“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.”

Arnold Eisen, Chancellor of Jewish Theological Seminary, quoting Abraham Joshua Heschel

Happy Purim!

For Jews, it is Purim -- a festival of pun and paradox, in which the central text is a parody of history, telling the story of how a courageous woman and her uncle chose civil disobedience to save their people from a genocide -- and won. How a pompous, stupid king is bamboozled by an ambitious, arrogant , and genocidal Prime Minister -- one might almost say, Vice-President. How everything is turned topsy-turvy, so that the gallows where a Jewish leader was to be hanged becomes the death-place of their tormentor. How God never appears in this story that might seem miraculous.

And, the ancient rabbis taught, on this day Jews are to get so far beyond normal categories as to be unable to distinguish "Blessed Mordechai" (one of the saving team) from "Accursed Haman" (the genocidal minister).

On the surface, the two festivals might seem utterly different: one focused on solemnity, the other on a joke. Yet they have this in common: They pluck delight from disaster, they see the deep oddity of a universe, God's universe, in which God's Presence is achieved through God's absence, in which the fullest life comes from the most degrading death, in which arrogance is brought low by laughter. And they see this oddity not as absurd -- but fully meaningful.

From Arthur Waskow.

More on Catholic Prayer

Here is a somewhat edited version forwarded to the Jewish Forward, where Prof. Neusner's article was originally published. (Issue of March 6)

I read with some distress Martin Marty's recent piece in Sightings, headlined "Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer," based on Jacob Neusner's contribution to the Forward Forum of March 6.

Jacob Neusner is a serious (and certainly prolific) scholar, and one with an unusual and distinctive history among Jews in relation to Catholic thought. He is certainly entitled to express his views, which should stand or fall on their intellectual merits, and not on his authority as a spokesperson for American Jews, many of whom consider Prof. Neusner an idiosyncratic and not a representative figure.

To present American Jews as having a mixed or "ambiguous" reception to the Vatican's recent actions on the Good Friday prayers (as Professor Marty does) is grossly misleading. Opinion is strong and virtually unanimous in opposition to Pope Benedict's marked backsliding from the considerable progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. Such disagreement as does exist reflects honest differences in perception as to the extent of the harm done and its long term consequences, not to the fact of harm. Differing formulations may also reflect, at least in part, tactical considerations by some of those engaged in long-term interfaith efforts (perhaps including Prof. Neusner himself).

The Hebrew prayer being referred to, the "Aleynu" (or "Aleinu"), does not call for conversion of all gentiles to Judaism; it does clearly privilege monotheistic faiths, reject what Judaism regards as idolatry, and express the eschatological hope (as Neusner correctly states) that all will come to acknowledge the one God. Normative Judaism has never viewed Islam as idolatrous. There have been varying interpretations over time on whether Christian worship before images or representations of Jesus constitute idolatrous practice, and whether Catholic concepts of the Trinity are consistent with, or violative of, Jewish notions of monotheism. For the most part, normative Jewish views in recent centuries have come to regard Christian faith as monotheistic.

The Aleynu prayer has a checkered history, and certain offensive passages have been--in my view, quite properly-- excised from the currently normative version of the text--much as Jews would prefer in the Good Friday Latin liturgy. Even in its current form, many liberal Jews (and some Jewish denominations), contra Neusner, choose to further modify the written or spoken text in a number of respects, rejecting some (but, for the most part, not all) of the passages cited by Professor Neusner, and reinterpreting others. The direction of change in the text and interpretation of this ancient prayer has, for the great majority of Jews, been toward a more ecumenical interpretation.

To the degree that Jews, Christians and Muslims (in my view properly) understand themselves as worshiping the same God (in the Christian case, God the Father), the current "Aleynu" text, calling on all humankind to invoke, worship, and give honor to God's glorious name, is, contra Neusner (and apparently Marty), far from fully parallel to the revised language in the Latin prayer, "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…" It is revealing that Professor Neusner declines even to cite the "that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men" in his mistaken missive. Jewish concern does not focus on the Catholic prayer's language that "God ...may illuminate their hearts" (which Neusner stresses, correctly, as a parallel theme to the Jewish prayer language), but on the explicit rejection of the validity of Jewish belief in favor of acceptance of Jesus' divinity and the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation. One of the distinctive changes in Catholic theology in recent decades has been toward greater recognition of the permanence of God's covenant with the Jewish people; this recognition is a key pre-condition for educational efforts to instill greater respect for Jews and Judaism by contemporary Catholics, and it is hard to reconcile the language and implicit theology of the revised Good Friday Latin liturgy with these efforts.

Professor Neusner's theological musings are shockingly insensitive to the historical dimension of Good Friday prayers, and the significance of post-Holocaust (and particularly post Vatican II) efforts to chart a new, less destructive, and more mutually respectful course. Judaism does not have much of a recent (say, the past couple of thousand years) history of oppressing, proselytizing or forcing conversions to Judaism on Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, or members of other (non-Abrahamic) faiths. These deep historical patterns provide an essential context for evaluating the parallels, and non-parallels, in the respective prayers, and for assessing the impact of this distressing retreat from the post-Vatican II commitment to healing the rifts between Catholics and Jews. At best, with the Vatican's deletion of the adjective "perfidious" as applied to Jews, this is an instance of one step forward, two steps back.

Professor Marty's essay ends, "It is our duty to praise...". I would fill in his ellipsis as follows: "...that which is worthy of praise." Whatever the "right" of Catholics to pray as they wish, which I do not dispute, this latest development is unworthy of Jewish praise.

Alan Jay Weisbard

A Response to Martin Marty and Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

From Sightings 3/10/08

Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

-- Martin E. Marty

A week from Friday is Good Friday, a most solemn day for Christians. It is also a problem day for Jews, and for the evident Christian majority which is (or wants to be) sensitive to the sensibilities of Jews. For centuries the most painful element in the Roman Catholic liturgy came from the Good Friday litany in the Latin Rite, which began: "Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: That Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord..." There was also reference to "Jewish faithlessness" and "blindness." In 1960 an offended and thoughtful Pope John XXIII deleted "faithless" (perfidis); in 1970 the prayer was radically altered. So far, so good.

Last summer Pope Benedict XVI allowed for reversion to the world and words of pre-1970, to a 1962 Missal version of the liturgy. This act was received ambiguously by American Jewish leadership. The American Jewish Committee expressed "appreciation" for some of the papal steps forward, but the Anti-Defamation League called the pope's action "a theological setback" and a "body blow" to Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 6 the Vatican announced an emendation of the 1962 Missal. Tradition-hungry Catholics will now pray this revision: "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…"

Recently I conversed with a Jewish professor of New Testament at a largely Christian theological school, and expected her to speak of "setback" and "body blow." To my surprise, she said that while all such prayers make Jews uncomfortable, given the painful history we inherit, she thought that the notion of one faith-community praying for the spread of its faith to others was not the highest offense. "Many do it." OK.

Then I chanced on this headline in the Jewish weekly Forward (February 29-March 7): CATHOLICS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRAY FOR US, above an op-ed by veteran Professor Jacob Neusner, a scholar of Judaism uncommonly informed about such matters. His main point will surprise many non-Jews and many Jews as well: "Israel prays for gentiles, so the other monotheists, the Catholic Church included, have the same right to do the same—and no one should be offended, as many have[.]"

Rabbi Neusner notes that a prayer "for the conversion of 'all the wicked of the earth,' who are 'all the inhabitants of the world,' is recited in normative Judaism not once a year, but every day." He quotes several passages from standard Jewish liturgies, which "leave no doubt that when holy Israel assembles for worship it asks God to illuminate gentiles' hearts." Prayers of both covenanted sets of people have "an eschatological focus and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. Holy Israel should object to the Catholic prayer no more than Christianity and Islam should take umbrage at the Israelite one."

Whoever thinks that in one short column even Dr. Neusner can deal with all the complexities and subtleties of the subject, or that his will be a last word—it's virtually a first, in the current context—should be ready for many rejoinders, reservations, and qualifications, because much goes on between now and the eschaton, "the fullness of time." Both sets of believers have work to do to express their hopes thoughtfully and to follow them up with empathic acts. But this first word might help make Good Friday more a day of solemn contemplation than of polemics. "It is our duty to praise…"

Alan J. Weisbard wrote (to Sightings):

I read with increasing distress Martin Marty's recent piece in Sightings, headlined "Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer."

For what it is worth, Jacob Neusner is regarded by many American Jews as an exceptionally peculiar and idiosyncratic figure. I would be cautious in taking his views as in any way representative of the American Jewish community. He is a serious (and certainly prolific) scholar, and one with an unusual and distinctive history among Jews in relation to Catholic thought. He is certainly entitled to express his views, which should stand or fall on their intellectual merits, and not on his authority as a spokesperson for American Jews.

To present American Jews as having a mixed or "ambiguous" reception to the Vatican's recent actions on the Good Friday prayers (as Professor Marty does) is grossly misleading. Opinion is strong and virtually unanimous in opposition to Pope Benedict's marked backsliding from the considerable progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. Such disagreement as does exist reflects differences in degree as to the extent of harm done and its long term consequences, not to the fact of harm, and, perhaps, tactical considerations by some of those engaged in long-term interfaith efforts.

The Hebrew prayer being referred to, the "Aleynu", does not call for conversion of all gentiles to Judaism; it does privilege monotheistic faiths and reject what Judaism regards as idolatry. Normative Judaism has never viewed Islam as idolatrous. There have been varying interpretations over time on whether Christian worship before images or representations of Jesus constitute idolatrous practice, and whether Catholic concepts of the Trinity are consistent with, or violative of, Jewish notions of monotheism. For the most part, normative Jewish views in recent centuries have come to regard Christian faith as monotheistic.

The Aleynu prayer has a checkered history, and certain offensive passages have been--in my view, quite properly-- excised from the currently normative version of the text--much as Jews would prefer in the Good Friday Latin liturgy. Even in its current form, many liberal Jews (and some Jewish denominations), contra Neusner, choose to further modify the written or spoken text in a number of respects, rejecting some (but not all) of the problematic passages cited by Professor Neusner, and reinterpreting others.

To the degree that Jews, Christians and Muslims (in my view properly) understand themselves as worshiping the same God (in the Christian case, God the Father), the current "Aleynu" text, calling on all humankind to invoke, worship, and give honor to God's glorious name, is, contra Neusner (and apparently Marty), far from fully parallel to the revised language in the Latin prayer, "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…" It is revealing that Professor Neusner declines even to cite the "that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men" in his mistaken missive. Jewish concern does not focus on the Catholic prayer's language that "God ...may illuminate their hearts" (which Neusner stresses, correctly, as a parallel theme to the Jewish prayer language), but on the explicit rejection of the validity of Jewish belief in favor of acceptance of Jesus' divinity and the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation.

Professor Neusner's theological musings are shockingly insensitive to the historical dimension of Good Friday prayers, and the significance of post-Holocaust (and particularly post Vatican II) efforts to chart a new and less destructive course. Judaism does not have much of a recent (say, the past couple of thousand years) history of oppressing, proselytizing or forcing conversions to Judaism by Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, or members of other (non-Abrahamic) faiths. These deep historical patterns provide an essential context for evaluating the parallels, and non-parallels, in the respective prayers, and for assessing the impact of this distressing retreat from the post-Vatican II commitment to healing the rifts between Catholics and Jews. At best, with the Vatican's deletion of the adjective "perfidious" as applied to Jews, this is an instance of one step forward, two steps back.

Professor Marty's essay ends, "It is our duty to praise...". I would fill in his ellipsis as follows: "...that which is worthy of praise."

Obama on Israel and Jews

There is a lot of trash and slime circulating on the internet regarding Obama's attitudes toward Islam, Israel, and Jews. In the past couple of days, I have received a couple of personally addressed emails, of the form "I saw this on the internet and wondered if it were accurate/ if it were fair/ what you think about this...", followed by what seems to be to constitute hate speech insinuating that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who will do various dastardly things. The claims are so preposterous on their face, and so easy to disprove with a minimum of research, that it is hard not to suspect the motives of those who send such crap around.

I am saddened that some of these hate messages have been attributed to various Jewish groups, including some kind of Republican Jewish group. I am in the process of trying to track this down, and cannot at this point know whether these attributions are correct.

In response, various collections of Obama's statements on Israel are also circulating. Some of these follow the formulaic AIPAC line to a degree that I, as an ally of Israel's peace camp (Peace Now, New Israel Fund, etc.) find them rather unsatisfying both politically and intellectually. However, there is some evidence of more thoughtful views on Obama's part. Here is an excerpt from a recent Obama speech before a Jewish audience, quoted on Nick Kristof's NYT blog:

"...one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It’s very ironic. I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced because he’s dealing with these people every day. There’s good and there’s bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that’s not good for our security situation. There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I’m saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues...."

This is very true, and suggests that Obama's understanding is considerably more subtle and nuanced than the uncritical blather that he and most high level American politics are forced to regurgitate on most occasions. I think such an understanding, and the courage to speak it before a Jewish audience, are conducive to effective American intermediation if peace between Israel and her neighbors is ever to come. I am highly aware of the arguments against, but I have come to the conviction that the risks for Israel in seeking peace are less daunting, and less dangerous in the mid-to-long run, than those of not doing so.

And for what it is worth, whether he rejects or denounces Farrakhan, Obama's comments on rebuilding relationships between Jews and African-Americans (and his willingness to denounce anti-Semitism within the black community in speeches to African-American audiences) touch me deeply.

Blessings and Curses

AJWS Commentary:

Within the narrative of blessings and curses in Parshat Ki Tavo, God sets out clear expectations for how we should behave, making it clear that this is not a covenant of faith, but one of deeds. Contemporary Jewish philosopher David Hartman contends that the blessings and curses are not literally inflicted upon humans in response to their observance or nonobservance of commandments. Hartman argues, instead, that our Torah enumerates these curses and blessings in order to emphasize the grave importance of acting with holiness and thereby actualizing God's presence in our midst. The blessings and curses are provided as a symbolic reminder of our covenantal obligations, reinforcing our commitment to a covenant rooted in action.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel also invokes our covenant with God when he asserts that the blessings and curses are meant to impart a sense of our partnership with the divine as we struggle to cope with good and evil. Simply observing the Torah's written laws is not enough to continually bring sanctity into our lives. The Torah not only narrowly stipulates that certain acts are prohibited, but also broadly demands that we accept our responsibility to realize a sustainable and just society. Heschel understands the significance of our deeds both as signs of our covenantal relationship and as active agents of change in our surroundings:

It is in the deeds that human beings become aware of what life really is, of their power to harm and to hurt, to wreck and to ruin; of their ability to derive joy and bestow it upon others...The deed is the test, the trial, and the risk. What we perform may seem slight, but the aftermath is immense."

Understood this way, mitzvot ben adam l'chavero - those commandments that guide human relationships - really actualize our covenant with God. The majority of the mitzvot detailed in this parshah focus on supporting just and compassionate relationships with other human beings - in effect, offering guidelines for the creation of just communities. Prohibitions against subverting the rights of the stranger, secretly harming a neighbor, and accepting bribes support the universal human rights we seek to uphold in our social justice work. The Torah champions human integrity and dignity, and our literary tradition further elevates this with the assertion that the highest form of tzedakah is to help someone become self-sufficient.

JTS Weekly Torah Commentary

-R. Marc Wolf - JTS Weekly Torah Commentary:

The sixteenth-century Italian commentator Moshe Hefetz writes on this verse in his commentary on Ki Tavo, 'You witnessed all those great wonders but only appreciated their full significance just now, at this time, after they had receded from view, as if you had to this point lacked sight and hearing' (Milekhet Mahshevet, Warsaw Ed., 315). Hefetz is observing that the people of Israel did not understand the miracles because they needed distance from them. It was their time in the desert, wandering, gaining perspective, and experience and growing as a people that allowed them to appreciate the full significance of the miracles. ...

The true significance of the Exodus was not in the signs and wonders, but in the time it took for the people to become Israelites. Their experience in the desert served as the vehicle for transformation from a wandering mass to a People ready to live as a Nation in the Land of Israel. Moses' statement, then, cannot be viewed as a critique, but as a compliment. B'nai Israel had made it through the desert and had matured into the people with "the mind to understand, the eyes to see and the ears to hear."

With Judaism, we are continually in and out of "the woods." This month of Elul leading up to the High Holidays is time in "the woods." Elul has traditionally been the month for introspection, a month to take our individual heshbon ha'nefesh (accounting of our soul) and examine our relationship with God. It is a period to develop as individuals to emerge like b'nai Israel from the desert with the mind, ears, and eyes we need to approach Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

Toward a kindler, gentler (and more intellectually rigorous) law school: Epigram

It has been observed that my proposal (posted in four parts, below) is long, dense, and convoluted (and has too many parenthetical inserts (which make it hard (and very irritating) to read)).
Got it.

Could I possibly try to distill my message to something people might actually read?
Sure. Here goes (standing on one foot):

Our graduates should have the courage to take on established power, and the skills enabling them to do so effectively.

The rest is commentary.
Now go and study.

With apologies to the Jewish first-century sage, Hillel, asked by a Gentile to summarize the whole Torah while standing on one foot. (On my reading of the sources, it is somewhat obscure whether it was Hillel or his interlocutor who was standing on one foot, and whether the inquiry was sincere or sarcastic. Maybe an especially well-informed and/or industrious reader can help. You may sit down while doing your research.)

Letters on Noah Feldman

New York Times:

Noah Feldman’s highly personal essay raises many issues with which the American modern Orthodox Jewish community grapples as we seek to be faithful to our ancient tradition while engaging with the modern world (July 22). But it is the difficulty of this challenge that makes a person’s choices so critical, and it is with many of Feldman’s choices that we disagree.

It was Feldman’s choice to send as clear a signal as he could, through his marriage, that he was rejecting fundamental principles of the community. His expression of surprise at the reaction of the community’s institutions, including his alma mater, where he was taught these principles, strains credulity....

Feldman’s own life seems to be a testament to what can happen when one loses the balance between engaging with modern culture and a core commitment to Orthodox tradition and continuity, which so many others continue to maintain with dignity and much fulfillment.

Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Executive Vice President
Orthodox Union

Today's NYT Sunday Magazine contains an interesting selection of letters responding to the Feldman article. There is no doubt that intermarriage (without conversion by the non-Jewish partner) is an exceptionally painful topic for many within the Jewish community, perhaps particularly so within Orthodoxy. There can be little doubt that a person with Feldman's education would be well aware that his "out-marriage" would be ill-received, at least on an "official" level, by his (former?) modern Orthodox community. That recognized, Rabbi Dr. Weinreb's assertion that "It was Feldman’s choice to send as clear a signal as he could, through his marriage, that he was rejecting fundamental principles of the community" instrumentalizes a fundamental life choice in a fashion reminiscent of the ghetto (in this case, a voluntary rather than externally -imposed one), and strangely innocent of the ways of the heart in contemporary, open American society. The invocation by one letter-writer of Fiddler on the Roof (based on Shalom Aleichem's tales of Jewish life in the 19th century Pale) further reinforces this spatial and temporal displacement from our contemporary circumstances.

Might it be just possible that Feldman married for love, and not "to send ...a signal"?

Noah Feldman

I finally got to read Noah Feldman's piece on the dilemmas of modern Orthodoxy in the Sunday Times Magazine of two weeks back. I find the published Orthodox critiques of Feldman hyperbolic and inconsistent with a fair reading of the piece. In fact, I believe they mischaracterize both what Feldman said, and his likely intent in saying it. (I am not taking a position on certain highly specific accusations against Feldman and the Times pending further factual clarification.) For now, I've taken down my postings of excerpts from two of the critical pieces; perhaps I can return to consider why they characterize Feldman as they do. But not right away.

Long time readers will know that my own Jewish identification and sympathies are post-denominational, with strong ties to the havurah movement. My patterns of belief and practice are not modern Orthodox, although I certainly have friends and persons I admire within that stream of Judaism. Feldman's exploration of the dilemmas of modern Orthodox identity resonated strongly with me, and have salience for more liberal-minded Jews, although the particulars take different form (including parallel tensions with our more secular-minded friends and colleagues, some of whom approach any religious sensibilities as atavistic and incomprehensible in thinking persons of any intelligence). Frankly, I think this is one of the more sympathetic and persuasive pieces by Feldman that I've read.

Jewish activists learn the art of the 'meet and greet'

Jerusalem Post:

Welcome to the Red Arrow Diner in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire. This local landmark has taken on national significance as presidential candidates small and large make their quadrennial pilgrimage, or at least pit stop, to this homiest of down-home eateries, trying to woo voters from the tiny state whose first-in-the-nation primary has played an outsized role in selecting the presidential nominees for the two major parties.

On Wednesday afternoon, it was Mitt Romney's turn....And if the candidate had come with a prepared pitch - in Romney's case, for Americans to provide a "surge of support for our troops" in Iraq to accompany the surge in forces there - the diners had come prepared with pointed questions.

One wanted to hear about cuts in military spending, another wanted to know about benefits for retirees, and four wanted to get Romney to back the agenda of the American Jewish World Service.

An organization that applies the Jewish teaching of tikkun olam, or healing the world, to help the developing world, AJWS dispatched three young people to spend the summer in New Hampshire training residents to push candidates on three issues: Darfur, HIV/AIDS prevention and universal education.

Their training includes information about the organization and its three major advocacy issues, but it also includes tips on how to get the candidates' attention in crowded diners and ask quick questions that, ideally, get concrete commitments to which they can then be held accountable.

At the Red Arrow, AJWS tag-teamed Romney to get him talking about HIV/AIDS, and whether he would commit to spending $50 billion dollars to combat the disease. ...

For Stacey Schwartz, a New Hampshire resident and a 33-year-old mother of a three-year-old who also underwent AWJS training, participating in the process is the most important thing.

"I absolutely feel I have an obligation to use my voice, to speak up, if I have access to all the candidates, to use my access to candidates," she said while trying to keep her daughter, Rachel, from making a mess of a piece of chocolate cake taking over a dinner dish. ...

Then she found out about AWJS through her rabbi and learned how to position herself better and how to get the candidate's attention. She wanted to use her Jewish upbringing, where she had learned the value of asking "Why" to ask about issues such as Darfur where the victims were powerless and voiceless.

"I not only found my voice. I found out how to use my voice, and that's what I want to teach my daughter," she said.

RIP: Rabbi Sherwin Wine

Cleveland Jewish News.com:

"The memory of a good person is a blessing.”

So reads the home page of The Society of Humanistic Judaism (SHJ)‘s website. The site is now dedicated to Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine, founder of the movement, who was killed in an auto accident July 21 while vacationing in Morocco.

Wine devoted his life’s work to the principles of Humanistic Judaism, says Roberta Feinstein, executive director of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations (CSJO), a Cleveland based organization that emphasizes Jewish culture and ethics. ...Humanistic Judaism celebrates Jewish history and culture without invoking God. One of its tenets, according to the SHJ website, purports that humans “possess the power and responsibility to shape their lives independent of supernatural authority.”

Wine was raised in a traditional home and ordained as a Reform rabbi in 1956. But according to a JTA article, the self-professed atheist felt ill-suited reciting prayers to a God in whom he did not believe.

In 1963, Wine took what Feinstein believes was a “courageous step” when he established the world’s first Humanistic synagogue, The Birmingham Temple in Farmington Hills, Mich. Wine went on to help found the Society for Humanistic Judaism in 1969; the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, which trains Humanistic rabbis, in 1985; and the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews, the movement’s international umbrella. ...

The rabbi was vilified by his contemporaries after it was discovered that his congregation had eliminated the word “God” from its services. (For example, “You shall love the Lord your God” became, “We revere the best in man.”)

Other rabbis also didn’t take kindly to Wine’s refusal to recite the Shema, the basic Jewish proclamation of faith in the oneness of God. “He (Wine) stepped right out and said, ‘I don’t believe in these words,’” says Feinstein. “That was amazingly brave.”

RIP: Chris Schwartz of Krakow

:

"Chris Schwarz, founder and director of the Galicia Jewish Museum in Krakow, has died. Schwartz, 59, died Sunday of prostate cancer in his Krakow apartment.

Schwarz, a London native whose father was Jewish, founded the museum in April 2004. It was a cornerstone of the rebirth of Jewish culture in Krakow's Kazimierz district, where hundreds of thousands of Jews lived before World War II.

With his modern approach to exhibitions and to depicting Jewish life, as well as an emphasis on education, the museum became a hit with locals, as well as Polish Jews and Jews from abroad."

We visited this small but delightful museum, met and chatted with Chris Schwartz, and greatly admired his work. We had no idea he was ill. We do hope that his legacy will continue.

Another Rabbi Joke

Divinity is in the Details:

One Saturday morning, a mother went into the bedroom to wake her son and tell him it was time to get ready to go to the Synagogue, to which he replied : 'I'm... not... going.'

'Why not?' she asked sternly.

'I'll give you two good reasons,' he said. 'One, they don't like me,
and two, I don't like them.'

His mother replied:

'I'll give YOU two good reasons why you MUST go to the Synagogue.
ONE you're 54 years old, and TWO, you're the Rabbi...'

Rabbi Joke

Divinity is in the Details:

An older Rabbi is moving on and giving advice to the newly hired Rabbi who is fresh out of school. The older fellow gives all sorts of pointers from how to manage conflict on the board to which tunes are preferred for Adon Olam. Lastly, before heading to Florida the retiring Rabbi says 'Take these three envelopes, they are the most powerful gift I can give you. If you ever have a problem you aren't sure you can solve, open an envelope. Be judicious in your use of these. They will tell you how to move forward but increase in power. Use other options first.'

Years go by and things go well for the the new rabbi. But over several months tensions reach a fever-pitch in discussing intermarriage. Unsure what to do after having tried most ways of framing the issue the Rabbi opens envelope #1: inside he finds a 3x5 card with the following written neatly on it:

Name a Committee.

The Rabbi quickly complies and the committee makes a recommendation several months later. It isn't universally loved but it works.

Another few years go by uneventfully but eventually the issue of whether to hire a gay youth group advisor develops. There are enormously strong feelings and the Rabbi opens envelope #2:

Call for a Community Meeting. Facilitate it Carefully.

By some miracle this works. A conclusion is reached and though it isn't truly a consensus, for the dissenters, feeling heard is enough to help them feel comfortable staying around.

Some years go by and this time the conflict is very bad. There is a near brawl between members of the old and new guards over a wide variety of issues. The Rabbi creates a committee to study the problem, calls a townhall meeting, and pretty much does everything the Rabbi can think of. None of it works. In a moment of anguish and frustration, the Rabbi finally opens envelope #3:

Write Out a New Set of Envelopes.

This comes from the blog of a young friend, himself the son of a prominent rabbi (also a longtime friend). I've been around long enough to know the joke, and the one that follows, but I put them in the category of oldies but goodies and post them here. Some readers may find them of contemporary relevance.

Cantor Josef "Yossele" Rosenblatt

Daniel Pearl's father on A Mighty Heart

TNR:By Judea Pearl

...This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell in 1901, which shook the logical foundations of mathematics. Any person who claims to be tolerant naturally defines himself in opposition to those who are intolerant. But that makes him intolerant of certain people--which invalidates his claim to be tolerant.

The political lesson of Russell's paradox is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance. Ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain groups or ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally linked to tolerance and inclusivity. One should, in fact, condemn and resist political doctrines that advocate the murder of innocents, that undermine the basic norms of civilization, or that seek to make pluralism impossible. There can be no moral equivalence between those who seek--however clumsily--to build a more liberal, tolerant world and those who advocate the annihilation of other faiths, cultures, or states.

Which brings me to my son, Daniel Pearl. Thanks to the release of A Mighty Heart, the movie based on Mariane Pearl's book of the same title, Danny's legacy is once again receiving attention. Of course, no movie could ever capture exactly what made Danny special--his humor, his integrity, his love of humanity--or why he was admired by so many. ...Traces of these ideas are certainly evident in A Mighty Heart, and I hope viewers will leave the theater inspired by them.

At the same time, I am worried that A Mighty Heart falls into a trap Bertrand Russell would have recognized: the trap of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see hints of this in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction to Guantánamo--it opens with pictures from the prison--and its comparison of Al Qaeda militants to CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote on The Washington Post's website that A Mighty Heart and his previous film, The Road to Guantánamo, "are very similar. Both are stories about people who are victims of increasing violence on both sides. There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Drawing a comparison between Danny's murder and the detainment of suspects in Guantánamo is precisely what the killers wanted, as expressed in both their e-mails and the murder video. Obviously Winterbottom did not mean to echo their sentiments, and certainly not to justify their demands or actions. Still, I am concerned that aspects of his movie will play into the hands of professional obscurers of moral clarity.

Indeed, following an advance screening of A Mighty Heart, a panelist representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations reportedly said, "We need to end the culture of bombs, torture, occupation, and violence. This is the message to take from the film." The message that angry youngsters are hearing is unfortunate: All forms of violence are equally evil; therefore, as long as one persists, others should not be ruled out. This is precisely the logic used by Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, one of the London suicide bombers, in his 2005 videotape on Al Jazeera. "Your democratically elected governments," he told Westerners, "continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people. ... [W]e will not stop this fight."

Danny's tragedy demands an end to this logic. There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts--no ifs, ands, or buts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31, 2002.

There was a time when drawing moral symmetries between two sides of every conflict was a mark of original thinking. Today, with Western intellectuals overextending two-sidedness to reckless absurdities, it reflects nothing but lazy conformity. What is needed now is for intellectuals, filmmakers, and the rest of us to resist this dangerous trend and draw legitimate distinctions where such distinctions are warranted.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

The Huffington PostMax Blumenthal
This video is worth a few minutes by those perplexed by the "Christians United for Israel" phenomenon, or interested in the descent of Joseph Lieberman.

'Sweet revenge,' say new Germans

Haaretz : By Ofer Aderet

Holding her brand-new German passport, Avital Direktor, 29, of Azor, just had to laugh. 'What a crazy world,' she thought to herself. 'Germany's soil is drenched with my family's blood, and in spite of it all, I got German citizenship. I see it as taking revenge on Hitler. Sweet revenge.'

The past year has seen 4,300 Israelis receive German citizenship, according to data released this week by the Central Bureau of Statistics. The figure represents a 50 percent increase over the previous year....

Avital's grandparents are Holocaust survivors from Berlin and Stuttgart. When she asked them whether they objected to her applying for German citizenship, they asked whether she intended to go back to Germany to pick up where they "left off."

It took Avital three years to get her German citizenship. "It's a long and complex process that stems from the rigid Germanic character...

Avital said she is not surprised by the sharp rise in demand for German citizenship among Israelis. "Look at what's going on here. Ours is a land that devours its inhabitants. The obtuseness to the needy, the corruption. People are dying to get out of here."...

According to Avital, most of her friends supported her decision to apply for German citizenship. "They said they wished they could get a German passport, too, and asked me what I was still doing here in Israel."

But not all of Avital's friends jumped for joy. In her youth, she was a member of the right-wing Moledet party. ..."Some of my friends called me a traitor," she confessed.

My thinking about Jews in Germany has changed in recent years, particularly since my visit to Berlin to see the new Holocaust Memorial and the amazing Jewish Museum. I hope Jewish life and culture can be reestablished in Germany. I also believe Israelis, like all humans, should be free to follow their bliss, and to seek personal and professional fulfillment where they can find it.

So why is my heart breaking as I read this article in Haaretz?

Eco-Kashrut in Action