Ami G. said...
I'm an orthodox jew and I don't follow Judaism blindly....
I think that the problem with the gay community is that they don't understand that just because they have homosexual attractions and tendencies does not mean that homosexuality is a way of life and should be legitimized by the rabbis/Judaism.
If I'm a kleptomaniac for instance, I can't control myself from stealing. Maybe the rabbis should find a way to make that permissible. I mean, times are changing! People are stealing all over! Especially in the Jewish community! Look how many Jews have been caught! Rabbis are money-laundering in so many synagogues and yeshivas! Bernie Maddof, Crazy Eddie (Eddie Antar), and many more!
So why can't the Orthodox community allow me to steal and accept me for who I am?January 4, 2010 8:47 AM
Ami G. said...
**PLEASE NOTE: What I've said in my previous comment was meant with utmost respect and compassion to you and the entire gay community. I am merely trying to make a point NOT in any way shape or form have I intended to poke fun at, degrade, brlittle, or criticise you or any gay person.
January 4, 2010 8:54 AM
capecodkwassa said...
Quote: "I think that the problem with the gay community is that they don't understand that just because they have homosexual attractions and tendencies does not mean that homosexuality is a way of life. . . "
Okay, so. . . just because you, Ami G, are attracted to girls doesn't mean your heterosexuality is a way of life. See how incorrect that is? Of course your sexual orientation is a way of life.
Sexual orientation is not a series of "attractions and tendencies;" you're either gay, straight, or in some cases bi.
Your comparison of sexual orientation with kelptomania is silly. You, Ami G, could change your name and live life as a gentile. Any bigot could compare your heritage with an inclination to steal. In fact, Messianic "Jews" and Jews For Jesus make a case for abandoning Judaism for J.C. that sounds eerily similar to what you're offering me.
Prejudiced Orthodox Jews like you are forcing fellow Orthodox Jews into a sad choice: to either abandon their reilgion altogether or to marry someone of the opposite sex, despite being gay.
You would be schocked at how many frum Jews (and other gay religious people) are in deceitful, sham marriages and seek out sex with others in the same position. Since it's 2010, these gay Jews (and Christians, Muslims, and Hindus) only have themselves to blame. They are adults who should be able to make the moral decision to live an honest life. But people like you ARE creating the hateful atmosphere that presents them with this choice to begin with.
Quote: "**PLEASE NOTE: What I've said in my previous comment was meant with utmost respect and compassion to you and the entire gay community. I am merely trying to make a point NOT in any way shape or form have I intended to poke fun at, degrade, brlittle, or criticise you or any gay person."
Softening your bigotry by pairing it with the pseudo-compassionate lingo of the religious doesn't work. Sorry.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Who is a Jew?: British Court Weighs in on Jewish Identity
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)