In a surprising victory for non-Orthodox Jews, a British court has weighed in on an ancient Jewish debate: who is a Jew?
A twelve year-old Jewish boy who obtains his heritage from his father (a kosher-keeping, observant Jew) applied to North London's Jews' Free School, an exclusive, attractive Orthodox school that denies many applicants. Unfortunately, the school uses the classist Orthodox criteria for deciding who is Jewish. In their view, a Jew is someone who has a Jewish mother or who converts to Orthodox Judaism. Anyone else is a non-Jew. In this view, a Jew with a last name like Cohen who has had a bar mitzvah, has made aliyah to Israel, who keeps kosher, goes to synagogue, who has been told all his life he "looks Jewish", would be considered goyim if his mother is not Jewish.
The London school took a look at the 12 year-old Jewish boy's identity and ignored the fact that he is ethnically Jewish and therefore should not have to convert. The school heads found out that his mother converted through a Progressive temple instead of through Orthodoxy and decided the boy is not Jewish.
His family sued the school, they lost the case, but a British Court of Appeal overturned the ruling this summer. They said the school was discriminating and that whether their rationale was "benign or malignant, theological or supremacist, makes it no less and no more unlawful" ("Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question", Sarah Lyall.)
Much of the Catholic community is supporting the Orthodox Jews outraged by the court's decision, and now so are many Muslims and Protestants. They see this as a scary precedent in which religious institutions are not allowed to make their own rules. To them, this is a slippery slope that could lead to outlawing disrimination against gays and other infidels.
The media, of course, are getting this story all wrong, and in doing so are granting implicit support to these religious fundamentalists. Sarah Lyall of The New York Times echoes the incorrect statement made by many news sources as well as the court that the school was using ethnicity as a criteria, and that opposers of the school's policy are using observance.
That simplistic, reductive observation may make the debate smoother, but the truth is more complicated. The New York Times says, "the court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M's [the boy's] mother rather than whether he considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism."
That is incorrect. What sort of ethnicity is only inherited through the mother? Anyone can claim to be Jewish and even practice whatever she wants. That does not mean she is Jewish, and that certainly does not mean she should be granted access to an exclusvie Jewish school that actual Jews compete to get into. "Jewish" describes an ethnicity and a religion. If one is not born Jewish but wishes to be a member of the religion, she must go through a conversion. That is fine. The school parts with common sense when they say a boy with a Jewish father must convert as if he were a non-Jew. The school is discriminating because of a hateful religious rule that dishonors patrilineal descent; it has nothing to do with ethnocentricism.
The boy in this case is Jewish because he is. His father is Jewish. End of story. It should not matter what branch of Judaism his mother converted to. Orthodoxy's crtieria for deciding who is Jewish is not just heartless--it's stupid and factually incorrect. Jewish girls are reminded periodically by the media to get tested for breast cancer more often than other girls because Jewish women are more likely to get this disease. Should a girl who inherits her Jewishness from her father not bother with this extra precaution? That would be a bad idea, because nature disagrees with Orthodoxy on who is Jewish.
The school is wrong. And in a way, the court is wrong too. They made the right decision for the wrong reason. The school is not making ethnicity an issue; I am. I am the one saying ethnicity should play a role in this debate. Those of us Jews who oppose the school are saying it's time patrilineal descent is recognized by Orthodoxy. The school is on the same side of "the new antisemites," those who say Jewish identity is only religious and that Jews are not a people--not an ethnicity--and therefore have no claim to their ancestral homeland.
Once again, strange bedfellows.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Religious Preference Vs. Orientation/Ethnicity
Earlier this year, President Obama invited anti-gay megachurch pastor Rick Warren to pray at the inaugural White House invocation, much to the chagrin of gay-rights supporters. Don't worry--I'm not debating a year-old subject. I want to share a piece by an Orthodox rabbi, Brad Hirschfield, written on Beliefnet shortly after Obama's announcement.
Here is the (not so good) rabbi:
The comments to yesterday's post supporting President-elect Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation have been fascinating. Some go so far as to suggest that my position is a function of my being a Jew.
A commenter identified as Rob the Rev writes: "Gee Rabbi, would you be so happy about the choice of Warren if he had made anti-semetic remarks about Jewish people? Hmmmmmmmm.....?"
Aside from the smarmy tone which I could live without, and find a little, dare I say "un-Christian, from someone claiming to be a minister, it's an interesting question. The fact is, Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has about gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God's will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!
So the short answer to your question Rob is, "yes". But what's more telling is that you equate hating Jews with disapproving of homosexuality. I accept that some Christians relate to my Jewishness as "missing the boat" on God's word, just as they think that gay people have. I don't agree with them, but I hardly think that they are motivated by the kind of enduring hatred which defines genuine anti-Semitism.
Like most people in our society, Rob confuses disagreement with hatred. They are simply not the same. And as wrong as I believe Rick Warren was in dealing with Proposition 8, assuming he was motivated by hatred is actually a hateful act - one, that no matter how much inclusivity it dresses itself up in, is as absolutist in its demands of the theological right as they are of the left.
Rabbi Hirschfield is proof that one can be an extremist moderate. Almost everything he writes is maddeningly middle-of-the-road and devoid of any real moral values. It's coldly calculated to appeal to as many people as possible. 'Hey, don't blame me,' the not-so-good rabbi says. 'I didn't vote for Prop 8. But I also don't think Rick Warren is anti-gay just because he uses his influence to keep gays second-class citizens.'
So it's pussy, moderate bullshit--the purest, most egrecious example of what it means to be P.C. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong. Take another look at this section, which could serve as Hirschfield's thesis.
Quote: "The fact is, Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has about gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God's will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!/strong>
Rabbi Hirschfield is being deceitful. In order to make Warren's stance on gays the anti-Jewish equivalent, Warren would have to say Jews are going to hell for their ethnicity--something they have no choice in. But Warren does NOT say Jews are going to hell. He says Jews who believe in Judaism are going to hell. Warren--like most conservative evangelicals--believes Jesus is the only path to eternal life in heaven. Anyone who believes in Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism on their death bed will go to hell.
Personally, I think that's a terrible, primitive belief, and it's one of a thousand reasons I do not belong to Rick Warren's church or share his views. But it's not the same thing as racism or homophobia. Publicly saying someone will go to hell for her religious beliefs is uncivilized and rude, but it's not the same thing as saying someone will go to hell for something she has no choice in.
I am ethnically Jewish and nothing I do can ever change that. I could change my name, get a nose job, bleach my hair and I'll still be a Jewish guy. Saying I'm doomed to an eternity in hell for my ethnicity is horrible and racist. Likewise, I am gay and nothing I do can change that. I can make the same poor choices made by many gay people in Rick Warren's religion and in Rabbi Hirschfield's religion and marry a woman while telling the world God helped me become straight, but that would be a a lie and I would still be gay. Saying I am going to hell or should be a second-class citizen for being gay is no different from saying those things about my ethnicity.
But my faith is my choice. I'm not some pussy who's going to run to the ACLU because Rick Warren thinks I've missed the boat on the whole Jesus thing and that my synagogue membership is my ticket to Hades. On the contrary, that is empowering to me!! I'm proud to practice Judaism. I talk about it constantly, I wear a star of David, I deck out my apartment with menorahs and flags. I have my own view of God and it sure as hell doesn't include Jesus, and the fact that I'm in the minority doesn't make me the least bit insecure. If you think I'm going to hell for that, I couldn't care less.
But anyone can see I'm making the choice to practice Judaism, whereas I'm not making a choice to be ethnically Jewish or gay. I think even Rabbi Hirschfield realizes that difference. I think that if Rick Warren ever said all Jews are going to hell because of their ethnicity--regardless of what they believe about Jesus--Rabbi Hirshfield would reconsider Warren's place at Obama's inauguration.
And since Hirschfield is so proud to defend a minister who says religious Jews are going to hell, I will take this even further. I think Hirschfield would reconsider Warren's place at the inauguration if Warren felt that since marriage is a Christian institution Jews should be barred from marrying. I think he's purposefully muddying the waters to make a political point, which is what extremists do. Strange behavior for a so-called moderate.
Here is the (not so good) rabbi:
The comments to yesterday's post supporting President-elect Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation have been fascinating. Some go so far as to suggest that my position is a function of my being a Jew.
A commenter identified as Rob the Rev writes: "Gee Rabbi, would you be so happy about the choice of Warren if he had made anti-semetic remarks about Jewish people? Hmmmmmmmm.....?"
Aside from the smarmy tone which I could live without, and find a little, dare I say "un-Christian, from someone claiming to be a minister, it's an interesting question. The fact is, Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has about gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God's will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!
So the short answer to your question Rob is, "yes". But what's more telling is that you equate hating Jews with disapproving of homosexuality. I accept that some Christians relate to my Jewishness as "missing the boat" on God's word, just as they think that gay people have. I don't agree with them, but I hardly think that they are motivated by the kind of enduring hatred which defines genuine anti-Semitism.
Like most people in our society, Rob confuses disagreement with hatred. They are simply not the same. And as wrong as I believe Rick Warren was in dealing with Proposition 8, assuming he was motivated by hatred is actually a hateful act - one, that no matter how much inclusivity it dresses itself up in, is as absolutist in its demands of the theological right as they are of the left.
Rabbi Hirschfield is proof that one can be an extremist moderate. Almost everything he writes is maddeningly middle-of-the-road and devoid of any real moral values. It's coldly calculated to appeal to as many people as possible. 'Hey, don't blame me,' the not-so-good rabbi says. 'I didn't vote for Prop 8. But I also don't think Rick Warren is anti-gay just because he uses his influence to keep gays second-class citizens.'
So it's pussy, moderate bullshit--the purest, most egrecious example of what it means to be P.C. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong. Take another look at this section, which could serve as Hirschfield's thesis.
Quote: "The fact is, Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has about gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God's will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!/strong>
Rabbi Hirschfield is being deceitful. In order to make Warren's stance on gays the anti-Jewish equivalent, Warren would have to say Jews are going to hell for their ethnicity--something they have no choice in. But Warren does NOT say Jews are going to hell. He says Jews who believe in Judaism are going to hell. Warren--like most conservative evangelicals--believes Jesus is the only path to eternal life in heaven. Anyone who believes in Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism on their death bed will go to hell.
Personally, I think that's a terrible, primitive belief, and it's one of a thousand reasons I do not belong to Rick Warren's church or share his views. But it's not the same thing as racism or homophobia. Publicly saying someone will go to hell for her religious beliefs is uncivilized and rude, but it's not the same thing as saying someone will go to hell for something she has no choice in.
I am ethnically Jewish and nothing I do can ever change that. I could change my name, get a nose job, bleach my hair and I'll still be a Jewish guy. Saying I'm doomed to an eternity in hell for my ethnicity is horrible and racist. Likewise, I am gay and nothing I do can change that. I can make the same poor choices made by many gay people in Rick Warren's religion and in Rabbi Hirschfield's religion and marry a woman while telling the world God helped me become straight, but that would be a a lie and I would still be gay. Saying I am going to hell or should be a second-class citizen for being gay is no different from saying those things about my ethnicity.
But my faith is my choice. I'm not some pussy who's going to run to the ACLU because Rick Warren thinks I've missed the boat on the whole Jesus thing and that my synagogue membership is my ticket to Hades. On the contrary, that is empowering to me!! I'm proud to practice Judaism. I talk about it constantly, I wear a star of David, I deck out my apartment with menorahs and flags. I have my own view of God and it sure as hell doesn't include Jesus, and the fact that I'm in the minority doesn't make me the least bit insecure. If you think I'm going to hell for that, I couldn't care less.
But anyone can see I'm making the choice to practice Judaism, whereas I'm not making a choice to be ethnically Jewish or gay. I think even Rabbi Hirschfield realizes that difference. I think that if Rick Warren ever said all Jews are going to hell because of their ethnicity--regardless of what they believe about Jesus--Rabbi Hirshfield would reconsider Warren's place at Obama's inauguration.
And since Hirschfield is so proud to defend a minister who says religious Jews are going to hell, I will take this even further. I think Hirschfield would reconsider Warren's place at the inauguration if Warren felt that since marriage is a Christian institution Jews should be barred from marrying. I think he's purposefully muddying the waters to make a political point, which is what extremists do. Strange behavior for a so-called moderate.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
No Peace For Israelis and Palestinians Until Netanyahu is Gone
Israelis must overthrow Benjamin Netanyahu. Some on the right say he is Israel's first real hope for peace, but a quick look at his record and stated beliefs betray a virulent, ultra right-wing, colonialist worldview that makes him the Israeli equivalent to Hamas leaders. His supposed "call for peace" last summer was a thinly veiled justification for eternal domination over the Palestinian people.
Throughout his speech, Netanyahu acted as if Palestinians are unwelcome nuisances in the land they are just as entitled to as Jewish people. He then "offered" (there was no real offer) Palestinian statehood in which its citizens would have no actual sovereignty or independence.
Netanyahu said, "The territory in Palestinian hands must be demilitarised--in other words, without an army, without control of airspace and with effective security safeguards."
What Netanyahu is pretending to offer is not a state--it's a cage. Its not sovereignty--it's imprisonment. There is every reason for Israel to demand that a Palestinian state not terrorize Israelis, and for Palestine to demand that Israel not terrorize Palestine. But it is absurd and immoral to demand that Palestinians not have their own defense forces.
Since that speech, Netanyahu has announced he will not freeze settlements or expansionsim, which he calls "natural." He has broken promise after promise made to the United States that he will end colonialism. He is very much supported by the Israeli right, and he obviously has no intention of changing Israel's course.
But until change does occur, there will be no real peace for Israelis or Palestinians. Palestinians will continue to be oppressed by an illegal occupation, and Israelis in certain cities will continue to live in fear of murderous terrorists.
Diasporan Jews must let their voices and opinions be heard. I do not let Rosie O' Donnell speak for me as a liberal, and I will not allow AIPAC to speak for me as a Zionist. We should be as on-gurad in our criticism of Israel's current regime and of their occupation as we are when dealing with American antisemitism. Let's support dovish Zionist groups that are pro-Palestinian as well as pro-Israeli.
What's at stake is nothing less than Middle Eastern lives.
Throughout his speech, Netanyahu acted as if Palestinians are unwelcome nuisances in the land they are just as entitled to as Jewish people. He then "offered" (there was no real offer) Palestinian statehood in which its citizens would have no actual sovereignty or independence.
Netanyahu said, "The territory in Palestinian hands must be demilitarised--in other words, without an army, without control of airspace and with effective security safeguards."
What Netanyahu is pretending to offer is not a state--it's a cage. Its not sovereignty--it's imprisonment. There is every reason for Israel to demand that a Palestinian state not terrorize Israelis, and for Palestine to demand that Israel not terrorize Palestine. But it is absurd and immoral to demand that Palestinians not have their own defense forces.
Since that speech, Netanyahu has announced he will not freeze settlements or expansionsim, which he calls "natural." He has broken promise after promise made to the United States that he will end colonialism. He is very much supported by the Israeli right, and he obviously has no intention of changing Israel's course.
But until change does occur, there will be no real peace for Israelis or Palestinians. Palestinians will continue to be oppressed by an illegal occupation, and Israelis in certain cities will continue to live in fear of murderous terrorists.
Diasporan Jews must let their voices and opinions be heard. I do not let Rosie O' Donnell speak for me as a liberal, and I will not allow AIPAC to speak for me as a Zionist. We should be as on-gurad in our criticism of Israel's current regime and of their occupation as we are when dealing with American antisemitism. Let's support dovish Zionist groups that are pro-Palestinian as well as pro-Israeli.
What's at stake is nothing less than Middle Eastern lives.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Tikkun Olam in the New Year
Here's hoping everyone has a great new year, filled not only with happiness but with the necessary steps towards being better people--more generous, compassionate, and sweet-spirited.
As we celebrate the new year and prepare for Yom Kippur, our thoughts are on atonement. But atonement is empty without a renewed effort to do better. One of the ways we can do better is to focus on reparing this damaged world. There are many ways to perform tikkun olam, but I know I am going to spend the upcoming year being more proactive in helping my friends and family members.
The worst thing about American culture is the blind pursuit of individual wealth and material goods, especially when we are equally blind to the struggles of the friends we spend time with. We ALL are just a few set-backs from being in some sort of trouble--whether it be financial or health-related or spiritual. Capitalism forces people to focus on the self and pass judgement on others.
Living a Jewish life should help us overcome that tendancy.
Rabbi Milton Steinberg writes, "Are men brothers, owing one another fraternal solicitude? Then let a tithe be taken up for the indigent; the needy may lawfully claim for their own the corners of fields, the gleanings, and anything overlooked in the harvesting. Therefore, too, anyone who requires it may enter a field and eat, save that he may carry nothing away. Hence also the accepting of interest is prohibited, nor may a millstone or cloak be taken as security for a loan.
Are the world's goods a trust imparted by God to mankind? Then, loans shall be cancelled every seventh year so that no one may forever be sunk in debt; and bondsman may not, except at his explicit request, be indentured for more than six years; nor may the land be sold in perpetuity but shall be returned every fifty years to the descendants of its original owners so that the impoverished may have fresh access to the soil from which they have been dispossessed."
Rabbi Steinberg continues, "On the evidence of the past and of the modern rabbinate, Judaism stands these days:
Rabbi Steinberg was one of Judaism's greatest rabbis. Like I said, there are many ways to perform tikkun olam in the coming new year; let's allow the good rabbi's interpretation of the Jewish way of life to seep into our consciousness and help repair the world.
Shana Tova!!
(Basic Judaism, Rabbi Milton Steinberg. Harvest; San Diego, New York, London 1947.)
As we celebrate the new year and prepare for Yom Kippur, our thoughts are on atonement. But atonement is empty without a renewed effort to do better. One of the ways we can do better is to focus on reparing this damaged world. There are many ways to perform tikkun olam, but I know I am going to spend the upcoming year being more proactive in helping my friends and family members.
The worst thing about American culture is the blind pursuit of individual wealth and material goods, especially when we are equally blind to the struggles of the friends we spend time with. We ALL are just a few set-backs from being in some sort of trouble--whether it be financial or health-related or spiritual. Capitalism forces people to focus on the self and pass judgement on others.
Living a Jewish life should help us overcome that tendancy.
Rabbi Milton Steinberg writes, "Are men brothers, owing one another fraternal solicitude? Then let a tithe be taken up for the indigent; the needy may lawfully claim for their own the corners of fields, the gleanings, and anything overlooked in the harvesting. Therefore, too, anyone who requires it may enter a field and eat, save that he may carry nothing away. Hence also the accepting of interest is prohibited, nor may a millstone or cloak be taken as security for a loan.
Are the world's goods a trust imparted by God to mankind? Then, loans shall be cancelled every seventh year so that no one may forever be sunk in debt; and bondsman may not, except at his explicit request, be indentured for more than six years; nor may the land be sold in perpetuity but shall be returned every fifty years to the descendants of its original owners so that the impoverished may have fresh access to the soil from which they have been dispossessed."
Rabbi Steinberg continues, "On the evidence of the past and of the modern rabbinate, Judaism stands these days:
- For the fullest freedom, political, economic, and social, for every individual and group, which includes among other things, maximal civil liberties, trade unionism, the equality of all.
- For the social use of wealth, though whether this involves social ownership and if so to what extent is disputed among contemporary interpreters of Judaism.
- For a society based on cooperation as its root rule rather than competition.
- For international peace guaranteed by a world government, the notion of the absolute sovereignty of the national state having always been an obscenity in they eyes of the [Jewish] Tradition."
Rabbi Steinberg was one of Judaism's greatest rabbis. Like I said, there are many ways to perform tikkun olam in the coming new year; let's allow the good rabbi's interpretation of the Jewish way of life to seep into our consciousness and help repair the world.
Shana Tova!!
(Basic Judaism, Rabbi Milton Steinberg. Harvest; San Diego, New York, London 1947.)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Gentiles For Yarmulkes
(Some Jews belong to different, non-Jewish religions, including Christianity. Just as Irish people do not necessarily have to be Catholic and Arabs do not have to be Muslim, ethnic Jews are still Jews even if they're Christians. This essay has NOTHING to do with these people.)
I live in the midwest, so I'm accustomed to seeing Nordic or Anglo-Saxon looking people inexplicably wearing a kippah and filing into Whole Foods' deli to pick up some Middle Eastern dish they cannot pronounce. They cover their heads. They keep kosher. They pray the shema. And they're not Jewish.
Sometimes if I'm unsure whether I'm looking at a fake Jew or the real thing, there are a few questions that usually seperate the Chosen from the wannabe's. "I like your kippah" is a much better statement than "I like your yarmulke," since "yarmulke" is the word usually used in movies and TV shows and is thus more familiar to non-Jews. Next month, I will tell them to have a happy new year, and in January I'll say "happy secular New Year!" If they looked confused, they're probably Messianic "Jews."
I'm sure some of them are good people, and tolerance of their antics is a testament to religious pluaralism and freedom of religion, but--holy Moses--what a silly cult. In a weird affront to both Judaism and mainstream Christianity, Messianic "Judaism" is the most infamous and ambitious evangelical effort to convert Jews to Christianity. It blends traditional Jewish rituals with the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity and messiahship--completely missing the point of both religions: namely, those Jewish rituals are empty without real Jewish meaning. And Christian grace is supposed to have made those rituals null and void.
Judaism says people can only atone for their own sins. Evangelical Christianity claims vicarious atonement through Christ. Jews believe people are born morally neutral and can choose to do good or evil or somewhere in between. Evangelicals believe people are born with orininal sin--an evil inclination--and that they can only be saved through Christ. Jews who believe in a forthcoming messiah think he will be a political leader. Evangelicals say the messiah is divine, he is God in the flesh, and that he has already come.
That last part is the most important difference: Jesus. The idea that any person who ever walked the earth is God or part of a God-head or a holy trinity is as alien to Judaism as a belief in Xenu--and just as incompatible.
While most conservative Christians believe in converting non-believers, most of them focus on the whole "unsaved" world. Messianic "Jews", on the other hand, believe in taking the Gospel "to the Jew first" as their ads put it. They are obsessed with us. They travel to big cities or wealthy neighborhoods where they know there will be a lot of Jews and proselytize in the most deceitful way. The biggest lie is calling themselves Jews in the first place, when most of them are gentiles, something they only admit when pressed on the subject. They must think this will confuse young Jewish people. The deceit is really mind-boggling. They call their churches "synagogues". They call their pastors "rabbis". They call their cult a branch of Judaism.
Real Jews have won many legal battles, including the famous Google case, as well as getting the Yellow Pages to list Messianic "synagogues" under the 'Church' category instead of the 'Synagogue' category. And a few years ago, Jewish leaders stepped up their efforts to combat this deceitful missionizing.
But I have a sad prediction. Since most Messianic "Jews" support Israel, I fear the same Jewish leaders who were so bold not long ago will become more relaxed on this issue. We cannot allow that to happen. Support for Israel cannot outweigh serious theological differences. The problem is, not only are most Messianics Zionists, but somewhere between 6 to 15 thousand Messianics live in Israel, and the Supreme Court of Israel made the historic decision that Messianics who really are ethnically Jewish share the same right of return granted to Jews who belong to mainstream Christianity, something I happen to agree with. But acknowledging the obvious fact that ethnic Jews are Jewish, despite their religion--which I don't think is even controversial--does not change the fact that we should be educating our kids in their religion and to beware of cults and missionaries.
I realize it's possible these people pose no real threat to Judaism. Proportionately, more Christians convert to Judaism every year than the other way around, despite the facts that Jews do not proselytize and that converting to Judaism is difficult and time-consuming. That's actually amazing and empowering. But it's sad to see more and more leaders grow tolerant of this destructive cult simply because this cult is supportive of Israel.
Jesus is an important issue that should divide Christians and Jews along theological lines--not in a nasty, violent way, but in a firm, peaceful way. And I feel we're losing that passion, both out of some wrong-headed, lazy, pussy idea of "tolerance" and out of nationalistic zeal.
One year a group of Messianics stood outside our JCC holding signs saying "Behold Your God" above a picture of Jesus dying on a cross. As I made my way inside, a woman yelled at me, asking me if I am "a complete Jew." I told her I am a complete Jew because I love the REAL God; I don't give a fuck about Jesus. She looked shocked, and I said it's cool if he's your thing, but don't expect me to not defend my beliefs when you push yours' on me.
Imagine if Jews created a Jewish group called Christians For the Real God and traveled to churches, telling their underage children that they can reject Jesus, convert to Judaism, and still be called Christians. That's exactly what's going on here. And our leaders are ill equipped to deal with the onslaught because Judaism is slowly being replaced by both Judaica. I will have nothing to do with that. They can decorate their church with as many menorahs as they want; it's still a church. And while I support Israel, I would rather give Jerusalem to Scientologists so they can turn the Western Wall into a giant spaceship landing pad than ever, ever, ever call a lying, Evangelical cult Judaism.
Gentiles For Yarmulkes
I live in the midwest, so I'm accustomed to seeing Nordic or Anglo-Saxon looking people inexplicably wearing a kippah and filing into Whole Foods' deli to pick up some Middle Eastern dish they cannot pronounce. They cover their heads. They keep kosher. They pray the shema. And they're not Jewish.
Sometimes if I'm unsure whether I'm looking at a fake Jew or the real thing, there are a few questions that usually seperate the Chosen from the wannabe's. "I like your kippah" is a much better statement than "I like your yarmulke," since "yarmulke" is the word usually used in movies and TV shows and is thus more familiar to non-Jews. Next month, I will tell them to have a happy new year, and in January I'll say "happy secular New Year!" If they looked confused, they're probably Messianic "Jews."
I'm sure some of them are good people, and tolerance of their antics is a testament to religious pluaralism and freedom of religion, but--holy Moses--what a silly cult. In a weird affront to both Judaism and mainstream Christianity, Messianic "Judaism" is the most infamous and ambitious evangelical effort to convert Jews to Christianity. It blends traditional Jewish rituals with the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity and messiahship--completely missing the point of both religions: namely, those Jewish rituals are empty without real Jewish meaning. And Christian grace is supposed to have made those rituals null and void.
Judaism says people can only atone for their own sins. Evangelical Christianity claims vicarious atonement through Christ. Jews believe people are born morally neutral and can choose to do good or evil or somewhere in between. Evangelicals believe people are born with orininal sin--an evil inclination--and that they can only be saved through Christ. Jews who believe in a forthcoming messiah think he will be a political leader. Evangelicals say the messiah is divine, he is God in the flesh, and that he has already come.
That last part is the most important difference: Jesus. The idea that any person who ever walked the earth is God or part of a God-head or a holy trinity is as alien to Judaism as a belief in Xenu--and just as incompatible.
While most conservative Christians believe in converting non-believers, most of them focus on the whole "unsaved" world. Messianic "Jews", on the other hand, believe in taking the Gospel "to the Jew first" as their ads put it. They are obsessed with us. They travel to big cities or wealthy neighborhoods where they know there will be a lot of Jews and proselytize in the most deceitful way. The biggest lie is calling themselves Jews in the first place, when most of them are gentiles, something they only admit when pressed on the subject. They must think this will confuse young Jewish people. The deceit is really mind-boggling. They call their churches "synagogues". They call their pastors "rabbis". They call their cult a branch of Judaism.
Real Jews have won many legal battles, including the famous Google case, as well as getting the Yellow Pages to list Messianic "synagogues" under the 'Church' category instead of the 'Synagogue' category. And a few years ago, Jewish leaders stepped up their efforts to combat this deceitful missionizing.
But I have a sad prediction. Since most Messianic "Jews" support Israel, I fear the same Jewish leaders who were so bold not long ago will become more relaxed on this issue. We cannot allow that to happen. Support for Israel cannot outweigh serious theological differences. The problem is, not only are most Messianics Zionists, but somewhere between 6 to 15 thousand Messianics live in Israel, and the Supreme Court of Israel made the historic decision that Messianics who really are ethnically Jewish share the same right of return granted to Jews who belong to mainstream Christianity, something I happen to agree with. But acknowledging the obvious fact that ethnic Jews are Jewish, despite their religion--which I don't think is even controversial--does not change the fact that we should be educating our kids in their religion and to beware of cults and missionaries.
I realize it's possible these people pose no real threat to Judaism. Proportionately, more Christians convert to Judaism every year than the other way around, despite the facts that Jews do not proselytize and that converting to Judaism is difficult and time-consuming. That's actually amazing and empowering. But it's sad to see more and more leaders grow tolerant of this destructive cult simply because this cult is supportive of Israel.
Jesus is an important issue that should divide Christians and Jews along theological lines--not in a nasty, violent way, but in a firm, peaceful way. And I feel we're losing that passion, both out of some wrong-headed, lazy, pussy idea of "tolerance" and out of nationalistic zeal.
One year a group of Messianics stood outside our JCC holding signs saying "Behold Your God" above a picture of Jesus dying on a cross. As I made my way inside, a woman yelled at me, asking me if I am "a complete Jew." I told her I am a complete Jew because I love the REAL God; I don't give a fuck about Jesus. She looked shocked, and I said it's cool if he's your thing, but don't expect me to not defend my beliefs when you push yours' on me.
Imagine if Jews created a Jewish group called Christians For the Real God and traveled to churches, telling their underage children that they can reject Jesus, convert to Judaism, and still be called Christians. That's exactly what's going on here. And our leaders are ill equipped to deal with the onslaught because Judaism is slowly being replaced by both Judaica. I will have nothing to do with that. They can decorate their church with as many menorahs as they want; it's still a church. And while I support Israel, I would rather give Jerusalem to Scientologists so they can turn the Western Wall into a giant spaceship landing pad than ever, ever, ever call a lying, Evangelical cult Judaism.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
A non-Jewish filmmaker just made the most explicitly pro-Jewish movie ever made: a gory, blood-splattered, sprawling revisionist epic in which a group of Jewish men dole out vengeance to scum-bag Nazis. We already knew that going in, but Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece is even better--and even more of a slap in the face to antisemites--than we could ever have imagined.
Before he gets his (and our) cinematic revenge, Tarantino begins Inglourious Basterds by showing us the wrong he is righting. With one single representative scene, the writer/director pays his respects to the Shoah with a suspenseful, unbearably sad opening seqenence in which a Jewish-French family hiding beneath the kitchen floor of a dairy farmer is massacred, save one daughter--Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent.) The scene is mesmerizing in its menace, thanks to a horrifying performance by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Land, a mannered, politely evil villian who is proud of the moniker, "the Jew-hunter."
Shoshanna escapes and changes her name; she passes as a gentile while running a movie theater in Paris. A German "war hero" becomes smitten by her and forces himself into her life despite her obvious initial disinterest and later repulsion. She is in love with a black Frenchman named Marcel, and when the Nazis decide to change the venue of her German suitor's premier of his new propaganda film Nation's Pride from the Ritz to her theater, she and Marcel plan a grand revenge.
Most Jews--especially testosterone-fueled Jewish males--will relate most to the story of the Basterds, especially the Jewish German badass Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger,) a human time bomb of pent-up aggression who joins the group late in the game. (Hugo is named after a Mexican horror actor.) Others will be most touched by Shoshanna's story, whose revenge is especially cathartic because she asks the Nazis "to look into the face of the Jew" who is going to kill them as the theater hosting the Third Reich goes up in flames.
What makes Basterds so glorious, though, is how it sets the record straight involving Jewish cinema. A staple of antisemitism is linking Jews with cinema. Well-meaning idiots like the ADL's Abe Foxman deal with this particular prejudice by denying the truth of its source. Tarantino is saying fuck that--cinema is Jewish peoples' jazz. While many, many non-Jews (like Tarantino) have made great films, there is no question that Jews were pioneers in cinema and a disproportionate number of us have helped advance it into a sublime art form.
Tarantino writes a spine-tingling scene where two men discuss German cinema. They agree that Jewish German directors (like Fritz Lang) were instrumental in making German cinema ahead of its time. They correctly point out that Joseph Geobbels' crude but popular propaganda films (as well as Leni Riefenstahl's well-made but no less repulsive propaganda films) were a response to "the Jewish German intellectual cinema of the 1920's."
Basterds gives us our props. The Jewish girl works at a cinema. She argues with a German soldier about Riefenstahl. She puts up the Jewish name "Pabst" over the title of a legitimate film but refuses to put a German propagandist's name over his filth. She sticks up for a Jewish director and earns the scorn of a Nazi by doing so ("Don't ever say that name to me!!" he shrieks.) By making Jewish-made cinema so integral to the film's plot and themes, Tarantino adds a symbolic revenge to the overt, visceral revenge that mainstream audiences are applauding.
Basterds is--to my mind--nearly perfect, creatively. Morally, I have only one caveat. At times Tarantino paints all Germans with the same stereotypical brush. A person ignorant of German culture would be forgiven for coming out of this film thinking all Germans eat nothing but sauerkraut sandwiches and strudels ("“Take your weinerschnitzel-lickin’ finger and point out on this map what we want to know" Brad Pitt says to a German officer,) and that the only Germans who supported Jews during WWII were Jewish Germans like Stiglitz.
Tarantino should be proud. He has created another exciting, passionate, immensely popular work of art. Americans love it; Germans love it.* And any Jew who knows a good friend when he sees one should love both the film and the man who made it.
*"Tarantino's Massacre of Nazis Brings Rave Reviews in Germany," Assaf Uni.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109602.html
Before he gets his (and our) cinematic revenge, Tarantino begins Inglourious Basterds by showing us the wrong he is righting. With one single representative scene, the writer/director pays his respects to the Shoah with a suspenseful, unbearably sad opening seqenence in which a Jewish-French family hiding beneath the kitchen floor of a dairy farmer is massacred, save one daughter--Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent.) The scene is mesmerizing in its menace, thanks to a horrifying performance by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Land, a mannered, politely evil villian who is proud of the moniker, "the Jew-hunter."
Shoshanna escapes and changes her name; she passes as a gentile while running a movie theater in Paris. A German "war hero" becomes smitten by her and forces himself into her life despite her obvious initial disinterest and later repulsion. She is in love with a black Frenchman named Marcel, and when the Nazis decide to change the venue of her German suitor's premier of his new propaganda film Nation's Pride from the Ritz to her theater, she and Marcel plan a grand revenge.
Most Jews--especially testosterone-fueled Jewish males--will relate most to the story of the Basterds, especially the Jewish German badass Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger,) a human time bomb of pent-up aggression who joins the group late in the game. (Hugo is named after a Mexican horror actor.) Others will be most touched by Shoshanna's story, whose revenge is especially cathartic because she asks the Nazis "to look into the face of the Jew" who is going to kill them as the theater hosting the Third Reich goes up in flames.
What makes Basterds so glorious, though, is how it sets the record straight involving Jewish cinema. A staple of antisemitism is linking Jews with cinema. Well-meaning idiots like the ADL's Abe Foxman deal with this particular prejudice by denying the truth of its source. Tarantino is saying fuck that--cinema is Jewish peoples' jazz. While many, many non-Jews (like Tarantino) have made great films, there is no question that Jews were pioneers in cinema and a disproportionate number of us have helped advance it into a sublime art form.
Tarantino writes a spine-tingling scene where two men discuss German cinema. They agree that Jewish German directors (like Fritz Lang) were instrumental in making German cinema ahead of its time. They correctly point out that Joseph Geobbels' crude but popular propaganda films (as well as Leni Riefenstahl's well-made but no less repulsive propaganda films) were a response to "the Jewish German intellectual cinema of the 1920's."
Basterds gives us our props. The Jewish girl works at a cinema. She argues with a German soldier about Riefenstahl. She puts up the Jewish name "Pabst" over the title of a legitimate film but refuses to put a German propagandist's name over his filth. She sticks up for a Jewish director and earns the scorn of a Nazi by doing so ("Don't ever say that name to me!!" he shrieks.) By making Jewish-made cinema so integral to the film's plot and themes, Tarantino adds a symbolic revenge to the overt, visceral revenge that mainstream audiences are applauding.
Basterds is--to my mind--nearly perfect, creatively. Morally, I have only one caveat. At times Tarantino paints all Germans with the same stereotypical brush. A person ignorant of German culture would be forgiven for coming out of this film thinking all Germans eat nothing but sauerkraut sandwiches and strudels ("“Take your weinerschnitzel-lickin’ finger and point out on this map what we want to know" Brad Pitt says to a German officer,) and that the only Germans who supported Jews during WWII were Jewish Germans like Stiglitz.
Tarantino should be proud. He has created another exciting, passionate, immensely popular work of art. Americans love it; Germans love it.* And any Jew who knows a good friend when he sees one should love both the film and the man who made it.
*"Tarantino's Massacre of Nazis Brings Rave Reviews in Germany," Assaf Uni.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109602.html
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Right to Hate
Spring of 2000. My family had just recently moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma from New York, and I was slowly adjusting to a very different life. One day some racist thugs went to a Jewish cemetery called Rose Hill Memorial Park and desecrated the graves, knocking them over, damaging the grounds, and spray-painting antisemitic epithets, Nazi swastikas, and other vile filth.
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=45105
I felt sick just thinking about it and what must have been going through the minds of anyone whose family members were buried there. And not just them but my mother, who had no loved ones buried there at all, but who must have worried for the safety of her kids in an environment like that.
What makes it even worse are the usual gang of people who claim they are not racist, but who fail to see the difference between desecrating an ethnic group's cemetery and writing "Fuck Wal-Mart" on the back of grocery store. The latter is annoying. The former scares the shit out of minorities.
And with good reason. Recently in New York of all places, a couple of Jewish guys were beaten to a pulp for saying "happy Hanukkah" when they were told to have a merry Christmas. Two gay youths were murdered in Tel Aviv earlier this month. An Arab woman was murdered in Germany last month.
These murders, attacks, and crimes are not a result of cheating spouses or robberies or drive-by shootings. They are meant to terrorize minorities--to put us in our place.
Thankfully, ethnic groups and religions are protected under the laws of hate crime legislation. Not so lucky are gays, who are not protected in every state. As always, religious bigots are the main impediment to progress.
Conservative evangelical group Concerned Women for America (do you love how the feminist-sounding name is supposed to sucker us in?) says that when gays are given equal protection, Bible-believing Christians will no longer be able to preach the Bible or to proclaim that homosexuality is a sin.
"We live in a world where even the Bible is being deemed "hate" literature. Christians have already been jailed for upholding traditional morality in public places, and if hate crime laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote homosexuality."
This is amusing for two reasons.
First, these morons are protected by the same laws they want denied to gay people, which makes little sense considering that religion is a choice. I have known I was gay since I was a kid; I only realized Conservative Judaism was a good fit for me in my 20's. If one of these "Concerned Women" wakes up tomorrow and realizes she believes in Catholicism, she can simply study and take a test. Of course, religious groups should be safe from persecution, but it's difficult to overlook the hypocrisy of religious idiots who constantly call being gay a choice while failing to realize gays would happy to get a fraction of the rights granted to Moonies and Scientologists.
The second reason is that ethnic groups who are granted protection are not free from totally legal racism. For a perfect example, let's move just a wee bit to the right of Concerned Women for America and take a look at Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. According to the Internet flier they distributed, their church plans to pickett “three fag-infested groups of Jews in Washington, DC," including the Holocaust Museum.
Along with "God Hates Fags," the WBC also wants us to know that "God Hates Jews" and that "The Jews Killed Our Lord." They have been amping up their antisemitic tirades lately by picketing outside synagogues and JCC's. And guess what? It's legal.
The Jewish Week says, "Interestingly, Westboro’s unrestrained anti-gay and anti-Jewish rhetoric, prominently displayed in the most inappropriate settings, is not illegal – which undercuts one of the key arguments of Christian right groups that are opposing a new hate crimes law that extends coverage to victims of crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Jews are already covered under existing hate crimes laws dealing with crimes based on the religion of victims, and yet there’s no legal barrier to Westboro publicly arguing that the “Jews killed the Lord Jesus,” and picketing a local synagogue as well as the memorial to victims of the Holocaust. So it’s a little hard to swallow the common argument that pastors would risk arrest if the new law is passed merely by preaching against homosexuality."
So if it's okay for Fred Phelps and his church of hate to protest the existence of Jews--even when Jews are legally protected as an ethnic and religious minority--I'm sure it will always be more than okay to continue protesting gays.
I thought of that desecrated Jewish cemetery a few weeks ago when there was a bomb threat at our local JCC. All those sick, helpless feelings came rushing back, and no amount of tough words from my brother could comfort me. Fortunately, it was not an antisemite who made the threat, but just some idiot trying to get his boyfriend to leave work to talk to him because they were fighting. (Although, he probably will hate Jews by the time he's finished with his prison sentence.)
The sense of relief that every Jew in my city felt when we realized it was not a hate crime was palpable. If that doesn't clearly show the difference, what will?
(Note: Regarding the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I should point out that the city took the incident very seriously. The thugs were found and sentenced, and leaders from the Baptist church, Methodist church, Catholic diocese, Islamic Society, and the Tulsa mayor all joined Rabbi Marc Fizterman of B'nai Emunah in a prayer vigil after the atrocious event.)
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=45105
I felt sick just thinking about it and what must have been going through the minds of anyone whose family members were buried there. And not just them but my mother, who had no loved ones buried there at all, but who must have worried for the safety of her kids in an environment like that.
What makes it even worse are the usual gang of people who claim they are not racist, but who fail to see the difference between desecrating an ethnic group's cemetery and writing "Fuck Wal-Mart" on the back of grocery store. The latter is annoying. The former scares the shit out of minorities.
And with good reason. Recently in New York of all places, a couple of Jewish guys were beaten to a pulp for saying "happy Hanukkah" when they were told to have a merry Christmas. Two gay youths were murdered in Tel Aviv earlier this month. An Arab woman was murdered in Germany last month.
These murders, attacks, and crimes are not a result of cheating spouses or robberies or drive-by shootings. They are meant to terrorize minorities--to put us in our place.
Thankfully, ethnic groups and religions are protected under the laws of hate crime legislation. Not so lucky are gays, who are not protected in every state. As always, religious bigots are the main impediment to progress.
Conservative evangelical group Concerned Women for America (do you love how the feminist-sounding name is supposed to sucker us in?) says that when gays are given equal protection, Bible-believing Christians will no longer be able to preach the Bible or to proclaim that homosexuality is a sin.
"We live in a world where even the Bible is being deemed "hate" literature. Christians have already been jailed for upholding traditional morality in public places, and if hate crime laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote homosexuality."
This is amusing for two reasons.
First, these morons are protected by the same laws they want denied to gay people, which makes little sense considering that religion is a choice. I have known I was gay since I was a kid; I only realized Conservative Judaism was a good fit for me in my 20's. If one of these "Concerned Women" wakes up tomorrow and realizes she believes in Catholicism, she can simply study and take a test. Of course, religious groups should be safe from persecution, but it's difficult to overlook the hypocrisy of religious idiots who constantly call being gay a choice while failing to realize gays would happy to get a fraction of the rights granted to Moonies and Scientologists.
The second reason is that ethnic groups who are granted protection are not free from totally legal racism. For a perfect example, let's move just a wee bit to the right of Concerned Women for America and take a look at Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. According to the Internet flier they distributed, their church plans to pickett “three fag-infested groups of Jews in Washington, DC," including the Holocaust Museum.
Along with "God Hates Fags," the WBC also wants us to know that "God Hates Jews" and that "The Jews Killed Our Lord." They have been amping up their antisemitic tirades lately by picketing outside synagogues and JCC's. And guess what? It's legal.
The Jewish Week says, "Interestingly, Westboro’s unrestrained anti-gay and anti-Jewish rhetoric, prominently displayed in the most inappropriate settings, is not illegal – which undercuts one of the key arguments of Christian right groups that are opposing a new hate crimes law that extends coverage to victims of crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Jews are already covered under existing hate crimes laws dealing with crimes based on the religion of victims, and yet there’s no legal barrier to Westboro publicly arguing that the “Jews killed the Lord Jesus,” and picketing a local synagogue as well as the memorial to victims of the Holocaust. So it’s a little hard to swallow the common argument that pastors would risk arrest if the new law is passed merely by preaching against homosexuality."
So if it's okay for Fred Phelps and his church of hate to protest the existence of Jews--even when Jews are legally protected as an ethnic and religious minority--I'm sure it will always be more than okay to continue protesting gays.
I thought of that desecrated Jewish cemetery a few weeks ago when there was a bomb threat at our local JCC. All those sick, helpless feelings came rushing back, and no amount of tough words from my brother could comfort me. Fortunately, it was not an antisemite who made the threat, but just some idiot trying to get his boyfriend to leave work to talk to him because they were fighting. (Although, he probably will hate Jews by the time he's finished with his prison sentence.)
The sense of relief that every Jew in my city felt when we realized it was not a hate crime was palpable. If that doesn't clearly show the difference, what will?
(Note: Regarding the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I should point out that the city took the incident very seriously. The thugs were found and sentenced, and leaders from the Baptist church, Methodist church, Catholic diocese, Islamic Society, and the Tulsa mayor all joined Rabbi Marc Fizterman of B'nai Emunah in a prayer vigil after the atrocious event.)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Awesome Jewish Role Model for Kids: Daniel Radcliffe
After pro-baseball player Sandy Koufax publicly refused to play on Yom Kippur, he was overwhelmed by parents' requests to speak at bat and bar mitzvahs. It's not hard to see why. Here was a famous Jewish guy choosing to honor his heritage in a predominantly Christian country. Who are the Jewish role models our kids look up to today?
Zac Efron from High School Musical? Israeli-American supermodel Bar Refaeli? People known for their good genes and little else?
Every now and then I want to use Jew World Order to highlight awesome Jewish role models who either demonstrate tikkun olam or a public committment to Judaism (or both.) The only catch is that it has to be substantive. I couldn't care less that Scarlett Johansonn uses cloth shopping bags or that Norah Jones drives a Prius.
My very first entry for this continuing series is none other than Harry Potter, or at least the guy who plays him in the blockbuster Warner Bros films.
Daniel Radcliffe, now 20, recently made a generous donation to The Trevor Project, a support group for suicidal teens. Not only that, but he expressed public devotion to gay people in the media, calling homophobes "disgusting and stupid."
"He is setting a meaningful example for millions of young people around the world by embracing diversity and demonstrating that he cares deeply about the well-being of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning) youth," said the charity's chief executive Charles Robbins.
Radcliffe said, "It's extremely distressing to consider that in 2009 suicide is a top three killer of young people, and it's truly devastating to learn that LGBTQ youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers."
"It's vitally important that young people understand they are not alone and, perhaps even more important, that their young lives have real value," the actor added.
Just one question, Daniel: would you speak at my future daughter's bat mitzvah?
Zac Efron from High School Musical? Israeli-American supermodel Bar Refaeli? People known for their good genes and little else?
Every now and then I want to use Jew World Order to highlight awesome Jewish role models who either demonstrate tikkun olam or a public committment to Judaism (or both.) The only catch is that it has to be substantive. I couldn't care less that Scarlett Johansonn uses cloth shopping bags or that Norah Jones drives a Prius.
My very first entry for this continuing series is none other than Harry Potter, or at least the guy who plays him in the blockbuster Warner Bros films.
Daniel Radcliffe, now 20, recently made a generous donation to The Trevor Project, a support group for suicidal teens. Not only that, but he expressed public devotion to gay people in the media, calling homophobes "disgusting and stupid."
"He is setting a meaningful example for millions of young people around the world by embracing diversity and demonstrating that he cares deeply about the well-being of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning) youth," said the charity's chief executive Charles Robbins.
Radcliffe said, "It's extremely distressing to consider that in 2009 suicide is a top three killer of young people, and it's truly devastating to learn that LGBTQ youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers."
"It's vitally important that young people understand they are not alone and, perhaps even more important, that their young lives have real value," the actor added.
Just one question, Daniel: would you speak at my future daughter's bat mitzvah?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Gay Rights in Israel: Yarzheit for Nir Katz and Liz Trobishi
We mourn the loss of the Kedoshim--Nir Katz and Liz Trobishi--who were murdered by savages in a shooting at a weekly support group for gay Jewish youth in Tel-Aviv late last Saturday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this vicious attack, their families, friends and communities.
Today 70,000 Israelis came together in solidarity with the gay community.
President Shimon Peres said, "The bullets that hit the gay community at the beginning of the week struck us all as people, as Jews, as Israelis. All people were created in God's image," he added, "and all citizens have equal rights. All men are born equal, and every citizen has the right to be who he is -- to be free and proud."
Reform and Conservative leaders called on all Jews to take a moment last Sunday to dwell on those who have been murdered and wounded in this attack and to recite Tehillim on their behalf. We hope for some small comfort among the mourners of Israel and the entire world, as well as a speedy recovery, in body and in spirit, to all those injured in this attack. On Monday night at 8:30pm, Mt. Sinai Jewish Center recited Tehillim for those who were killed or hurt in the attack following Mincha/Ma'ariv services.
A small group of religious fanatics will never be able to convince Israel or its citizens that gays have no place in the Jewish state. I have visited Tel Aviv many times, and I am impressed by its gay-friendly atmosphere. Not only does the Israeli government not enforce savage religious laws against gay people the way Iran does, it is somewhat gay-friendly and on the verge of getting even better. Israel shows more humanity and enlightenment than America by allowing gays to openly serve in the military and by allowing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere to be recognized in the state.
This perceived acceptance of gays (I say perceived because any country that only allows straight marriage is homophobic) will always make anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews and extremist Muslims hate Israel with a passion, and it will always cause Zionist Orthodox Jews and Zionist Evangelicals to threaten to withdraw their support.
On the anti-semitic, anti-Zionist right, people like "God Hates Fags" preacher Fred Phelps see gay rights as being part of the "Zionist agenda" and routinely protest Israel for being relatively gay-friendly, and they protest Judaism for being genuinely gay-friendly. His "church" recently picketed a Kansas City synagogue with racist signs showing disgust with the "Fag-filled IDF" and "Fag-infested synagogues." And a gay synagogue in NYC was earlier this year greeted with picket signs saying "Jews Stole The Land" and "God Hates Fags."
http://www.kcjc.com/200906058517/news/phelps-clan-plans-synagogue-picket.html
This diparaging linking of gay rights with Israel finds suprising resonance among hateful right wing anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews (many of whom reject Israel even though they live there) and predictable agreement among extremist Muslims and the small anti-Israel Christian right. And many Zionist evangelicals and Zionist Orthodox Jews couple their enthusiasm for immoral Israeli military actions with disdain and disgust for moral Israeli policies like tolerance for gays. Just as Pat Robertson famously declared that God gave Ariel Sharon a stroke because he conceded some territory to Palestinans, many others like Robertson predict divine punishment for the Jewish state if its leaders fail to end the gay civil rights progress.
In the coming days and weeks and months, there will be an antisemitic backlash from the right because Peres made those pro-gay comments today. Some of that backlash will inevitably spring from those who claim to be Israel's friends.
But as Reform leader Eric Yoffie asked, what sort of friendship is conditional? You either support Israel for the right reasons or you do not. There is no reason to think things will get better. Many extremist Muslims use Israel's relative gay-friendliness--as well as sexy images of Tel Aviv residents having fun and enjoying the night life and beaches--as a wedge between the country and its anti-gay evangelical supporters. In fact, the annual gay Pride party in Jerusalem is a constant reminder that all the religions who find connection with the holy land have extremists who want to stop people from living life. A few years ago, a Muslim leader from the Knesset, Ibrahim Sarsur (United Arab List-Ta'al) "warned gays that 'if they dare to approach the Temple Mount during the World Pride 2006 parade in Jerusalem they will do so over our dead bodies' ("Gay Leader Not Daunted by Muslim Threat.")
Strange bedfellows indeed. People who hate Jews will always, always, always hold Israel to different standards and find some reason to detest/boycott the Jewish state. Fuck those people. But what about those Zionists who threaten to end their support if Israel does not start treating its gay population the way Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine do? Well, we should not be intimidated by them. That's why it was so wrong for Benjamin Netanyahu to make his speech about tolerance of gays so low-key. It's not okay to appease bigots. And that's why it was so important for President Peres to make his speech clear throughout the world, as he did. All decent Zionists must stand strong and send a clear message that truly supporting Israel means supporting all its citizens, including gays and Arabs.
And speaking of Arabs, what about gay Palestinians seeking refuge from their savagely anti-gay environment? Kathleen Peratis writes in The Forward that, "the international movement for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people hardly exists inside the Muslim world" and that "if the sexuality of a gay man in Palestine is exposed, his family might torture or kill him and the police will turn a blind eye. . . The only country in the Middle East in which gay people may safely leave the closet is Israel."
But seeking asylum in the only remotely decent Middle Eastern country poses a problem because of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians. Israel ended its practice of granting asylum to Palestinian nationals because, "in 2002, Palestinians with Israeli identity cards issued under family reunification laws allegedly used that status to aid suicide bombers."
Sadly, the only hope for gay Palestinians seeking refuge from their awful existence in Palestine is to "make their desperate way to Israel" and "hope to disappear into the gay subculture of Tel Aviv or Haifa;" of course this simply means they are buying time until their lack of money and Hebrew gets them caught and subsequently arrested ("For Gay Palestinians, Tel Aviv is Mecca.")
Efforts to challenge this harsh anti-immigrant law must be stepped up. Palestinians who have just cause for fear of persecution in their former country should feel safe in Israel, if only in Israel. And conditions will improve only when Israeli politicians realize they earn no points for not being Iran. No one deserves a humanitarian award for not hanging gay people. No world leader should be lauded for not telling a student body that his country has no homosexuals. Not acting like animals should be expected, not praised. Enforce harsh laws against anti-social behavior from the ultra-religious. Spend money building Reform temples and Conservative (Masorti in Israel) synagogues; court those Jews who have felt alienated from their own anscestral homeland. Grant asylum to gay Palistinians who seek a better way of life in Israel.
As Tony Kushner says, "the world only spins forward." Look at those masses of good, moral Israelis marching in solidarity with their gay brothers and sisters. There is no stopping the gay civil rights progress in Israel. Already better than the U.S., the Jewish state will someday be an absolute haven for gays and lesbians. Any Israeli who has a problem with that should leave. And when Israeli leaders begin to embrace the values of mainstream Judiasm--the two branches of Judaism overwhelmingly chosen by the world's Jews--the Jewish state will actually become more Jewish.
Today 70,000 Israelis came together in solidarity with the gay community.
President Shimon Peres said, "The bullets that hit the gay community at the beginning of the week struck us all as people, as Jews, as Israelis. All people were created in God's image," he added, "and all citizens have equal rights. All men are born equal, and every citizen has the right to be who he is -- to be free and proud."
Reform and Conservative leaders called on all Jews to take a moment last Sunday to dwell on those who have been murdered and wounded in this attack and to recite Tehillim on their behalf. We hope for some small comfort among the mourners of Israel and the entire world, as well as a speedy recovery, in body and in spirit, to all those injured in this attack. On Monday night at 8:30pm, Mt. Sinai Jewish Center recited Tehillim for those who were killed or hurt in the attack following Mincha/Ma'ariv services.
A small group of religious fanatics will never be able to convince Israel or its citizens that gays have no place in the Jewish state. I have visited Tel Aviv many times, and I am impressed by its gay-friendly atmosphere. Not only does the Israeli government not enforce savage religious laws against gay people the way Iran does, it is somewhat gay-friendly and on the verge of getting even better. Israel shows more humanity and enlightenment than America by allowing gays to openly serve in the military and by allowing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere to be recognized in the state.
This perceived acceptance of gays (I say perceived because any country that only allows straight marriage is homophobic) will always make anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews and extremist Muslims hate Israel with a passion, and it will always cause Zionist Orthodox Jews and Zionist Evangelicals to threaten to withdraw their support.
On the anti-semitic, anti-Zionist right, people like "God Hates Fags" preacher Fred Phelps see gay rights as being part of the "Zionist agenda" and routinely protest Israel for being relatively gay-friendly, and they protest Judaism for being genuinely gay-friendly. His "church" recently picketed a Kansas City synagogue with racist signs showing disgust with the "Fag-filled IDF" and "Fag-infested synagogues." And a gay synagogue in NYC was earlier this year greeted with picket signs saying "Jews Stole The Land" and "God Hates Fags."
http://www.kcjc.com/200906058517/news/phelps-clan-plans-synagogue-picket.html
This diparaging linking of gay rights with Israel finds suprising resonance among hateful right wing anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews (many of whom reject Israel even though they live there) and predictable agreement among extremist Muslims and the small anti-Israel Christian right. And many Zionist evangelicals and Zionist Orthodox Jews couple their enthusiasm for immoral Israeli military actions with disdain and disgust for moral Israeli policies like tolerance for gays. Just as Pat Robertson famously declared that God gave Ariel Sharon a stroke because he conceded some territory to Palestinans, many others like Robertson predict divine punishment for the Jewish state if its leaders fail to end the gay civil rights progress.
In the coming days and weeks and months, there will be an antisemitic backlash from the right because Peres made those pro-gay comments today. Some of that backlash will inevitably spring from those who claim to be Israel's friends.
But as Reform leader Eric Yoffie asked, what sort of friendship is conditional? You either support Israel for the right reasons or you do not. There is no reason to think things will get better. Many extremist Muslims use Israel's relative gay-friendliness--as well as sexy images of Tel Aviv residents having fun and enjoying the night life and beaches--as a wedge between the country and its anti-gay evangelical supporters. In fact, the annual gay Pride party in Jerusalem is a constant reminder that all the religions who find connection with the holy land have extremists who want to stop people from living life. A few years ago, a Muslim leader from the Knesset, Ibrahim Sarsur (United Arab List-Ta'al) "warned gays that 'if they dare to approach the Temple Mount during the World Pride 2006 parade in Jerusalem they will do so over our dead bodies' ("Gay Leader Not Daunted by Muslim Threat.")
Strange bedfellows indeed. People who hate Jews will always, always, always hold Israel to different standards and find some reason to detest/boycott the Jewish state. Fuck those people. But what about those Zionists who threaten to end their support if Israel does not start treating its gay population the way Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine do? Well, we should not be intimidated by them. That's why it was so wrong for Benjamin Netanyahu to make his speech about tolerance of gays so low-key. It's not okay to appease bigots. And that's why it was so important for President Peres to make his speech clear throughout the world, as he did. All decent Zionists must stand strong and send a clear message that truly supporting Israel means supporting all its citizens, including gays and Arabs.
And speaking of Arabs, what about gay Palestinians seeking refuge from their savagely anti-gay environment? Kathleen Peratis writes in The Forward that, "the international movement for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people hardly exists inside the Muslim world" and that "if the sexuality of a gay man in Palestine is exposed, his family might torture or kill him and the police will turn a blind eye. . . The only country in the Middle East in which gay people may safely leave the closet is Israel."
But seeking asylum in the only remotely decent Middle Eastern country poses a problem because of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians. Israel ended its practice of granting asylum to Palestinian nationals because, "in 2002, Palestinians with Israeli identity cards issued under family reunification laws allegedly used that status to aid suicide bombers."
Sadly, the only hope for gay Palestinians seeking refuge from their awful existence in Palestine is to "make their desperate way to Israel" and "hope to disappear into the gay subculture of Tel Aviv or Haifa;" of course this simply means they are buying time until their lack of money and Hebrew gets them caught and subsequently arrested ("For Gay Palestinians, Tel Aviv is Mecca.")
Efforts to challenge this harsh anti-immigrant law must be stepped up. Palestinians who have just cause for fear of persecution in their former country should feel safe in Israel, if only in Israel. And conditions will improve only when Israeli politicians realize they earn no points for not being Iran. No one deserves a humanitarian award for not hanging gay people. No world leader should be lauded for not telling a student body that his country has no homosexuals. Not acting like animals should be expected, not praised. Enforce harsh laws against anti-social behavior from the ultra-religious. Spend money building Reform temples and Conservative (Masorti in Israel) synagogues; court those Jews who have felt alienated from their own anscestral homeland. Grant asylum to gay Palistinians who seek a better way of life in Israel.
As Tony Kushner says, "the world only spins forward." Look at those masses of good, moral Israelis marching in solidarity with their gay brothers and sisters. There is no stopping the gay civil rights progress in Israel. Already better than the U.S., the Jewish state will someday be an absolute haven for gays and lesbians. Any Israeli who has a problem with that should leave. And when Israeli leaders begin to embrace the values of mainstream Judiasm--the two branches of Judaism overwhelmingly chosen by the world's Jews--the Jewish state will actually become more Jewish.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Yes We Can, But No We Won't
This video shows the hanging in Iran of two young boys, Ayaz Marhon and Mahmoud Asgari. Their only "crime" was being gay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARvwzFWSr4
Pride Month is coming to an end, and those of us gay people who are fortunate enough to not live in a savage theocracy have a lot to be proud of. But for gay Americans, that pride is mixed with anxiety. Many European countries made the lack of marriage equality in the United States the subject of their Pride festivities. Why should they be surprised? Look at our fearless leader.
That brutal double-murder of Ayaz and Mahmoud is a routine occurence in Iran, and yet Presidnet Obama did not once pressure Iran (or any other Islamic country for that matter) to end its oppression of gays in his massive "apology" on behalf of the United States to "the Muslim world." Under the law of the Islamic Republic, the penalty for lesbian sex is one hundred lashes, with the death penalty enforced after the fourth offense. The death penalty is due on the first offense for male-on-male sex.
A young gay Iranian seeking refuge in Britain tells The New Internationalists,"It’s because of the Islamic revolution that people like me are here [in the U.K.]. . . The revolution is a really bad memory for gay and lesbian people. Before, they were free but now they can’t live in Iran and have to escape (Webster, Anna. "An Auspicious Anniversary.")
http://www.newint.org/features/special/2009/03/30/an-inauspicious-anniversary/
In the disastrous aftermath of the recent Iranian elections, in which scores of Iranians protested the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama decided not to put any U.S. pressure on the ayatollahs to listen to the will of the people.
Obama even remained silent (until it was much too little, far too late) as the brutal regime killed innocent protesters. This would have been the perfect time to speak out for not just gay Iranians, but all Iranians. Oddly, Obama has spent the first one hundred days of his presidency paying more respect to the religion of Islam than to human beings.
After more than one hundred days in office, Obama's record on gay rights is dismal, despite his campaign promises and his effort to energize the gay community into voting for him. He invited anti-gay Rick Warren to his inauguration. He has effectively pushed both marriage equality and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into whenever "the sun sets on his administration." And that's if he gets re-elected. If the next president is a Republican, gay people might as well leave for Europe.
But the most shocking aspect of Obama's first hundred days is the blatant, vitriolic bigotry. Most of us have become used to Democrats paying lip service to gay rights but offering a winking, "Sorry, guys, I have to do this" approach to marriage equality. Not so with Obama. His Justice Department's defense of DOMA (which is anti-equality) is a sickening read: it equates gay sex with incest and same-sex couples with inbreeding rapists.
Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign says in a predictably tepid open letter to Obama, "As an American, a civil rights activist, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. . . I realize that although I and other LGBT rights leaders have introduced ourselves to you, clearly we have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours."
Insultingly, Obama responded to criticism that he has done little for gay rights by declaring June Pride Month, something he was expected to do anyway as a Democrat. Not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton had first done this in 1996; how depressing that Obama's one substantive stand on gay rights takes us no further than the 90's. Other than that, Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post points out that Obama's federal extension of gay rights benefits--part of his supposed turnaround on gay rights--is only partial; plus, it's a memorandum instead of an executive order. ("HRC's Joe Solomonese Tells Olbermann Obama Went 'Way Over the Line.' ")
Is there any reason to believe the author of The Audacity of Hope will improve? Will he change his priorities and start showing more concern for gay people than for Iranian ayatollahs? It's hard to say. Obama invited gay rights activists to the White House for a gala celeberating "LGBT pride" and commemorating Stonewall. Sadly, the White House barely advertised it until the media called out his administration on its hypocrisy.
And even if Obama's little gay party had been out and proud, how does that help the female couple who wants their union recognized as something more than shacking-up-with-medical benefits? How does it help gay kids like Ayaz and Mahmoud, who live under the brutal rule of a theocracy that's protected at all costs by political correctness?
For gay people in 2009, hope really is audacious.
CapeCodKwassa, Copyright 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARvwzFWSr4
Pride Month is coming to an end, and those of us gay people who are fortunate enough to not live in a savage theocracy have a lot to be proud of. But for gay Americans, that pride is mixed with anxiety. Many European countries made the lack of marriage equality in the United States the subject of their Pride festivities. Why should they be surprised? Look at our fearless leader.
That brutal double-murder of Ayaz and Mahmoud is a routine occurence in Iran, and yet Presidnet Obama did not once pressure Iran (or any other Islamic country for that matter) to end its oppression of gays in his massive "apology" on behalf of the United States to "the Muslim world." Under the law of the Islamic Republic, the penalty for lesbian sex is one hundred lashes, with the death penalty enforced after the fourth offense. The death penalty is due on the first offense for male-on-male sex.
A young gay Iranian seeking refuge in Britain tells The New Internationalists,"It’s because of the Islamic revolution that people like me are here [in the U.K.]. . . The revolution is a really bad memory for gay and lesbian people. Before, they were free but now they can’t live in Iran and have to escape (Webster, Anna. "An Auspicious Anniversary.")
http://www.newint.org/features/special/2009/03/30/an-inauspicious-anniversary/
In the disastrous aftermath of the recent Iranian elections, in which scores of Iranians protested the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama decided not to put any U.S. pressure on the ayatollahs to listen to the will of the people.
Obama even remained silent (until it was much too little, far too late) as the brutal regime killed innocent protesters. This would have been the perfect time to speak out for not just gay Iranians, but all Iranians. Oddly, Obama has spent the first one hundred days of his presidency paying more respect to the religion of Islam than to human beings.
After more than one hundred days in office, Obama's record on gay rights is dismal, despite his campaign promises and his effort to energize the gay community into voting for him. He invited anti-gay Rick Warren to his inauguration. He has effectively pushed both marriage equality and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into whenever "the sun sets on his administration." And that's if he gets re-elected. If the next president is a Republican, gay people might as well leave for Europe.
But the most shocking aspect of Obama's first hundred days is the blatant, vitriolic bigotry. Most of us have become used to Democrats paying lip service to gay rights but offering a winking, "Sorry, guys, I have to do this" approach to marriage equality. Not so with Obama. His Justice Department's defense of DOMA (which is anti-equality) is a sickening read: it equates gay sex with incest and same-sex couples with inbreeding rapists.
Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign says in a predictably tepid open letter to Obama, "As an American, a civil rights activist, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. . . I realize that although I and other LGBT rights leaders have introduced ourselves to you, clearly we have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours."
Insultingly, Obama responded to criticism that he has done little for gay rights by declaring June Pride Month, something he was expected to do anyway as a Democrat. Not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton had first done this in 1996; how depressing that Obama's one substantive stand on gay rights takes us no further than the 90's. Other than that, Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post points out that Obama's federal extension of gay rights benefits--part of his supposed turnaround on gay rights--is only partial; plus, it's a memorandum instead of an executive order. ("HRC's Joe Solomonese Tells Olbermann Obama Went 'Way Over the Line.' ")
Is there any reason to believe the author of The Audacity of Hope will improve? Will he change his priorities and start showing more concern for gay people than for Iranian ayatollahs? It's hard to say. Obama invited gay rights activists to the White House for a gala celeberating "LGBT pride" and commemorating Stonewall. Sadly, the White House barely advertised it until the media called out his administration on its hypocrisy.
And even if Obama's little gay party had been out and proud, how does that help the female couple who wants their union recognized as something more than shacking-up-with-medical benefits? How does it help gay kids like Ayaz and Mahmoud, who live under the brutal rule of a theocracy that's protected at all costs by political correctness?
For gay people in 2009, hope really is audacious.
CapeCodKwassa, Copyright 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Judaism Does Not Equal Legalism
A common misconception regarding Judaism is that it is legalistic--that Judaism is a series of laws. This idea has been used by antisemites who try to paint "the Jewish God" as vengeful and demanding and their own God as loving and forgiving. But antisemites aside, the notion that Judaism equals legalism is also a staple of many Orthodox Jews, who are under the misguided impression that obeying halakha to a precise degree is Judaism in a nutshell.
This is wrong.
"Judaism is not another word for legalism," says Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. "The translators of the Septaugint committed a fatal and momentous error when, for lack of a Greek equivalent, they rendered Torah with nomos, which means "law", giving rise to a huge and chronic misconception of Judaism and supplying an effective weapon to those who sought to attack the teachings of Judaism. That the Jews considered Scripture as teaching is evidenced by the fact that in the Aramaic translations Torah is rendered with "oraita" which can only mean teaching, never law."
"The rules of observance are law in form and love in substance," Heschel says. "The Torah contains both law and love. Man created in the likeness of God is called upon to re-create the world in the likeness of the vision of God. Halacha is neither the ultimate nor the all-embracing term for Jewish learning and living."
Heschel goes on to talk about agada, a term meaning all non-halackic parts of rabbinic literature. He says, "The Torah is more than a system of laws; only a small portion of the Pentateuch deals with law. The prophets, the Psalms, agadic midrashim, are not a part of halacha. The Torah contains both halacha and agada. Like body and soul, they are mutually dependent, and each is a dimension of its own." The good rabbi says that according to a later decision by an authority, a Jewish person is expected to devote a third of her studies to the field of agada.
This means we are expected to follow halakha with our hearts and intellects fully engaged. We are not to blindly accept rigid, often heartless and immoral interpretations of those laws, and we are also not to make obeying the laws our main means of worshipping God and living a Jewish life. Those authorities and "experts" who shut their ears and eyes and steadfastly refuse to even consider more progressive interpretations of halakha--even when civil rights and decency are at stake--are guilty of worshiping halakha instead of worshipping God.
The most important decree in Judaism is this one: "There is nothing more important, according to the Torah, than to preserve human life. . . Even when there is the slightest possibility that a life may be at stake one may disregard every prohibition of the law." As Heschel says, this means "one must sacrifice mitzvot for the sake of man, rather than sacrifice man for the sake of mitzvot."
I hope everyone had a great Shavuot.
This is wrong.
"Judaism is not another word for legalism," says Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. "The translators of the Septaugint committed a fatal and momentous error when, for lack of a Greek equivalent, they rendered Torah with nomos, which means "law", giving rise to a huge and chronic misconception of Judaism and supplying an effective weapon to those who sought to attack the teachings of Judaism. That the Jews considered Scripture as teaching is evidenced by the fact that in the Aramaic translations Torah is rendered with "oraita" which can only mean teaching, never law."
"The rules of observance are law in form and love in substance," Heschel says. "The Torah contains both law and love. Man created in the likeness of God is called upon to re-create the world in the likeness of the vision of God. Halacha is neither the ultimate nor the all-embracing term for Jewish learning and living."
Heschel goes on to talk about agada, a term meaning all non-halackic parts of rabbinic literature. He says, "The Torah is more than a system of laws; only a small portion of the Pentateuch deals with law. The prophets, the Psalms, agadic midrashim, are not a part of halacha. The Torah contains both halacha and agada. Like body and soul, they are mutually dependent, and each is a dimension of its own." The good rabbi says that according to a later decision by an authority, a Jewish person is expected to devote a third of her studies to the field of agada.
This means we are expected to follow halakha with our hearts and intellects fully engaged. We are not to blindly accept rigid, often heartless and immoral interpretations of those laws, and we are also not to make obeying the laws our main means of worshipping God and living a Jewish life. Those authorities and "experts" who shut their ears and eyes and steadfastly refuse to even consider more progressive interpretations of halakha--even when civil rights and decency are at stake--are guilty of worshiping halakha instead of worshipping God.
The most important decree in Judaism is this one: "There is nothing more important, according to the Torah, than to preserve human life. . . Even when there is the slightest possibility that a life may be at stake one may disregard every prohibition of the law." As Heschel says, this means "one must sacrifice mitzvot for the sake of man, rather than sacrifice man for the sake of mitzvot."
I hope everyone had a great Shavuot.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Biblical Illiteracy in a (Supposedly) Devout Society?
I asked off at work for both my family's seder and also a more laid-back seder my boyfriend was hosting at his cool new house in a swanky neighborhood. I had so much fun at both of them; it was the best Passover of my young adult life. And those two seders amounted to two Pesach-related time-off requests at my job, which caused more of a stir than I ever would have dreamed.
My manager asked what a Passover seder is. My unintentionally funny, uber-redneck department lead asked me what a Passover seder is. My peer and co-worker asked me what a Passover seder is, and also what Passover itself is. Shockingly, a health-and-wealth evangelical co-worker who says Obama is the anti-Christ claimed to have never heard the word "Passover" in her life.
This upset me. Not as a Jew, mind you. I don't expect non-Jews to know anything about Judaism. I know very little about Hinduism or Buddhist monks, and I cannot for the life of me figure out the holy trinity. The only time I get angry about peoples' lack of knowledge regarding Judaism is when they are speaking with authority about something they know little about, like when some Christians claim the "Jewish G-d" is mean and judgmental.
So I usually do not care when people do not understand Passover or any Jewish custom. No, I was upset not as a Jewish person but as a gay person. I was upset because all those people I mentioned are Christians. My peer is not homophobic, but both my manager and my redneck lead are against gay peoples' right to marry because of what the Bible says about homosexuality and what the Bibile supposedly says about marriage.
So if the Bible is so important to you as to be the deciding factor in your anti-gay bigotry, how on earth do you not know what Passover means? The Passover story of G-d delivering the Jews from slavery to liberation is the second biggest event of the Christian Bible, second only to the Gospel account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. It is a thematic parallel that supposedly binds the two books into one. G-d delivered the Hebrews from phsycical slavery in Part One; in Part Two G-d supposedly delivered Hebrew and gentile alike from spiritual slavery. First G-d delivered His law; then He delivered grace. Jesus' last meal was a PASSOVER SEDER. Even if that were not painfully obvious in the actual scripture, most Bibles helpfully explain those facts in the notes.
In my experience--and I have much experience with right wing Christians--, the only conservative evangelicals I know who are knowledgeable about Passover and the seder are those who are studying a Christian field at school or those whose churches host seders to show how Jesus is the Passover lamb and how Christianity supposedly supercedes Judaism as the true faith. (To their enormous credit, some more progressive churches like the Christ the King parish near my apartment host annual seders supervised by actual rabbis, and there is no offensive motive at all.)
It isn't just Passover. It seems Bible-believing America is not quite the same as Bible-reading America. According to USA Today, 60% of Americans can't name five of the Ten Commandments. 50% of high school seniors say Sodom and Gomorrah were married ("Americans Get an 'F' in Religion", Cathy Lynn Grossman.)
It really is infuriating. The Bible is the main excuse for anti-gay bigotry (just as it was the main excuse for slavery and anti-Semitism) and yet most of those bigots do not even read it. If you're against straight/gay equality because of the Bible, you should curl up the "Good Book" every night. You should know what it says like the back of your hand. Because if you do do not, you're hypocritical in addition to prejudiced.
In my thinking, that's two sins for the price of one.
My manager asked what a Passover seder is. My unintentionally funny, uber-redneck department lead asked me what a Passover seder is. My peer and co-worker asked me what a Passover seder is, and also what Passover itself is. Shockingly, a health-and-wealth evangelical co-worker who says Obama is the anti-Christ claimed to have never heard the word "Passover" in her life.
This upset me. Not as a Jew, mind you. I don't expect non-Jews to know anything about Judaism. I know very little about Hinduism or Buddhist monks, and I cannot for the life of me figure out the holy trinity. The only time I get angry about peoples' lack of knowledge regarding Judaism is when they are speaking with authority about something they know little about, like when some Christians claim the "Jewish G-d" is mean and judgmental.
So I usually do not care when people do not understand Passover or any Jewish custom. No, I was upset not as a Jewish person but as a gay person. I was upset because all those people I mentioned are Christians. My peer is not homophobic, but both my manager and my redneck lead are against gay peoples' right to marry because of what the Bible says about homosexuality and what the Bibile supposedly says about marriage.
So if the Bible is so important to you as to be the deciding factor in your anti-gay bigotry, how on earth do you not know what Passover means? The Passover story of G-d delivering the Jews from slavery to liberation is the second biggest event of the Christian Bible, second only to the Gospel account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. It is a thematic parallel that supposedly binds the two books into one. G-d delivered the Hebrews from phsycical slavery in Part One; in Part Two G-d supposedly delivered Hebrew and gentile alike from spiritual slavery. First G-d delivered His law; then He delivered grace. Jesus' last meal was a PASSOVER SEDER. Even if that were not painfully obvious in the actual scripture, most Bibles helpfully explain those facts in the notes.
In my experience--and I have much experience with right wing Christians--, the only conservative evangelicals I know who are knowledgeable about Passover and the seder are those who are studying a Christian field at school or those whose churches host seders to show how Jesus is the Passover lamb and how Christianity supposedly supercedes Judaism as the true faith. (To their enormous credit, some more progressive churches like the Christ the King parish near my apartment host annual seders supervised by actual rabbis, and there is no offensive motive at all.)
It isn't just Passover. It seems Bible-believing America is not quite the same as Bible-reading America. According to USA Today, 60% of Americans can't name five of the Ten Commandments. 50% of high school seniors say Sodom and Gomorrah were married ("Americans Get an 'F' in Religion", Cathy Lynn Grossman.)
It really is infuriating. The Bible is the main excuse for anti-gay bigotry (just as it was the main excuse for slavery and anti-Semitism) and yet most of those bigots do not even read it. If you're against straight/gay equality because of the Bible, you should curl up the "Good Book" every night. You should know what it says like the back of your hand. Because if you do do not, you're hypocritical in addition to prejudiced.
In my thinking, that's two sins for the price of one.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Hateful New Oklahoma Bill Targets Muslim Americans
First gays. Then Hispanic immigrants. Now Muslims. Oklahoma lawmakers are at it again.
Oklahoma House members just approved HB 1645, a new bill making it mandatory for religious people to remove their traditional head coverings both while taking driver's license photos and also whenever a law enforcement officer demands it for identification purposes. While it's true that a few people from other religions will be slightly affected, there is no question that Muslims and Sikhs are the true targets of this bill.
The creator of the bill all but admits it. Republican Rep. Rex Duncan says he wrote the legislation after reading about how a Muslim woman from Norman, Oklahoma--Monique Barrett--recieved an apology from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety when she complained that she was asked to removed her hijab (traditional Islamic head scarf) for her new driver's license photo.
Many Muslim women only reveal their hair to their husbands and male family members, and it is against Barrett's particular brand of Islamic faith to not wear her head scarf in public.
Barrett was issued an apology, and she was allowed to take a new photo with her hijab. The ODPS said it was happy to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and that the organization would educate its employees on religious issues related to dress and photos. As of last year, the employee telling Barrett she had to remove the hijab was in violation of anti-discrimination laws.
How quickly the world takes a turn for the worse. House members approved the legislation 88-8. Duncan tells Micheal McNutt of The Daily Oklahoman, "If we're going to allow people to cover their hair and parts of their face, then it's going to be difficult for the law enforcement folks to confirm who they're actually looking at" ("Groups Oppose Oklahoma Driver's License Photo Bill.")
But that is not true. Barrett--like most Muslim women--was not covering her face, not even part of it. And anyone of any background can change her hair color or wear a wig, so how does showing one's hair help police identify people? Aside from that, there is clearly no widespread problem being addressed here anyway. It is simply a hateful piece of legislation targeting a religious minority.
So how does an anti-Muslim law relate to Jews?
Rajdeep Singh Jolly, legal director for the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, says, "'We also call upon all religious communities, civil rights organizations, and concerned citizens throughout the nation to demand that the government of Oklahoma clarifies its commitment to protecting civil rights in the 21st century."
We as Jews know what discrimination feels like, and our most sacred text reminds us to be kind to the stranger because we were once strangers. Everyone should speak out, but our voice should be the loudest.
Oklahoma House members just approved HB 1645, a new bill making it mandatory for religious people to remove their traditional head coverings both while taking driver's license photos and also whenever a law enforcement officer demands it for identification purposes. While it's true that a few people from other religions will be slightly affected, there is no question that Muslims and Sikhs are the true targets of this bill.
The creator of the bill all but admits it. Republican Rep. Rex Duncan says he wrote the legislation after reading about how a Muslim woman from Norman, Oklahoma--Monique Barrett--recieved an apology from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety when she complained that she was asked to removed her hijab (traditional Islamic head scarf) for her new driver's license photo.
Many Muslim women only reveal their hair to their husbands and male family members, and it is against Barrett's particular brand of Islamic faith to not wear her head scarf in public.
Barrett was issued an apology, and she was allowed to take a new photo with her hijab. The ODPS said it was happy to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and that the organization would educate its employees on religious issues related to dress and photos. As of last year, the employee telling Barrett she had to remove the hijab was in violation of anti-discrimination laws.
How quickly the world takes a turn for the worse. House members approved the legislation 88-8. Duncan tells Micheal McNutt of The Daily Oklahoman, "If we're going to allow people to cover their hair and parts of their face, then it's going to be difficult for the law enforcement folks to confirm who they're actually looking at" ("Groups Oppose Oklahoma Driver's License Photo Bill.")
But that is not true. Barrett--like most Muslim women--was not covering her face, not even part of it. And anyone of any background can change her hair color or wear a wig, so how does showing one's hair help police identify people? Aside from that, there is clearly no widespread problem being addressed here anyway. It is simply a hateful piece of legislation targeting a religious minority.
So how does an anti-Muslim law relate to Jews?
Rajdeep Singh Jolly, legal director for the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, says, "'We also call upon all religious communities, civil rights organizations, and concerned citizens throughout the nation to demand that the government of Oklahoma clarifies its commitment to protecting civil rights in the 21st century."
We as Jews know what discrimination feels like, and our most sacred text reminds us to be kind to the stranger because we were once strangers. Everyone should speak out, but our voice should be the loudest.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Nick and Norah and Jewish/Gay Identity
Last night I rewatched Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (Sony Pictures/2008). It's not There Will Be Blood, but it's a light-hearted, well-acted tribute to those nights in every young person's life that seem to last forever--those nights where it actually seems possible that similar musical taste can bond two people for life.
Nick (Michael Cera) is sensitive, smart, and funny, and the love of his life does not appreciate him or the mix tape CD's he puts together for her. Nora (Kat Dunning) is his "musical soul mate" and desperately wants to meet the stranger who makes all the amazing CDs his ex-girlfriend throws in the trash at school. When Nora finally meets Nick, it's at a club where Nick is performing with his band as the lone straight guy in a "Queercore" band called The Jerkoffs. It takes a while for the two to warm up to each other, but they eventually bond over music and--of course--a great big adventure in NYC.
While not as funny as it should be, it is engaging and good-hearted, and it shows an interesting evolution of pop culture depictions of Jews and gays, who--despite heavy repesentation of both groups in the entertainment industry--are often marginalized and stereotyped in movies and TV shows.
In some ways, Nora's character fits popular Gossip Girl stereotypes. She is the rich daughter of a famous music mogul, and because of this fact, the red carpet is rolled out for her. But to her credit she constantly downplays her status because she says her dad's position in society has nothing to do with who she is. She wants people to see her true self. That's why it's hurtful when Nick angrily calls Nora a spoiled "JAP" (Jewish-American princess); it simply does not ring true.
Even more impressively, the film is not content with establishing Nora as a Jew in a typical shallow movie way, with a handful of references to Hanukkah or JAPs. Nora is--to borrow from another minority's lingo--out. She is actually proud to be Jewish, and she even shares with Nick one of her "favorite things about Judaism," the concept of tikkun olam. She explains it as the world being broken and humans having the task of putting the pieces back together. "Maybe we're the pieces," Nick offers.
Just as Nora resembles Jewish girls we know in real life more than most other movie Jews, the same can be said for the gay characters. Nick's gay friends/bandmates are not limp-wristed, lisping stereotypes. They're certainly not murderers (like Hollywood used to make them) and they're not martyrs (like Hollywood currently makes them.) Thankfully, they are NOT in love with Nick or with any other straight guy. In fact, they do everything they can to ensure that Nick and Nora get together.
The best thing about the young gay men in this film is that they are not sanitized, neutered, asexual versions of themselves. They are comfortable in their own skins, and their presence here is by no means meant to make homophobic (or homonervous) audiences feel less threatened.
And that's one of the things I like about Nick and Norah's. Nora, Nick, and their gay friends are not used as "propaganda" for positive media images. They are all imperfect people, just as characters in any movie should be, and they have all the potential in the world to be stereotypes--they just fight against it. Nora is privelaged and well-off, but she would rather be seen as a spiritually grounded Jewish girl than as a rich JAP. Nick's friends are sexy, hot, and very sexual, but they're also really nice guys more concerned with helping their friends than getting off.
It almost makes up for the fact that we're supposed to believe these charcters can instantly find parking places at every NYC club and business they attend. Almost.
Nick (Michael Cera) is sensitive, smart, and funny, and the love of his life does not appreciate him or the mix tape CD's he puts together for her. Nora (Kat Dunning) is his "musical soul mate" and desperately wants to meet the stranger who makes all the amazing CDs his ex-girlfriend throws in the trash at school. When Nora finally meets Nick, it's at a club where Nick is performing with his band as the lone straight guy in a "Queercore" band called The Jerkoffs. It takes a while for the two to warm up to each other, but they eventually bond over music and--of course--a great big adventure in NYC.
While not as funny as it should be, it is engaging and good-hearted, and it shows an interesting evolution of pop culture depictions of Jews and gays, who--despite heavy repesentation of both groups in the entertainment industry--are often marginalized and stereotyped in movies and TV shows.
In some ways, Nora's character fits popular Gossip Girl stereotypes. She is the rich daughter of a famous music mogul, and because of this fact, the red carpet is rolled out for her. But to her credit she constantly downplays her status because she says her dad's position in society has nothing to do with who she is. She wants people to see her true self. That's why it's hurtful when Nick angrily calls Nora a spoiled "JAP" (Jewish-American princess); it simply does not ring true.
Even more impressively, the film is not content with establishing Nora as a Jew in a typical shallow movie way, with a handful of references to Hanukkah or JAPs. Nora is--to borrow from another minority's lingo--out. She is actually proud to be Jewish, and she even shares with Nick one of her "favorite things about Judaism," the concept of tikkun olam. She explains it as the world being broken and humans having the task of putting the pieces back together. "Maybe we're the pieces," Nick offers.
Just as Nora resembles Jewish girls we know in real life more than most other movie Jews, the same can be said for the gay characters. Nick's gay friends/bandmates are not limp-wristed, lisping stereotypes. They're certainly not murderers (like Hollywood used to make them) and they're not martyrs (like Hollywood currently makes them.) Thankfully, they are NOT in love with Nick or with any other straight guy. In fact, they do everything they can to ensure that Nick and Nora get together.
The best thing about the young gay men in this film is that they are not sanitized, neutered, asexual versions of themselves. They are comfortable in their own skins, and their presence here is by no means meant to make homophobic (or homonervous) audiences feel less threatened.
And that's one of the things I like about Nick and Norah's. Nora, Nick, and their gay friends are not used as "propaganda" for positive media images. They are all imperfect people, just as characters in any movie should be, and they have all the potential in the world to be stereotypes--they just fight against it. Nora is privelaged and well-off, but she would rather be seen as a spiritually grounded Jewish girl than as a rich JAP. Nick's friends are sexy, hot, and very sexual, but they're also really nice guys more concerned with helping their friends than getting off.
It almost makes up for the fact that we're supposed to believe these charcters can instantly find parking places at every NYC club and business they attend. Almost.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Best Films of 2008
Best Films:
1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. Let the Right One In
3. The Dark Knight
4. Wall-E
5. The Wrestler
6. Milk
7. Revolutionary Road
8. Persepolis
9. Vicky Christina Barcelona
10. The Band's Visit
Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)
Screenwriter--Original script: Andrew Stanton (Wall-E)
Screenwriter--Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire)
Actor: Micky Rourke (The Wrestler)
Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)
Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Christina Barcelona)
Animated Film: Wall-E
Foreign Film: Let the Right One In
Sound/Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
Special Effects: The Dark Knight
Make-up: The Dark Knight
Cinematography: Revolutionary Road
Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. Let the Right One In
3. The Dark Knight
4. Wall-E
5. The Wrestler
6. Milk
7. Revolutionary Road
8. Persepolis
9. Vicky Christina Barcelona
10. The Band's Visit
Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)
Screenwriter--Original script: Andrew Stanton (Wall-E)
Screenwriter--Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire)
Actor: Micky Rourke (The Wrestler)
Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)
Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Christina Barcelona)
Animated Film: Wall-E
Foreign Film: Let the Right One In
Sound/Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
Special Effects: The Dark Knight
Make-up: The Dark Knight
Cinematography: Revolutionary Road
Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)