The usual suspects made a large meal of the fact that the now-cancled parade was scheduled during the week we read in shul about the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah. "Tee hee," you can almost hear them gloat, "Sodomites always get what they deserve."
The fools have forgotten that it isn't Jewish tradition that associates the destroyed city with homsexuality. As Robert Kaiser tells it: "Classical Jewish texts concur that God did *not* destroy Sodom and Gemorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Not at all. Rather, the cities were destroyed because the inhabiants were uncompromisingly greedy. Classical Jewish writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were, terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders. Saying "God killed them because they were gay" is, to say the least, not the Jewish teaching on the subject." For proof, consider the following texts:
======
Ezekiel 16:46-50 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a If one wounded his neighbor they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for [performing the service] of bloodletting... If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a coin upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized the coins, and refused to accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his[coin]
Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked... Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire
Ramban: ... [in] the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behavior more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.
Mendel Hirsch: Boundless selfishness, greed for profits, misuse of power in service of their own interests on the part of those in authority and greed for lucre in all classes of the people, the oppression of the defenseless widows and orphans was what made the prophet give the people the resounding appellation of "the Lords of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah."
======
In short, the sin of Sodom was not the sin of Haggard, but the sin of Bush and Cheny, and others like them who do too little to protect the vulnerable or defend the rights of the innocent.
[Updated December 24, 2006]
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them
Fact: George Bush told the media he was immensely satisfied with the job Donald Rumsfeld was doing and that he desperately hoped Rummy would stay on until the end of his Presidency.
Fact: At the time of this remark, George Bush was actively seeking a replacement for Donald Rumsfield. Moreover, the President had already spoken to the Rummy about resigning.
Pardonay Mwah, but didn't we once impeach a president for lying?
Note: I hate to hit Bush when he's down. Now that he's lost Congress and owns an approval rating in the very low 30s whacking on him is a lot less fun. Really, it seems like only the GOP-Jewish bloggers are still bothering to prop him up. Everyone else has jumped ship.
Fact: At the time of this remark, George Bush was actively seeking a replacement for Donald Rumsfield. Moreover, the President had already spoken to the Rummy about resigning.
Pardonay Mwah, but didn't we once impeach a president for lying?
Note: I hate to hit Bush when he's down. Now that he's lost Congress and owns an approval rating in the very low 30s whacking on him is a lot less fun. Really, it seems like only the GOP-Jewish bloggers are still bothering to prop him up. Everyone else has jumped ship.
Camels in Genesis Part II
Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded.” In his book on the various animals of the Bible, George Cansdale stated: "The Bible first mentions the camel in Gen. 12:16, where the presents are listed which the pharaoh gave to Abram. This is generally reckoned to be a later scribe’s addition, for it seems unlikely that there were any camels in Egypt then." Both Cheyene and Cansdale (along with countless other skeptics) based themselves on the prevailing archeological wisdom. According to the best information available to them at the time, camels were not domesticated until well after the patriarchal period.
Now, with the turn of a shovels, archeologists have a new understanding, and the joke appears to be on the critics.
This is important to remember.
Now, with the turn of a shovels, archeologists have a new understanding, and the joke appears to be on the critics.
I've long argued that the traditional commentators are falliable, in part, because they didn't have the benefit of archeology, linguistics, comparitive religion, and other academic disciplines. It seems from the story of the camel that modern commentators suffer from similar shortcomings.....several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (roughly 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C. Free also listed three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of camel lying down—all dated at the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentioned several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—ZS/EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).
Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190).
This is important to remember.
Camels in Genesis Part 1
When my kids being home from school pictures of Avraham wearing a fur-trimmed shtreimal I always let them know that this is an anachronism. Avraham lived in a warm climate, where furry animals would have been in short supply. Though I suppose he could have mailed away to Lithuania for the beaver pelts, there's no indication from the archeological record that Avraham was ever in contact with northern Hasidim. Avraham's hat would have been light and white, and designed to keep the sun off. A shtreimal does the opposite, and would have been useless - if not dangerous - under the hot Cannaite sun.
A similar problem exists in the story of Rebecca at the well. Archeology and the extra-biblical record both sugget that camels were not domesticated in the Middle East until the 12th century BCE. Rebecca's story, unfortunately, occured in the 18th century BCE. The simple answer, then, is that the camels in Eliezer's caravan are an anachronism, added to the story when it was edited and/or (re)written many years later. This is the view celebrated by Bible critics, atheists, and other assorted skeptics.
But not so fast.
Many of the historical details in Genesis are spot on. Horses, which also weren't domesticated until many years later are excluded from the stories. When Avraham buys the Cave of Machpela he deals in weighed silver, not coins. And the rest of Rebecca's story, including the bridal negotiation with an older brother acting as the family's principle agent are consistant with the practices of the period. Absent archeological data, how did a writer many centuries later avoid treating these subjects anachronistically?
A similar problem exists in the story of Rebecca at the well. Archeology and the extra-biblical record both sugget that camels were not domesticated in the Middle East until the 12th century BCE. Rebecca's story, unfortunately, occured in the 18th century BCE. The simple answer, then, is that the camels in Eliezer's caravan are an anachronism, added to the story when it was edited and/or (re)written many years later. This is the view celebrated by Bible critics, atheists, and other assorted skeptics.
But not so fast.
Many of the historical details in Genesis are spot on. Horses, which also weren't domesticated until many years later are excluded from the stories. When Avraham buys the Cave of Machpela he deals in weighed silver, not coins. And the rest of Rebecca's story, including the bridal negotiation with an older brother acting as the family's principle agent are consistant with the practices of the period. Absent archeological data, how did a writer many centuries later avoid treating these subjects anachronistically?
Monday, November 13, 2006
Mail about mikva'os
As I've mentioned before, I'm pleased to count among my fans a big heiliga/admar/gaon who often writes me warm letters of encouragement. Here's his latest:
Dear DovBear:
I am sorry to say that horrible stories about mikva'os are 100% true -- and then some.
L'aniyas da'ati, all mikvaos for men should be off limits to any children. No child under the age of 18 should go. Period.
I personally know of many many boys who were molested in mikva'os.
I am in close contact with an ex-chassidishe young adult who, over time, was raped by at least 10 men; among them, rebbeim, often in mikvaos.
About a year ago, I almost contacted the department of health and informed them of what is going on in mikvaos. (that would mean that i .............. 'massered' --- gasp!!)
I may one day.
Keep shining light in the dark corners. You may save a kid's life.
Your friend,
[The Heilga/Admar.]
Rivka's Age
According to Rashi, Our Father Yitzchak married a three-year old. Rashi's view isn't the only view - the Ibn Ezra, for instance, argues that Rivka was much older when Eliezer appeared at her well- but it's the view all of our kids are taught in school. Every year, at Parshas Chayei Sarah, the small children come home repeating this obscene story, and only the most intelligent among them think to point out that the idea of a 40 year old man hooking up with a tiny-tot is more than a little gross. The rest presume it's normal and natural. In fact, some of the more romantically-minded children may wonder why no forty-year old man has yet come courting for them.
I'm not equipted to decide between Rashi and the Ibn Ezra. By my lights, both make strong arguments. The text supports them both. I'm merely pointing out that if you're a kindergarten teacher who wishes to teach your students one fact about Yitzchak, the fact that Rashi thinks he was married to a three-year-old might not be the one you should choose. But if you're a teacher who, for your own bizarre reasons, feels it's absolutely crucial to tell your class how old Rivka and Yitzchak were on their wedding day, why not follow the Ibn Ezra?
I'm not equipted to decide between Rashi and the Ibn Ezra. By my lights, both make strong arguments. The text supports them both. I'm merely pointing out that if you're a kindergarten teacher who wishes to teach your students one fact about Yitzchak, the fact that Rashi thinks he was married to a three-year-old might not be the one you should choose. But if you're a teacher who, for your own bizarre reasons, feels it's absolutely crucial to tell your class how old Rivka and Yitzchak were on their wedding day, why not follow the Ibn Ezra?
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The Rape(?) of Yitzchak
The Torah tells us Ishmael was sent away from Abraham's house after Sara spotted him being metzahek. Though this will come as a surprise to those of you who think the study of Rashi alone can provide a complete understanding of the Chumash, our Sages are deeply divided about what the word metzahek means. Ibn Ezra says they were playing. Rashi says Ishmael sacrificed to pagean gods in Yitzchak's presence, drawing the ire of the Ramban who finds it impossible that a boy raised in Abraham's house might do such a thing.
By far, the most surprising opinion can be found on the Bar Ilan website, where Dr. Joseph Fleischman argues rather convincingly that Yitzchak was sexually abused. Money quote:
By far, the most surprising opinion can be found on the Bar Ilan website, where Dr. Joseph Fleischman argues rather convincingly that Yitzchak was sexually abused. Money quote:
In my opinion, the plain peshat meaning of metzahek agrees with Rabbi Akiva, meaning to do something forbidden in the realm of sexual behavior. In biblical Hebrew, the verb tz-h-k means both to laugh, joke, play and amuse oneself, as well as to enjoy oneself sexually. Similarly, the Akkadian verb sahu means to laugh, smile, be alluring, entice a person to sexual actions that go against the accepted norm (cf. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, S, pp. 64-65). Thus we may say that the Akkadian verb sahu and the biblical Hebrew tz-h-k are etymologically parallel.I hestate to psychoanylize the Avot, but it's been remarked by others that Yitzchak is, by far, the most reserved of our patriarchs. He's quiet, sickly, and aside for one episode with Avimelech, very much a background actor. Some have said the trauma of the Akeida is what produced this personality. To this, Dr. Fleischman's shocking suggestion adds an interesting wrinkle.
In the story at hand it seems metzahek should be read as a euphemism for some sexual act for the following reason: metzahek must refer to some extremely grave act performed by Ishmael, sufficient to explain and even justify Sarah's harsh demand.
The Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate add the words "Sarah saw Ishmael playing with her son Isaac." Quite likely the addition of these words to verse 21:9 stems from the fact that the Masoretic text without the indirect object appeared incomplete to the translators. If, however, we take metzahek as referring to some sort of sexual act, the verse is complete as it stands; Scripture notes only the fact of his illicit activity but does not go into detail.
Friday, November 10, 2006
God Bless San Francisco
The very great BOTH (did you know he's a talmud muvhak of the letzan hador?) is calling on all people of good faith and high principles to participate in a counter demonstration today. He says, some outside and illiberal agitators are trying to manipulate the good people of San Francisco into marching against Israel, and BOTH is eager to stop them.
Find out more here.
Find out more here.
South Park
I was never much of a TV guy, and still spend very little time in front of the idiot box, but recently I've discovered South Park. It's vulgar, sure, but in a smart way, and unlike say, The Simpsons, South Park's satire isn't always directed at the usual suspects. For example:
Last night our hero, Eric Cartman, found himself 500 years in the future where the world is embroiled in an all-consuming war between adherents of the United Atheists, the Atheist Alliance and the Atheist Federation. All three groups worship Richard Dawkins, but despise one another. When something goes well, they exclaim "Praise Science!" A favorite curse is "Logic H. Reason!" And the war between the three factions is being faught "In the name of Science!" The reason for the great war is this: Each of the three groups thinks the other has used their powers of logic incorrectly and arrived at the wrong answer to "The Great Question".
V'hamavin yavin.
[At the end of the episode the great question is revealed: "What should proper Dawkins-following Atheists call themselves?"]
Update: Ed, and Lakewood Yid and some similar dimbulbs are around, so let me spell out the nimshal:
People suck. They are petty small-minded idiots. Even if (god forbid) they manage to overturn the great religions and replace them with a society based entirely on logic [*], they will still descend into ridiculous and bloody arguments.
In short: Don't overestimate your own intelligance. The problem isn't religion, per say. The problem is people.
...and this, incidently, helps to explain the Democrats's view of the world. People are basicly evil. This is why (for example) guns must be regulated, and torture must be forbidden, and the writ of habeus corpus must be strictky enforced. Otherwise, bad people will abuse their power and innocent men an women will suffer. This is also why speech must be competely free, because only throught the free exchange of ideas can the evil inate to humankind be exposed.
--
[*] I accept the South Park argument. For this and other reasons, I would not wish to see Judaism weakened, damaged, or destroyed.
Last night our hero, Eric Cartman, found himself 500 years in the future where the world is embroiled in an all-consuming war between adherents of the United Atheists, the Atheist Alliance and the Atheist Federation. All three groups worship Richard Dawkins, but despise one another. When something goes well, they exclaim "Praise Science!" A favorite curse is "Logic H. Reason!" And the war between the three factions is being faught "In the name of Science!" The reason for the great war is this: Each of the three groups thinks the other has used their powers of logic incorrectly and arrived at the wrong answer to "The Great Question".
V'hamavin yavin.
[At the end of the episode the great question is revealed: "What should proper Dawkins-following Atheists call themselves?"]
Update: Ed, and Lakewood Yid and some similar dimbulbs are around, so let me spell out the nimshal:
People suck. They are petty small-minded idiots. Even if (god forbid) they manage to overturn the great religions and replace them with a society based entirely on logic [*], they will still descend into ridiculous and bloody arguments.
In short: Don't overestimate your own intelligance. The problem isn't religion, per say. The problem is people.
...and this, incidently, helps to explain the Democrats's view of the world. People are basicly evil. This is why (for example) guns must be regulated, and torture must be forbidden, and the writ of habeus corpus must be strictky enforced. Otherwise, bad people will abuse their power and innocent men an women will suffer. This is also why speech must be competely free, because only throught the free exchange of ideas can the evil inate to humankind be exposed.
--
[*] I accept the South Park argument. For this and other reasons, I would not wish to see Judaism weakened, damaged, or destroyed.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
White House comes crawling on it knees
White House dusts off "uniter" not "devider"
Money quote
Dude, Bush said voting for the Democrats would mean Osama would win. He's blamed everything evil in the world on the Democrats for the past six years, including everything evil in American government even though they didn't run any part of it. That's reaching out?
Money quote
It would appear that in the wake of a Democratic landslide in the House, the White House is looking to make nice with Pelosi and her counterparts after tussling with them on a variety of issues for six years.Uh huh. Too little, too late. But thanks for the lesson in revisionist history, Tony.
"[Pelosi] talked about energy independence, and we want to work on comprehensive immigration reform, some things we can get some action on," Snow said. "It will be interesting politically, a new opportunity to get things done. We're going to get a lot done. On energy, education -- those are clearly things we can work on."
The president wants to work with the new House leaders, said Snow, and was encouraged by several Democrats' calls "to get rid of partisanship."
"Bush wants to go back to the Texas model. He's always reached out. He's been trying over the last couple of years with limited success," Snow said.
Dude, Bush said voting for the Democrats would mean Osama would win. He's blamed everything evil in the world on the Democrats for the past six years, including everything evil in American government even though they didn't run any part of it. That's reaching out?
A great day for Christians!
Wal-Mart brings back the "Merry Christmas" greeting
That's right true believers! Wal-Mart is allowing its greeters to say "Merry Christmas" this year. Hallelujah! Oh happy day! I am so, so, happy for those poor Christians who felt just like concentration camp victims last year because they were forced to shop in stores where the clerks said Happy Holidays instead. They must be overjoyed now. Free at last! Right, Christians? This is like Pesach and Junteenth all rolled into one
Well... I suppose Christians like Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson aren't overjoyed because now they need to find a new bogus issue . And... yeah, I guess Christian lovers like Yaakov Mencken aren't overjoyed because its harder for them to complain about secularism when is obvious that Christians are not a poor, persecuted minority in this country.
But everyone else, I am sure, is dancing in the street.
That's right true believers! Wal-Mart is allowing its greeters to say "Merry Christmas" this year. Hallelujah! Oh happy day! I am so, so, happy for those poor Christians who felt just like concentration camp victims last year because they were forced to shop in stores where the clerks said Happy Holidays instead. They must be overjoyed now. Free at last! Right, Christians? This is like Pesach and Junteenth all rolled into one
Well... I suppose Christians like Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson aren't overjoyed because now they need to find a new bogus issue . And... yeah, I guess Christian lovers like Yaakov Mencken aren't overjoyed because its harder for them to complain about secularism when is obvious that Christians are not a poor, persecuted minority in this country.
But everyone else, I am sure, is dancing in the street.
Who sucks hardest on the federal teat? Rich people
Via Slate, I see, that, according to the AP, over the last 12 years the Republican congress not only shifted spending from Democratic congressional districts to Republican ones, but also, and more significantly, they shifted spending from low-income people to upper-income people:
Here's William Jennings Bryan in 1896: 'Who is it most needs a navy?' Is it the farmer who plods along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the man whose property is situated in some great seaport where it could be reached by an enemy's guns?'" In other words, the wealthiest one percent are the ones who benefit most form government apperatus, entitlments and and subsidies. Therefore, they should be the ones to pay for it.
[Updated December 24, 2006]
...spending on child care food programs was slashed 80 percent; public and Indian housing grants were virtually eliminated; rental housing loans for rural areas and special benefits for disabled coal miners were cut by two-thirds; and the food stamp program was cut by a third [At the same time] Direct payments to farmers increased sevenfold during the six years of GOP rule; business and industrial loans quadrupled; home mortgage insurance went up 150 percent; and crop insurance assistance jumped by two-thirds.As Slate concludes: In other words, while Democrats want to redistribute income downward, to the poor, Republicans want to redistribute it upward, to the rich. This impulse is particularly offensive when you consider that even before the Republicans recaptured the House in 1996, entitlement spending tended (improbable as it sounds) to favor the wealthy. Here is how Neil Howe and Phillip Longman put it in a 1992 article for the Atlantic Monthly (their source was the Congressional Budget Office):
[T]he most affluent Americans actually collect slightly more from the welfare state than do the poorest Americans. … [In 1991,] U.S. households with incomes over $100,000 received, on average, $5,690 worth of federal cash and in-kind benefits, while the corresponding figure for U.S. households with incomes under $10,000 was $5,560. Quite simply, if the federal government wanted to flatten the nation's income distribution, it would do better to mail all its checks to random addresses. The problem is not that poverty programs don't target the poor. More than 85 percent of the benefits from AFDC, SSI, and food stamps do indeed go to households with incomes under $20,000. But their impact is neutralized by all the other programs, which tilt the other way and are, of course, much greater in size.If you add in tax benefits such as the mortgage interest deduction, the average federal subsidy for the under-$10,000 group stayed about the same while the average for the over-$100,000 group rose to $9,280. In terms of total fiscal cost, moreover, the aggregate amounts received by the non-needy in 1991 were staggering. One half (at least $400 billion) of all entitlements went to households with incomes over $30,000. One quarter (at least $200 billion) went to households with incomes over $50,000. These are the facts--regardless of what our political folktales might say.
Here's William Jennings Bryan in 1896: 'Who is it most needs a navy?' Is it the farmer who plods along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the man whose property is situated in some great seaport where it could be reached by an enemy's guns?'" In other words, the wealthiest one percent are the ones who benefit most form government apperatus, entitlments and and subsidies. Therefore, they should be the ones to pay for it.
[Updated December 24, 2006]
Selma… or Skokie???
A GUEST POST BY CHAIM G.
[Note: I don't think I've ever published a guest post as awful and as wrongheaded as this one. I'll be a good host, though, and explain my objections in the comments.]
Selma… or Skokie???
Just Who’s the Oppressed Minority Here?
BY Chaim G.
There has been a long, rich and sometimes cynical history of pretenders to the Jewish Throne. From classic X-tian replacement theology (continuing unabated at least among contemporary Mormons) through southern slaves through, insanely, Master-Race Nazis to Homeland-less Palestinians, many nations, movements and races have validated the rueful prediction of the Chachmei HaMidrosh that asidin HoUmos lihyos omrim onu haim Yisroel, onu bonuv shel mokom=”in the future the nations of the world will say ‘we are Israel, we are the sons of the Place’ (= HaShem)”. While many of these pretensions have benefited the pretenders, few if any have been good for the Jews.
It is relatively easy to understand a certain conflation or even reversal of roles that informs current progressive Jews thinking. When the world offers a group the following devils bargain “be like us… or disappear” it resonates of the two choices offered Jews throughout our long, bitter Diaspora. “Be like us”-through conversion (sometimes overt conversion would do, “if you must be Jewish do it in your cellars and behind closed doors”), or, in it’s newer incarnation in western democracies “you may gain admittance into the (formerly) exclusive clubs of the Government, the Academy and the Corporation but be sure to check your authenticity and values at the door on the way in ”. “Or disappear” through ghettoizing, no access to education, landlessness, confiscatory taxation, marginalizing poverty and, ultimately, genocide. And so it is relatively easy to understand a certain conflation, or even reversal of roles, that informs fashionable progressive Jews’ thinking. The accepted wisdom goes that if the Gays are not “the new Jews” they at least ought to be shown some sympathy and solidarity by the old ones. After all, weren’t we all, they with their lavender triangles and we with our double yellow triangles, victims of the same crematoria?
It’s debatable whether or not this conflation was ever historically valid. In November 2006 it clearly is not. Maintaining this wooly-headed confusion is stoking the heat surrounding the gay pride parade debate when what’s needed is less heat and more light.
Concerning the upcoming Pride parade and the protests it has evoked, Theists, Agnostics, Atheists and Ethicists can (and probably will) disagree about who is right and wrong, moral and immoral, spiritual and materialistic, idealistic and cynical until kingdom come. But what I believe any fair-minded individual from across the spectrum must agree upon is clearly identifying who the oppressed are and who the oppressors are.
Though gay rights and marriage are contentious, divisive issues throughout the western world gays and the causes they champion enjoy broad support and are lionized in many quarters among the influential “landed gentry” of urbane, moneyed, power-wielding sophisticates. There are literally hundreds of high profile gay enclaves throughout the western world. There are fewer than a minyan of high profile Charedi enclaves. There are 10K walks and fund-raisers to fund H.I.V research. There are no comparable events to stamp out Tay-Sachs or Charedi poverty. There are high profile influential gays in the high-arts, politics, business and finance, popular entertainment, sports and academia. I suspect that there are even a good number of low profile, closeted, influential gays in the military. There are few (arguably no) Charedim in any of these fields. Gay culture has never been identified with intractable poverty or magical thinking and, in recent decades, has gained wide understanding by and acceptance among straights. Charedi society is still identified with all of these off-putting stereotypes and continues to be utterly shrouded in mystery and misunderstanding by outsiders. In short; whereas gays are no longer politically or socially impotent Charedim continue to be a universally despised, marginalized and oppressed minority.
Lately DovBear has been making the specious argument that Friday’s upcoming gay Pride parade and the attendant escalating violence (anticipatory protests have been going on for more than a week) will be a 2006 version of Selma. If there is any comparison at all to Selma it is this: In Selma the vicious bigoted police were on the side of the oppressors. In Jerusalem on Friday they still will be. To be sure the “Universal Policeman” will still be cracking skulls come “bloody Friday”. But if I were a betting man I’d be willing to wager that as they did in Selma, it will be the skulls of the powerless “blacks” they’ll be pulverizing, blacks that clothe themselves in black coats instead of black skins. Selma’s marchers marched for liberation, equality and voting rights. Fridays Jerusalem marchers will be marching for the deeper marginalization and demonization of an oppressed powerless minority. Paradoxically, though I suspect that the vast majority of the marchers are antiseptically secular, they will in fact be marching for religious coercion. Religious coercion is just as ugly when it emanates form the left as when it emanates from the right.
In the late 70s the national Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) planned a rally in Marquette Park in Chicago. The city government promptly banned all demonstrations in the park. Seeking another location for their free speech and assembly exercise the Nazis opted for Skokie. Not coincidentally, among the many suburbs surrounding Chicago, Skokie probably had the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors. Counting on low-risk, (re: posing little or no actual physical danger to themselves) the maxing out of offensiveness and psychic pain-infliction, and the great disturbance of the peace and free publicity that the inevitable counter-demonstrations would bring, the NSPA cynically chose to march through Skokie.
I’m ambivalent and have some issues with the tone and tactics of the anti-parade protests. I’ve always believed that a religiously conservative Jew is merely a religiously liberal Jew who’s been hugged. I would have preferred to see prayer rallies and /or peaceful counter-marches. But I’m not there and I’m not them. One thing I’m crystal clear on though is that the Charedim are the oppressed and that the Gays and the municipal and judicial power structure aiding and abetting them are the oppressors. Friday in Jerusalem as a reprise of Selma? Hardly! I think it’s much closer to a rerun of Skokie.
[Note: I don't think I've ever published a guest post as awful and as wrongheaded as this one. I'll be a good host, though, and explain my objections in the comments.]
Selma… or Skokie???
Just Who’s the Oppressed Minority Here?
BY Chaim G.
There has been a long, rich and sometimes cynical history of pretenders to the Jewish Throne. From classic X-tian replacement theology (continuing unabated at least among contemporary Mormons) through southern slaves through, insanely, Master-Race Nazis to Homeland-less Palestinians, many nations, movements and races have validated the rueful prediction of the Chachmei HaMidrosh that asidin HoUmos lihyos omrim onu haim Yisroel, onu bonuv shel mokom=”in the future the nations of the world will say ‘we are Israel, we are the sons of the Place’ (= HaShem)”. While many of these pretensions have benefited the pretenders, few if any have been good for the Jews.
It is relatively easy to understand a certain conflation or even reversal of roles that informs current progressive Jews thinking. When the world offers a group the following devils bargain “be like us… or disappear” it resonates of the two choices offered Jews throughout our long, bitter Diaspora. “Be like us”-through conversion (sometimes overt conversion would do, “if you must be Jewish do it in your cellars and behind closed doors”), or, in it’s newer incarnation in western democracies “you may gain admittance into the (formerly) exclusive clubs of the Government, the Academy and the Corporation but be sure to check your authenticity and values at the door on the way in ”. “Or disappear” through ghettoizing, no access to education, landlessness, confiscatory taxation, marginalizing poverty and, ultimately, genocide. And so it is relatively easy to understand a certain conflation, or even reversal of roles, that informs fashionable progressive Jews’ thinking. The accepted wisdom goes that if the Gays are not “the new Jews” they at least ought to be shown some sympathy and solidarity by the old ones. After all, weren’t we all, they with their lavender triangles and we with our double yellow triangles, victims of the same crematoria?
It’s debatable whether or not this conflation was ever historically valid. In November 2006 it clearly is not. Maintaining this wooly-headed confusion is stoking the heat surrounding the gay pride parade debate when what’s needed is less heat and more light.
Concerning the upcoming Pride parade and the protests it has evoked, Theists, Agnostics, Atheists and Ethicists can (and probably will) disagree about who is right and wrong, moral and immoral, spiritual and materialistic, idealistic and cynical until kingdom come. But what I believe any fair-minded individual from across the spectrum must agree upon is clearly identifying who the oppressed are and who the oppressors are.
Though gay rights and marriage are contentious, divisive issues throughout the western world gays and the causes they champion enjoy broad support and are lionized in many quarters among the influential “landed gentry” of urbane, moneyed, power-wielding sophisticates. There are literally hundreds of high profile gay enclaves throughout the western world. There are fewer than a minyan of high profile Charedi enclaves. There are 10K walks and fund-raisers to fund H.I.V research. There are no comparable events to stamp out Tay-Sachs or Charedi poverty. There are high profile influential gays in the high-arts, politics, business and finance, popular entertainment, sports and academia. I suspect that there are even a good number of low profile, closeted, influential gays in the military. There are few (arguably no) Charedim in any of these fields. Gay culture has never been identified with intractable poverty or magical thinking and, in recent decades, has gained wide understanding by and acceptance among straights. Charedi society is still identified with all of these off-putting stereotypes and continues to be utterly shrouded in mystery and misunderstanding by outsiders. In short; whereas gays are no longer politically or socially impotent Charedim continue to be a universally despised, marginalized and oppressed minority.
Lately DovBear has been making the specious argument that Friday’s upcoming gay Pride parade and the attendant escalating violence (anticipatory protests have been going on for more than a week) will be a 2006 version of Selma. If there is any comparison at all to Selma it is this: In Selma the vicious bigoted police were on the side of the oppressors. In Jerusalem on Friday they still will be. To be sure the “Universal Policeman” will still be cracking skulls come “bloody Friday”. But if I were a betting man I’d be willing to wager that as they did in Selma, it will be the skulls of the powerless “blacks” they’ll be pulverizing, blacks that clothe themselves in black coats instead of black skins. Selma’s marchers marched for liberation, equality and voting rights. Fridays Jerusalem marchers will be marching for the deeper marginalization and demonization of an oppressed powerless minority. Paradoxically, though I suspect that the vast majority of the marchers are antiseptically secular, they will in fact be marching for religious coercion. Religious coercion is just as ugly when it emanates form the left as when it emanates from the right.
In the late 70s the national Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) planned a rally in Marquette Park in Chicago. The city government promptly banned all demonstrations in the park. Seeking another location for their free speech and assembly exercise the Nazis opted for Skokie. Not coincidentally, among the many suburbs surrounding Chicago, Skokie probably had the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors. Counting on low-risk, (re: posing little or no actual physical danger to themselves) the maxing out of offensiveness and psychic pain-infliction, and the great disturbance of the peace and free publicity that the inevitable counter-demonstrations would bring, the NSPA cynically chose to march through Skokie.
I’m ambivalent and have some issues with the tone and tactics of the anti-parade protests. I’ve always believed that a religiously conservative Jew is merely a religiously liberal Jew who’s been hugged. I would have preferred to see prayer rallies and /or peaceful counter-marches. But I’m not there and I’m not them. One thing I’m crystal clear on though is that the Charedim are the oppressed and that the Gays and the municipal and judicial power structure aiding and abetting them are the oppressors. Friday in Jerusalem as a reprise of Selma? Hardly! I think it’s much closer to a rerun of Skokie.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Pelosi Power!
UPDATED
Democrats Take Control of House!
Ok, I'm happy. Let me count the ways:
1 - The god-awful President was given a well-deserved rebuke.
2 - The Republicans in the god-awful House were stripped of their power.
3 - The amen-chorus at Fox News and on talk-radio was unable to frighten the American people into voting against their interests yet again.
4 - Karl Rove finally went down swinging.
But along with the delight, comes a small cloud of pessimism. I know as well as anyone that the modern House of Representives has very little power to pursue an agenda. And because I've watched this president for 6 years, I know he'll put the blame for his every failure on the "Liberals in the House." Without doubt, Fox and Rush and Sean will gleefully second and third the accusation as they work mightily to represent Nancy Pelosi as the worst person in the world. In two years time, the Bushies might be able to parlay their assault on Pelosi and the House into a succesful presidential campaign, and the Democrats, unfortunately, will be deprived of their best line of attack: No longer will they be able to point out to unhappy Americans that Republicans control all three branches of goverment.
Update: It looks like the Democrats have taken the Senate, too! Ok, now it gets serious.
Attention new Congressional Democrats. I expect the following within 100 days:
1 - A bill raising the min wage.
2 - Another bill on stem cell research.
3- A bill implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
Additionally, I want
4 - Fiscal discipline: No more tax cuts, and no more crazed spending like we saw from the Republican House.
5 - The estate tax preserved. People who get more from this country, should contribute more to its upkeep.
6 - investigations into all instances of Republican corruption, specifically the relationship between DeLay and K-Street.
7 - no more sweet, no-bid contracts for Haliburton. Make the vice president's company work for a living.
And if I ever see you play stupid, partisan wedge games like those idiot Repuiblicans I swear my wrath will rain down on you. Examples of this would include forcing the House and Senate to vote on flag burning, gay marriage and other bogus issues just before an election, while more important business is ignored. Just because Jewish bloggers like [any and every Right Wing Jewish blogger] were happy to fellate the Republican Congress despite all of its criminal flaws does not mean you should expect the same thing from me. I'm holding you to the same standards I've always imposed on the GOP. Get it right, or get out.
You have been warned.
Democrats Take Control of House!
Ok, I'm happy. Let me count the ways:
1 - The god-awful President was given a well-deserved rebuke.
2 - The Republicans in the god-awful House were stripped of their power.
3 - The amen-chorus at Fox News and on talk-radio was unable to frighten the American people into voting against their interests yet again.
4 - Karl Rove finally went down swinging.
But along with the delight, comes a small cloud of pessimism. I know as well as anyone that the modern House of Representives has very little power to pursue an agenda. And because I've watched this president for 6 years, I know he'll put the blame for his every failure on the "Liberals in the House." Without doubt, Fox and Rush and Sean will gleefully second and third the accusation as they work mightily to represent Nancy Pelosi as the worst person in the world. In two years time, the Bushies might be able to parlay their assault on Pelosi and the House into a succesful presidential campaign, and the Democrats, unfortunately, will be deprived of their best line of attack: No longer will they be able to point out to unhappy Americans that Republicans control all three branches of goverment.
Update: It looks like the Democrats have taken the Senate, too! Ok, now it gets serious.
Attention new Congressional Democrats. I expect the following within 100 days:
1 - A bill raising the min wage.
2 - Another bill on stem cell research.
3- A bill implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
Additionally, I want
4 - Fiscal discipline: No more tax cuts, and no more crazed spending like we saw from the Republican House.
5 - The estate tax preserved. People who get more from this country, should contribute more to its upkeep.
6 - investigations into all instances of Republican corruption, specifically the relationship between DeLay and K-Street.
7 - no more sweet, no-bid contracts for Haliburton. Make the vice president's company work for a living.
And if I ever see you play stupid, partisan wedge games like those idiot Repuiblicans I swear my wrath will rain down on you. Examples of this would include forcing the House and Senate to vote on flag burning, gay marriage and other bogus issues just before an election, while more important business is ignored. Just because Jewish bloggers like [any and every Right Wing Jewish blogger] were happy to fellate the Republican Congress despite all of its criminal flaws does not mean you should expect the same thing from me. I'm holding you to the same standards I've always imposed on the GOP. Get it right, or get out.
You have been warned.
Renato Martino insults Judaism
When word arrived that Sadaam Hussein would be executed, Cardinal Renato Martino, one of the Pope's top deputies had this to say:
When the Pope's deputy says that killing for vindication is "eye-for-an-eye" morality, he is criticizing Judaism, while simultaneously misunderstanding our scripture. For at least 2500 years, Jews have understood the verse figurativly yet this Cardinal is still using it as a cudgel with which to attack Jews for being hopelessly beholden to the outdated and unreasonable Old Testament.
'For me, punishing a crime with another crime, which is what killing for vindication is, would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a toothAs you read that quote, it's important to maintain the correct perspective. Catholic belief (as propagated by Pope Ratzinger) holds that Catholic Christianity is the only successful blend of "Jewish" obedience to God (faith) with Greek philosophy (reason). This marriage of faith and reason, body and spirit, is what Benedict, following a long Christian tradition, calls the "logos," the "word of God." ToThe church opposes the death penalty because it is seen to incline too far away from "Greek" reason and toward "Jewish" faith.
When the Pope's deputy says that killing for vindication is "eye-for-an-eye" morality, he is criticizing Judaism, while simultaneously misunderstanding our scripture. For at least 2500 years, Jews have understood the verse figurativly yet this Cardinal is still using it as a cudgel with which to attack Jews for being hopelessly beholden to the outdated and unreasonable Old Testament.
One obnoxious jerk down, several dozen to go
Rumsfeld Resigns!!!
"“If it were up to me, he would have been gone a long time ago,”
--- Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin.
“Yesterday’s election was a cry for change, and for the first time it looks like the president is listening,”
--- Senator Charles E. Schumer
"Oh BABY! Six years too late, but still, good news"
--- DovBear
Please note, your virtuous, dignified president has proved himself to be a liar once again. He said he didn't know that he would fire Rummy last week, but the replacement was already waiting in the wings. Also, from the press conference:
"This was a close election"
-- GWB
In whose universe, Chimpy? Geez.
"This isn't my first rodeo"
--- GWB
Anyone ever see that slicker on a horse? I sure haven't.
More on W.'s pissy press conference later.
"“If it were up to me, he would have been gone a long time ago,”
--- Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin.
“Yesterday’s election was a cry for change, and for the first time it looks like the president is listening,”
--- Senator Charles E. Schumer
"Oh BABY! Six years too late, but still, good news"
--- DovBear
Please note, your virtuous, dignified president has proved himself to be a liar once again. He said he didn't know that he would fire Rummy last week, but the replacement was already waiting in the wings. Also, from the press conference:
"This was a close election"
-- GWB
In whose universe, Chimpy? Geez.
"This isn't my first rodeo"
--- GWB
Anyone ever see that slicker on a horse? I sure haven't.
More on W.'s pissy press conference later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)