My father showed my this in the Dead Tree News:

At Stuyvesant, Stanley Teitel, the school’s principal, has given the group wider latitude, saying he trusts other students at the school to be able to make up their own minds about Jesus Day. The school also has Jewish and Muslim clubs. The members of Seekers were free to post fliers for Jesus Day around the school and hold their event in the cafeteria after school.

“It’s your decision as to whether or not you want to go,” Mr. Teitel said. “I’m not forcing you. It’s not part of your instructional day. They’re just advertising this event is occurring. We do many after-school events.”

Several years ago, after receiving a directive from the New York City Board of Education, the school reversed its policy of prohibiting students from holding Jesus Day on campus, he said. Before that, the students held the event on a street corner near the school, off school property.

“We were told we had to give everybody equal access,” he said.

Bullshit! Bullshit I say! Equal access my ass… when I was at Stuyvesant the Seekers, as I recall, had their club meetings in the school, but were disallowed from evangelizing on school property. What the hell is unequal about that? Evangelizing creates a hostile environment for those of us who are not Christian. I know it’s very hard for Christians to understand that… who wouldn’t be grateful to someone trying to save them?

Here’s the thing… other faiths are not something to be saved from. I don’t care if you’re Christian and you think that your faith is the only road to salvation. You can believe whatever you want. You’d be wrong, but I’m not going to tell you that every day.

Evangelism is not the same thing as free exchange of ideas. Not in an institution such as a public high school in any case. It’s not a matter of equal access. I was a member of the Jewish Culture Club at Stuyvesant and while we advertized our events and meetings, we did not go out and tell people “Whatever you believe is wrong! You have to be Jewish!”

It looks funny written out like that, and it would sound funny if I said it. Because it’s ridiculous, right? Imagine though, if you will, that the vast majority of the people in the world were Jewish, and you were not, and people were constantly telling you that you had to be Jewish. You just *had* to. It’s just wrong and ridiculous *not* to be Jewish. *You* are wrong and ridiculous because you’re not Jewish. That’s not about ideas. That’s not about discourse. That’s an attack on you.

I’m too annoyed to try to write anything more for right now. I’ll probably come back to this. Especially if anyone tries to argue with me. *hopeful*

A couple of weeks ago I went to the synagogue where I went to Hebrew school as a child to hear a lecture given by my friend Rabbi Neil Gillman. The topic was Halacha in the Conservative movement, specifically about comments that he made at the USCJ International Biennial Convention in Boston.

“When aggada changes, halacha changes along with it,” he said. “That’s what happened with feminism.”

To be a Conservative Jew is to live with constant tension, Rabbi Gillman continued. That can be difficult. “If the purpose of religion is to order the world, to turn chaos into order, why are we introducing more tension into a tension-filled experience?” Because, he said, “embracing tension and ambiguity is good. It is healthy. But are we prepared to do this? Polar positions are always clear. The center is more complicated.”

Seems reasonable to me. Others were not so happy with his position.

In calling for a new vision at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s biennial in Boston, Rabbi Neil Gillman, professor of Jewish philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary, argued that calling itself a halachic movement is intellectually dishonest and has failed to inspire increased religious commitment of congregants.

“We have to be open and honest, and try to project a religious vision, a theological vision,” Rabbi Gillman told The Jewish Week…

“He deconstructed everything and offered nothing, spiritually speaking,” observed Rabbi Michael P. Singer of Temple Beth David in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. “I couldn’t disagree more with Rabbi Gillman,” he said, asserting that “the idea of Conservative Judaism is to move our members toward an understanding of halacha,” which he called “the link to the past, present and future.”

Okay, when I went to see Rabbi Gillman in his office a few months ago, not long after this convention had taken place, I admit that I was none too thrilled to hear him say that we as a movement should cease to characterize ourselves as “halachic.” Many, it seems, have latched on to that tidbit as well, and it has caused a bit of a stir in the movement.

When I heard Rabbi Gillman speak at East Midwood Jewish Center, however, it became clear that reports of his declaration of the death of halacha in the Conservative movement had been greatly exaggerated. His opinion on the matter turned out to differ only slightly from mine:

Conservative Judaism has always defined itself as a halachic movement… but with an asterisk. The problem here is that the Orthodox also define themselves as halachic, but without the asterisk. It is through our own fault that the asterisk is on our head, because we as a movement don’t know how to assert the authority of our halachic process convincingly. Much of this is an educational challenge, as our laity for the most part doesn’t know which way is up… they don’t realize that they belong to an ideologically strong movement and tend to believe that we can be summed up as “Ortho-lite” or “Reform-Plus.” Either view suggests a state of transition, where the ultimate positive goal is Orthodox-style halachic adherence.

The problem is that we don’t believe in the type of halacha adhered to by the Orthodox, which we view as frozen in time and inflexible in a way that halacha was never meant to be from the beginning of rabbinic exegesis. We as a movement accept halacha, but as Rabbi Gillman notes, we combine it, as did the Rishonim, the great sages, with aggada, with the story of our time. We shape our path as we tread it, because that is what a religion must do in order to remain relevant. We retain what is important while also accepting that which is important. As Rabbi Gillman put it, “Gays and lesbians can enter rabbinical school… but oysters are still treyf.”

Why?

He and I agree that we can tell the difference. There’s no hard and fast system for determining what stays and what goes. This is something with which I have been struggling for a while, thinking that in order to move forward, I needed to come up with a solid presentable plan. That’s the whole point, though. There is no plan. There is only we, the people, to invoke a nice little cliche to drive the point home. Halacha is eminently flexible. It’s really not as though our halacha is less-than because we have chosen to take it in a slightly different direction than the Orthodox.

Still, Rabbi Gillman and I disagree slightly on what do do semantically. He seems to believe that, because of our asterisk mistake, we should abandon our claim to halachic viability, leave the label halachic for the Orthodox, and redefine ourselves as ourselves, not in relation to the Orthodox. Maybe it’s because I’m young and bellicose, but I’d much prefer to fight for it. Throw off the asterisk and build up our movement’s strength and momentum primarily through education and cultural initiatives. It’s harder to do that way, but infinitely more valuable in the end if we can pull it off.

But what do I know? I’m just a kid.

Oh, wait… no, I’m a grownup. And I’m exactly the age demographic that The Movement is trying to attract right now! Hot-diggedy-Hebrew-National-Dog!

Honestly, some days I feel like I need to just drop whatever I’m doing and go out and fight a war for Conservative Judaism single-handed. Sounds like fun, right?

I didn’t want to read the book. Why? Because I didn’t want to read a fiction story based on theories about early Christianity that I had been aware of for approximately seven years. I didn’t want to get swept up in the hype of an accessible page-turner that comes across to people of lesser intelligence as “brainy” in the way that people who can’t do crosswords like to do SuDoku because it makes them feel smart.

Not because it’s bullshit. Sure, it may well be bullshit, but no more so than that which it calls into question.

I’ve read a lot of negative reviews and opinion pieces on the film. The common strain in all of them is the tone of bitterness. Complaints about the technical quality of the film itself are practically an aside to the cries of offense and blasphemy and hooey. A common theme is the complaint that all the movie does is undermine Christianity, as though Christianity were universally accepted as a good thing, or even THE Good Thing ™. How dare this author, this director, these actors blaspheme against The Faith.

Well you know what? How Dare THE FAITH Blaspheme Against MY FAITH?

I’m going to come out and say what no one ever dares to: The very doctrine of Christianity itself is a blasphemy against Judaism. Jews, as a whole, don’t make any sort of big deal over this. It’s not our business if non-Jews believe in something that counters our system of belief. The Goyim can believe what they want. When the Christians start to encroach on our communities and try to turn our youth over to their side, sure we get upset. But we counter by turning inward and working to strengthen ourselves within our own communities, not lashing out against the Christians, but focusing on keeping our own engaged.

When we are challenged from the outside, we answer that challenge with our own challenge to ourselves.

The DaVinci Code and the theories upon which it is based call into question some of the doctrine upon which modern Christianity, primarily Catholicism, is based. Are the assertions that are made true? Did Mary Magdeline have a sexual relationship with Jesus of Nazareth? That’s not a question that can be answered anymore than can the question “did Jesus really walk on water?” Though easier to answer perhaps is the question “Which is more plausible?” I’ll let you answer that for yourself.

I liked the movie. There was nothing in it that was new to me, and nothing particularly shocking. Frankly, I like seeing accepted tenets of any faith (including my own) called into question. It gives people something to think about, something to chew on.

I admit (and I’m not particularly proud of it) that I am an intellectual snob. I tend to shun that which is too accessible, especially when it masquerades as something particularly lofty. But here is a case where accessibility may lead to a mass questioning of accepted doctrine… something that can only be for the good, if you ask me.

When I went to Israel on birthright, one of th ethings that struck me was the Israeli Palestinians… you never hear about them here. They don’t exist in the media. Well, Michael J. Totten went to Israel and discovered Israel’s secret.

One Israeli in five is an Arab. They aren’t Israeli Jews. Nor are they the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. They were born and raised in Israel. They carry Israeli passports. They have full rights of citizenship. They vote in Israeli elections, and they field their own candidates in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. They don’t clamor for a state of their own, nor do most of them wish to join a Palestinian state once it is born. They hardly - ever - have anything to do with the terrorism campaigns waged by Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or Hamas.

Yes, that’s right. Arabs with rights. Citizens of a Jewish state. Not refugees, not terrorists. Israeli citizens who are Muslim and Arab.

Which brings up another point:

Allison Kaplan Sommer introduced me to a friend of hers who moved to Israel from South Africa because he could not stomach the wretched apartheid regime. I can’t print his name because he’s a wire agency reporter who is forever banned from having opinions.

“There is discrimination here,” he said. “You’d have to be a fool to say there wasn’t. But it’s not entrenched in law or ideology. There is no law that says the Israeli Arab or Muslim is a second-class citizen. It’s true that they suffer social discrimination. But it isn’t legal.”

I couldn’t resist the following question: “What do you think about the accusation in the West that Israel is an apartheid state?” I said.

“It makes smoke come out of my ears!” he said. “The only way the analogy holds truth is within the context of a one-state Israeli solution. But the Israeli mainstream has reconciled itself to a Palestinian state…The Israeli government recently voted for an Affirmative Action program for Israeli Arabs in the civil service. This would have been unthinkable in South Africa.”

This guy isn’t one to put up with apartheid. He was repeatedly arrested in his native South Africa for demonstrating against the racist policies of the then-white government. He proudly wears the scars on his arm where unleashed government Dobermans bit him in 1977.

I think that says it all. Read the whole thing. I’ve always loved Michael’s writing and his photoblogging is awesome.

This Just In: Howard Dean is an Idiot.

“The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman,” Dean said May 10 during a “700 Club” program hosted by conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson on his Christian Broadcasting Network.

Um… really? Actually… no.

“Howard Dean puts his foot in his mouth so often that he should open a pedicure wing in the DNC during his tenure,” Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero said Wednesday. “Howard Dean’s positions on LGBT issues have changed more often than the weather in New England, where he’s from.”

Bwahahahahahaha!

(Via the venerable Insta.)

Came across this Washington Post article in Google’s roundup of world news:

Danny Rubenstein, Haaretz’s veteran West Bank correspondent, notes a perhaps unanticipated result of the Bush administration’s campaign for democracy in the Arab world. The Bush policy to starve Hamas financially is tacitly supported by unelected Arab regimes resisting Bush’s calls for democratization.

“In their view, the successful functioning of the Hamas government sends a message of encouragement to opposition groups in their countries, proof that an Islamic government can rule,” Rubenstein says.

Rubenstein doubts that the U.S.-European aid cutoff will persuade Palestinians to abandon Hamas.

“It is clear to everyone now that whatever Fatah, Israel, the Arab states and the entire world do to undermine the Hamas government will not work,” he writes. “The Palestinian public is loyal to it. So it is best to look for a way to live with it.”

Personally, I can’t bring myself to be so pessimistic. Fantastic if Hamas is starved out of its stance… but also fantastic if the Palestinian Authority finally learns to actually run a government, something that the “governing bodies” of the Palestinian territories have never yet learned to do. When “Palestine” proves itself capable of supporting its people, That is when a two-state solution will actually be implemented, whether it be by mutual agreement by two governments, or imposed by Israel, seeing as how the representatives of the Palestinian people has never yet over the decades accepted any two-state solution put forth in good faith by the Israeli government.

A little pessimism creeps in here: when the Palestinians have their own independant state, Palestine will continue to attack Israel. However, any attacks perpetrated against Israel by a sovreign Palestinian state could no longer be framable in a light of a “fight for freedom” but will rather be seen for what it is, and has been all along: an actual war against the Jewish State, and will be treated accordingly.

Sunday, April 30th, I spent about 10 hours on a bus for three hours at a rally. I went with about 100 folks from my synagogue and brought along Jason and Ana. While there we ran in to Alex completely by chance.

People ask me how the rally was. That is a very difficult to answer question. My first impulse is to say “it was good.” Because it was good. The weather was beautiful. The turnout was good. The media coverage was good. The experience was enjoyable.

But is that what makes a good rally?

Did I get riled up? Did I shout and cheer and scream and clap my hands? No. I didn’t. It doesn’t mean that I don’t care about Darfur as much as those who were yelling and screaming and waving signs. I was taking pictures. I was taking mental notes. I was contemplating hypocrisy.

The crowd was for the large part comprised of those same protesters who claim anti-interventionism with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, but want troops on the ground in Sudan.

The same protesters who condemn the US for ignoring or circumventing the UN’s ineffectuality in the declaration of war against Saddam Hussein’s genocidal regime here condemn the UN’s ineffectuality and the Bush administration’s lack of action.

They want troops out of Iraq and into Sudan. They don’t buy the humanitarian angle in the middle east, but demand it in Africa. They refuse to recognize the common strain of Arab Imperialism in the two conflicts. They refuse to see the hypocrisy of their cries “It’s All About The Oil!” in both situations.

So yes, it was hard to get riled up and to shout and scream and cheer. Because the cause was the same, but I found very little else in common with the shouts and cheers and cries and slogans of the folks around me.

Many held aloft the noble sentiment “Never Again.” But apparently “never” means something different to them as to myself and Ana and Jason.

I have pictures, but do not yet have a means by which to upload them. Soon.