Posts from — February 2006

Read my endorsement on Jewschool here.

I was going to stay out of this one, but when the Editorial Board of the Jewish Press declares there’s no reason to believe there is a party going on, it’s time for Jewschool to join the party.

Very often there is a focus on the disparity of faith between the believer and the unbeliever. This is true in every religion, but it is most frequently juxtaposed by the Fundamentalist. The choice is Manichean; it is between faith and secularism. Christian fundamentalists are particularly overt, as they attempt to categorize their opponents as “secular humanists,â€? who believe in “moral relativism,” even though as Dr. Samuel Heilman noted once in his class on comparative fundamentalism, very few people actually identify themselves as Secular Humanists.

What is not talked about as much are those members of a faith I would term modified agnostic loyalists. We have a lot of doubts, but still see believe in the comparative moral advantage and superiority of our respective faiths.

In Judaism, many of this mindset traditionally preferred the Conservative movement, as it allows for wiggle room and “evolution� of Jewish Law and practice.

This never really sat well with me, as I always found the movement in practice to be a cop out on many levels, every level really, with too much concern for reconciling Judaism with the norms of the day, no matter how unproven. Certainly I question the divinity of Judaism, but I don’t question the divinity of Newsweek, and too often, the Conservative movement seems to look for spiritual guidance in the general tagablatts and vuchablatts that usually have no business or even interest in dictating Jewish anything, (outside of what Israel should do, of course, and they don’t listen to that part anyway).

The Conservadox attempt to find halachic precedents for their changes, but again, all too often, the issue seems to be about reconciling Judaism to fit in with their own political and gender issues. Mostly their gender issues(read feminist). Like if that were solved (it can’t be) it would all make sense (it wouldn’t).

I am less worried about the problem of how to change Judaism to make me happy. I can’t change Judaism, though I can opt out, on many different levels, and I certainly do so. I am interested in how a lack of faith but not a complete lack of faith translates into policy on a personal level in terms of Jewish commitment.

In a certain sense, my hierarchy (Torah first, Talmud as primary explanation of Torah Law, but non-Torah ideas expounded upon in the Talmud such as science given less weight) parallels many Modern Orthodox Jews, except my curve is much lower on the graph, because I don’t feel as restricted by either faith or community.

Perhaps there should be a handbook for Jews who kind of believe it on some level, but are not sure how much or in what part. Who don’t have the audacity to attempt to change the religion, but don’t intend to do every last bit of it either.

There would be differing opinions to the norm. Not based on modern interpretations of Jewish thought, but ancient ones.

We know Judaism became more rigid and stringent over the years, and not all of us are willing to pay that hefty price to fulfill it.

But not all of us are willing to listen to some woman Rabbi adorned in a colorful tallit babble about Martin Luther King Day as if it’s a new Jewish High Holiday either.

There’s not knowing what the truth is, and then there’s just making shit up.

I have been goofed by Mobius.

I get no pleasure out of attacking Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the leader of the Reform movement. From where I am standing, any possibility of legitimacy of the Reform movement’s pro-assimilation platform went up in smoke during WWII. But Rabbi Yoffie is, for a Reform leader, a relatively thoughtful fellow. He was as responsible during Arafat’s reign of terrorism as can be expected from the notoriously anti-nationalist Reform movement, and he gives nods to tradition and ritual whenever possible, provided it doesn’t threaten the liberal sensibilities of his constituents.

But he is leading people into waters less welcoming than they appear by heading a proselytizing mission for intermarried spouses to convert to Judaism. This is utterly counter to Jewish tradition and history, and it is fooling both the gentile and Jewish partners, and setting them up for future disappointment at lack of acceptance of their status as Jews.

The NY Times reports,

Concerned about what intermarriage is doing to American Judaism, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the organization of the country’s Reform Jewish congregations, recently called for Reform synagogues to increase their efforts to convert non-Jewish spouses. By welcoming and accepting gentile spouses, Reform congregations have “perhaps sent the message that we do not care if they convert,” Rabbi Yoffie said at the union’s most recent conference, in November.

“But that is not our message,” he said.

“The time has come to reverse direction by returning to public conversions and doing all the other things that encourage conversion in our synagogues,” he said.

Let us be clear. Many of us, even if we ourselves are not strictly religious, do not consider a Reform conversion valid in the first place. So too, we do not consider the child of a mother who had a Reform conversion a Jew. This does not mean we think they are bad people. They may be wonderful people. They just aren’t wonderful Jews.

I wouldn’t expect Rabbi Yoffie to accept this intolerant viewpoint as his own, nor would I expect him to cease performing Reform conversions for those gentiles interested in doing so. But he must be aware of the damage to Jewish unity his predecessor created by accepting patrilineal descent, and he is further deepening this split by advocating a position of proselytizing gentiles whose conversions anyway won’t be accepted by the traditional Jewish world, even as he is reversing a long-standing policy of not proselytizing in the first place.

My essay on why Judaism and the State of Israel is the root cause of much of the global Muslim discontent is here.

It’s been a good year for the Muslim Brotherhood. A very good year. First Palestine (Hamas is an offshoot of The Brotherhood), and now they have their eye on Syria.

Haaretz reports,

Former Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam and the exiled leader of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood agreed on Wednesday to join forces to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

An Iranian Website, close to the Revolutionary Guard, reported that the Syrian republican guard, the elite security force that ensure the stability of regime, was placed on high alert and all leaves were cancelled, following Khaddam’s recent statements against Assad’s rule.

Things are moving very quickly.

Full Story

Michael and some of my other friendly rivals at Jewlicious have complained that I haven’t clarified my reservations about circumcision, and would like to know more about where I stand on the issue.

Very well, Michael, but that’s a big subject to tackle, and it’s a subject I don’t really feel comfortable talking about usually, but as there will be an official push on Monday for a sponsor of the MGM Bill, I guess I can break from my usual silence on the matter.

The MGM (male genital mutilation) bill seeks to outlaw male circumcision in this country except in very exceptional circumstances, and religious ritual does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance under this bill.

MGMbill.org is a non-profit organization based in San Diego, California, seeking to pass a law that will end the practice of male genital mutilation (circumcision) in the United States of America. Currently, girls are protected from genital mutilation by U.S. federal law, but boys are not.

Although legal protection of only girls from circumcision would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact remains that it is still widely considered to be legal in this country to mutilate a boy’s genitals in the name of social custom, hygiene, religion, or any other reason. This is true despite the well documented lifelong damage that male circumcision causes each of its victims.

Now you might as why this is strange. After all, didn’t the FGM bill also ban FGM 1, the least radical of all forms of FGM, and a close parallel to male circumcision, and didn’t Jews, especially Jewish women, support this bill enthusiastically, and weren’t they some of the biggest and loudest (yes, it’s hard to believe) supporters of that bill? What’s the difference, you ask?

The difference is that Muslims practice female circumcision, and Jews are more progressive than our Muslim cousins. And frequently whiter in many ways too. At least compared to the Muslim arabs who dominate the religion. So we deserve religious license and sensitivity, and Muslims don’t. Additionally, if someone attempts to parallel FGM and male circumcision, we can simply contrast male circumcision to infibulation or clitoridectomy, instead of the actual parallel, Type I FGM, that is to say, female circumcision. Aren’t we clever?

But surprisingly, not everyone sees the difference. But hey, even if they ban circumcision, we can just go to a Middle Eastern country for the weekend, right?

Well, not if this bill is ever passed in its entirety. They do seek to stop circumcision trips. Good thing profiling is strongly discouraged in this country!

But don’t worry. The MGM bill won’t pass. At least not this year. In fact, no one has even agreed to even to bring it to the floor. Yet.

But it will eventually come to the floor. And it won’t pass, and people will laugh at the sponsor, but things will be different after that. And many will start asking who is blocking the bill and why. For who are we to insist that our religious needs should be placed ahead of a child’s rights, when we were so quick and eager to deny that same religious right to others who had a parallel ritual for their girls?

Maybe we should have fought against making Type I FGM illegal. Or maybe we should have just shut the fuck up.

And difficult as the former position seems–as it runs counter to our need to demonstrate how progressive we are and how pro-woman we are and it would have put us in the situation of helping the Muslims instead of sticking it to them–it still would have been less contrary to our nature than the latter.

Support Yaakov Menken and Cross-Currents, and show once and for all that Judaism can and should be understood in the frummest, most anti-intellectual and dishonestly strict brand of interpretation of the Torah possible, and that it can be popular too! Very popular! Remember, not everything needs to be discussed openly or disclosed. That’s why more and more black hat communities are banning the Internet.

Menken dares to evade questions on how old the earth is and if there are dinosaurs. Help Menken and Cross-Currents.com bring a further alliance between Fundamentalist Judaism and Fundamentalist Christianity. We need your support, and they need your support. A vote for Cross-Currents is a vote against those devious scientists with their so-called “old earth� theories. A vote for Cross-Currents is a vote against tyrannosaurus rex himself. A vote for Cross-Currents is a vote for Jesus. You may contribute to a Cross-Currents victory the following categories:

• Best Overall
• Best Jewish Religion Blog
• Best Designed Blog
• Best Group Blog

Please vote for Cross-Currents.com.