home in Bnei Brak were shown the volume of Talmud he was studying from, but were not told he had been on the same page for 10 years. Just before he turned 100, he was finally allowed to retreat from the public stage and given a few years of rest before he died at the age of 102. 

The retainers of Kabbalist miracle-maker Yitzhak Kadouri bodily carried him to events well into his 11th decade, making sure he muttered the required incantations, shouting in his near-deaf ear the names of those to be blessed, and continued a brisk trade in his handwritten amulets until death finally liberated him from their clutches at 106. 

By some accounts, 101-year-old Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the great sage of the "Lithuanian" ultra-Orthodox community, is undergoing the same treatment as these words are being written. For months now he is being shuttled back and forth from hospital to his tiny apartment in Mea She'arim; but despite growing reports on his frailty, he still seems capable of publishing momentous rulings on the pages of Yated Ne'eman, such as the one that appeared two weeks ago forbidding Haredi men and women from participating in military or academic vocational courses under non-Haredi auspices. While there are those who treat these verdicts as the word from up on high, speculation is growing that for months now, if not years, Rabbi Elyashiv's name has been appended to endorsements and prohibitions he has never heard of. 

Modern medicine has created an intractable theological dilemma for Haredi Jewry. While it prolongs the lives of rabbis well in to their 90s and beyond, it does not guarantee soundness of mind. But how can a community brought up on the doctrine of "Da'at Torah," rabbinical infallibility, accept that their leaders' memory and reasoning can deteriorate. They liken their rabbis in old age to Moses, whom the Torah tells us that at the age of 120, "his eye was not darkened, nor his moisture ceased." And above all, their mind, this god-given gift to an entire nation, surely cannot fail, only gain strength and wisdom. But that is simply not the way of the human body.

Assuming even half of Anshel Pfeffer's article is true, it raises a fascinating point that, to my embarrassment, I had only half-recognized myself up until now. Yes, it is incredible, bizarre, and rather unbelievable that these gedolim are still giving pronouncements on issues of the day past the age of 100. And the reason it is all of those things is because they aren't actually doing it. These elders are not reading these books, not condemning these technologies. They've never seen them. Most of them spend most of their time going back and forth from home to shul to the doctor. It is their handlers, their advisers, their heirs, who are pulling the strings. In the height of chutzpah, these younger people manipulate, deceive or even impersonate their supposedly venerated leaders, men that their communities see as truly holy, to exert their own desires for power. And while doing so, not only do they undermine their credibility, their independence, and their reputation-- but they also turn them into political symbols to fight their pet battles, regardless of whether the sages know or care about the issue or not.

Even now, this is going on with R. Elyashiv.

Rav Elyashiv is listed in critical/stable condition. The gadol hador is in a medically induced coma and connected to a mechanical respirator, fighting the fluid buildup in his lungs, the result of diminished cardiac output as seen in congestive heart failure. 

Family members are in the hospital, where hundreds continue to gather, compelling hospital security and police to deploy additional manpower to keep people outside. Officials report that while the avreichim and rabbonim mean well, they are not assisting the rav’s situation and they are hampering hospital personnel, interfering with them. Additional security has been placed at the second floor entrance to the emergency room, the hospital’s night entrance.

Think about that: R. Elyashiv has not been conscious for days. He is in a coma. He is on a respirator. And yet there are so many people crowding into his room that the staff can't even do their job. I have no doubt the vast majority of the people visiting this man are sincerely there because they care about him. But the lack of understanding about what they need versus what he needs is pretty shocking.

There's yet another dimension to this: the idea that if R. Elysahiv goes, the entire community will suffer a major tragedy. There has been little thought as to who will succeed him, what training or support they might need, ways the community might be able to help the family grieve, etc. A month after another serious hospital visit, several days since he has been in a coma, and R. Elyashiv's community shows no sign of letting go. They will not consider what happens next because they will not admit that he is going to die. To that point: he cannot be allowed to die.

“If Rav Elyashiv in danger,” said Rav Edelstein, “we are all in danger.” 

In his morning shiur, Rav Edelstein linked Rav Elyashiv’s condition to the security situation in Eretz Yisroel, stating that Rav Elyashiv protects us. 

“We are in danger and need protection and are in grave danger… We are a lonely sheep among seventy hungry wolves. In such a situation, we need protection. ” 

The rosh yeshiva then described Rav Elyashiv as protecting the generation. 

...Later, the rosh yeshiva described how the power of the righteous can prevent wars and catastrophes, adding that it is known that before World War II, many gedolim, including Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, Rav Shimon Shkop and others,  perished, thus removing these “righteous defenders” from the world. 

“Now in our generation, we have an individual who defends us through his toil in Torah,” said Rav Edelstein. “Now he’s sick and we are compromised. We must all daven and learn Torah.”

This kind of personality worship cannot be healthy. This extreme identification of one mortal person's health with the entire community's well-being verges on the nutty. Sooner or later, R. Elyashiv is going to die. What happens once he does? The way people are talking about him is making it sound like they think he can't die. Are they going to deify him like Chabad did with Schneerson? One can only hope that people like R. Edelstein don't actually believe what they're saying-- in which case, the whole thing becomes one big PR stunt. Which is worse?

Death is part of life. All people die. Judaism, which is rooted in the real world, knows this. Yet some of this pragmatism seems to be getting lost. The elders of our communities should be honored and allowed to pass in peace, not have their accomplishments be sabotaged in their final years by the very people who should be protecting them and preserving their dignity. There is something seriously wrong when leaders don't pass the torch until they reach 100... only to give it to people in their 90s. When did we start acting like the Catholic Church?

I cannot in good conscience wish R. Elyashiv a refuah shleima, a complete healing. I believe he is beyond that. I wish him the same wish I have been wishing for my own grandmother, a woman thirteen years his junior but just as mentally and physically compromised as him. I wish that they both be allowed to go in peace, comfortable, content, and with dignity. Not a refuah shleima, but a sof shleima (complete end). Or, perhaps more poetic, a chayim shleima (complete life).

If R. Elyashiv's people truly respect him, if they truly believe that he is the best of their generation... and if they truly believe their prayers have the power to keep him alive until 120...

They should stop.

And let him go.

Someone flunked Math

Interesting journalism question: when you interview a source and he says something strange, is it the editor's job to clarify the statement?

Joseph Farah doesn't seem to think so. He ran an election update a day ago quoting Fritz Wenzel, the head of a polling group about why a sizable minority of Republicans are leaning towards voting for Obama in the upcoming election, even after sitting through four years of Farah screaming about how illegitimate, Communisty and Muslimy he is.

The only problem is... Wenzel can't count.

“The improvement in Obama’s prospects compared to the four remaining Republican challengers stems largely from two factors,” suggests pollster Fritz Wenzel. “First, Obama has largely avoided the political limelight while the GOP candidates savage each other with increasing intensity. Second, a smattering of evidence indicates that the economy is getting a little better, which helps the White House in the eyes of the voters. Secondly, the bloody fight for the Republican presidential nomination – by most estimations the nastiest GOP fight in memory – has really hurt the images of the challengers in the eyes of both Republicans and, especially, independent voters. For Republicans, each candidate carries with them now some taint that cannot be ignored.”

If nothing else, it seems like Wenzel needs a crash-course in Numbers 101. Or, you know, a better editor.

A new contender for King Jackass

I though Glenn Beck had locked up the offensive Jewish appropriation stuff a while ago, but apparently while he's been sitting on his laurels in his virtual ivory tower, a new dope in town has been hard at work in America's churches trying to one-up him.

Sorry Glenn, but if you want to stay on top, you have to be willing to put in the face-time with other ignorant and easily manipulated goofballs. Ralph Messer has repeatedly shown that when it comes to exploiting Jewish culture, showing off his incredible ignorance of Jewish religion and history, and just plain old having zero shame, he's the new man to beat. Yarmulkes off to you, Ralph. You truly are a gigantic embarrassment to Jews and Christians everywhere.

Now seriously, go jump off a cliff or something.

How do you spend Shabbat?

It's been a few months into my Shabbat experiment, and I won't lie, it's been hard to stick to it. At the beginning it was quite nice; I would wake up, daven shachrtit, and then spend most of the day reading various Judaica. But the combination of Mrs. Yid rarely getting Saturdays off and me being a little too shy to go to services on my own has resulted in a bit of a stall. The last few weeks I've gone back to using the TV and Internet on Shabbat, simply out of boredom. Not ideal.

So, my question to my readers: How do you spend Shabbat? Specifically, what do you do besides going to synagogue? What other things do you make it special or meaningful?

Better theologians, please

Chuck Colson may be a former Marine, a top Nixon aide, a prison ministry founder, a published author, a popular radio host, and have 15 honorary doctorates, but that still doesn't mean that his arguments are convincing. Take this gem, in which Chuck tries to argue for why Biblical sexual ideas were powerful enough to change the world, but apparently not resilient enough to withstand gays and lesbians agreeing with them:

So often we hear that allowing two men or two women to marry will not hurt anyone, and certainly not "straight" people. Well, the truth is, we already know what happens when a society promotes sexual license and devalues marriage. We just have to look at history.

Way to bypass the argument by ignoring it. "Lots of people make this point that I don't feel like responding to. Next!"

Way back before anyone was talking about so-called "gay marriage," radio talk show host and Jewish theologian Dennis Prager wrote a fascinating article called -- get ready for this -- "Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality."

Wait, so now Prager claims to be a theologian? This was a new one for me, perhaps because when I hear the term "Jewish theologian," I tend to assume that it describes someone actually qualified to hold the title. While Prager did attend Jewish day school, he attended a secular college and his degrees are in History and Middle Eastern studies. I find it interesting that in his first book in 1986, he merely described himself as a talk show host and author. Apparently by the time his second book came out in 1996, Dennis had gone to underground theology school, because on the dust jacket it proclaims, "Dennis Prager, theologian and philosopher turned talk-show host"  Interesting, so now the theology/philosophy cred predated his radio career? It's true that Dennis was a professional lecturer (big irony there)  before he got into radio, but I'm still not sure that makes him a theologian. Prager calling himself a theologian is about as accurate as him claiming to be a "passionate moderate"-- which he repeatedly does in that same book, so at least he's consistent.

Long story short: when Chuck talks about Dennis the "Jewish theologian," what he really means is, "right-wing Jewish guy who agrees with me."

Before the Jews were placed in the Ancient Near East, the pagan world was already a sexual free-for-all that debased women, boys, and religion itself in the service of male lust. Every aspect of life was sexualized. The pagan gods engaged in no-holds-barred sex, and so did the people. Homosexuality had almost unquestioned acceptance in the ancient world.

Back up, bucko. First of all, I'd love to see some sources, including some quotes from Lord Rabbi Prager's hallowed essay (link here for the curious or masochistic) documenting any of this. I'm already suspicious given that my understanding is that a lot of our knowledge about Ancient Near East pagan society (particularly people's sex lives) is sketchy due to limited information. Exactly how many 3,000 year old Letters to Babylonian Penthouse have you uncovered? Also, "every aspect of life," really? What about daily chores or occupations? I'm having trouble envisioning how you sexualize making a sandal or domesticating a goat. Last, of course, there is the huge problem of conflating a patriarchal, misogynistic "sexual free for all" with modern homosexuality, which is now overwhelmingly conceptualized through the framework of monogamy and consent-- a far cry from, say, pederasty.

Colson eventually does starting quoting Prager quoting academics- but that still doesn't help his argument.

But the key issue wasn't gender, it was power. Prager quotes Brown University philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who wrote, "The central distinction in [ancient] sexual morality was … between active and passive roles." Because boys and women were on the receiving end of sexual activity, they were "very often treated interchangeably as [simple] objects of [male] desire." 

Not surprisingly, then, women were relegated to the sidelines, important for giving birth and running the home, but not important as real and equal partners to men, who had other sexual options -- with boys and other men.

Hmm, sounds like the problem with pre-Biblical paganism is that it was extremely self-centered. People in power could bed whoever they wanted, and no one else mattered. No respect, no love, and no stability. Yeah, that's just like the various gay people I know in committed relationships (some for decades) who have loving homes, and some of whom are raising children. In the same way that being a straight man in a relationship is equivalent to being Hugh Heffner. Exceptions aside, the fact that a sexual act or identity can be taken to an extreme conclusion doesn't inherently invalidate the act/identity itself.

That's why Judaism's claim that God created sex only for a man and a woman in marriage was so revolutionary -- and despised by pagans ancient and modern pagans I might add as well. 

Inasmuch as we're going to give Judaism exclusive credit here, the real revolutionary values have less to do with outlawing who you can't have sex with, and much more to do with establishing the parameters for a model relationship-- which may have been straight historically, but was really important because it emphasized relationships (not even monogamy, look at the patriarchs), love and respect, values which are not-- and should not be-- exclusive to straight relationships. By focusing so much on gender, you're actually greatly reducing the scope of these tremendous ideas.

Prager writes, "This revolution forced the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women." No wonder, Prager notes, that the "improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization," which historically has been the "least tolerant of homosexuality."

Classic Prager; a million sweeping statements with zero documentation. While Colson may be happy to accept those arguments on faith, color me unconvinced. Among other things, I like how this argument presumes that homosexuality is incompatible with women's rights. Does this mean lesbians are anti-feminists? Someone should let Pat Robertson know. Maybe Dennis should do it, since he's a fellow theologian.

Colson wouldn't be a good evangelical if he let the Jews have all the credit for... bottling the sex genie (??), so he reminds us that Christianity has been pretty good at caging the sexual urges, too.

Of course, I should note, that it was the Apostle Paul who further carried this Jewish sexual revolution throughout the ancient world. As Sarah Ruden wrote about in her recent book Paul Among the Peoples, predatory homosexuality was common in Rome and Greece; women and children were just property. 

Through Paul, however, Christianity ensured that Western Civilization promoted sex within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman, and placed off limits the sexual abuse of boys and slaves.

Again, huzzah for creating social and emotional standards for relationships. Those are all good things. Notice, however, that one does not have to be engaging in straight sex to be able to believe in or perpetuate those values.

The point is simply this: God instituted marriage for the good of man (restraining and channeling his sexuality), for the protection and dignity of woman, and the flourishing of human society. 

Western civilization, the greatest ever, took this to heart, but forgets it now at its own peril.

You know, given that conservative Christians often like to accuse Judaism of being over-legalistic, the amount of willful myopia here is kind of amazing. Colson is willing to give Judaism and Christianity tons of credit for reining in people's sexual urges and kickstarting a social evolution when it came to romantic and sexual relationships, but if gays and lesbians buy into those same values and try to apply them to their own lives and relationships, the values somehow break down. Colson seems to view love and dignity like a phone charger; they only work when you use them with the right plug.

Hey Chuck: if Biblical relationship values are so strong and powerful that they took over half the world and have become the cornerstone of Western civilization, they should be able to withstand gays using them. Just saying.

Who needs to moderate what?

Jay Michaelson had an essay in the Forward this week pleading for more civility and honesty in Jewish civil discourse. As with political discourse, I'm always for that. However he started with some assumptions that seemed a little off for me.

I have my approach to Jewish values that allows me to say that Eric Cantor, Sheldon Adelson and William Kristol are wrong — pluralism is not the same as relativism, after all — but what I won’t say is that they are somehow un-Jewish.

Granted, I don't spend tons of time in liberal Jewish circles, but I'm a little suspicious of how often this charge actually gets made. Michaelson notes that the converse occurs regularly among the Jewish right-- religious and otherwise, but doesn't seem to have any particular examples for the left.

Relatively few progressives come out and say [that Jewish conservatives are outright wrong] directly, because to do so violates a cardinal progressive principle, that of pluralism and toleration. (Of course, conservatives don’t hesitate to make these claims, painting critics of Israel as self-hating Jews, or social progressives as rebels against the Torah.)

This seems like a case where Michaelson may be trying to be too even-handed for his own good. While the rest of his essay has some good advice, particularly about being honest about how wide and divergent the various opinions in the Torah are, the fact that he seems to start the piece off with a fallacy-- that Jewish liberals have no good response to Jewish conservatives because they either ignore them or dismiss them-- kind of spoils it for me. Michaelson isn't wrong with his end thesis-- that the best option is to admit that Judaism and Jewish thought contains a multiplicity of views (though one can still find patterns suggesting which values the Torah seems to prefer, such as mercy over vengeance)-- but I don't think the reason more liberal Jews don't do this is that they're too busy saying conservatives aren't real Jews. Rather, I would guess that the issue either isn't on their radar (liberal bubble syndrome) or that they simply haven't given the issue much thought (a third possibility is that they may hear about these critiques and simply not have much in the way of a response).

It seems to me that in an attempt to not cast blame or appear biased, Michaelson does his readers (and argument) a disservice by diagnosing two patients with the same illness. One group needs to work on reducing de-legitimization. The other one needs to recognize that it's happening and start pushing itself to generate some positive and constructive responses.

Privileges of the Majority

Peter Beinart had an interesting post about American Jews' religiosity, in which, among other things, he noted that American Jews tend to vote liberal because statistically, "U.S. Jews practice their religion far less than their American Christian counterparts."


I think this also ties in with why American Jews have traditionally been wary of people being or becoming "too" religious. Part of this is that there can often be a correlation between personal religiosity and carrying that over into the public sphere. Particularly in America, people tend to be very bad about keeping their personal faith off of others.


This often seems to be something that's very hard for non-Jews, particularly Christians (even "cultural" ones), to understand. I once had a very animated discussion with a college friend about the issue of prayer in public schools-- and even though she identified as a religious minority (Unitarian Universalist), I found it very hard to communicate the discomfort and frustration that that issue, and ones like it, raised in me. Since she still very much associated with the majority culture, it was hard for her to understand how threatening or offensive the idea that we are a Christian nation, or an inherently religious nation is, when you're in the minority.


For a religious minority with a long history of persecution, I feel that Jews are particularly sensitive to issues of majoritarianism, and it's part of the reason so many Jews on the more liberal/secular end of things are so cagey about bringing religion into public discourse. As soon as we start having a more religious public society, we inevitably get into the dicey questions of how and what to include and what to exclude. Frankly, it's something that is hard to do well.


Things also aren't helped by the fact that as the evangelical population in America has become more vocal  in their religiosity and desire for a more publicly religious society, it becomes increasingly clear that they haven't worked out all the sticky parts that would come with this new dynamic-- and particularly, what acceptable roles for non-Christians would be in a "Christian" country. One place this has popped up is with Mitt Romney's candidacy.


While I have little in common with Romney politically, it's been rather disconcerting to see the evangelical Republican population publicly debate whether his faith should prevent him from being "allowed" to be the GOP candidate. There's an incredible amount of hubris and privilege present here that for me, really exemplifies why I and so many other liberals, particularly liberal Jews, much prefer to have an American political sphere that is as secular as possible.


First example comes from the Christian Post, where columnist Jim Denison felt the need to defend the argument that candidate's faith should be a consideration by voters.

are there religious commitments that affect these "pivotal points" to the degree that they should be considered by voters? I believe there are. My position does not relate specifically to Romney and Mormonism; it applies to any candidate from any political party.  

Let's consider some examples. Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley nearly 30 years ago. If he had been a faithful Jehovah's Witness, he would have died – his church's teachings would have forbidden the massive blood transfusions that saved his life. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, which caused a rapid irregular heartbeat and atrial fibrillation. Drugs were effective in returning his heart rhythm to normal. If he had been a practicing Christian Scientist, would he have refused medical treatment? Do we want presidents whose lives could be endangered by their religious beliefs? 

How would a Sunni president have prosecuted the war in Iraq? Would a Shiite view Iran more sympathetically? Would a chief executive who was a Tibetan Buddhist be more sympathetic to the Dalai Lama in his ongoing conflicts with the People's Republic of China? 

Admittedly, none of the current presidential candidates espouse religious commitments so contrary to mainstream America. But would their policies be influenced by their religious beliefs? I would hope so.

And this is an area where we have a foundational disagreement. I want elected officials who either share my political philosophy, or at least have a view of government, country and society that won't be actively harmful to them. Their religious beliefs are far less important to me than their political beliefs, and it doesn't particularly matter to me what they are as long as they don't impair their ability to do their jobs well. And I don't really buy Denison's claim that he really wants all presidential candidates to make decisions based on their religion regardless of whether he agrees with those beliefs.

Would Mormonism's distinctive beliefs influence a Romney or Huntsman administration? Would evangelical commitments affect Rick Perry's presidency? Would Catholic moral positions gain consideration in a Gingrich or Santorum White House? Would Baptist convictions influence Ron Paul's policies? Do the United Church of Christ's theological positions alter Barack Obama's worldview and leadership? 

You and I may disagree on the answers to these questions, but we should agree to ask them.

First, this is really funny given how irritated conservatives got when liberals bashed Bush for saying God talked to him and gave him foreign policy advice. Second, sorry, no. Asking random questions to yourself is not a particularly useful activity, and given Jim's stated beliefs and biases, it comes off as poisoning the well. This is like all those people who kept questioning Obama's patriotism or eligibility but claimed they were "just asking questions." If you're curious about the effect Romney's faith might have on his administration, do some journalism. Don't just sit around going, "Hey, Mormons don't drink, do you think he'll repeal the 21st Amendment?"


Second example is from old friend Dennis Prager, playing, of all the things, the role of sage voice of reason. He can do this, he informs us, because,"as a Jew, I have no religious pony in this race," though he does want us to know how awesome Christianity and Mormonism are.

I believe that American Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the modern world and that evangelicals are at the core of America’s backbone. And I have enormous respect for Mormons. 

As he so often does in his columns, Dennis doesn't believe in showing examples or anything, he just states the facts and moves on before anyone can argue with him. A sort of drive-by op-ed, if you will.


Dennis has three take-aways he wants evangelicals to know. First of all, Mormonism isn't a cult, because Dennis says so.

Over the course of time, as a religion establishes itself and its members act more or less like members of the older religions, the charge is usually dropped... After nearly 200 years, Mormons are an integral part of American society, with impressive reputations for family life, integrity and other values. The “cult” label just doesn’t seem appropriate.

Got it, Christians? It used to be a cult. Now it's cool. Get with it.


Second, evangelicals need to get over labels.

in the view of most evangelicals, if people wish to believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the prophecy of Joseph Smith, that is their business, but to call these and other distinctive Mormon beliefs “Christian” bothers many evangelicals. Of course, Mormons respond that a religion that calls itself The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can hardly be dismissed as non-Christian. But it is not my interest here to adjudicate this debate. I only wish to offer one reason that evangelicals might be disturbed by Mormonism calling itself Christian.

Well, that wasn't very decisive. Not taking a position on something? Live and let live? It looks like Dennis is getting all wishy-washy and liberally in his old age.


Last, Mormons can still be conservative without being evangelical.

Traditional Jews and evangelical Christians have quite different theologies, but they often have virtually identical values. (That is why this Jew is so supportive of evangelicals and why evangelical Christians syndicate my radio show.) Conservative Catholics and evangelicals differ on theology but share virtually every important value. The founders differed on theology but rarely on values.

Sigh.
A- Duh?
B- Nice weaseling by Dennis here. I know he went to Yeshiva day school, but he just had a column on how he isn't Orthodox, and he's publicly spoken about not keeping kosher. Exactly who is he kidding with this line about being a "traditional" Jew? Dennis is a liberally observant Jew with conservative politics. "Traditional Jew" implies something very specific, particularly to a non-Jewish audience, and it seems misleading.
C- Have you read anything the Founders wrote? They totally had different values, that's why they had different political parties!
D- I like how Dennis, judgmental crank par excellence, is telling the Christian right that they need to get over themselves and ratchet their righteous indignation down.



Last example comes from WND writer Jane Chastain, chastising her Christian brethren for their anti-Romney fears.

For too long, people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been lulled to sleep politically by anyone who claimed to be a member of the “right” church. He or she, in effect, had their religious ticket stamped. We elected them, hit the snooze button and they robbed us blind. How is that working out for you? 

...It wasn’t that long ago that many Protestants were afraid to vote for a Catholic for president for fear that the pope would be the de facto ruler of the country. Now, we are hearing the same kind of thing about Mitt Romney and the LDS president or prophet of the church. 

Another concern is that a Mormon president may mean more Mormon converts. Was there a surge of Catholic converts after the election of JFK? 

...There is no perfect candidate in the Republican field. However, short of a brokered convention, one of the four men still standing will be the GOP nominee. Let’s not rule one of them out simply because he is not a member of our faith.

Like Dennis, Chastain makes decent points here, but for me what's amazing is that these arguments have to be made in the first place. No kidding, you should elect someone who shares your values, even if you don't overlap with them 100%! That's how voting works. That evangelical voters are struggling with this just illustrates how much majoritarian privilege they are used to holding. It bothers me as a Jew that these folks are so culturally sheltered that the concept of voting for a non-Christian has never even crossed their minds before.


I guess it's nice that evangelicals are having these discussions, but for me it also shows just how large the gap is between my cultural and political experiences and theirs-- and the fact that this makes them so uncomfortable underscores why, for me, a specifically "Christian" America is one I do not want to live in.

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.

Time to take your meds

Remember Larry Klayman? The Jew so super patriotic and Zionist he doesn't know what citizenship he actually holds? He's back, and once again he's only too willing to have other people carry out the crazy ideas he's come up with... and deal with the messy consequences.


Yes, Larry, like many of us, has a problem with how Iran does business. Larry's solution, however, is blunter than most:

LARRY KLAYMAN: TIME TO NUKE IRAN

Uh, come again?

The Islamic Republic of Iran is and has always been the major problem and danger in the Middle East and internationally. 

"Always" is a really interesting choice of words, Larry, given that the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even 35 years old. Just as a reference point, Israel had fought four of its five wars before Islamic Iran ever existed. It must have been comforting to know that all those other wars were just practice.

Iran will within months acquire atomic weapons that can be delivered through missiles, as well as planes and ships, and has threatened – in the face of increased sanctions – not only to annihilate Israel and attack us too, but also to set ablaze the Strait of Hormuz, which is the gateway to oil shipments from Middle Eastern producers throughout the world. This would cripple the world’s economy and send us into an irreparable depression. Iran’s threat is a declaration of war, and we must now respond in kind with massive force!

I don't disagree that Iran's leadership trends towards the nutsy side and that I'd rather they not get nuclear weapons (or frankly any weapon improvements, thanks), but I'm a little unclear about what's suddenly changed that makes Larry think that the time for an Iranian D-Day has suddenly come.

The immediate need to destroy the Islamic regime once and for all is heightened by what is going on in neighboring Iraq...Iraq is now becoming “greater Iran.” Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, even by the admission of the liberal New York Times, “is moving to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite dominated state” and in effect throw his lot in with his Shiite brothers in Tehran – the neo-Nazi mullahs who not only threaten and are thus far succeeding with world conquest in the name of Allah, but also torture, maim and murder their own people to hold on to total power. So now Iran and Iraq will essentially be one big terrorist state – with tremendous wealth, thanks to their huge oil resources and revenues – bent on successfully waging Islamic revolution not just in the Middle East, but worldwide.

Larry, you're giving Iraq's Shiite leaders way too much credit here. If Iraq is eventually going to become Iran Jr., it's going to take a lot of internal infighting to get there. In the meantime, this is really just a bunch of hysterics. Also, I'm pretty sure the theological/political goals of Shiism are much more focused on fighting with Sunnis as opposed to waging global Islamic revolution against heretics. This makes sense, given that Shiites only number 10-15% of the global Muslim population. As the underdog, most observers think that a politically dominant pan-regional Shiia movement would be much more likely to try to flex their muscles and settle old scores with various Sunni regimes than go after us Satans of Various Size. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I want any radical Muslims to have the bomb, but when you talk about global Jihad, generally speaking, you're talking about Sunnis, not Shiia. Get your facts straight before you start building your Ahmadinejad bunker.

The radical mullahs in Tehran are a scourge that must be destroyed. To allow them to exist one minute more would be tantamount to reliving the mistakes that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, World War II and the Holocaust.

Hey, remember that time you kept saying you were Israeli when you weren't? Yeah well, all this Godwin rhetoric is making you look even dumber than that.

Importantly, an increasing number of Iranian-Americans now understand that war with Iran will entail significant civilian casualties in their native country. And, while many Iranian-Americans still have loved ones there, they are increasingly willing to accept the consequences of all-out war with the Islamic regime... This is the most evil regime since the Third Reich, and it must be expunged now before it is too late.

Full stop Captain Crazy-Pants: exactly how many Iranian ex-pats support dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran? Did you ask any of them? Did they know this is what they were agreeing to? Saying, "We really need to remove the mullahs from power," or "Ahmadinejad has got to go," is not quite equivalent to your ever-so-precise, "Nuke 'em all!" proposal. Seriously, Larry, how were you not embarrassed to submit this to your editor with your name on it?

It is indeed sad that it has come to this. If Presidents Clinton, Bush and now Obama had had any foresight, a nuclear attack on Iran could have long since been averted. Much like taking out a small lump in a cancerous female breast, the operation could have been simple and done with. Now a total radical double mastectomy is required. 

I love how when you can't decide which atrocious comparison to make, you go with both. Classy.

Obama and Hillary Clinton are traitors, and they are probably bribed to the hilt by Iran, but that does not relieve the rest of us from demanding action! We cannot allow for the rise of another Hitler-type regime at this time in world history.

Really, bribed by Iran? How high are you, Larry? Honestly, I don't feel comfortable with you even being in the same state as a nuclear weapon, much less dictating what our military policy should be with them.

There are enough problems that confront us, and we must NOW take drastic measures to remove these vile and evil Islamic terrorists from the face of the earth, if for no other reason than to allow us to deal with other matters and get on with business.

Remember folks, according to Larry the best way to deal with a problem is to nuke it. It's the same approach I take with teaching: if a kid doesn't understand something, I run him over with my car. Hey, if Larry ever gets tired of being an op-ed hack, I think he should try being a marriage counselor. Something tells me he'd be great at it.

So confused

What kind of bizarre alternate-universe have I stumbled into? Dennis Prager wrote an article for the Jewish Journal explaining why he's not an Orthodox Jew and it actually... makes sense? I feel ill...

given that I believe that the Torah is from God and that the Jews are the Chosen People, and because I have values similar to Orthodox Jews, I am often asked why I am not Orthodox. My standing-on-one-leg response consists of three Hebrew words: Yom Tov Sheni. That’s not my only reason, but it’s shorthand for rabbinic law not changing. 

The Torah commands us to observe Passover for seven days — an important number, since seven symbolizes Creation — but the rabbis added a day (Yom Tov Sheni) for Jews living in the Diaspora, because at one time Jews outside of Israel were not certain of the calendar. Though we have been certain for thousands of years, the added day has remained (though there was never a day added to Yom Kippur, which leads one to believe that the calendar was always known). 

...we have long been in a period in which rabbinic, that is, man-made, halachah just cannot change. We are told that we are not on the moral or spiritual level of previous generations (I have no idea on what basis this claim can be made — the generation that was present at Sinai was on a considerably lower level than many Jews today) and that there is no halachic authority that would be able to change halachah (which simply restates the problem).

My God, I actually... agree with Dennis Prager. Someone take my temperature, I must have caught some terrible disease from my students! One of the bad ones, no doubt, like Brain Leprosy.

But surely there's got to be some explanation, some assurance that the world still makes sense? Let's see, here's a recent article he wrote for WND...

Only a fool believes that all those with whom he differs are bad people. Moreover, just about all of us live the reality – often within our own family – of knowing good and loving people with whom we strongly differ on political, religious, social and economic issues. 

That said, I have come to believe that the more committed one is to leftism, the more likely one is to become meaner.

Hey look everyone, Dennis is back!

Thank Gob, Dennis is still a twit and still believes that you can yell about people being mean and making huge generalizations one minute, and then use one or two examples to make sweeping generalizations about people the next... and that this is all logically consistent.

leftism fills many of its adherents with contempt and hatred. It takes a person of great character and self-control to continually imbibe and mouth the mantras of the left – that everyone on the right is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted – and not become a meaner human being. If I believed just about everyone with left-wing views was despicable, I would be meaner, too. 

In a previous column, I wrote about Thomas Friedman making one of the classic anti-Semitic libels when he wrote that the reason the Senate and the House gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing ovations was because “that ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” 

How does a Jew write an anti-Semitic libel? Because he’s on the left.

It's nice when the universe makes sense...which, of course, means Dennis doesn't.

A Conclusion/Hypothesis: Could it be that Dennis adjusts his op/ed persona to match the forum he's being printed in? So Dennis is slightly more reasonable, for instance, when writing about Jewish pluralism to a Jewish audience, but when writing for political readers, feels free (or required) to let his stupid all hang out? So many questions...

WND suffers from a dangerous irony deficiency

It's no secret that WND is no fan of the gays and their marriage. And, like all good conservative rags, it considers part of its dedication to honest journalism to be exposing all the evil instances of the gay lobby pushing its agenda on innocent and wholesome American activities, be they school (how dare schools teach about gays!) sports (how dare the Chicago Cubs say they welcome all their fans!) or that most hallowed of American literature, the noble comic book.

Wait, say that last part again?

That's right, WND is up in arms because the "all-American" comic book Archie is having a gay wedding. Not only a gay wedding, a gay, interracial wedding. Also, one is an Iraq war vet. (Wait, how can WND not like this?)

ACLU has praised the Archie move, saying it reflects diversity and stuff. Conservatives are mad because, well, let's listen:

“It’s unfortunate that a comic book series usually seen as depicting innocent, all-American life is now being used to advance the sexual revolution,” Peter Spriggs of the Family Research Council told Fox News. “I think whatever boost in sales might come from the novelty or curiosity factors will be more than offset by the number of both kids and parents who will be turned off by this storyline and its obvious social and political agenda.”

There's no question there's an agenda here, but the reality is that most comics (or books, or movies, or TV shows) have an agenda. If you think Superman or Batman don't have agendas, you're not paying attention.

Also, while it's true that historically this comic tended to be pretty wholesome, I wonder if folks like Spriggs would be choosing it to be a rallying cry for how gays are ruining comics if they knew a little more about Archie's creator, Dan DeCarlo.

DeCarlo had, shall we say, a bit of a compartmentalized personality. Oh sure, he's most famous for Archie and his pals. But before that commercial success, he was known for a slightly different theme in his works...

 



T&A.

Yes, before his breakthrough with the Riverdale gang, Dan DeCarlo wrote and drew such innocent all-American works as Millie the Model, Sherry the Showgirl, and "America's Darling Dim-wit" My Girl Pearl. He seemed to really have a thing for showing young ladies in various stages of undress.

If you look carefully, I'm sure Archie afficionados will recognize DeCarlo's signature faces at work in his early strips. Why look, this extremely perky nurse is a dead-ringer for that sadistic millionaire-ess, I mean, hardworking capitalist Veronica.

And this creepy slobbering kid is clearly Archie's evil identical cousin.

So yes, there may be a point here about the dicey issues of mucking around with an artist's characters after their death (I don't look forward to the inevitable day when Uncle $crooge competes in a break-dancing competition) , but don't act like a gay wedding in Archie is inappropriate because it somehow tarnishes DeCarlo's pure family-friendly vision. Considering that most present-day conservatives finding DeCarlo's old work from the '50s and '60s would want them banned if not burned, they should really just be happy that all the participants in this gay wedding are clothed.

A conversation

Blog friend Antigonos wrote in:

Dear Friar Yid,

Every time I want to comment, after writing all my profound comments, and clicking "Post", Blogger informs me I can't comment unless I open an account with them. Since I have one already, this is a problem. Moreover, Blogger erases what I've just written!

So I have to write to you directly.

As regards your post about differences in siddurim, there are several reasons for this. Eastern European Jews did not [and do not] all use the same nusach. There are differences between Nusach Sefard [NOT Sephardi] and Nusach Ashkenaz. One of the biggies is in the responses of the Kedusha on Shabbat Shacharit and Musaf, but there are a lot of little ones, which may account for some lines being included and others left out. [Just to complicate things, my local shul davvens Ashkenaz for ordinary Shabbatot, but Sefard for hagim. Why? "That's the way my father did" is the answer. You would think that now that there is an official Nusach Israel, we'd use it, but no]

The "savri" introduction to the Birkat Hamazon is used when three adult males are benching together. In fact, the introduction becomes more and more elaborate as the number of men reciting Birkat Hamazon increases. The Artscroll siddur explains this, although not why it is so. In fact, the Artscroll siddur is a good reference work for comparison study, with standard Orthodox explanations and many of the halachot associated with davvening. [The use of "Hashem" for God drives me crazy after a while, but I think that's because one of Israel's loonier pop groups used the term in a rock song] The Birkat Hamazon, btw, also has variant lines between the nusachim, in this case between the Mizrachi and Ashkenaz versions.

As to the Song of Songs, the rabbis had a tough time deciding whether to put such an obviously erotic book into the Tanach at all. They weren't alone in insisting that it was an allegory: the Catholic Church insists that it is a dialogue between Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride, and religious orders such as the Carmelites who tend to mysticism use it a great deal to symbolize the relationship of the soul to Christ. Yes, to us it all seems rather absurd. I'm sure that, at bottom, the rabbis knew the real meaning of the book: after all, it is recited on Friday nights when married couples perform the mitzvah of having relations if they can.

I LIKE the Artscroll editions, even when some of the rabbinical commentary verges on the absurd. I hear the new Koren prayerbooks, with translations and commentary by the British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, are very good. The classic Orthodox approach has got to be the benchmark by which all the other streams of Judaism are measured. I think I've written this before. I can remember when my mother, who was an on-again, off-again Reform synagogue member, "discovered" Havdala in an adult education course. She'd never ever even heard of it. This is one of the big reasons I have relatively little time for Reform: reinterpreting Havdala, yes -- even writing a modern version, but not junking it altogether. The function of Havdala is marking the boundary between sacred and profane time, just as lighting Sabbath candles does. The Reform does seem to see that they have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and are backtracking on this, to a point, by reintroducing "quaint" customs--but after 3 or 4 generations grew up without the slightest idea of them, it is a struggle.

Do you know the Yiddish meaning of "friar" [freier]? It means "a sucker". Did you intend your soubriquet to give that impression? I don't think you are one.

-Antigonos


Hi Antigonos,

First of all, thanks so much for your comments! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Regarding Blogger and its mysterious ways, I must admit I'm a little stumped. When I comment in Blogger, I get a window that looks like this:

If I'm logged in under a different account (like my home email), I always just click on the Name/URL option and it lets me write my e-handle in manually. Some readers like Conservative Apikoros also use the "Anonymous" option and then sign their replies with their name. Do you get a different window?

Thanks for your notes about siddurim and the Birkat. I understand some of the rationale but I guess I'm still just slightly irked that the Conservative movement dropped the ball on this one. I have an old Artscroll siddur lying around and it's a good idea to grab it for some comparison study; if it's got anything, it's got commentary.

Ah, the Song of Songs. Yes, while I'm sympathetic to the inclination to try to improve on the pshat by adding some extra levels of meaning, at a certain point I think the rabbis doth protest too much-- and Artscroll's "translation" has that in spades.

I have heard good things about Koren, too. My dilemma is that since our Hebrew reading is still in baby step mode, I'm having a hard time justifying getting a siddur that neither Mrs. Yid nor I will be able to use. Hopefully at some point down the line we won't need transliteration, but that day isn't here yet.

I agree with you that throwing babies out with bathwater is generally a pretty terrible idea; but given that it's now several generations since Reform struck out on its own and has been steadily making its way back to some form of ritual awareness, if not strictly observance, it's hard for me to bash them too hard. All the Reform services I've been to have seemed to take Havdalah pretty seriously and everyone there seemed to know what it was. I think that though specific liturgy may still be hazy, the general knowledge level about ritual has gone up since the heydays of High Reform. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's better than it used to be. (Mrs. Yid and I tend to prefer fairly traditional services, albeit in egalitarian settings.)

I've heard the Freier=sucker line before, but my understanding is that that's the Israeli gloss on it. The Yiddish meaning, as I originally read it in Robert Eisenberg's Boychicks in the Hood (one of the first books on Judaism I found as a teenager) was "an uninvolved Jew," that is, not Reform, not Conservative, just "free," unaffiliated. In fact the precursor to this blog was a series of mini-essays I wrote in college (most of which never saw the light of day) that I had some grand plan of self-publishing as "Letters from a Freier Yid" about why so many Jews, especially young folks, were staying unaffiliated in the Twenty-First century. As I became interested in blogging, I also decided to change the spelling to be a little less jarring on the eyes. And, wouldn't you know it, there was already an English version for me to co-opt.

Though it's been over ten years since I first read Boychicks (agh! time!), I'm still unaffiliated with any particular movement, and, from an Orthodox POV, still "frei," in both the sense that I am not particularly observent by Orthodox standards, and that I don't consider myself to be specifically "obligated" by halacha. I see it as more of a cultural inheritance to be accessed as the want or need arises.

Ironically, in the Israeli context in which a freier is someone that stands in line, follows rules and generally does what they're told, yes, I would be considered a freier. For me the 614th mitzvah is "thou shalt not be a jerk in public." One more strike against aliyah, I suppose.