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

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.