The Jewish Observer

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 »

The last session of “Faith, Food, and Friday” featured Brant Copeland, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Tallahassee. Brant is well known in our community as a strong advocate for issues of social justice. He began the session by outlining six issues that he believes the community needs to address. On his list were issues concerning immigrants and immigration.

This prompted a question from a participant asking how we could take 11 million people who were here illegally and just excuse their illegal status. I cannot recall the exact wording of the question, but the gist was to question the fairness of a sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants when others had conformed to the existing laws. While I was perfectly happy to defer to Brant to answer questions on most of the issues he raised (his positions and mine are almost identical), here was one that struck me very personally, so I jumped in with a response. It was a response based on my own family’s history.

All of my family, that is my mother’s and father’s side, are German immigrants. I am a first generation American. All of the family that made it to America were Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. My parents and their families were among the lucky few, and many members of their extended families did not make it out of Europe alive. Just among my grandfather, Walter Romberg’s siblings, three died in either concentration camps or Jewish ghettos organized by the Nazis. My grandfather himself died as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals from working as a slave laborer in a German chemical plant (my father’s parents were divorced when he was an infant which is why his father did not immigrate with him to the United States). The reason many European Jews did not escape the Nazi death machine is directly traceable to American immigration policy of the 1930’s.

During the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, America had pretty much of an “open door” immigration policy. The result was that millions of Eastern Europeans, among them about 3 million Jews, poured into our country. This immigrant wave supplied labor for growing American industries, provided fresh entrepreneurial initiatives, and an influx of intellectual capital. In short, they did what immigrants to the United States have always done – fueled the growth and energy of our country. In the 1920’s under pressure by many lobbying groups including labor unions and groups that just did not like so many outsiders flooding our shores, immigration laws changed to a quota system that allocated how many immigrants would be accepted by the United States from each country in any given year. As could be expected, the quotas for countries most similar to us (Great Britain) were more forgiving than the quotas for Eastern Europe or Asia.

The result was an immigration policy in the 1930’s that prevented many, indeed hundreds of thousands of Jews in particular, from being able to find refuge in America. A great description of the injustice of American policy regarding Jewish immigration is described in Arthur Morse’s excellent book, “While Six Million Died.” One particularly horrifying chapter is the story of the ship, “St. Louis,” which was turned away from the United States and whose passengers were returned to Nazi Europe. All of this informed my answer to the questioner at the “Faith, Food and Friday” session.

Very succinctly I asserted that the law defining the 11 million undocumented residents of the United States as illegal is an unjust law. The fault is with our system, not with people who wish to come to our country to build safe, productive lives for their families. I do not see a change in the law that adjusts their status as “amnesty,” but as a correction to unjust laws born of prejudice against the despised “other” of the day. Decades ago we Jews were among the despised “others.” Now it is Latinos. This cycle just needs to stop.

For we want and need immigrants. We want and need the labor pool, the entrepreneurial spirit and the intellectual capital. I do not suggest we open the doors to criminals and terrorists, nor do I believe entrance to the United States should be an automatic path to citizenship. But we need to change from a policy of exclusion to one that opens our doors to the next round of fresh blood for the American body.

This is a very winnable argument. Not only have 8 Republican and Democratic senators come together to propose changes, but the person asking the question at last Friday’s program approached me afterwards to tell me my response had given her reason to rethink her position. There is always hope.

Read Full Post »

At Temple Israel’s annual Shabbaton this past Saturday, one of our guest speakers, my friend Dr. Parvez Ahmed, conducted a breakout session for those who wanted to gain a better understanding of Islam. One of the questions posed to him went something like this, “In Judaism, we are taught to question things, to constantly argue things out. Is there a similar tradition in Islam?” Parvez answered that there was, particularly in the middle ages when the Islamic world was the intellectual center of the Western world. He mentioned that the great philosophic traditions of the Greeks had been preserved in the Islamic world (as opposed to Europe which at that point was an intellectual backwater). The great debates in Islam between philosophers and theists were vigorous and gave inspiration to the works of Thomas Aquinas. He then added, with a tinge of regret, that in recent centuries, much of the debate, the tradition of questioning had ended in much of the Islamic world.

This spurred me to comment that in the Jewish world the great divide between groups of Jews hinged on a continuation of our long tradition of questioning authority, God, and the law (halachah). For a significant portion of the Jewish world, law and practice have become frozen in time for the past 200 years or so. I would call those who have allowed Jewish law to become ossified, “Chasidim.” It has fallen to Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox Jews to keep alive the dynamism of evolving halachah – each group with its own unique approaches. Key to the ongoing conversation regarding appropriate Jewish law and ethic is our tradition of asking questions.

It begins with Abraham. He argues with God over the fate of Sodom and Gemorah, getting God to agree that if 10 righteous people would be found, the cities would be spared. We get upset with Abraham when he fails to argue – as when God tells him to take Isaac to be sacrificed on Moriah. The tradition of arguing with God continues in the Talmud, the oral law. A great example is found in Baba Metzia 59b, the story of Achnai’s oven. In this tale, Rabbi Eliezer is arguing a point of law with his colleagues. All disagree with him so he invokes God and the heavens to support him. He calls for the stream to run backwards to confirm his rectitude, and the stream runs backward. After a number of wondrous demonstrations that God agrees with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua gets up and reprimands God for interfering in an issue being decided by the rabbis, saying that since Torah has been given it is up to humans to figure out what is correct, and the majority rules. It is later reported that God’s response was to laugh and say, “My children have defeated me.”

It is the power of constant questioning that creates the dynamism that keeps Judaism relevant. The world changes and Judaism must respond to those changes. The need for continuing responses is what gave rise to the Reform and Conservative movements. The incredible diversity among Jewish perspectives is a strength, not a weakness. Further, there is nothing wrong with pointed, sharp debate. In Yalkut Shimoni we are taught that those disputing Torah can clash like “enemies at the gates.” The Talmud affirms that disputes arising out of the attempt to better understand God’s will, out the desire to find the most ethical path, are really “all words of the living God.”

If we do not continue to question the old paradigms, Judaism will just fade away as an irrelevant relic. The tradition of questioning might be the great contribution we Jews offer to the world. We provide the antidote to intellectual laziness, to a blind clinging to traditions or beliefs just because they have always been held. Indeed, the point of Jewish learning is not really to find answers to questions, but to learn how to pose ever better, more penetrating questions.

My prayer for Jews is that we never lose our drive to question. My prayer for my Moslem brothers is that they recover and strengthen their tradition of questioning. To that my friend Parvez nodded and said, “Amein.”

Read Full Post »

Have you ever noticed the theological debate occurring on car bumpers? Cars are not only a mode of getting from here to there, but a billboard for expressing opinions and engaging in discussions on a variety of topics. Proud parents will paste something like this on their bumpers “Parent of an Honor Student at (fill in the blank) School.” The parent whose child is not quite as smart will counter with a bumper sticker that reads, “My child can beat up your honor student.” What has caught my attention is the religious discussion taking place on car bumpers.
It begins with the “Jesus fish.” I am sure you have seen this: a drawing of two curved lines intersecting in a way that creates a very simple picture of a fish. One story of its origin is that it was a way for early Christians to identify each other in times of persecution. One person might draw the top half of the fish in the sand, the other, if Christian, would complete the bottom half. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus refers to his followers as “fishers of men.” Further, the Greek word for fish apparently is an acronym for “Jesus Christ of God Son Savior.” In any case, the Jesus fish is a common symbol stuck on the backs of cars. The subtle version is just a fish with a cross where the eye would be. The more declarative version is the fish with the word “Jesus” in bold letters in the middle.
Here is where the debate gets interesting. The more scientifically minded are sporting a fish on their bumpers that has little feet on the bottom and the word “Darwin” emblazoned in the middle. This fish makes the statement that evolution trumps faith, or at least trumps the faith of those who take the first chapters of Genesis to be literal as opposed to metaphorical truth. The person displaying the “Darwin” fish probably believes that evolution is the opposite of faith in Jesus. But I have met Christians who do accept evolution as scientific fact. Where is their special fish? Perhaps it could be a fish with little feet on it but with “Jesus” written in the middle? Other Christians, however, have introduced a new fish into the debate. Their fish has the word “truth” in the middle and it is swallowing the footed “Darwin” fish. I would guess some theories are a little hard to digest.
There are other fish variations, each representing another group trying to join this bumper sticker conversation. There is a fat fish with the word “Buddha” in the middle. I first saw this fish about 10 years ago and I am still meditating on the connection between the fish and the Buddha. Buddhism is all about enlightenment, trying to recognize what is the false veil about the world in which we live. Buddhism is also about eliminating the barriers between the self and the rest of the world, seeing everything as a connected whole, attempting to free the self from the boundaries of ego and suffering. Perhaps the presence of “Buddha” inside a fish is a symbol of the interconnectedness of everything – but that seems a bit too deep for a plastic symbol pasted on the back of a car.
We Jews have a fish in this discussion as well. As you might expect, it has something to do with food. It is a fish with the word “gefilte” in the middle. Have you ever tried gefilte fish? I like it but many find it either too slimy or too fishy. I guess the deeper meaning of the Jewish fish is that if you put enough red horse radish on something, you can mask any flavor.
Expressions of “bumper sticker religion” go way beyond the various fish symbols. Between spending a lot of time behind cars and a little internet research, I have explored multiple religious bumper sticker slogans. You might have seen the sticker that announces “Jesus is my co-pilot.” Other religions have their response to this. Buddhists say “Buddha is my co-pilot.” Moslems say “Allah is my co-pilot.” Hindus say “Ganesh is my co-pilot.” What I have never seen is a corresponding bumper sticker for Judaism. I have to wonder why?
There could be no universal sticker for Judaism because of the different orientations of the different Jewish movements as to who or what the co-pilot might be. Orthodox Jews’ sticker would read “halachah (Jewish law) is my co-pilot.” For Chabad it might be “The Rebbe is my co-pilot.” The Conservative Movement’s bumper sticker would probably read something like “you only need a co-pilot if you are driving to synagogue on Shabbat.” Reform? Well it might say something like, “You get to make an informed choice as to who the co-pilot will be.” Reconstructionists would look for the new meaning in bothering to have a co-pilot and Renewal Jews would assert that we are all co-pilots.
I have to admit that I admire how Christian bumper stickers really put their beliefs about God out for all to see. Often they state something about how the Christian should be in relationship with God. For example, “Saved by Grace,” is a simple statement of basic Christian belief that salvation comes through the grace of God. Or this, “Die hard but die saved,” which I think is saying that the manner of your death is not as important as the state of your belief at the time of your death. Christian bumper stickers can be humorous like this one, “America needs a faith lift.” Clever if borderline politically incorrect. Lest you think that only jewish homes can house a princess, consider this bumper sticker, “Blessed by Jesus, spoiled by my husband.”
Yes, everyone is part of this bumper sticker religious discussion. Moslems say “Allah bless America.” Hindus say “yoga stretches the soul.” Even the atheists chime in with the mocking, “There is a sucker born again every minute.”
Jewish bumper stickers are rarely about theology. Usually they express something cultural or political. Our ethnic neuroses are exposed in stickers like, “I don’t need a shrink, my mother is Jewish.” I really like this one, “Genius on board – average student with Jewish mother.” “Never pay retail,” says one bumper sticker which is either an insult implying that Jews are cheap, or a compliment pointing out why so many Jews are indeed financially successful. My favorite one is, “Optimists see a bagel, pessimists see a hole.” It is Jewish because it focuses on food. It is Jewish because it gives a pithy truth, although if you think you can see a real bagel in Tallahassee you are truly an optimist.
But I think the real reason we Jews do not express theology through mobile symbols or signs is that serious Jews already know what the real symbols and signs are. They are Shabbat, which is called “a symbol for all eternity,” as well as tallit and tefillin, the ritual symbols Jews are commanded to wear as reminders to spend our day doing mitzvoth – the commandments. We are always supposed to be looking for the next opportunity to do a mitzvah, not for the next symbolic expression of hubris. Perhaps the first mitzvah we could perform would be to scrape all of the religious bumper stickers from the backs of cars. I wonder what debate that would start?

Read Full Post »

But Is It Anti-Semitism?
A few weeks ago, the same day that Chuck Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of Defense, my cousin in Germany sent me a link to an article that describes a very hot topic. A well known liberal journalist, Jakob Augstein, was listed on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of the 10 worst anti-Semites in the world. This is a serious charge anywhere, but especially in Germany, where relations with Jews and with Israel are taken quite seriously. When Audrey and I travelled in Germany last summer, we were impressed by the serious efforts of the Germans to preserve key Jewish institutions from pre-war Germany, as well as the educational efforts to teach rising generations about Judaism and Israel. Berlin, in particular, has fostered a renaissance in its Jewish community, which includes thousands of Israelis who find the atmosphere there quite welcoming. In this repentant Germany, a charge of anti-Semitism is quite serious, and the accusations against Augstein have caused quite a stir.
In checking the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s web site, here are some of the quotes they used to reach the conclusion that Augstein was number 9 on the list of the world’s top 10 anti-Semites:
a. “Gaza is a place out of the end of times…1.7 million people live there on 360 square kilometers. Israel incubates its own opponents there.”
b. “Israel is threatened by Islamic fundamentalism in its neighborhood. But the Jews also have their fundamentalists, the ultra-orthodox Haredim. They are not a small splinter group. They make up 10% of the Israeli population. They are cut from the same cloth as their Islamic fundamentalist opponents. They follow the law of revenge.”
c. “With backing from the US, where the president bust secure the support of the Jewish lobby groups, and in Germany, where coping with history, in the meantime, has a military component, the Netanyahu government keepsthe world on a leash with an ever swelling war chant.”
Allow me to take a moment to look at each quote. The first one (a) I see as common sense. The situation in Gaza is intolerable from many perspectives. While I completely support the right of Israelis to defend themselves against rocket attacks – really they have no choice in this – the long term outlook for Gaza is terrible. The living conditions there are indeed a breeding ground for terrorism. The real discussion is how much of the responsibility for this is Israel’s versus Hamas. But the essence of the statement given above is true.
I completely agree with the second quote (b). We saw an example of Jewish fundamentalist extremism late 2011 in Beit Shemesh, Israel. Ultra Orthodox men spit on an 8 year old girl going to school, calling her a prostitute because they felt her clothing was not modest enough. The little girl was dressed, in what by all reasonable standards, very modestly (long skirt, long sleeves). All religious groups have their fundamentalist, unreasonable component. I know that the Haredim in Israel are not strapping bombs around their waist and becoming suicide bombers, but they maintain attitudes most of us see as reprehensible in other religious groups. A dilemma occurs when an outsider such as Augstein criticizes Jews. Is our reaction just a knee jerk tribal response or is there a whiff of anti-Semitism in his remarks?
If so, it comes only in the third quote, specifically by the use of the term “Jewish lobby,” the term which has gotten Chuck Hagel into trouble. This is a loaded term that insinuates some kind of Jewish conspiracy or control. But we need to ask, is this enough to classify someone as an anti-Semite? Especially when compared to number 10 on the Wiesenthal Center’s list, Louis Farrakhan. Here are some of his quotes:
a. “Jews control the media. They said it themselves…In Washington right next to the Holocaust Museum is the Federal Reserve where they print the money. Is that an accident?”
b. “Brothers and sisters, you’ve gotta stop being guided by the controlled media that is owned by Zionist forces that want to make you pawns in the struggle of Israel and Zionism.”
These quotes reflect attitudes right out of the fictional “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” They perpetrate all of the fictional canards about Jewish control over banking, over media as part of the so-called Jewish conspiracy to control the world. Farrakhan is without question anti-Semitic. So I have to ask if Augstein is in this category?
Much of Augstein’s comments are criticisms of the Israeli government. In a debate with Dieter Grauman, the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, hosted by the German magazine, “Der Speigel,” he defends his remarks by saying he is not anti-Semitic, but just voicing criticism of Israeli policy that is coming from many sources including Israeli journalists. Grauman counters that it is Augstein’s selection of language, and he gives a number of examples, that makes his comments anti-Semitic. Grauman points out very correctly, that some phrases act as code words to Jews, invoking terrible emotions and images. Augstein essentially argues that he is just being a detached journalist, and should a journalist, who happens to be German, be more circumspect in his criticism than an Israeli, a French or a Dutch writer? For the full text of a very interesting debate, use this link:
<a href="//http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dieter-graumann-and-jakob-augstein-debate-anti-semitism-controversy-a-877427.html" Their discussion highlights a real problem. At what point is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? The Wiesenthal Center classifies anti-Israel the same as anti-Semitic in the heading of their list. I really question if this is a fair equivalence. The extremes are easy to identify, but does someone like Augstein, or Hagel for that matter, deserve the label of anti-Semite because of an unartful, crude comment? Are we Jews so hyper sensitive to any criticism that we have lost sight of what is real prejudice? Here is the really big question: is the plethora of Jewish watchdog organizations really helping us or are they starting to work against Jewish interests?
An internet search reveals an alphabet soup of organizations dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism. It is fair to ask if we need all of them. Do we need the Wiesenthal Center along with the ADL (personally I favor the ADL for some historically courageous stands). What about the myriad of other watchdog and educational organizations? At what point are these groups just diverting money from the institutions needed to maintain vibrant Jewish community structure, such as synagogues, federations, Jewish Community Centers, and Jewish Day Schools? Do some organizations need to hype anti-Semitism in order to justify fundraising? I do not really have an answer, but the question needs to be asked.

Read Full Post »

Segregation or Tradition

                This past Friday (January 11) I moderated a panel for the Village Square’s “Faith, Food, and Friday” series titled “The Most Segregated Hour of the Week?”  This phrase was how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to 11 AM on Sundays , at which Christian worship in this country has traditionally been segregated.  As the Jewish presence on the “Faith, Food, and Friday” panels, I volunteered to moderate this segment because I felt this was not really a Jewish issue and I could be an objective manager of the conversation.  After all, what segregation really occurs in Jewish congregations?  Yes, in Orthodox shuls women sit separate from men, but if you are Jewish you go to a synagogue regardless of denomination.  Yes there are separate Sephardic and Ashkenizic congregations and of course the minhag (customs) in each vary, but even that traditional demarcation is fading away, as I know many traditionally Sephardic congregations that have significant Ashkenazic membership and every synagogue (including my own) has Sephardic members.  As I said, if you are Jewish you go to shul, no matter what race or country of origin you might be.

                Prepping for the panel included a meeting with Dr. Richard Mashburn, the associate pastor of Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, the largest and most historic African American congregation in Tallahassee.  The hour plus we shared over lunch was one of the most instructive I have spent in a very long time.  Dr. Mashburn, who is 75, has a combination of incredible life experiences (including 20 years as a colonel in the military and first hand brushes with vehement racism), education, wonderful humor and an all-around beautiful soul.  He is also blunt.  When I asked him what historical forces shaped the development of the black churches, his one word answer was, “racism.” 

But he told me so much more.  For African Americans, the time spent on Sunday mornings in church, apart from white bosses, white prejudice, and white domination was like time spent in heaven.  For a population in the 19^th and much of the 20^th centuries faced with a work week of drudgery and hardship, Sunday church was a major respite.  Participants dressed in their very finest clothing (and still day – no jeans or informal clothing in these churches) and experienced a dignity denied to them in the white world.  The amazingly rich, soulful and joyful musical sounds are born of these emotions as well as the dynamic preaching style accompanied by vocal congregational feedback.  Suddenly I realized this was very much like a Jewish experience.  I remembered the Kabbalists of the 15^th and 16^th centuries, having been forced out of Spain, finding their way to Palestine, and eking out a miserable, difficult subsistence.  Shabbat was the time in Eden, a taste of the world to come.  Suddenly I felt connected to this discussion in a very profoundly Jewish way.  When people are in a time of struggle, when life itself is a constant battle just to survive;  escapes into a different reality are what not only keeps one sane, but human.

During the panel discussion we discussed the future.   So many barriers have now fallen, most significantly the barriers to interracial dating and marriage.  Dr. Mashburn pointed out that at all family gatherings assisted by the church (for example funerals), there are white members of the extended family present.  Further, African Americans are themselves moving into different, more integrated churches.   Dr. Mashburn pointed out to me that many of the younger, more financially successful, professional African Americans, do not like many of the aspects of worship in the traditional African American church. 

One of our regular panelists is the founding pastor of a church not even 10 years old, and hers is far more integrated than most main stream churches.  Everyone professes to have “open and welcoming” congregations, but the real integrated worship is in the younger congregations, because the generations behind mine care a lot less about the divisions that used to bother us. They care less about race, about homosexuality; about a host of other items that are “issues” for the older generations.  So their religious institutions are far more integrated.  People are coming together more and more. 

And this is a good thing, to a point.

I realize that the word “segregation” carries a lot of baggage.  We associate it with segregated schools, with separate public facilities for blacks and whites.  Yet, there is a disturbing aspect to the breaking down of segregated worship.  Do we really want a world in which all of us become more or less the same, that is part of a kind of amalgamated uniform group?  If the richness and emotional power of worship in the black church fades away, we will have lost something very precious.  As I thought about this, I realized the same problem faces the Jewish community as well.

This country has been fantastic for Jews.  Yet, because it is so welcoming, meaningful expressions to Jewish continuity are on the wane.  There are many dynamics at work here.   Some of them have to do with the graying of traditional religion in general.  Some of them have to do with the willingness of young generations to accept things we would not.  Some has to do with the availability of everything and anything on the internet.  Some has to do with the secularization of wider swaths of American society.  Some has to do with the increased focus on individual versus community fulfillment.  Some has to do with intermarriage.  All of these are topics worthy of their own conversations. 

But it would be a sad thing for the world to lose its Jews.  It would be a sad thing for Jewish thought, literature, spirituality and learning to gradually disappear.  It would be a sad thing for the only vestige of Judaism to be bagels and chicken soup.  It would also be a sad thing for the world to lose the institution of the African American church.  That institution has meant so much to the development of the African American community.  It is a source of inspiration spiritually and musically.  The question is, can we preserve ethnically based religious experience and still create a community in which we work together?

And that is the ideal.  There are issues facing our communities that go beyond the barriers of culture, religion and/or race.  At the program last Friday, Pastor Brant Copeland pointed out that the ideal would be for us to work on issues without barriers, yet continue to preserve the beauty and uniqueness of our  individual worship traditions.  I do not know the answer.  I just have this question; how much is segregation necessary to preserve our traditions? 

Here is the link to the program “The Most Segregated Hour of the Week?”

http://wiki.tothevillagesquare.org/download/attachments/20545743/Faith_Food_Friday_race.mp3

Read Full Post »

The agreement passed by both houses of Congress last week in order to avoid the “fiscal cliff” has started to take some over a rhetorical cliff. I cannot say that I really understand the nitty gritty of what was passed, but there are no shortage of experts who seem willing to explain it to me. Of course there is a wide range of thought over the consequences of the tax deal. A fair amount of buzz arose around this tweet from Ari Fleischer, “I increased donations to charity in 2012. This deal limits my deductions so I, and many others will likely donate less in 2013.” I have a hard time imagining that Fleischer did not realize that sparks would fly once this tweet was circulated.
The positions line up exactly where you think they would. Left wingers can hardly keep from calling Fleischer a variety of names. “Miserly” would be one of the kinder ones. The “Wall Street Journal” ran an article on how the new tax provisions would decrease charitable giving. On the other hand Professor Len Burnam of Syracuse University ran an article in “Forbes” explaining how it would not affect charitable giving and might even increase it. Rather than have a conversation that circles around the tax code, or around whether Fleischer is a realist or Scrooge, why not have a different kind of conversation? Let’s have a conversation about the kind of values we want our community to express. Jewish tradition has a LOT to say about that.
We can start with Deuteronomy chapter 15. In the course of describing some of the laws regarding the sabbatical year and sh’mitah (remission of loans), we are told not to tolerate poverty. Indeed, verse 8 says to “open your hand” and lend that person a sufficient amount for whatever he needs. Notice the command is to lend, not give. Picking up on this, the Talmud teaches “Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Simeon b. Lakish, ‘He who lends is greater than he who performs charity.’” A reason given for this is that someone in need may feel shame in accepting charity. By extending a loan, we are preserving the recipient’s dignity and showing trust that it will be paid back. Note this would be an interest free loan (per Exodus 22:24), so the lender would be losing the potential profit from investing his capital in something else. But that is not all the lender would lose. The sabbatical year is the year of sh’mitah. Any unpaid loan is forgiven. Deuteronomy 15:9 specifically directs us not to turn away from lending what a poor person needs, even if the sabbatical year is approaching.
Charity (tzedakah) is also commanded by Torah (an example is Leviticus 19:9,10). Contrary to the approach encouraged by American culture in which we gauge our donations by how much of a tax break we receive, charity is an obligation for everyone under Jewish law. In the Talmud we are told, “Even a poor man who lives off charity should perform acts of charity.” (Gittin 7a) That is very much in tune with the political conservatives’ belief that everyone in society should have “skin in the game.” Jewish tradition agrees but with some significant qualifiers. The highest reward for the performance of the mitzvah of giving charity is the opportunity to do the mitzvah. The reward is certainly not a tax break, nor is it even necessarily a better place in the world to come. It is the joy of having, for that moment, come into consonance with God through the act of giving. Any reward is dependent upon the extent of kindness in the act of giving (Sukkah 49b). That seems obvious. The better you feel about your giving, the more fulfulled you feel. If you give grudgingly, you resent the act and look for some other kind of reward from it. Further, one must respond to need immediately, without delay (see a great story about Nachum Ish Gamzu, Ta’anit 21a on the consequences of delaying your response to need). From this perspective, the delays in Congress in responding to the needs of victims of Hurricane Sandy are reprehensible.
Finally, all of this is done because we are aware of being part of a larger community. We are part of the community and have obligations to the community. The longer we live in a community, the greater our obligations to the community. Contemporary American culture pushes us more and more to be focused on the self. Jewish tradition honors individuality, respects individual rights, yet places them in the context of our membership in the wider community. “When the community is in trouble, let not a man say, ‘I will go to my house and I will eat and drink and all will be well with me.’” (Ta’anit 11a)
A discussion framed by tax codes and the personal benefits of charitable giving really misses the bigger point, which is best described by another, wider meaning of the word tzedakah. For tzedakah also means “righteousness” and “justice.” I want to know how to better implement these values. How do we promote morality in our communal actions? How do we promote a just society? These are conversations worth having.

Read Full Post »

Another blog, why? Why indeed should I bother to add one more voice to the conversations happening on the internet? I have thought a lot about whether to go ahead and do this, or to not bother. Am I really all that much smarter than the next person? Do I really think my perspective is so very different that people must read my words? In deciding to start this venture I did vacillate between a sense that blogging is an expression of ego, versus the thought that I might actually have something to contribute to the conversation. Clearly I decided to go ahead and here is why.
I have the privilege to be the rabbi of the main Jewish congregation in the capital of the fourth largest state in the United States. In fact, Temple Israel is the largest Jewish congregation along the I 10 corridor, west of Jacksonville and east of New Orleans. Because of the confluence of state government and two major universities, this is an intensely interesting city in which to serve. I am involved in a lot and I observe a lot. On the one hand Tallahassee is in many ways a progressive community, yet in others it is very conservative. As to Jewish presence, will let’s just say this is the “other Florida,” the one to which most Jews do NOT retire. The surrounding culture is very Christian so many of my involvements involve interfaith matters. Many times I am the spokesperson for the Jewish community. This is the deep south and I am an unabashed Yankee. So the first reason I decided to start this blog is to share a perspective born of the position fate has allowed me to occupy.
Further, I am dismayed by the tone of discussions that now exists. Whatever the media, I see lots of anger and lots of just plain craziness. Here are two examples. First, in the aftermath of the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, AOL ran a rare editorial outlining a recommended course of action to address violence and shootings. They invited comments and the first comment posted said that all “automatic” weapons should be banned. The second comment called the first commentator an idiot for not knowing what an automatic weapon really was. Subsequent comments descended into an ever angrier tone with people mocking and swearing at each other. Is the internet really just a tacit permission to write what you would never say in polite society? If so, how very sad.
My second example comes from inside the Jewish world. I read an article regarding the practice of metzitzah (the mohel sucking the blood of circumcision off of the wound as part of the ceremony of circumcision). Health authorities have determined this is a very dangerous health hazard and should be discontinued. I would imagine most people would be horrified at the very thought of this practice occurring. The article was well thought out and made good points about why discontinuing this practice should not even be an issue any more. Yet some of the commentary, rather than yielding to the findings of modern medicine, tried to use Jewish law to justify continuing what is clearly archaic and irrational (if you disagree I am happy to have the halachic argument another time). For some of the discussants it seemed that displaying facility in the methods of arguing Jewish law was taking precedence over just plain common sense.
My point is there is a lot of anger, a lot of irrationality, and a lot of unreasonableness – especially on the internet. My goal is to be an open minded, reasonable observer, hopefully with a touch of humor, helping to balance the scales just a little bit. I imagine a scale with two pans (like the scales of justice) with each side being loaded with opinions. On the one side is all the nastiness, the unwillingness to consider another perspective. On the other side are the voices of reason. I just want to be one of the voices loaded onto the “reasonable” side.
I have named this site “The Jewish Observer.” I am Jewish and will make observations. This is also my way to give just a little kavod (honor) to former New York Times columnist Russell Baker, who used to title his wonderful and witty column “Observer.” For years he was my favorite columnist. If you end up reading this, I hope you will enjoy.

Read Full Post »