In a February 12, 2010 article in The Jewish Advocate, a Boston-area Jewish weekly, the work of a rabbi who checks for shatnez in clothing is depicted. Shatnez is the combination of wool and linen in the same garment, which is forbidden among extremely orthodox Jews. The reason for the prohibition is a biblical passage in Deuteronomy 22:11: “You shall not wear combined fibers, wool and linen together.” So the rabbi uses a microscope to examine fibers that he picks from various parts of a garment he tests. With the exception of undergarments, wigs, belts and earmuffs, no clothing may be worn until it is ruled shatnez free. That includes embroidery kits, oven mitts, blouses and baseball gloves. The rabbi states, “The mitzvah of shatnez is as important a mitzvah as ‘Do not steal,’ or ‘Love your friend as you love yourself.’
What gives here? Not combining wool and lines in clothing is just as important as loving thy neighbor or not stealing? No wonder most Jews are not Orthodox! This seem absolutely crazy. At least kosher laws have some apparent justification in being humane and promoting cleanliness. But come on now, mixing wool and linen? This is not like mixing milk and meat, which seems to be based on the callousness of washing down the meat of a calf in its mothers milk. Wool comes from the shearing, not killing, of a sheep and linen comes from a flax plant. Now what logic could there be in not mixing them? It seems like Orthodox Jews believe in following an extensive set of rules without regard to reason or benefit. This does not seem very spiritual and may even take the focus away from doing real good. The recent corruption scandal in New Jersey involving Orthodox rabbis speaks to this possibility.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Jewish Neocon Issue
The February 1, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine has a story entitled, "The Return of the Neocons" by David Margolick. Being a political observer but not a wonk, I was a bit startled to read that several of the so-called Neocons, who were key ideologists supporting the Bush 43 administration, were Jewish. They include Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith, William Kristol of the conservative Weekly Standard, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan, and Norman and John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine, among others. I find this disturbing for two reasons.
First, it is disturbing because I have viewed the neocons as somewhat evil, pushing war when it was not necessary, and I don't like to see Jewish people involved in less than laudatory activities (e.g. Bernie Madoff). It denigrates us as a people. While I detested Saddam Hussein and supported trying to depose him based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction, I later concluded that the evidence of such weapons was likely fabricated and the war was pushed through over legitimate objections. The Neocons seems to have played a key part in justifying the attack. In addition, they fostered the notion that the Iraqi people would greet us with open arms and embrace democracy. That didn't happen and it still seems likely that, without a U.S. military presence, Iraq will devolve into another anti-Western dictatorship. So where did the sacrifice of our soldiers get us?
Another strong reason to be disturbed by the fact that many Neocons are Jewish are the allegations that they have pursued aggressive and unilateral U.S. military action in the Middle East out of concern for Israeli rather than U.S. interests. If it were indeed the case, it would be quite disturbing. Indeed, there have been articles, books, and blog posts claiming that the Neocons represented a Jewish conspiracy to prompt the U.S. to act militarily in Israel's interest. Unfortunately, it is not easy to provide evidence to the contrary. How can we tell what is in someone's mind? The most solid evidence I've seen that concern for Israel's survival was not an important motivator to Jewish neocons is their consistent conservative and aggressive stances on issues unrelated to Israel. For example, William Kristol was a strong advocate for military action to save the Muslims of Kosovo by attacking the Serbian military. In addition, the major players in the aggressive and unilateral U.S. stance under Bush 43 were not Jewish. They included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among several others. I don't think such people would have let some conservative intellectuals dictate their policy. It is more likely that they used these men to justify policies that they already believed in.
Questions of divided loyalty always come up in politics. John Kennedy, in his campaign to become the first Catholic U.S. president, had to take pains to convince the U.S. public that he would not be beholden to the Pope. Barak Obama was elected as the first U.S. president of partial African ancestry in large part by convincing the public that he would focus on issues of importance to the entire nation rather than on predominantly black concerns.
I don't think it's bad for Jews to be represented all across the political spectrum. Why should any group toe one political line? Many Jews, Blacks, and Latinos have reasons to buck the predominately liberal outlooks and voting habits of their groups. This is a good thing. No group should be taken for granted by any political party. By the same token, no member of these groups who becomes conservative should be viewed as a traitor or self-hater. Thus, we must accept that Jews can become accomplished conservative ideologues just as they have traditionally been strongly represented in the ranks of liberal ideologues. That does not mean that they are acting out of divided loyalty. Democracy fosters the interplay of ideas. May the strongest ones predominate!
First, it is disturbing because I have viewed the neocons as somewhat evil, pushing war when it was not necessary, and I don't like to see Jewish people involved in less than laudatory activities (e.g. Bernie Madoff). It denigrates us as a people. While I detested Saddam Hussein and supported trying to depose him based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction, I later concluded that the evidence of such weapons was likely fabricated and the war was pushed through over legitimate objections. The Neocons seems to have played a key part in justifying the attack. In addition, they fostered the notion that the Iraqi people would greet us with open arms and embrace democracy. That didn't happen and it still seems likely that, without a U.S. military presence, Iraq will devolve into another anti-Western dictatorship. So where did the sacrifice of our soldiers get us?
Another strong reason to be disturbed by the fact that many Neocons are Jewish are the allegations that they have pursued aggressive and unilateral U.S. military action in the Middle East out of concern for Israeli rather than U.S. interests. If it were indeed the case, it would be quite disturbing. Indeed, there have been articles, books, and blog posts claiming that the Neocons represented a Jewish conspiracy to prompt the U.S. to act militarily in Israel's interest. Unfortunately, it is not easy to provide evidence to the contrary. How can we tell what is in someone's mind? The most solid evidence I've seen that concern for Israel's survival was not an important motivator to Jewish neocons is their consistent conservative and aggressive stances on issues unrelated to Israel. For example, William Kristol was a strong advocate for military action to save the Muslims of Kosovo by attacking the Serbian military. In addition, the major players in the aggressive and unilateral U.S. stance under Bush 43 were not Jewish. They included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among several others. I don't think such people would have let some conservative intellectuals dictate their policy. It is more likely that they used these men to justify policies that they already believed in.
Questions of divided loyalty always come up in politics. John Kennedy, in his campaign to become the first Catholic U.S. president, had to take pains to convince the U.S. public that he would not be beholden to the Pope. Barak Obama was elected as the first U.S. president of partial African ancestry in large part by convincing the public that he would focus on issues of importance to the entire nation rather than on predominantly black concerns.
I don't think it's bad for Jews to be represented all across the political spectrum. Why should any group toe one political line? Many Jews, Blacks, and Latinos have reasons to buck the predominately liberal outlooks and voting habits of their groups. This is a good thing. No group should be taken for granted by any political party. By the same token, no member of these groups who becomes conservative should be viewed as a traitor or self-hater. Thus, we must accept that Jews can become accomplished conservative ideologues just as they have traditionally been strongly represented in the ranks of liberal ideologues. That does not mean that they are acting out of divided loyalty. Democracy fosters the interplay of ideas. May the strongest ones predominate!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Jewish Pride
Writing this blog has allowed me to vent some of my resentments about organized Judaism and to largely get past them. I have since had a much more positive outlook on my Jewishness and Judaism in general. While not a member of a temple, I have engaged in some of the many Jewish activities available in the Boston area and they have been enjoyable.
A recent article published in the NY Times made me feel proud to be Jewish. It stated that "Jews make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates." In addition, "Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction."
As to Israel, “Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined."
These accomplishments are a source of pride, Yet it would be a delusion to think that Jews are better at everything. Certainly, a majority of the world’s accomplishments are by non-Jews. However, it’s nice to know we make such an outsized contribution relative to our numbers. I'm also proud that Israel has proven that Jews are quite capable of defending themselves. That contrasts sharply with the image of Jews in the Diaspora, who have seemed so helpless when attacked.
Matisyahu has been another source of Jewish pride. It was great to hear him sing “One Day” in the TV ad for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. He sings well and the lyrics promote world peace and general optimism. Matisyahu's music video has the full song. His music shows that Jews can "be cool" and reach out to people all over the globe. This notion was also reinforced by the amazing performance of the Israeli Defense Forces in setting up an effective and efficient field hospital within 48 hours of the earthquake in Haiti, far faster than any other country.
A recent article published in the NY Times made me feel proud to be Jewish. It stated that "Jews make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates." In addition, "Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction."
As to Israel, “Tel Aviv has become one of the world’s foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined."
These accomplishments are a source of pride, Yet it would be a delusion to think that Jews are better at everything. Certainly, a majority of the world’s accomplishments are by non-Jews. However, it’s nice to know we make such an outsized contribution relative to our numbers. I'm also proud that Israel has proven that Jews are quite capable of defending themselves. That contrasts sharply with the image of Jews in the Diaspora, who have seemed so helpless when attacked.
Matisyahu has been another source of Jewish pride. It was great to hear him sing “One Day” in the TV ad for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. He sings well and the lyrics promote world peace and general optimism. Matisyahu's music video has the full song. His music shows that Jews can "be cool" and reach out to people all over the globe. This notion was also reinforced by the amazing performance of the Israeli Defense Forces in setting up an effective and efficient field hospital within 48 hours of the earthquake in Haiti, far faster than any other country.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Relatively Few Jews Identify Themselves as Religious
A Jan 8, 2010 article in The Jewish Advocate, a Massachusetts weekly newspaper, described a Pew Research Center poll of 35,000 Americans concerning their religiosity. The 6 New England states plus Alaska had the lowest percentages of people (36-44%) who felt that religion was very important in their lives. In contrast, the southern states of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee had the highest percentages of religious people (72-82%). Jews were lower is religiosity than Americans overall. The following percentages compare Jews to Americans overall:
Certainty of God's existence: 41% vs 71%
Religion is very important in life: 31% vs 56%
Attend weekly religious services: 10% vs 39%
Their religion is the one true faith: 5% vs 24%
Pray daily: 26% vs 58%
College graduates: 59% vs 27%
Family income above $100,000: 46% vs 18%
What this seems to boil down to is relatively low religiosity among Jews. Judaism appears to have a strong strain of rationalism as opposed to spirituality, that probably has some historical basis, with roots in the religion itself. This rationalism has led to some highly influential theorists like Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, and also led to great achievements in science, medicine, and literature. It has also led to a questioning of religious tenets. That, and the low birthrate of Jews in the U.S. raise the question of whether Judaism will eventually become the tiniest of minorities within the U.S., populated only by the ultra-Orthodox.
Certainty of God's existence: 41% vs 71%
Religion is very important in life: 31% vs 56%
Attend weekly religious services: 10% vs 39%
Their religion is the one true faith: 5% vs 24%
Pray daily: 26% vs 58%
College graduates: 59% vs 27%
Family income above $100,000: 46% vs 18%
What this seems to boil down to is relatively low religiosity among Jews. Judaism appears to have a strong strain of rationalism as opposed to spirituality, that probably has some historical basis, with roots in the religion itself. This rationalism has led to some highly influential theorists like Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, and also led to great achievements in science, medicine, and literature. It has also led to a questioning of religious tenets. That, and the low birthrate of Jews in the U.S. raise the question of whether Judaism will eventually become the tiniest of minorities within the U.S., populated only by the ultra-Orthodox.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Jewish Matrilineal Descent Challenged in British Court
A recent article appeared the the New York Times entitled, "Who is a Jew" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&em). It dealt with a decision by a British appellate court that a Jewish School (state-supported as are all religious schools in Britain) cannot refuse to accept a student because it doesn't consider him a Jew since his mother was converted to Judaism in other than the Orthodox tradition. In fact, the court went further by saying that admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.” It proposes that belief and practice define religion rather than heritage. The British Supreme Court will take up the issue soon and make a final decision.
As I have mentioned before, the Orthodox tenet of defining Jewish identity as transmitted by the mother alone was not always part of Jewish law and is a major factor in keeping Jewish numbers low, as well as creating a division between Jews of the Orthodox/Conservative persuasions who follow the rule and the Reformed/Reconstructionist persuasions who don't. Despite claims to the contrary, the rule is not a 5,000 year-old tradition. It was instituted in about 70 AD at around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and may have been intended to identify the children of raped Jewish women as Jews.
Why does Judaism seem to be the only religion in which belief and practice of the religion is not considered enough for membership? What do bloodlines have to do with religion? Was Hitler correct in thinking that Jews are a race more than a religion? The sooner we get away from that notion, the better. Fortunately, Judaism's genetic distinctiveness is diminishing due to intermarriage, adoption of children from non-Jewish backgrounds, and immigration to Israel of Jews from Africa and West Asia. Just as with other religions, Judaism would do well to reach the point where one cannot recognize a Jew by the shape of his nose or the combination of his skin/hair/eye color. The antiquated, arbitrary, divisive rule of matrilineal descent that weakens Judaism should find its way to the trash can. Let religion be defined by belief and practice! And let ethnic identity be up to the individual.
As I have mentioned before, the Orthodox tenet of defining Jewish identity as transmitted by the mother alone was not always part of Jewish law and is a major factor in keeping Jewish numbers low, as well as creating a division between Jews of the Orthodox/Conservative persuasions who follow the rule and the Reformed/Reconstructionist persuasions who don't. Despite claims to the contrary, the rule is not a 5,000 year-old tradition. It was instituted in about 70 AD at around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and may have been intended to identify the children of raped Jewish women as Jews.
Why does Judaism seem to be the only religion in which belief and practice of the religion is not considered enough for membership? What do bloodlines have to do with religion? Was Hitler correct in thinking that Jews are a race more than a religion? The sooner we get away from that notion, the better. Fortunately, Judaism's genetic distinctiveness is diminishing due to intermarriage, adoption of children from non-Jewish backgrounds, and immigration to Israel of Jews from Africa and West Asia. Just as with other religions, Judaism would do well to reach the point where one cannot recognize a Jew by the shape of his nose or the combination of his skin/hair/eye color. The antiquated, arbitrary, divisive rule of matrilineal descent that weakens Judaism should find its way to the trash can. Let religion be defined by belief and practice! And let ethnic identity be up to the individual.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Birthright Israel Helps Keep Jews in the Fold
The Jewish Advocate newspaper of October 30, 2009 reported that a study of the Birthright Israel program verifies the program's effectiveness in keeping young Jews in the fold. Supported by charitable foundations, the program sends Jews up to age 25 on free trips to Israel. The Brandeis University study compared Jewish-related outcomes between a group of people who had been on the trip and a group who had applied for the trip but were not able to go for whatever reason. All study subjects were non-Orthodox Jews. Seventy-two percent of those who had been on the program later married Jews compared to 46% if the non-participants. In summary, compared to non-participants, those who went through the program were 57% more likely to marry Jews, 30% more likely to feel that raising children as Jews is very important, 23% more likely to feel very connected to Israel, and 28% more likely to attend religious services monthly or more. For the Jewish member of intermarried couples, program participants were 93% more likely to say that raising children as Jews was very important. The spouses of intermarried participants were 4 times as likely to have converted to Judaism. At its peak, the program sent 45,000 young people on the program annually. But the sagging economy and Madoff swindle of Jewish philanthropists has reduced that number to 25,000.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Atonement?
Although I have only attended High Holiday events sporadically for several years, I felt like attending some this year. I went to a Rosh Hashannah service that did not require temple membership. Everyone met at a wooded site and hiked up a hill to a cabin facing a beautiful pond. The service was conducted outdoors, in front of the cabin, facing the pond. It was a pleasant experience and I enjoyed hearing and singing some of the songs I used to sing when I attended temple during my childhood. I also attended Kol Nidrei service conducted by a Jewish workshop. I enjoyed hearing the traditional song that begins the Yom Kippur holiday. However, I could not get into the prayers and did not stay much after Kol Nidrei was sung.
I have difficulty understanding the concept of atoning in one day for sins you committed during a whole year. First of all, I think it is difficult or impossible to really atone for sins against people. I know that the prayer book distinguished between sins against God and sins against people. If the sins against God involve breaking religious rules such as keeping the sabbath, putting on tfillin, or keeping kosher, then I can understand atonement. However, how can you really make up for sins against people like beating your wife or child, breaking trust, or committing crimes? It seems to me that you should not be doing such things in the first place and, if you do them, you should not be let off the hook so easily. This is the same feeling I have about Catholic confession. Once the damage is done, it is almost impossible to reverse. I think it would be better if people knew that they could never be absolved of their sins and that, in the final accounting, all the good and bad they did over the course of their lives would be weighed. As an agnostic, I do not particularly believe in the concept of a heavenly being judging whether we should go to heaven, hell, or purgatory. However, I think that for those who do believe, their behavior would be better influenced if they felt they could not get off for their sins.
I have difficulty understanding the concept of atoning in one day for sins you committed during a whole year. First of all, I think it is difficult or impossible to really atone for sins against people. I know that the prayer book distinguished between sins against God and sins against people. If the sins against God involve breaking religious rules such as keeping the sabbath, putting on tfillin, or keeping kosher, then I can understand atonement. However, how can you really make up for sins against people like beating your wife or child, breaking trust, or committing crimes? It seems to me that you should not be doing such things in the first place and, if you do them, you should not be let off the hook so easily. This is the same feeling I have about Catholic confession. Once the damage is done, it is almost impossible to reverse. I think it would be better if people knew that they could never be absolved of their sins and that, in the final accounting, all the good and bad they did over the course of their lives would be weighed. As an agnostic, I do not particularly believe in the concept of a heavenly being judging whether we should go to heaven, hell, or purgatory. However, I think that for those who do believe, their behavior would be better influenced if they felt they could not get off for their sins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
