The Jewish Observer

One of the hottest You Tube videos of the last few weeks, at least in Jewish circles, has been the “save the date” rap video of Daniel Blumen. This production, done to the “Welcome to Atlanta” rap song, features a young Daniel rapping away about his big day. Featured in the video are Shaquille O’Neal, Charles Barkley, Frank Ski and the mayor of Atlanta. Oh, I forgot, the rabbi of The Temple in Atlanta, where the bar mitzvah took place appears as well, high fiving the almost of age rapper. It is important to mention the rabbi, because since the video hit You Tube, he has been inundated with calls and emails questioning the appropriateness of his participation in what some feel is a production that denigrates the whole concept and rite of passage called “bar mitzvah.”

If you want to see another bar mitzvah invitation with even more ramped up production value, watch the You Tube video of Jorel Hoffert (yes, he really is named after Superman’s father). His is to the Queen songs “We will Rock You” and “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Jorel is half Asian and half Jewish. His father is a music producer and that experience shows up in the level of sophistication of the production. Anyone who was offended by Blumen’s invitation will be horrified by young Jorel’s. One scene shows him sitting on the toilet. In another he is pointing to his crotch singing “I’ve got some chutzpah.” Finally, in the “Bohemian Rhapsody” segment of the video he sings “I’m just a young boy hoping for some money.”

If you want to see either invitation, just Google their names.

Comments posted on both young men’s (and I use the term “man” loosely here) You Tube offerings are mostly positive, people pointing out their creativity and as one person wrote, “There is nothing wrong with infusing more fun into a 3 hour service in an ancient tongue.” True enough, these are invitations to the event, not the event itself. So the first question I raise is this: have our b’nei mitzvah ceremonies become so boring, so bereft of meaning that that the event is now to be judged by the entertainment value of the electronic invitation? I am just asking.

And both of these invitations are creative. Adapting the lyrics to the tunes is no easy task, and I bet that Daniel and Jorel both had a hand in the writing. Some of the visuals combined with lyrics are definitely entertaining. My only criticism of the production values is that both are way too long – over 3 minutes of adolescent prancing around in each. Thank God they were not trying for a full 15 minutes of fame.

Am I offended by the content of the videos? Not really, well, OK, I don’t like watching a kid on the toilet or pointing to his crotch or emphasizing the monetary rewards of celebrating a bar mitzvah; but I cannot say I am offended. Should the rabbi of the Temple in Atlanta have been in Daniel’s invitation? Why not? Or more accurately, how could he have ever said no? At least the young man has enough of a connection to the rabbi to even ask him to participate. I suppose we should be grateful for that. No, for the most part the contents were clever and other than being disappointed that two of my favorite “Queen” songs were kind of butchered, I cannot say I was offended.

But, (isn’t there always the but?) the whole thing makes me wonder about parents and children. I do not see much difference between producing these internet invitations and the bat mitzvah party of Lisa Niren of Pittsburgh in 1998. She loved all things about the movie “Titanic” so her father recreated the Titanic in the ball room of a hotel. The recreation of the luxury liner even included steaming smoke stacks as well as the famous picture of Kate Winslet on the prow of the Titanic but with the girl’s head super imposed. The movie played continuously through the party and the seating area for the children was called steerage (an editorial comment on where children should be kept perhaps?). This whole affair was rumored to cost 500 thousand dollars – in 1998! Nor do I see much difference between all of this and the creation of a bust of the bar mitzvah boy out of ice or chopped liver (done by some families when I was growing up).

None of this offends me. It all just makes me a little sad, because of the implications of overindulgence of children by parents. I cannot really judge the Blumens, Hofferts, or the Nirens just by one video or one newspaper report about a party. But I do question what kind of children are being raised in families who pamper their children to this degree. What are the lessons being taught to the kids? Are they learning any boundaries of propriety? I do not have an answer regarding these families, but I do ask the question.

When a child becomes a bar or bat mitzvah it means they have attained the age of taking responsibility for Jewish actions. We know that for most, their Jewish actions will be based on what the parents model for their kids. What, exactly, are these parents modeling? I want to know if young Daniel or young Jorel has been taught to observe any mitzvoth? Have they served meals at a homeless shelter? Have they done something to demonstrate concern for something or someone other than themselves? If the answer to this is “yes,” then by all means, the videos and parties are just for fun. But if not then by making them the central focus of this rite of passage, a valuable teaching moment is lost. And that is just the wrong way to observe this rite.

Read Full Post »

Buried under the media coverage of the tragedy at the Boston Marathon last week, and the subsequent manhunt, was the defeat of a number of gun control measures in the Senate last Wednesday. Most telling of all was the defeat of a provision to expand required background checks to people purchasing at gun shows and on the internet. This provision was an attempt to prevent those with mental illness and criminal records from buying guns through these currently unregulated avenues.

In the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT last December that left 20 children and 6 adults dead, the background check legislation was the one piece that seemed to have a chance of passage. Indeed, one could see problems with most of the proposals floated, by both the right and the left, but tightening background checks has been supported by the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll. A recent CNN poll indicated that increased background checks were favored by 86% of Americans, and a Washington Post/ABC poll showed that 86% of gun owners supported this as well. This all means that the NRA, who purports to represent gun owners, is out of step with their own constituency.

But not really.

One has to remember that gun owners, sportsman, and recreational shooters are no longer who the NRA represents (see previous blog post “It’s Not About the Guns” from February 20). No, the NRA is merely a shill for gun manufacturers. Their opposition to background checks, along with their congressional allies, purportedly arises out of a concern that they would not work, only lawful owners would comply. In addition the old hue and cry over the curtailment of 2nd amendment rights is raised as though this misinterpreted amendment was a direct decree from God and not the pens of 18th century humans, who could have no concept of the consequences their writing would bring. Both of these objections ring very false.

The bill proposed by senators Manchin (D, W. VA) and Toomey (R. PA), while targeting gun shows and internet sales, exempted gun transfers between family members and friends. This exception, designed to attract support from NRA types, is the main flaw with the legislation. But no provision will ever suffice for the NRA and its minions. The only way for any industry to grow is to expand sales. The expansion of gun sales is at cross purposes to creating a safer community. ANY impediment to selling a gun is going to be opposed by the NRA because it is the safeguard of profits for its backers.

Despite the flaws with this particular background check bill, if it would even prevent a tiny amount of killings, dropping the number of deaths by guns from 30K to 29.5K, it is worth enacting. Kowtowing to the NRA’s radicalism is costing human lives. Are they really worth the increased profits of gun companies? The Talmud teaches us that “to save a single life is as if one has saved an entire world.” Extending and strengthening background checks, even if imperfectly, seems a small price to pay for any lives saved.

What about 2nd amendment concerns? There is legitimate debate whether the 2nd amendment is a guarantee to all citizens to own weapons or just to maintain a citizen militia. Even the Supreme Court, however, while holding the 2nd amendment establishes the rights of citizens to own guns, does not strike down the government’s authority to regulate that ownership, much like we regulate owning cars. For our political leaders to not step up and begin a process to curb the uncontrolled distribution of guns is more craven than the NRA’s blatant lobbying for gun manufacturers. Senators and congressmen are elected to represent the best interests of the people – and 86% seem to agree on what is their best interest. It seems just plain wrong for Congress not to be on board.

President Obama was right. Their actions were shameful. I would characterize those senators blocking expansion of background checks as dancing on the graves of the 26 killed in Newtown in December. Shame on them.

Read Full Post »

A bill is making its way through the Florida Senate, SB 58, whose stated intent is to limit the influence of foreign laws in American courts. This sounds benign enough on the surface, but upon examining the bill, and its sponsor, multiple red flags appear. Lawyers will point out that legislation of this sort presents problems of interference between the branches of government. After all, don’t our judges know what is or is not admissible into their courtrooms? Should they not have the latitude to decide what is relevant to a case? Further, there is the question of how a state can enforce a law that affects federal courts. But all of this is for the lawyers to argue. For me, there is a question of intent behind this law that reveals a rather scary mind set.

The bill is sponsored by Senator Alan Hays. He previously introduced a bill, that failed, which mentioned Sharia law in particular. When asked to give an example of Sharia law influencing an American court, his response was to compare his legislation to inoculating against a disease. In other words, he had no examples. His legislation is born out of his fear of a word – Sharia – which given the history of the past 12 years in the United States has become a rather radioactive word.

Sharia is to Islam what Halachah is to Judaism and Canon law is to the Catholic Church. A key difference, however, between Sharia and Halachah on the one hand, and Canon law on the other, is that neither Islam nor Judaism have a central institution or leader whose interpretation of law binds all members of the faith. The Church is an ecclesiastic authority headed by the Pope, and all Catholics have an obligation to follow the law as interpreted by that authority. Whether they do or not is another issue, but the authority exists.

In Judaism the authority of each rabbi in his (or her) community is to be respected by other rabbis. There is certainly a long tradition of fierce debate and argument over the application and interpretation of Jewish law among rabbis, but once a rabbi makes a decision for their community, visiting rabbis are obliged to respect that decision. This ideal is not the reality, as there are fierce divisions between the various streams of Judaism; thus an ongoing argument over whose interpretations are authentically Jewish. This just underscores the fact that NO rabbinic authority can claim to speak for all Jews. Even within denominations there is politicization over the exercising of authority. The Orthodox rabbinate in Israel, for example, is not recognizing conversions by all American orthodox rabbis – to the consternation of the American orthodox rabbinate. Further complicating this scene are the ethnic differences between Jews from various regions. The minhagim (customs) of Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Greek, and Yemenite Jews, just to name a few, are very different. There is no unified Jewish voice on halachah.

The same can be said of Sharia law. Interpretation of Sharia varies in Islam according to the stream (e.g. Sunni and Shia), according to geography and according to time. All of Islam agrees that the Quran and the teachings of the prophet are the law, but the interpretation of verses of the Quran depends on the cleric and the perspective of the group he is leading. Islamic law, like Jewish law, is a living organism, that is evolving with time. New circumstances require new insights into the divine word of each religion. What is fair for Americans to ask, and what Moslems (and Jews) can answer is this: what is the relationship of your religious law (Sharia, halachah) to American law?

For Jews, halachah holds sway for religious ritual, but for criminal, tort and civic law the law of the land prevails. Most Jewish authorities see no conflict between the basic values, basic ethics that drive halachah and American law. We see them as compatible. The American Islamic community takes a very similar perspective. American Moslems see the underlying values and ethics of Sharia reflected in the underlying values and ethics of American law. There is no need for the United States to adopt Sharia law as basic American values make it possible for Moslems to practice their religion freely in the United States. In some areas where Islamic law allows a practice that is not in accordance with American law, the Moslem community does not ask for an exception. An example of this is polygamy, which is allowed under Sharia. It is rarely practiced but it is allowed. American Moslems happily conform to American law.

So what drives Senator Hays and others who seem so afraid of Sharia? It is a conflation of all of Islam under one heading – one that defaults to the harshest applications of Sharia. What is lost on Senator Hays, and those who fear Sharia, are the many Moslem scholars who see these applications (or misapplications) of Sharia as shallow, literal, and not moral. Ironically, Senator Hays, in his arguments for his bill, heavily quotes Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, rabbi of Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, MA. Rabbi Hausman aligns himself with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who, among other things, wanted to make the construction of mosques in the Netherlands illegal. Hausman has spoken at an affair co-hosted by the JDL – the Jewish Defense League – whose founder, Meir Kahane embraced the physical expulsion of all Moslems from Israel and the West Bank before his murder by an Arab gunman in 1990 in Manhattan. It is not surprising that the most radically violent wing of the Jewish world would characterize the entire Islamic world as violent radicals (that is, after all, what radical Moslem groups do – characterize all of the Jewish world by the actions of its most radical elements). What is disconcerting is that an American politician would draw on the fringe of any group to support a law that could have devastating effects on Americans of all types.

That is what makes the mindset so scary. When we react to the cartoon version of a word/concept/belief as opposed to making the effort to research and understand it, the result will be destructive; not only to the party it is intended to harm, but to others in society as well. To pass a law for which there has been no demonstrated need, just a reaction out of fear and ignorance, creates a potential for harm to be done to all Americans.

Post script: In doing some research for this post I have been struck by the many parallels and similarities between Jewish law, halachah, and Islamic law, Sharia. More on this to come.

Read Full Post »

I admit I was not excited about the topic of last week’s “Faith, Food, and Friday” session: “The Church of Facebook, Worship in the Digital Age.” After tackling issues such as same sex marriage and the intersection of faith and politics, this seemed a tepid topic; potentially a real snooze. Moreover, what could I add to the conversation? I see social media as useful, but not something I enjoy using (OK, stop snickering as you read this blog). I am competent but not an expert in the use of computers and the internet. I am not a Luddite who wishes for the good old days of manual typewriters. I like the conveniences that computers provide (like everyone else I cannot imagine doing my work without one). So I wondered what could generate a real discussion around religious organizations using modern technology? Boy was I wrong.

Let’s start with Dean Inserra, pastor of City Church, which uses all cutting edge technology and social media to engage and promote the church. He is blunt with his comments that churches (or synagogues) that do not recognize how the social networks and internet have changed community and communication are doomed to fail. He aggressively tweets, texts, posts on Facebook to get out his message of the Gospels. Rather than fight congregants who bring their iphones to church, he engages them through their iphones as they use their Bible apps to follow the Biblical readings and sermons. Don’t fight the presence of technology, he says. Use the technology as a way for them to participate in the service.

I have colleagues who agree with Dean completely. At a synagogue in Miami Beach, one young rabbi conducted High Holiday services and urged worshippers to text their feelings which were posted on a screen in the front of the sanctuary. Other colleagues are using the new prayer book app to conduct Shabbat services, displaying everything on a large screen in the front of the sanctuary thus eliminating the need for siddurim (prayer books). Here is where I find I have something to say. Is all of this just utilizing technology to better engage Jews in services, or, are we losing something that is essential to being Jewish? Maybe I am just showing my age, but I believe the latter.

Shabbat (the Sabbath) is supposed to be a time that is radically different than the rest of the week. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel expresses this beautifully in his book, “The Sabbath.” Shabbat is to be a “palace in time.” It is that time in which we acknowledge that we did not create the world, and ultimately, have little or no control over the world. It is a time to disengage from the material, mundane activities that occupy our work week, and to slip into a different mode. I must ask this question: how do we create that palace in time by using iphones – those devices that so absolutely control our existence the rest of the week?

I do not mean to be insulting to my Christian friends, but Christians do not have the same sense of the deepness of Shabbat, the real spirituality of experiencing Shabbat, as traditional Jews. Shabbat is supposed to be a taste of the Garden of Eden, of paradise. It is a powerful thing to not engage in the mundane for 24 hours, to stop spending money and to stop using “things” to manipulate the world. This is an essential Jewish contribution to the religious world. When someone enters a synagogue for Shabbat services, why do they need to be in touch with the rest of the world via electronics? What is so important (other than a doctor on call e.g.) that one cannot at least turn the phone off if not leave it at home? The experience is supposed to be “otherworldly.” Tweets and phones ringing are decidedly of this world, not of paradise.

So I have made the decision not to make use of the latest technology in services. I have a funny feeling about even projecting things on a screen during Shabbat. The one compromise I do make is to utilize our sound system simply because of the mitzvah of allowing the elderly and those with hearing difficulties the best chance to hear and participate in the service. Judaism is a religion of sound much more than sight. Our music, our chanting is compelling. Each service contains a teaching of Torah – where sound is crucial. How do tweets and apps enhance the Shabbat feeling at all? Where is the disengagement from the mundane and the attempt to focus on the divine?

I must also pose a final question. How much of the use of technology in services is an expression of our own ego, our own obsession with the latest gadget or tool or program? I worry that the tolerance and use of iphones in services, even to follow the liturgy, feeds our self absorption at a time we need to be reaching beyond ourselves. The liturgy has its own power. The music has its own power. Torah has its own power. None of them need enhancement, at least for the duration of Shabbat.

I agree that social media, the internet and all it has to offer are crucial to communicating with congregants and potential congregants. For six days a week our institutions should use all means to get out our message, to engage the community. For six days a week we should be as savvy in the use of social media as possible. But on Shabbat, just let it rest.

Read Full Post »

I have always loved Pesach (Passover for the non-Jewish readers). I love the seder with friends and whatever family can make it to Tallahassee. I like the week of not eating out, but depending on what we fix according to the food regulations at home. I like that we begin to count the Omer, connecting the holiday of liberation to the holiday of accepting the responsibility of Torah – Shavuot. This is one of those joyful times that make it very fun to be Jewish. Many years, I do not delve into the meanings of Pesach much beyond what we read in our Hagadahs during seder – that is – all of the standard lessons. That is unusual for me as I like to explore the depths of our various holidays, but Pesach has always been this kind of nice, relaxed spring celebration. This is the year I went a little further.

For some reason I was more attuned to looking a bit beyond the surface this year. It really started as I looked at the liturgy for the service on the morning of the first day of Pesach. During the Amidah, we refer to Pesach as chag hamatzot, (the holiday of matzahs) and then as z’man cheruteinu, the time of our freedom. The Hebrew consonants in the word matzot (matzahs) is the same as the Hebrew word mitzvoth (commandments). So I began to read the phrase (also based on a teaching by Rashi I had seen) the holiday as chag hamitzvot, “the holiday of commandments.” Pesach is a time during which even the more casual Jew becomes a bit more aware of the commandments. By refraining from eating leaven, by eating matzah, or by attending a seder, many Jews who are not daily or weekly participants in ritual mitzvoth participate in the holiday. We become a bit more “commandment aware.” For me, this leads more profoundly to z’man cheruteinu, the time of our freedom. We tend to forget that the Exodus story does not end with the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, but continues on to the giving and acceptance of Torah, complete with all 613 commandments. It is the acceptance of responsibility that more clearly defines and gives meaning to our freedom.

This leads me to the second meaning of Pesach that struck me a bit more profoundly this year – the yearning and desire for freedom. I read a wonderful article by Rabbi David Hartman z/l, published in 2012. To access please follow this link: http://www.hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Article_Id=1104&Cat_Id=414&Cat_Type=Blogs
Hartman addresses the ways we wrongly focus in the run up and during Pesach. He criticizes two typical reactions by Jews, the obsession with food and cleaning out chometz for the holiday, and the stress on the miracle of God’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Rabbi Hartman teaches that Pesach is the time we become increasingly aware of the human yearning for freedom, and consequently of our obligations to help relieve human suffering and oppression. There is human obligation and action at the center of the Exodus story as much as there is a response and involvement by God. Rabbinic tradition recognizes this with midrashim such as the famous one in which Nachshon ben Aminadav plunges forward into the sea while Moses is standing praying to God to intervene. God points out to Moses that Nachshon’s action, that is human action, is a necessary precursor to divine intervention.
But perhaps the most impactful reflection I had about Pesach is from the educational perspective. In the Haggadah we read about the 4 sons (or children); wise, wicked, simple and too young to ask. We can pin these four types of children to the four times in the Torah we are told to instruct our children about the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12:26-27, Exodus 13:8, Exodus 13:14, and Deuteronomy 6:20-25). The Mishnah, in Pesachim10:4, takes all of this and concludes, “According to the knowledge of the child his father instructs him.” Rabbinic tradition recognizes that different children learn in different methods and at different paces. Rather than looking at the passage about the 4 sons as a contrast between the good and the evil son, we might learn more by looking at the whole passage as a lesson in differing the different learning styles that different children require. Talmud is replete with teachings regarding both what we teach our children and how we should go about it. Rabbinic literature considers pedagogical issues such as student to teacher ratio, what lessons are appropriate for children of varying ages, the differing speeds with which children learn, and the learning styles of various children.
I teach students working to become bar/bat mitzvah as well as teens ranging from 15 to 17. I see how much of what is happening in our public schools is absolutely failing these children. I also see how those in good schools, programs, or with good teachers are lifted by those experiences. I see firsthand the results of the failures of schools to teach critical thinking, to foster love of learning, and sometimes teach outright false information. Of all the issues facing our community and our country today, none, to my mind, is more critical than addressing the quality of educating our children. Pesach has been joyful this year. But as it draws to a close, the message of the 4 sons, of how we are obligated to ensure proper education for all of our children, is the lasting reflection I am carrying forward. I hope everyone had a Pesach sameach.

Read Full Post »

Every year, usually in March, I take the Temple Israel Confirmation Class (15 – 16 year olds) to New York to experience the depth, history and variety of Jewish life there. I have just returned from this year’s trip. Every year our some of our nighttime activity includes something from the unique entertainment in New York, a Broadway show, comedy show, concert – something to round out the students’ experience while in New York. This year that included a show called “Stomp.”

How to describe “Stomp?” It is a unique presentation by a group of musicians/dancers. They create rhythmic music out of all kinds of odd items. The opening “number” starts with a single man on stage sweeping with a broom. His strokes take on a rhythm. Soon others are on stage with brooms, adding their own rhythms to the original one. The result is an amazing kind of music created by every day sounds. As the show progresses, the items used become more interesting. Some of the vignettes tell a little story. There are no words spoken, just expressions, sounds, and movement. The most interesting centered around a man trying to read a newspaper. Others join him. One begins to cough and sneeze (all in an interesting beat). The shuffling of the newspapers, as people read, adds to the layers of sound. Rather than just being an unorganized cacophony, the sounds become a pattern, with each person’s contribution adding to the beauty of the overall sound effect as well as adding to the story line.

Why all of this made an impression on me is simply this. It forced me to think of the sounds we hear every day, every place we go, not as just random noise, but as the potential for music. The vignettes of “Stomp” were not an aural version of a Jackson Pollack painting – all random colors splashed without a visible sign of forethought or order. Rather, each taught that our seemingly disorganized sounds are the basis of rhythm – the rhythm of life itself. The use of mundane articles, garbage cans, brushes, sticks – you name it – teaches that there is music in every mundane action of life. Whenever we make a sound, it contains the potential for music.

Further, the vignettes in “Stomp” were a reminder that we live our lives in rhythm. There are patterns to what we do every day. These patterns often involve noise that could be the seed of something musical. Think about brushing teeth, for example. The brushing can make a rhythmic sound, create a pattern. The opening and closing of our mouths change the tone. Out of that simple act music could be born.

I think that our challenge is to hear the world not as random noise, but as a musical pattern. Every person is part of a grand orchestra. The noise we make is a symphony. Perhaps part of our satisfaction with life comes from being able to discern the music in the world, and hear our contribution to the rhythm of life. How sad for the person for whom life is just noise.

Read Full Post »

The following stream of consciousness was started by a comment/observation by Bill Maher on his last installment of “Real Time.” Maher was talking about how the insatiable appetites of investors, pointing to Wall Street’s reaction to Apple’s last quarter earnings report for 2012. When Apple posted its last quarter earnings, a profit on the order of 13 billion dollars, it was the largest profit ever posted for a business not an oil company. Same for its year end profit of 42 billion dollars. Yet, Apple stock has declined since the report came out. Why? Because investors were predicting even larger sales, and even more distribution for Apple products. Never mind that Apple continues to dominate Iphone and tablet sales despite the presence of quality cheaper alternatives. Because the investor class expected more, wanted more, its stock performance has no relationship to the actual strength of the company. Maher showed headlines predicting doom for Apple. And he asked the question, “Can Americans ever be satisfied?”

I know that many people ascribe to the old Gordon Gekko line that “greed is good.” Certainly competition is good. The drive to compete, to do better and better motivates businesses, which increases prosperity, provides jobs, and provides ever improving products. I have been in business. We took a lot of pride in what we produced, its quality, and yes also in the profit we made. We strove to satisfy our customer. Competition forced us to try to produce more efficiently, to be more creative in our product, and to build lasting relationships with our customers. As we grew and became more successful, we employed more people and provided a good living for our family and theirs. All of this was the result of productive competition. So I would say that competition, that is the free enterprise system, is good.

But there is a difference between the motivation that competition brings and the greed of investors looking for ever increasing killings through financial manipulation. Greed, the kind that causes a disconnect between productivity and profitability on the one hand and perceived value on the other, seems not so good. Greed, I think, causes a distortion in how we order our values. It is greed that pushes us to try the get rich quick schemes that have proven so destructive not only to our general economy but to many individual lives. Remember the scheme to flip real estate that so many bought into during the years before the real estate collapse in 2007? That was born of greed skewing people’s common sense so that they bought into what was essentially real estate Ponzi schemes. To believe that greed is good is to believe that we can never have enough. Greed can twist our thinking so that we devalue good hard work, creativity and real risk – all ingredients in building a successful business. Greed takes what is positive in our competitive nature and turns it to narcissism.

But I believe that we can have enough – at least enough physical stuff. More importantly, while we can all agree that earning money is important to take care of our needs, to enjoy some comforts and to give some tzedakah; greed causes accumulation of money to become an unhealthy obsession. Here is where I love the approach of Jewish tradition. There is nothing in Judaism that teaches we should not try to be as successful as possible. There is nothing evil in making a lot of money through our occupations or businesses. Yet, our daily prayers urge us to temper our drive and find a level with which we are satisfied. In the ninth blessing of the daily Amidah, the blessing for a year of prosperity, we pray that what we produce be bountiful, that it be of the best of years. But we also say the words “may we be satisfied through Your goodness.” In other words, at some point we should realize that the bounty we enjoy is enough, and we can feel satisfied.

So when is enough, enough? Perhaps it is the point when one can look at their lives and ask that very question, “Do I have enough?”

Read Full Post »

Last week my wife, Audrey, and I attended a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Village Square and the Tallahassee Democrat concerning gun issues as they relate to school safety. The conversation among the panelists ranged from what the local schools do to insure school safety, to statistics on gun ownership, to what does the second amendment really mean, to what exactly IS an assault weapon anyway. These are all useful topics, I am sure. But it was the clergy on the panel, Reverend Brant Copeland, who was the only person who tried to steer the conversation away from the minutia of gun types, or trying to parse the second amendment, towards a larger conversation about what are the values we want our community to reflect? What is the kind of society we really want? From Pastor Copeland’s perspective, if we can have that conversation, then our policies on guns, the 2nd amendment and school safety measures will become self evident. I agreed with him and thought he had nailed the problem – at least I thought he did until my wife and I discussed the event over dinner afterwards.

Audrey felt that the whole conversation was the wrong one, or more accurately, the less important one. She has the perspective of someone who worked as a school counselor serving difficult schools and students in Philadelphia (before we moved to Tallahassee) and working for almost 12 years for a department of FSU that does experimental reading programs in schools and pre-schools serving diverse populations. She has observed many pre-schools and elementary schools in our area of the panhandle. In a nutshell, Audrey believes that schools are the incubators for the next Adam Lanza. Why? Because children are not being socialized properly. Our education system is producing an ever larger population of automatons.

It begins in kindergarten. When I attended kindergarten, it was all about playing with others, listening to classic children’s stories, doing art projects – often very messy but with great latitude for creativity. The picture album I have from kindergarten shows a classroom with the tables in a jumbled fashion, lots of toys and art supplies. We dressed in costumes at Halloween and put on a Christmas play for our parents. The only evaluation my parents received was a hand written letter at the end of the school year, giving the teacher’s observations on my growth as a human being. This was a public school in West Virginia, by the way – not exactly a bastion of liberal, far out educational philosophies. It was just plain common sense. Kindergarten was where a loving, caring teacher gave you the first taste of school, with a focus on creating a love of coming to school and playing well with others.

The kindergartens Audrey observes (this year in Gadsden County) are sad descendants of my quite happy experience. The children are ordered into neat rows. There is little or no play. The emphasis is on inculcating obedience and cramming a pre-determined set of facts into the children’s heads. These are 5 year olds having to take spelling tests. By second grade, they look beaten, the love of school, of the experience of learning, wrung out of them. This reflects a situation found in schools all over the country. Everywhere, we see art, music and drama eliminated from schools. Teachers have less and less freedom to formulate how they wish to instruct their children. All that matters is to score higher on a test that determines the funding fate of the school. All of this comes at a tremendous cost to our children.

By now you might be asking the question, “What does this have to do with school safety?” My response is that there is no short term answer to preventing disasters in schools. Any policy, any law, any measure including posting guards at the doors, will not be an iron clad guarantee that the next shooting will not occur. A far better use of our resources would be to construct an education system that fosters love of learning, provides basic skills, teaches basic morality, inculcates creativity and creative thinking AND provides an environment where children can play together, be children together, and learn to interact with each other in positive and productive ways. By creating better, more emotionally healthy citizens, we reduce the prospects for the next mass shooting. Yes, it will take a generation or two, but we need to focus on long term solutions, not short term reactions to the disaster of the moment.

The next question is how to create these schools. I will tell you that they already exist. There are many successful models, but one is right here in Tallahassee – the School of Arts and Sciences – which is a charter school. A large number of the children from my congregation attend SAS, and as I work with them either in bar/bat mitzvah training or my Confirmation class, I can see the positive results of a loving and creative learning environment. Why cannot every child have this opportunity? Rather than spend resources on countless wasteful programs, I believe that no expense should be spared to create schools of excellence in every community.

Part of the money we invest in schools needs to be for what John Hankiar (a member of the discussion panel who is in charge of school safety for Leon County Schools) called “resource officers.” I am not really sure what he meant by that term. I would think they should be trained professionals who can spot the troubled, outcast child, and work with him/her. This professional should be engaged with families, attentive to domestic difficulties and provide resources to parents. While schools usually do have guidance counselors, they are far too few in number and overburdened by paperwork to properly serve their school’s population.

Further, if one looks at the countries with the most successful school systems (South Korea and Finland), there are some commonalities American schools need to adopt. First, they pay teachers on a level that attracts the best and the brightest. Too many of our teachers are mediocrities who cannot even speak proper English. (Audrey walked by a classroom one time and heard the teacher say, “Class, let’s sound out the word ‘air-o-plane’” actually breaking the word into 3 syllables!) Let’s elevate the teaching profession to an exalted level. Let’s get the best and brightest to want to teach. Second, every child, no matter where they live in the United States, should be learning the same material. The school board of Kansas should not have the right to deny science and the state of Texas should not have the right to edit history. Third, full programs of art, music, and drama should be part of every school’s curriculum. Often children having difficulties with the standard subjects respond to the creative stimuli the arts provide.

Yes, we should have a national discussion about the role of guns in our lives. Police departments have legitimate concerns about curbing criminal activity and 2nd amendment advocates have questions about how to safeguard constitutionally guaranteed rights. But none of this addresses the long term, root problem of creating well adjusted, secure, educated citizens who will lead our country to a better place. Isn’t that what all of us really want? Focusing on the guns just won’t get us there.

Read Full Post »

I must ask two questions. Did you watch the Oscars? Did you have any moments in which you just cringed? It seems that a lot of the Jewish world cringed in unison at the appearance of, and repartee between Mark Wahlberg and the animated Teddy Bear, Ted, as they announced their assigned Oscar winner. If you missed it, then here is the link to a U-Tube site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPnLGBNlAs

The bit is a spoof that pokes fun at the prevalence of Jews in Hollywood. Ted is sucking up to the “Jews in charge” to assure he will continue to work in Hollywood. The character of “Ted” is a Seth MacFarlane creation, so presumably MacFarlane is behind this bit. It came in the midst of an entire evening of “Oh did he really say that?” moments as MacFarlane poked fun at Adele, at Rhihanna and Chris Brown, and even little 9 year old actress Quvenzhane Wallis. I am sure that fans of all those folks are upset by MacFarlane’s wit (showing that he is an equal opportunity insulter), but the Jewish world is all abuzz over whether or not this 40 second joke is anti-Semitic. Even if it is not, is it good for the Jews?

You can guess where different Jewish groups weigh in. Abe Foxman of the ADL said the skit “Was not remotely funny.” He went on to say “It only reinforces stereotypes which legitimize anti-Semitism.” Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center chimed in, “Every comedian is entitled to wide latitude, but no one should get a free pass for helping to promote anti-Semitism.” If you scour Jewish publications on the internet, you will get a lot of comments along these lines.

I think the reaction to MacFarlane’s spoof depends on how you answer a couple of questions. First, is it perpetuating a myth about Jewish monopoly and control of an industry? This strikes the same kind of nerve as accusations that Jews control banking, have an international conspiracy to control history, blah, blah, blah. The second question is whether skits/jokes like these further anti-Semitism.

Let’s start with issue number one; is Jewish dominance in Hollywood myth or fact? Well, if one goes by the number of Jews in prominent positions at major studios, as well as the percentage of performers, directors, producers and participants at all levels, one would have to at least say that Jews are represented in disproportionate numbers. In a column published in the LA Times December 19, 2008, Joel Stein (Jewish) went much further. He listed the heads of the largest studios – all Jewish – and concluded they would easily make a minyan large enough for their Fiji waters to fill a mikveh (ritual bath). In other words, yes, Jews do dominate Hollywood. There are some good, historical reasons for that.

In the early 20th century, the newly arrived Jewish immigrants found the “power” industries of oil, coal, steel and banking dominated by the Rockefellers, Mellons, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies of the country. Jews naturally gravitated towards new, start up industries, in which their drive, creativity and business acumen could come to full flower. It is predominantly a group of Jewish producers from New York who moved the nascent movie industry to Hollywood, CA, taking advantage of the constant sunshine that made it easier to film productions. Hollywood provided opportunities for Jewish success just as athletics have provided a means for success to black and Latino players. Minorities experiencing prejudice take advantage of the industries in which opportunities exist, because the older, more established industries are relatively closed to them. So my conclusion is that due to the historic intersection of Jewish immigration to America and the rise of the film industry – yes, Jews do dominate the industry.

That leads us to the second question. Do jokes about Jewish dominance in Hollywood promote anti-Semitism? The simple answer is yes, because those who are already anti-Semitic have their feelings of resentment and hatred confirmed all over again. I do not believe that any of these kinds of jokes create new anti-Semites, but just look at the comments to the U-Tube video or google someone like Texe Marrs, and you will see the venom about Jews flying, citing jokes like MacFarlane’s as proof of their positions. Anti-Semitism does indeed still exist and its proponents will grab any opportunity to spread hatred and misinformation about Jews. So pointing out the fact of Jewish dominance in Hollywood just feeds this fire.

Which brings us to the real question; should we avoid making jokes about this at all? Should we avoid all spoofing of the Jewish position in Hollywood, or Jewish jokes in general because they confirm the hateful feelings of anti-Semites? To that I answer: absolutely not! I believe our ability to joke about ourselves, to laugh about ourselves is the ultimate “in your face” answer to hatred. The ability to embrace humor, especially when it is aimed at ourselves, is the ultimate expression of security, confidence, and dare I say the word, power. We should not shy away from Jewish humor because we do not really know what will offend and what will not. At the Oscars in 2010, when speaking about Christoph Waltz and his role in “Inglorious Basterds,” Steve Martin said, “Christoph played a Nazi obsessed with finding Jews. Well Christoph…” Martin then spread his arms indicating the audience at the academy awards and said, “the mother lode!” I love moments like that. The audience did as well. Humor can be a very powerful weapon. So I say let’s enjoy our Jewish humor and give the anti-Semites all the attention they deserve – which is none. Ignoring them, treating them like the non-entities they are, diminishes them.

By the way, I did indeed have a cringe moment during the Oscars; when MacFarlane said that John Wilkes Booth was the last actor to really get inside Lincoln’s head. And yes, 150 years was still not long enough for that to be funny.

Read Full Post »

Frankly, I do not care if you own a gun. At least I do not care if you are a sane, law abiding citizen who owns a gun. I recognize there are many reasons people like to own guns. They begin with sports, like hunting (not a particularly Jewish pastime, but one that millions of Americans enjoy) or target shooting. Some own guns because of their love of history, owning pieces dating to the Civil War or even the Revolutionary War. Others feel they need the protection that guns provide. All of these are quite legitimate and who am I to question the motive and desire to own a gun? As I said, as long as you are a normal, law abiding American, I have no quarrel with your gun(s).

I did not mention those who own guns because they believe the 2nd amendment’s purpose is to protect the citizenry against a tyrannical government. That is a separate argument that I do not want to address today. Perhaps I will in a future post, but not today. For now I will only say that it is certain the 2nd amendment does absolutely protect the right of the average citizen to own a gun. We can all agree on that at the least.

No, I do not care about your guns. But I do care about gun advocates, most particularly the NRA. The NRA passes itself off as an organization protecting 2nd amendment rights. Their website is filled with blogs, reports, opinion columns by Wayne LaPierre that trumpet the need to protect 2nd amendment rights. I have to ask the question, why? Does the membership of the NRA really believe the government wishes to confiscate their guns? Does the NRA’s staunch opposition to ANY form of legislation regulating guns or the purchase of guns truly reflect the beliefs of gun owners let alone the NRA’s 4.5 million plus membership? A variety of polls suggest that they do not. A poll conducted last May by Republican pollster Frank Lutz shows that 74% of current and former NRA members support criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun. When that group is expanded to include all gun owners, that number rises to 87%. A Washington Post article from December 23 shows a great diversity of opinions among the membership of the NRA regarding a range of possible gun control measures. Certainly NRA membership is less supportive of stricter gun laws, but it is also clear that views of the membership do not necessarily conform with the vociferous opposition of the LaPierre and the NRA leadership. Who then, does the NRA really represent? That is an interesting story.

In its business section, the New York Times on February 3 ran a fascinating article on the growing popularity of the AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle. In 2007 “Guns and Ammo” magazine called this weapon “America’s battle rifle.” Its surge in popularity began in the early 1980’s – the post- Vietnam War era. A few different trends came together to make this happen. First, the growth of pastimes connected with video games and computers ate into the number of hunters and sports gunman. From 1980 to 1987 net domestic gun sales fell by more than 5 million units. Military veterans were interested in owning a type of weapon that was similar in style and feel to the M-16’s they carried in the service. The gun industry began to rebrand itself, some selling handguns for women who felt unsafe, others selling guns that had a “military pedigree.”

The NRA during these years underwent a parallel transformation. Originally founded in the middle of the 19th century as an organization for hunters and sport shooters, the NRA found its membership dwindling as the hunting population decreased, in the mid 1970’s. In the 1980’s the NRA rebranded itself as primarily an organization protecting 2nd amendment rights. True, the gun safety programs still exist. But a study of their website shows it is really a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers using 2nd amendment issues to gin up opposition to any kind of laws that might restrict gun sales.

Given this context, it is easy to see how the NRA’s response to each tragic shooting is to call on people to purchase more guns. The NRA’s solution to each problem is to advocate for more and more circulation of guns. They have little to say about the pleas of police departments of large cities trying to limit the flow of firearms into dangerous areas. Law enforcement officials can actually trace gun trafficking in many areas to specific stores and/or specific states. As the NRA presents its “facts” I am reminded of the absurdity of the tobacco industry trying to control the research over the effects of inhaling tobacco smoke.

The rhetoric of the NRA is extreme. It is clearly aligned with partisan Republican politics as LaPierre’s editorial comments are never limited just to advocacy for gun ownership, but stated and implied criticism of a range of policies of the Obama administration as well as Democrats in general. There is certainly nothing wrong with organizations having political leanings, but the NRA cannot claim to be either impartial or representative of any kind of majority of the American people. Let’s just be blunt. The NRA is a partisan political lobbying organization aligned with a small but very profitable industry – gun manufacturing.

Finally, I cannot let a discussion of the NRA pass without noting the recent fervor over its “enemies list” which was quickly removed from its website after becoming a source of conversation. This list contains a fair number of Jewish organizations including: The American Jewish Committee, Anti Defamation League, B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, National Council of Jewish Women, American Jewish Congress, United Synagogue, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Lawrence O’Donnel (not my favorite TV news host/commentator by any means) made a big deal out of this list. A critic (and NRA supporter) said this was not an “enemies list” but a list of organizations who have taken a stand against 2nd amendment rights. Of course what is actually anti-2nd amendment is a very subjective definition. The NRA, through its actions and statements declares only ITS definition actually counts. There you have the problem. The NRA creates a straw man (the attack on 2nd amendment rights as they define them), then uses extreme rhetoric to condemn everyone who utters a whisper against their perspective.

No, it is no longer really about the guns. It is about an organization that has been bought and is controlled by a particular industry trying to control a conversation that affects everyone. It will never happen, but it is time for the NRA to just shut up and go away.

For a great article by Rabbi Shlomo Brody on the Jewish law that might be applicable to the gun control debate, see: http://www.jidaily.com/guncontrolandthelimitsofhalakhah

Read Full Post »