The secret is to be shameless

Those of you who still bother to read the blog may wonder, just how do some of these evil geniuses manage to churn out such... impressive work, week after week, especially when so much of their material seems to be based on BS? Dennis provides the secret in this week's column.

Apparently, Dennis' secret is to just not give a crap. Certainly not about trifling things like truth or fairness. Nope, in Dennis-land it's all sensationalism, all the time. He's like if Frankenstein mated with William Randolph Hearst and then went around bragging about his Jew-dentials.

For example, on Dennis' planet, the upcoming midterm elections are not merely elections, they are a referendum on America. Oh yes, he knows that lazy hack media pundits say this about every election since the 1800s, but trust him on this, it's real this time. Showing his great grasp of history and perspective, Dennis provides us this quip:

this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

See, now to me this just seems lazy. Dennis throws this random reference out there and then does nothing to explain it. Why not the Revolutionary War? Why not World War II or Vietnam? Was Reagan's election not a referendum? Dennis just wants to poke people for shock value and rehash the old trope that America is super duper divided. Stonewall Dennis rides again!

In the world according to Dennis, if the Democrats win the election, it means the American people want the following:

- A "fundamental transformation"...of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

- A change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

Ah yes, the old theory that anyone who votes for a party supports that party's agenda taken to its most extreme position. By that logic, of course, a vote for the GOP is a vote to deport illegal immigrants back to their home countries in cattle cars and to appoint Sarah Palin the new Secretary of Education.

There's more? Oh goody.

-America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

Here Dennis argues that welfare creates entitlement and narcissism. Never mind that you can be narcissistic without welfare. For instance, thinking that the rest of the world either doesn't matter or should be subservient to America's interests, or thinking that because Christians form a large percentage of the US population that therefore national and civic culture should be tailor-made to their personal beliefs and tastes. I think there's enough narcissism in politics and media to go around, personally.

-America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims – who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

You can keep beating this minority victimization drum if you want to, but no matter how you slice it, having an African-American nominee and President isn't encouraging victimhood, Dennis. Also, I know you really want that silly SIXHIRB acronym of yours to catch on, but I'm really not buying it.

-America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial and religious backgrounds.

News flash, Dennis. Spending lots of time screaming about how people aren't American if they don't have the right papers, don't speak the right language, or pray to the wrong God does not encourage Americanization. It pisses people off and makes them uncomfortable. Slight difference. (Side note: what data are you using to categorize America as "unique" in its assimilation model? Surely there are other countries who have a pretty fluid identity process, too. What about Canada?)

Last and certainly worst (to Dennis),

-America will become increasingly secular.

Oh no, not the S-word! Dennis blames this on Leftism being a :jealous God," and blames the Left for "the Judeo-Christian roots of this country...ceasing to play the indispensable moral role they have played since before 1776." This, of course, is a strawman. Rather than recognize the varied and complex religious thoughts and identities of the Founders, and how these viewpoints informed their shaping of American government and policy when it came to things like civic religion, Dennis rewrites history to turn the generation of Washington into the Pilgrims. There is a difference between having a government and culture which is secular and one which is hostile to religion. One does not necessitate the latter.

Not only is Dennis' scare-mongering about the upcoming Stalinist state dishonest, he's also refusing to own up to his own biases. Instead of talking about how his personal preference is for religiosity over secularism, Dennis appeals to a nostalgic fiction about how the Founding Fathers were all super religious and how religiosity is the default. You see, he's neutral, America is religious. He makes crap up reports, you blindly accept his arguments.

In this version of history, not only are secular folks wrong about how the country and culture should run, they're also falling short of the Founders' noble example and ideal about what America was supposed to be. I guess this is supposed to operate as a kind of national version of Catholic guilty? Anyway, nice try, Dennis. That's certainly annoying, but it's not very convincing.

So after building up all the expectations for what this election means, Dennis finally does a favor and defines at least one of his terms:

And what would constitute a Democratic victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. 

Hmm, a surprising feint toward even-handedness. Let's wait and watch what Dennis says after the election. Personally, I'm suspicious about what a "landslide" might be interpreted to mean if things wind up not going certain people's way.

The Blowhard who cried Wolf

One of the first Internet forums I ever participated in was a somewhat rough place. There were lots of cliques, lots of arguments, and the environment was very sink-or-swim. In that spot, one of the first things I learned as an observer and participant in online discussions was to always be very suspicious of people that claimed they were taking their cyber-ball and going home. Anyone that made a big deal of "leaving forever" was almost always full of it and milking their hurt feelings for sympathy. Eventually my natural response to such announcements became to ignore them.

Apparently no one's told this to Tzvi Fishman, though. Over the years, there have been a few times where Tzvi has threatened to shut down his blog (my reaction is always the same: "Promise?") And of course, it never happens.

So, for the record, here's the run-down:

- October 20: various commenters insult each other on Tzvi's blog. Tzvi is greatly offended.

- October 22: Tzvi has an e-tantrum and announces that "Until you children stop calling each other bad names, this blog is shut down." Tzvi muses that maybe his "piercing insights, controversial use of visuals, and the exaggerated style of my writing are responsible for the locker-room tone of the talkbacks" Yes, Tzvi, I'm sure it was all about how "piercing" your insight was. After all, who'd have thought that comparing the Diaspora to a toilet could lead to people treating your blog like a locker room? It's just shocking how some people behave, isn't it?

- October 25: A record three days later, Tzvi's blog miraculously returns! And how has he managed to reach his high standard of having his readers stop calling each other bad names? Why it's by removing their ability to write back at all! What great wisdom you have, Reb Tzvi.

Three cheers to Tzvi, the biggest crybaby on the Internet. Maybe now that he's silenced his readers, he'll stop threatening to quit every time he gets upset at something. Or he'll do us all a favor and finally make good on his promises. Either way is good.

Dumbass Roundup

I'm busy these days, but so are all the idiots out there. In the interests of efficiency, here's some of the dumber stuff I came across this week:

In breaking news, it turns out people are still cheating welfare. Saint Chrissy thinks this means we should abolish the welfare system.

This money was meant to feed and clothe struggling families. It's supposed to help families get back on their feet. All it's really doing is enabling them. What they need is an intervention. But our government doesn't see it that way. The raging liberals in California will support welfare until their last breath. I don't know if it's out of spite as in "We'll show these Republicans who's boss," or if they're really that dumb to think this is the way to help American families.

My mother was a single parent with two kids. She didn't have help from her parents or anyone else. She provided a roof over their head, food in their bellies and clothes on their back. Not once did she resort to welfare. So don't tell me that it's necessary. It's obvious through this study that it's another useless tool in the liberal belt.

In related news, I once saw a woman cheat on her written test at the DMV. By this logic, rather than create stricter guidelines to make cheating harder and catch people, we should instead eliminate the written test (or maybe get rid of the DMV altogether).

Les Kinsolving is mad about the prospect of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but would have a hard time milking an entire column out of "Ew! Gross!", so he tries to re-frame the issue as one focusing over health and human rights:

The recruitment of self-announced homosexuals would also cause a major medical problem given the sexual orientation's high rates of AIDS and syphilis.

Uh, why? Has the military stopped administering physicals?  I'm pretty sure we have tests to check for syphilis nowadays. Also, aren't there regulations banning troop fraternization? Why does Les assume that once we let gays in every base from here to Kandahar is going to be throwing bug parties? Is it because he's stupid?

Les also claims that forcing heterosexual troops to bunk with homosexual ones would be a violation of "basic rights", noting that the US Naval Academy segregates its students when it comes to housing. This is kind of funny considering all the various things that members of the military have to go through, first in boot camp and then when on active duty. It seems to me that if the worst thing that ever happens to you in the Army or Marine Corps is having a gay roommate, you're coming out ahead. But even conceding Les' stupid point about some people not being comfortable bunking with gays: you don't need to build separate gay quarters, any more than you needed separate quarters for blacks when you started integrating the armed forces. Just the opposite: to support the new policy, you should have gay troops bunk with straight ones, and anyone too weirded out can be separated. If DADT is repealed, it becomes the new normal. Les' problem only persists as long as we assume that everyone will continue to think the way he does.

Incidentally, Les, you know whose armies do accept openly gay recruits? Among others, there's Australia, Canada,  Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, the UK (along with most of Europe), and of course, that darling of the right, Israel. Last I checked, it seems like their armies all continue to function just fine. Maybe instead of talking out of your ass you should actually do some comparative research. You know, as long as you're still pretending to be a journalist.

Les has one more argument up his sleeve, though, and it's a doozy: An expert witness. Well, expert enough.

One Marine Corps veteran is Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

He declared that Judge Phillips is "playing politics with our national defense. Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda. There is still strong opposition to changing the law from military leaders."

Boo-ya! In your face, judges! A Conservative activist who also happens to be Marine Corps veteran has an opinion! Looks like we sure showed you. (Shut up, Mullen! Who let you in here?) BTW, I love how when liberals have policies about the military, it's playing politics, but when conservatives have policies they're somehow politics-free. Must be magic.

Finally, Janet Folger had no ideas this week, so she fell back on an old standby: When you don't have anything to bitch about, just make crap up. This week's hypothetical complaint: Obama micromanaging Halloween.

Under an Obama Halloween, in addition to the permits, children must report all candy intake and leave 96 percent of it at ACORN offices and various union drop-off sites.  They will be redistributed to purchase votes in the coming weeks.  Any leftover candy will be given to those Obama/Democrat supporters who are unwilling or too lazy to trick or treat for themselves.

If the government schools still have your children believing that Obama is worthy of the praise songs they sing, give them a "taste" of what that really means. After working all night collecting candy, inform them of all the restrictions and income, sales, health-care, "stimulus" and other taxes that will leave them with about three candy corns – two of which you, as parents, are entitled to for "property tax" for their bedroom in your house.

What's at stake in this election can be communicated to your little tots as simply as "candy or no candy."  "Trick or Treat."  Which do you prefer?

Nice indoctrination bit at the end. I guess this is supposed to be funny, instead of just incredibly sad and creepy? Well, I suppose there's a reason Folger's organization is called "Faith2Action" instead of "Faith2Humor", "Faithfully Funny," or my personal favorite, "Ha-Ha-Ha-Faith."

Oh stupid Internet. What would I do without you?

Oh right, be productive.

Look Timmy, a one-man Republican Pride Parade!

A while ago, Dennis wrote about how politics (specifically, liberalism) had become its own religion for many Americans, particularly Jews. He shared an anecdote about how he felt much guiltier the first time he voted Republican than the first time he ate ham (apparently not considering that for many people, political involvement is reflective of an all-encompassing worldview, whereas keeping kosher is merely one component in maintaining Jewish observance/identity). As always, anything that happened to Dennis is presumed to be reflective of all humanity. Because he's modest.

Anyway, since then Dennis has been beating the Republican drum a little louder, first trying to nudge the Latino vote rightward, and now trying to galvanize the troops by talking about how he's bursting with pride at how awesome the GOP is. Sock it to me, Dennis. 

After I became a Republican in the early 1990s – in a recent column, I explained how emotionally difficult it is for a Democrat to vote Republican, let alone become one – I concluded that I had left the dangerous party and joined the stupid party.

Wow, off to a great start. You should be in PR.

President Obama and his left-wing party have given his country three enormous gifts:

First, they created a level of political/moral clarity that it has not had in this baby boomer's lifetime.

Second, they induced a consequent eruption of conservative activism – i.e., activism on behalf of limited government – that may be greater than at any time since the founding of the country.

And third, they are producing a Republican Party that actually stands for something other than being an alternative to the Democratic Party.

Let's work these backwards. While I agree that of course parties should actually believe in their principles, my impression has been that party Republicans are still pretty low on ideas and policies. By contrast, the Tea Party is such a loose confederation of activists that they have too many ideas, and wind up coming off as incoherent, scattered, and, thanks to some of their wackier candidates, downright loony. Last, the moral clarity Dennis alludes to seems to be more rhetorical than anything else. Obama has not been great, but he
certainly hasn't been the Socialist dictator the right has tried to sculpt him into. If anything, he's just been plain old ineffectual. Hardly the evil catalyst for moral clarity.

Dennis says the proof of principled politicans and voters can be seen by the total Republican refusal to vote for new federal regulations from the Democrats. As always, he refuses to provide links, so I'm not quite sure what he's talking about. If anything, though, I would guess that this simply shows politicians paying attention to the polls and the upcoming midterms. The Republicans know their base is pissed, riled up and getting ready to vote. Therefore, they're toeing the party line. Why so shocking?

Dennis also says that Republican voters are finally standing behind their core beliefs. Assuming this is actually happening to the degree he claims I agree that, as a concept, it's too bad that Democrats aren't doing the same. That said, politics is always about more than merely people's personal philosophy. There will always be elements of practical gain and basic pragmatism that will be involved as well. Until you get a critical mass of people on the left who care about and vote for specific issues enough to be noticed on a national scale, it's just not happening.

And if all this is not enough to fill a Republican with pride, there is a development that is as dramatic and unforeseeable as was the unanimity of Republican opposition to the transformational Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda: The quality of many Republican senatorial and congressional candidates in the 2010 election is the highest in modern memory.

Here Dennis just seems to be throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. He gives some details about individual candidates, but doesn't give you enough to make any meaningful comparison between this years' and those of "modern memory" (what's that, a 20 year spread?), he just says it and lets it hang there. Gee, Dennis, thanks for anecdotally wasting our time.

One last thing-- California-resident Dennis makes a point of singling out Fiorino and Whitman as examples of upstanding Republican challenges to career politicians like Boxer and Brown. As both these races immediately affect me, I have some thoughts:

I haven't exhaustively researched either of their records, so I won't claim them to be perfect. But to argue that the "powerhouse women" CEOs are more accomplished and are on "an incomparably higher level" than the incumbents who have a combined 60-plus years in public service is nonsense (to say nothing of unsubstantiated). However you feel about Boxer and Brown, you have to be pretty dumb to argue they've spent their careers sitting around twiddling their thumbs. What Dennis calls "working to be re-elected" most people would call "serving their constituents", or "doing their jobs." I'm not going to say that businesspeople can't be successful public servants, but the implication that between an established politician and a businessperson you should naturally favor the latter over the former because business is good and government is bad just doesn't make any sense. They're two entirely different jobs and skill sets.

Are the Republicans going to get some victories in the midterms? Of course they are; that's usually how midterms work. But the idea that the GOP is turning into a more principled, more talented, and more moral party... well, good luck to you, Dennis. Let me know how that works out. I still don't think it'll be enough to make Jews vote Republican, though.

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.

Claiming the Victim

Today we have noted thinker Kevin McCullough, responsible for such brilliant witticisms as "Removing job protections for pro-life physicians is like forcing abolitionists to own and rape slaves", and "Being a feminist mother is like being your daughter's pimp." With such a great (albeit unhinged) mind, you can tell we're in for something really special.

Of course, Kevin does not disappoint. Discussing the suicide of gay college student Tyler Clementi, McCullough says this:

The assumptions made on many of these broadcast, print, and web based reports follow the idea that Tyler felt so bullied by the roommate and girlfriend who evilly and immorally taped him, that he had no option but to turn to suicide. This has been quickly adopted as the authoritative version of what happened and the need for psychologically profiling both the bullies who did it and other youths who engage in homosexual behavior.

So far, this is technically true. A lot of assumptions do get made in the modern-day 24/7 newscycle, and they aren't always accurate. Journalists like a good narrative, and sometimes one gets constructed before all the information is available. However there's a world of difference between merely pointing out the construction of the narrative and proposing a radical counter-narrative, which is what McCullough does. In his view, there is another compelling argument for what happened:

Perhaps Tyler had a genuinely sensitive conscience, perhaps he had great respect for both his family and his God, perhaps he felt ashamed of actions because he knew they were immoral. Hence a completely different narrative could be told, one that encourages young people towards moral choices.

Excuse me? So he committed suicide because he was "sensitive," "had respect" for his family and God, and therefore was filled with such incredible shame he killed himself? How is that a better narrative for young people?

When I first read this, I thought McCullough was saying that suicide was a "moral choice" for gay people, and I was infuriated. Then I realized that by "moral choices," he meant, "choosing not to be gay." Which is idiotic, but not surprising, and at least marginally better than telling gay people to jump off bridges.

McCullough is trying to re-write Clementi as a conflicted Christian martyr, so ashamed of how he had disrespected God that he was left with only one way out. This is beyond disgusting; it's obscene. It is true that Clementi was active in his church, an evangelical conservative church that requires gay members to be celibate and apparently includes an "ex-gay" ministry. But that to me only reinforces the point that a huge part of Clementi's shame was due to the fear that, aside from merely being humiliated at his school, he was now going to be ostracized and possibly kicked out of his church. That's got far more in common with bullying and social isolation than deciding that you're so conflicted between your sexual orientation and your religious beliefs that you have to kill yourself. Give me a break.

There's something else that's deeply disturbing about this bit of rhetoric. Some Christians are using Clementi's death as a catalyst to take a close look at themselves and their attitudes towards gays. Even the freaking Southern Baptists are doing a double-take. But McCullough will have none of it. For him, there was no outside issue that lead to Clementi's death; it was all due to his internal struggles; his fault. Rather than having the cautionary tale be about the terrible danger of people invading others' privacy and humiliating them, the cautionary tale turns into "don't be gay or you'll be so morally trapped you'll ultimately kill yourself." What a bastard.

The truth is Tyler was doing something he did feel shame and embarrassment for. Just like the thirteen year old who gets caught with a stash of pornography in his bedroom, or the college student that gets his girlfriend pregnant, Tyler was seeking sexual satisfaction in secretive ways that he hoped certainly would never come to light.

Yes, and just like any decent person would be appalled at anyone, particularly a young person, who was so filled with self-loathing, shame and fear that they were willing to kill themselves rather than let people know  they had a porn stash, so too this case is a loud warning about the climate that is still fomented in many churches, whether consciously or not. Even if you believe that being gay or looking at porn are sins, the concept that people who commit these sins are so far gone they don't deserve to live is heading into the crazyland theology of the Westboro Baptist Church.

McCullough is quick to attack the "radical anti-God activists" allegedly exploiting Clementi, claiming they are trying to remake him in Matthew Sheppard's image. Maybe he should look in the mirror. McCullough is doing the exact same thing, trying to make Clementi over in his own image-- a conservative Christian who sees being gay as incompatible with being moral, decent, or made in the image of God. A man who sees being gay and being Christian (or moral) as mutually exclusive. Never mind that there's far less evidence to support his theory than the one he's objecting to. McCullough would rather make crap up than go down the slippery slope of acknowledging that being gay is still not a bed of roses, or that the abuse GLBT folks get isn't self-deserved. After all, what kind of message does that send to the kids?

Clementi doesn't have to be a mirror image of Matt Sheppard to be important. But suggesting he was Jesus on the cross, crucified by his own "moral shame"-- and that it was entirely his fault because, after all, he was gay-- is beyond outrageous.

My father and I go to shul

Abbot Yid and I were at a Jewish Renewal synagogue for a wedding last weekend. Much hilarity insued:

Abbot Yid: So what's this place all about?

Me: Well, it's Renewal, which means it's neo-Hasidic.

AY: Uh huh... And what the heck does that mean?

Me: It takes the escatic joy of Hasidism but has a more modern viewpoint on it. It's more counter-cultural and more spiritual than religious.

AY: Wait a minute, wait a minute... Hasidism? Joy? Since when?

Me: Well... ok, this guy (pointing to a picture) this is the B'aal Shem Tov, and his whole shtick was that he was focused more on the joy that could be found in everyday religion as opposed to Torah study.

AY: If you say so. I certainly never got that vibe.

(Long pause)

...For that matter, you know what never came up in any of the Conservative synagogues we went to?

...Joy.

Me: Well, lots of folks in these congregations tend to be refugees from places like that.

AY: That explains a lot.

Me: Like what? 

AY: Like why no one's wearing a yarmulke. Or why the rabbi is wearing a rainbow poncho.

Me: I think that's actually a tallis.

AY: Wow, things have changed since I was a kid.

Is hyperbolic jackassery the new normal?

According to Ellis Washington, oh yes.

Ellis, you may recall, can be distinguished by two major factors. Number one, he's got quite the chip on his shoulder. Number two, he loves his overblown Nazi/Soviet comparisons. Just the guy you want to hang out with, I'm sure.

Today, Ellis is pissed about the environmental, or green, movement. Or, as he succintly puts it, 

Is green the new red (communism?)

Um, Ellis, I'm not sure if anyone told you this in op-ed school, but the whole point of a good comparison/cultural reference is that you shouldn't need to explain it in parentheticals. Give your audience some credit, man. What other "red" did you think we would associate with? Red-hots?

Anyway, Ellis is talking about a distinguished physicist who recently resigned from the American Physical Society (sounds like a group promoting P.E., but apparently isn't) because he says global warming is a scam. Rather than give us good useful data about the specific incident, Ellis uses it as a springboard to compare liberals to jihadists. No, seriously.

Remember, to the Democratic Party and RINO Republicans, truth doesn't matter, because to them truth is relative. All that matters to liberals and progressives is Nietzsche's "Will to Power" and control over the people. Like the Islamic doctrine Taqiyya, which sanctions deceit to further Islam, to progressives the end justifies the means; therefore, lying, stealing, killing and perverting the Constitution and science is acceptable to utopian socialists as long as they "change the world."

Recall the words of New Deal brain-truster Stuart Chase who, after visiting the Soviet Union in the 1920s, asked with incredulity, "Why should Russians have all the fun remaking the world?" Progressives are very resilient, so when Soviet communism finally collapsed after 70 years of world wide tyranny, progressives and liberal Democrats pushed the existential green movement to the forefront, which was in reality the same old exhausted red communism in a new disguise.

Green is now the new red (communism).

Damn it, Ellis, you already used that line AND explained it in your title! Stop repeating yourself. Oh, and those comparisons really don't make any sense. What's up with that?

I realize it's hard to accept that progressives and liberals, our fellow Americans, or anti-Americans, are so hell-bent on remaking the world while destroying society and allowing our minds, intellect, soul and spirit to degenerate into the abyss of socialism.

Yeah, not the least because it's not really true. Funny how that works.

Leon Trotsky called this tactic "perpetual revolution." Always keep the revolution going; always have a crisis before the face of the people; always keep society in a controlled state of chaos. 

Right, like keeping the war on terror going by heading into Iraq two years after going into Afghanistan. Or invoking 9/11 during the 2008 elections. Oh, you were still talking about Trotsky. Sorry, go on.

Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton and Obama's intellectual mentor, furthered Trotskyite tactics in his book, "Rules for Radicals"(1971), and now President Obama is forcing America to live out the Democrats' green socialist nightmare, which stopped the Reagan economic revolution dead in its tracks while plunging America into a second Great Depression.

Wow, so the Great Recession that started before his election is not only Obama's fault, it's his fault because of the green movement. You know, I really hadn't realized that "being green" was such a big part of Obama's agenda. Good to know.

Still not convinced? Ellis made a list.

Note some of the sophistic ideas liberal Democrats and progressives have used to control and denigrate society over the past 250 years:

• The Age of Enlightenment (humanism, atheism, skepticism)

• Karl Marx (socialism, communism)

• Charles Darwin (evolution, eugenics, separation of Christianity and science)

• Jeremy Bentham, John Austin (advent of positive law, end of natural law)

• Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Benjamin Spock (sexual promiscuity, family deconstruction)

• Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama (welfare state)

• Walter Lippmann, Herbert Crowley, John Dewey, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw (education propaganda, progressivism, moral relativism)

• Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao (state socialism, totalitarianism)

• Rachel Carson ("Silent Spring" [1962]), Ira Einhorn, Al Gore, Van Jones ("Green New Deal")

My god, a list of "liberal" ideas? That's... totally... wait, what is this supposed to prove? Also, I'm pretty sure Silent Spring is a movie, not an idea. Incidentally, if you think the "free market" does not control or have any negative effects on society, you're just as much a fundamentalist as the liberals and socialists you're bashing. Incidentally, what does any of this have to do with the green movement?

Green is now the new red (communism).

Damn it Ellis, we talked about this.

I don't know Dr. Lewis personally, and I'm not attacking him. I simply am using him as a metaphor against green lobbying groups, like Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, which are making millions peddling lies to useful idiots – people who are too cowardly to stand up and speak truth to power.

Wait, so the reason you don't like the green movement is not so much that you think it's based on shaky science, like Dr. Lewis, it's that you think it's being used as a means of totalitarian control?

Really?

Um... why?

Having successfully invoked Jihad and Trotsky, there is only one area of the Strawman trinity left for Ellis to mine to complete his certificate in Douchebag Studies: the Nazis. He does so, of course, in the most tasteful fashion:

Thank God for Martin Niemoller (1892-1984), that great German Protestant minister who for years suffered in Nazi concentration camps for his outspoken Christian beliefs in the face of Hitler's genocidal madness and Aryan supremacy...

[Shameless use of Niemoller poem]

...During the Age of Obama and FDR's welfare state, part 2, Niemoller is one of my heroes, and that's why we must speak out against this 40-year-old green movement, which is fascist in conception and a cynical backdoor attempt by the Democratic Party to destroy liberty of contract, free-market capitalism and to subvert society gradually through Fabian socialism.

Hey jackass, if Niemoller is one of your heroes, try respecting him a little more as a thinker and concentration camp survivor by not raping his legacy to further your own petty agenda against a movement that, at worst, veers into irritating nanny-stateism, which last I checked, was still a damn long way from godamn concentration camps!

Just a thought.

When Jewish Names Aren't

It seems like a while since I've been able to find some good Jewish content for the blog. Luckily, there are a number of high-quality Jewish websites out there, and plenty of them have nice, chunky bits of bizarre goodness. Take the "Ask the Rabbi?" section of Yeshiva.org. As anyone who reads the blog knows, I am a huge fan of "Ask the Rabbi" segments, be they Lazer Brody or random Chabad dudes on Arutz Sheva. .


Lots of times the questions are above my head, like whether women are allowed to say amen to certain prayers or whether you're allowed to eat a slice of bread on a bus if there's nowhere to wash your hands (not even kidding). But there are some basic categories I think I can handle, like what names are kosher. I particularly liked this question:

My spouse is very interested in giving the name "Adam" to our son who was recently born. I am concerned about this because I truly believe that the name given to a child affects his future and I heard that the name Adam is problematic, perhaps because of Adam’s sin, what should I do???

Wait, so you can only name kids after sinless people? Guess there's going to be a lot of Jesus Goldbergs going around.


The rabbi tries to play both sides:

The Chida (Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai) in his book Birkei Yosef quotes Rabbi Moshe Miterani (1500 – 1580) in his Responsa Hamabit 1, 276, that it is not proper to give the name Adam or Noah or Shem and Eber because one should not name after people, only from Abraham onwards, and one who is called by the name Japheth etc. from the names prior to Abraham is not amongst “whose labor is in the Torah and who gives pleasure to his Creator”. 

Wow, those are some harsh standards. I know a lot of Adams and Noahs who are going to be pissed. (Other names this would disbar from the Jewish canon: Seth, Jared, and of course, Tubalcain.)


Oh wait, fake-out! Looks like all the other rabbis thought this one guy was a few matzot short of a full box.

The Rabbi author of Kenesset Hagedolah wonders at him, as we find R’ Benjamin son of Japheth, and Heaven forbid that the father of R’ Japheth breeched a safeguard and so forth, see there. Similarly should be noted from Akabia ben Mahalalel. The Chida concludes that people are not concerned about this and do give the names Adam Noah etc. 

So you can trust these great sages Rabbi Chaim Benveniste author of the "Kenneset Hagedolah" (Constantinople 1603 - Izmir 1673) and the Chida (Jerusalem 1727 - Livorno 1806) and give your son the name Adam. And particularly in this case that it involves Shalom Bayit (domestic harmony) and great is peace. There is another option to give the child a name in addition to the name Adam.

Man, no fair! Being reasonable? Trying to promote compromise? What kind of rabbi is this guy? I bet this guy is really some half-Jewish, hippy-dippy Reform faker. Hear that, "Moshe Leib Halberstadt," if that is your real name? I'm calling you out!


Other entertaining name questions: Why do stupid people name their kids Nimrod, (answer: they're stupid) and OMG, my namesake married a Goy, what should I do? (answer: nothing, stupid.)

And apologies to Beit-El Yeshiva, which is apparently not as nutty as I thought.

Condensed Dennis

Cramming Prager into shorter, hopefully marginally less-painful sound-bites. (Based on the impeccable logic of Homer Simpson as seen here.) Now with real Dennis-quotes!

On "non-leftists" voting Democratic: You're emotionally prejudiced against Republicans! Because liberalism is a religion to you! Even more than actual religions! So you're overly-emotional anti-Republican, religion-hating jerks. Not only that, you're ideologically inconsistent! Only 20% of Americans consider themselves liberal, based on some random unsourced poll I'm using. The only logical explanation is that most Democrats are intellectually lazy, in addition to being illogical, emotional, religion-hating anti-Republican bigots. Oh, AND to remember how unfair and lazy Democrat arguments are, I coined a new acronym of various slurs they slander Republicans with: "... nearly all Democratic and leftist reactions to conservatives and Republicans are to avoid argument (remember, on the issues the left has few supporters) and smear them as SIXHIRB, my acronym for "Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted." You can tell I'm right because nearly all high-profile Conservatives have been slandered with one of these insults at some time or another, which just goes to show that every one of those times was an unfair bit of character assassination by left-wing jerks. Did I mention that since you can't ever win any arguments, you always resort to demonizing your opponents? Bastards.

On Hispanics waffling over which party to choose: I understand you moved here because your country sucks. Believe me, I understand how much it sucks. But if we let everyone in then it will destroy our culture, you know, the static and unchanged whitebread, Judeo-Christian one we've had since the 1620s. What you have to understand is that anyone who claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are racists are full of crap. We don't hate you, we love you, that's why we hire you to mow our lawns, harvest our fruit and sew our clothes. Would I let you near my lawn if I didn't trust you? Think about it. You can also tell that there's no racism in America because so many non-Hispanics are marrying Hispanics. The birth-rate doesn't lie: "We are the least racist place on earth." I know, you didn't even know there were empirical ways to measure or prove that. But your old pal Dennis pulled an all-afternooner and found a way, and the results are in: we rule. So seriously, stop complaining, and start voting for Republicans, instead of Democrats who appeal to your emotions just to get votes (the nerve!) Incidentally, did I mention the Democrats are left-wing, just like the governments of all those shithole countries that you came here to escape? Do the math, Pedro.

On Liberals and God: Liberals pooh-pooh how religious America is. But it's really a compliment, because our religion is awesome. See, our Judeo-Christian God is the source of American liberty, as opposed to Islam's God, who is about submission. (Hey! No fair bringing up Shakers, Amish or Haredi Jews, I'm trying to make a ridiculously broad argument over here.) Anyway, even though the concept of all men being endowed liberty by their creator sounds rather Deist and reeks of the European Enlightenment, it actually shows what major God hard-ons the Founding Fathers had. You can tell because they put Bible verses on public buildings and large bells. Also, the less religious a country gets, the more totalitarian it gets. (Exception for Muslim countries because they contradict me, and also I'm going to ignore the silly argument I made up before that leftism is a religion in its own right because it's inconvenient right now.) Where was I? Ah yes, why I'm right. You see, as America gets more totalitarian and liberal, it uses the courts to remove God and religion, so that the state can steal people's liberty. Get it? Oh, did I mention that the present-day culture war is actually a Civil War? To show how apt my comparison is, I rewrote some history while watching a documentary on the History Channel: "To use a Civil War simile, the secular Fort Sumter took place in 1962, when the United States Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale) overthrew the decision of the highest court of New York state and ruled that the following prayer, said in New York State schools, violated the Constitution: 'Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.'"
In this scenario, of course, I would get to be someone bad-ass like Stonewall Jackson, in as much as I am borderline insane and spend much of my time sucking lemons while pointing out to anyone with ears how great I am. Anyway, anytime a liberal sues someone over Christmas, or anyone feels marginally discomfited by someone telling them to stop preaching God at them, an angel gets sodomized by Al Franken. And that's why Obama is bad.

Misusing Statistics

You know the problem with arguing from statistics? It's really easy to project the stats onto whatever your personal perspective is. Just look at politics: when one party gets 52%, it's considered a "mandate"-- never mind the 48% who think they're crap (or, say, the millions who didn't vote in the first place).

So too with cultural statistics. Have an agenda to promote? I'm sure there are some statistics, somewhere, you can use to prove your point.

Example 1: Our blogging compatriot Lady Light.

An article on Israel National News indicated that a CBS survey showed more and more Israelis are becoming observant in their Judaism.  Life just has more meaning, when you believe there is more to it than merely the physical world in which we live, when you believe there is an underlying reason for our existence.

There are a few problems with this one. First, the survey didn't use any internal criteria to actually measure observance levels. It just asked people if they felt they were more observant. Considering how many Israelis skew secular, this could range from merely wearing a yarmulke, starting to keep a higher level of kashrut, or joining a synagogue (even, gasp, Reform!). For all we know, they planted a tree on Tu B'Shevat. It's an opinion poll, no more.

Second, the survey said that although 21% reported becoming more observant, 14% reported being less observant than they were "in the past." That's hardly a big spread.

Third, Lady Light's particular gloss on the significance of the poll is entirely her own; there's nothing in the article to suggest that the survey asked respondents what their motivation for becoming more religious was. If Judaism answers all the big questions for LL, that's great for her. Clearly, a big part of the observant Jewish worldview is that God is involved with humanity and that there are reasons and meaning behind what happens in the world. However, deciding that the people in this survey are lighting Hanukkah candles, going to a seder, or fasting on Yom Kippur because Judaism solves their existential angst is total projection. Sorry.

Example 2: A.J. Jacobs' favorite kooky uncle, Gutman Locks, trying to argue that being frum is actually "easier" than living in the secular world.

Have you ever heard a rabbi say, “You have to accept upon yourself the yoke of Torah”? Apparently, this rabbi agrees with those who say that a Torah life is very hard. The truth is that life without the Torah is the life that is too hard, and when you bring the Torah into your life, it makes life much, much easier.

...What a wonderful thing the yoke is. The animal loves its yoke. The yoke saves the animal from so much pain and suffering.

... In America today: 27% of the non-religious, white, teenage girls, and 50% of the non-religious, black, teenage girls, have one, two, or three different types of venereal diseases. Fifty percent of the babies born to non-religious girls are born out of wedlock - i.e. mommy is not married, no father at home. Sixty-five percent of the non-religious marriages end in divorce.

According to one popular talk show host, in 85% of the non-religious marriages, one of the partners, every once in a while, sleeps with someone other than their spouse. That life, the non-religious life that they live, is the life that is “Too Hard,” not the Torah life.

If you will keep Shabbos (which, in fact, is a pleasure), and your wife will cover her hair (to be modest), if you put on tefillin (to pray), and if the home is kosher (so even your eating is holy), if the kids get a Jewish education (so the Jewish people and values continue), then none of these statistics will apply to you and your family.

Now tell me, which is the life that is too hard?

Here Gutman grabs a bunch of statistics without any sources ("popular talk show host?" I love that guy! Is he still writing for "I read it somewhere" quarterly?) and lobs them all at "the secular world" to prove its infamy. Of course, he doesn't actually care enough about statistics to offer any regarding the religious world, implying that these problems are so infintesimal there that it would be a waste of time or statistical impossibility to try to measure them.

Hmm. Did I miss something? Did the rabbinate abolish divorce over the High Holidays when I wasn't looking? Also, if Gutman is going to claim to be so scientific, why doesn't he suggest a study to examine or compare the rate of STDs or extramarital affairs among different groups of Jews? For all we know, it's lower among frum Jews than their secular counterparts. But that wouldn't serve his agenda, which is to paint the religious life as having no strife at all, as opposed to merely less than average. That's the mark of the missionary-- your life is terrible, mine is perfect. Join us...

I'm also annoyed that Gutman doesn't bother trying to dissect any of the statistics-- what factors could be at play that cause black girls to have more STDs, for example? How do the stats define non-religious? That's not important. What's important is that secularism gives you herpes, while religion gives you an intact marriage with at least eight kids, keina hora.

Seriously, guys. If you want to promote kiruv, go nuts. But I kind of doubt that you're going to get any converts by showing them a poll.

On Zayde, Depression, and why I'm not fasting this Yom Kippur

It's been a whirlwind last few weeks. Well, sort of.

Career-wise, things have stalled. Work sucks in a variety of ways. Suffice it to say that things did not pan out as I would have liked and I am stuck in the same job with more scut work, less money, less chances to do things I'd really like to do (you know, like actually teaching), and that my school has re-defined my job to classify me as more of a staff person (like the janitors) than a member of faculty (this despite them helping pay for my credential).

This has dovetailed with Shiksa Girlfriend getting a new job, which, while awesome, combined with her grad schooling, has resulted in her not getting home before 10:00 pm only about twice a week on average. So far, very few of our days off are overlapping, and in addition to missing out on companionship time, it's also becoming a lot harder to maintain our hovel.

So what this all means is I'm coming home later, more tired than usual, a lot more resentful than usual, and spending lots of time alone in the crappy apartment. Good times.

Interestingly enough, the past few weeks have also led to some interesting Jewish and family history moments. I got Zayde's tefillin in the mail and even got a chance to talk a little with his old friend, Dr. Jewman. The good doc told me, among other revelations, that the old man was actually a fellow traveler of the illustrious Skverer rebbe, not Schneerson as I have long believed. (I suppose this means I should start going slightly easier on Chabad. Or not.) Me being the obsessive Jewish trivia fiend I am, I suppose this now means I'll have to start reading up on Skver (fingers crossed that they can point to some intellectual/spiritual accomplishments beyond esteemed crack-pot and comically-tiny hat aficionado Mayer Schiller).

See?

So I got the tefillin, and I went poking around the internet. I fiddled around with the head-strap. I looked up how to tie the knot (luckily for me Zayde-- or the sofer who checked the tefillin and mailed them out to me-- used the double-dalet, also known as a square knot, which I found far easier than the single-dalet). I practiced until I could do it again if I had to. I also practiced wrapping them around me. And then, that Sunday, I davened in "full Jew uniform"-- tallis, tall boxy yarmulke, and Zayde's tefillin.

And it was pretty darned cool. To feel so enmeshed, to feel physically changed and set apart from other activities, identifying that this was prayer and this was meant to be a connection and show and remind you and other people that you are praying, was a very different and unique experience. In a way beyond just wearing a tallis (I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you can kind of put on a tallis and almost forget it's there, particularly after doing the cool shoulder-cape-flip). And of course, having the physical connection to my grandfather, wearing the tefillin that he wore, re-affirming that connection to the past and the family and the traditions, was all feeding into my emotions as well.

So that was a very neat experience, one which I'll definitely try again. Unfortunately given my early-morning schedule and my understanding of when it's appropriate to use tefillin (most sources I looked at suggested that you generally don't use them to daven anything other than shacharis, Chabad outreach notwithstanding), I'm guessing I'll mostly only have the chance to use them on Sunday mornings, at least during the school year.

Shortly after this, I got another Zayde trinket. Less spiritual, but still very powerful.

It was his FBI file. From the late 80s, when he had a series of psychotic episodes. When he flew all over Europe (including a stop in Turkey) supposedly on a secret mission looking for stolen Nazi art that he was going to purchase and then return to survivors in Israel. After a week or so of criss-crossing Europe, sleeping in airports, and doing god-knows-what-else, he flew back to the US from Paris.

During the flight, he started hallucinating. He made threats to the flight crew. He accused people of robbing him. He tried to break down the door of the cockpit to speak to the captain. He attacked several flight attendants.

If it had happened today, he would have been shot by an air marshal. I'm absolutely sure of this. Instead he was wrestled to the floor, ziptied to his seat, and escorted off the plane by federal agents (airspace being federal jurisdiction). After attempts at defense (which included asking my father, "the lawyer son" to be a character witness-- he refused, which torpedoed their already-crappy relationship for a good seven years), he wound up being acquitted of attempted murder by reason of insanity but was sentenced to eight months in a psychiatric treatment facility.

Zayde was bipolar, and mostly manic. Most of the rest of the family have tended towards the depressive end of the spectrum.

Recently I've been realizing just how angry I've gotten. How despondent I've gotten. I've felt totally stuck, trapped on all sides. My parents will ask me how I'm doing, and my honest answer is, "Everything pretty much sucks." I don't live our living situation. I don't like my job. I don't like how little I'm seeing SG. To say nothing of our present social and community semi-isolation. It's become harder and harder to pick out silver linings, or even to conceptualize a light at the end of the tunnel to look forward to.

Abbot Yid asked me how I was feeling the other day. I said, "Depressed."

He said, "Well, no offense, but everyone else in this family is taking anti-depressants; why should you be so special?"

Touche.

I've started the process of looking for a therapist. I know once I get started things will get better. And there are already some things that are starting, ever so slightly to look up. SG and I are beginning the very early stages of planning a move out of the city to find a better cost of living and also try to find some more job opportunities. I spoke with my lead teacher today and we're going to start planning out concrete lessons I can be in charge of. For the first time in a while, things don't seem to be interminable. And I know that will go a long way towards helping me see past the crappy parts and look at them as the temporary issues they are.

Last year I had a bronchial infection during Yom Kippur and decided not to fast. This year I'm struggling with major allergies and a bad cold. That wouldn't necessarily be enough to keep me from fasting. But this past week, when SG and Mother Superior Yid each asked me if I was going to fast this year, I knew immediately what the right answer was.

"No. Because I'm not healthy right now. And I can recognize that."

(Suffice it they were both very relieved to hear this. Incidentally, SG will be fasting.)

I inherited Zayde's love of Judaism. That's been apparent since I was twelve. But I have to come to terms with the fact that there's other stuff, darker stuff, that may be in the inheritance mix as well. It doesn't mean I need to live my life scared-- I certainly seem to have gotten a much better roll on genetic roulette than my brother or some of our cousins. But it's certainly important to be aware of-- and, if necessary, to get help for.

Here's to a new year, a time of learning, growth, and yes, struggle. But hopefully, also a time of strength, renewal, and healing.

...Man, I need something to lighten this mood up. Oh, I know. Speaking of tefillin (and tzitzit), this rabbi, though pretty cool considering his age and religious background, also seems a tad over the top regarding these mitzvot, perhaps verging on ADD (by his own estimate, they weigh over 40 lbs). Discuss.

A Rebuttal from Shiksa Girlfriend

After reading my last post, SG was so fired up to present her position to our vast readership that it prompted her to write her very first blog post. In honor of that I'll do what I do worst and shut up from here on in. - FY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the other side –

As The Friar previously told the internet-at-large, recently he and I had a slightly heated discussion about the direction of our practice as part of the discussion of “Where are we going for High Holidays this year.”

I want to add some more background to the points that the Friar made in his last post.

Within a month of our first date, the Friar stated that he had always pictured himself raising a Jewish family, and was feeling some conflict between about dating me, and the long-standing vision of his future. …Fortunately for him, I also wanted to raise a family in a religious community, but certainly not the one that I was raised in, and thus was amenable to a shared compromise on these far-in-the-future issues. (Note: Despite what he stated in his post, I am NOT considering returning to any form of Christianity, “cultural” or otherwise.)

At first we had relatively little conflict about beginning religious practice as adults. Even though the Friar is the born Jew, he had almost no experience actually participating as a child due to his parent’s lack of interest/bad experiences. Instead, he was self-educated on Jewish practice through research on books, Internet, and media. I had plenty of experience navigating the sometimes-complicated social world of religious groups. I had also been a part of a variety of communities, and had seen how poorly they can operate and how far apart my own beliefs and preferences my childhood community was.

When we started attending shul in college, I felt pretty much at home from the beginning. I had long since ceased to practice Christianity or consider myself an Episcopalian. The communities we were participating in, well, they had things that valued in a religious community, (caring community, ritual, and some rigorous textural analysis) and none of the things I objected to (endless emphasis on sin, careless and manipulative use of biblical text, dirge-like songs). We were coming into the community with about the same level of experience (none) and were seeing what other people were doing. This attitude lasted through the first 1½ years of living in SF as we were shul-shopping and trying to find a spiritual home.

The interfaith issue is, I think, coming up again, now, because there are serious identity issues for me. I don’t consider myself a Christian, though I have been baptized as an infant and confirmed as a teen, because I have ceased to practice. Religion, for me, is rooted in practice, individual and group, and that is where I locate the heart of identity. The Friar, always has, and (I think) always will consider himself a Jew, even if he follows his father’s path and doesn’t step into a synagogue for 30+ years. I don’t have that rock-sold identity for obvious reasons. I won’t (may never) consider an official conversion until I have practiced the religion for many more years, and feel like I can truthfully claim that it has become part of my identity.

Therefore, we have conflict, because it isn’t necessary for the Friar to join with a community at this point. None of the ones we have visited match his ideal and it is hard to feel the conflict with every visit. However, I have years of experience suffering a very pronounced conflict between attending Church with my family every week and my own beliefs….and just being very angry and upset about the advice that came down from the pulpit and the deliberate way that text, historical context, and translation were twisted and omitted to make the biblical verses support various things. In contrast to my historical experience, I am so much more comfortable in the synagogue, even when the ritual or social scene isn’t quite my ideal.

If I am going to be able to partner with the Friar to raise a unified family, I need to start now, to practice in a community and at home, so that I can feel confident in my knowledge and identity as a Jew-ish mother. So even if the communities aren’t ideal, I’d like to pick one or two, and make an investment of time to join the social aspect instead of limiting ourselves to the ritual aspect. It’s awkward, it’s not what either of us is good at, it’s hard to fit in with other stuff, but….I think it’s worth doing. I hope we can find a way.

- SG

A Wake-Up Call

(X-posted to Too Cool for Shul)

Shiksa Girlfriend and I had a talk recently where she said she was bummed out that we had let our synagogue attendance drop so dramatically. There were lots of reasons for this: she had been unemployed for eight months (yay new employment!), both of us had been stretched kind of thin emotionally and psychologically, and, to be honest, neither of us is all that social (me especially). She said she understood all that, but that she needs to feel like we're a little more part of a community, and that I'm frankly not helping. Specifically, she thinks my shul standards are too high.

I said that it was hard for me; that my parents weren't really joiners and that we weren't raised to be joiners, and that social/group dynamics have never really been my thing, partially because I never really needed to work at it. If I didn't want to be a part of something, I didn't have to. Which meant that I didn't bother.

She said that was all well and good but that if we go around expecting perfection out of every social interaction, especially in a Jewish context, that we'll never get a chance to find people that we do click with. I said that it felt like we had seen what our options were, and none felt quite right-- Evil Minion had great enthusiasm, but felt cliquey and awkward as soon as services were over. Beth Elderly had the exact opposite problem; they had so few new (or young) members that we felt like people were incapable of A- giving us some space to settle in, or B- not projecting various images of Young Adult Leadership TM on us. At this point I would feel guilty going back there simply because they gave us a trial membership for High Holidays and then we never went back after. They're probably still scratching their heads over it.

In a really interesting development, she also said that if this thing isn't resolved by the time we have kids, she will basically look for another community identity to raise them in (probably Unitarian Universalism, but maybe super-low-key cultural Christianity).

Whoah.

At first I was a little shocked at what felt like a trump card or low blow, but I realized that I should really have been thankful of how honest and direct she was being. She wants to share this Jewish thing with me, but I can't really expect her to be the leader when she isn't even Jewish. And unfortunately I'm not really knowledgeable (or comfortable) enough to stand alone or go trailblazing ahead, foraging into the tall grasslands of Jewish community.

So we compromised. We will be doing more shul visits this year. When SG's schedule gets ironed out, we will try to include more Saturday visits into the mix (which will also be a good way to get a fresh look at the different shuls in town). We've already made arrangements for High Holidays at Temple GLBT. This will be our first holidays with them.

Four years of High Holidays in four different shuls. I wonder if it's us? Or them? Or both.