Would you like your product, event, book, article or blog considered for review?
I’m happy to check it out. Mail your request to yourfavoriteblogger@gmail.com.
Would you like to run a contest on my blog?
I'm flattered. Email me at yourfavoriteblogger@gmail.com and we'll work it out.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Wow
In a speech two years ago Representative Jim Gibbons of Nevada called for liberals to be used as human shields in Iraq.
Now he has apologized --for plagiarizing the remarks.
In a speech two years ago Representative Jim Gibbons of Nevada called for liberals to be used as human shields in Iraq.
Now he has apologized --for plagiarizing the remarks.
Divided against itself
For years, Israel's religious Zionists have sought a greater role in the army. Now that they have it, many wish they didn't. Yossi Klein HaLevi has the story in the current TNR. Money quote:
For years, Israel's religious Zionists have sought a greater role in the army. Now that they have it, many wish they didn't. Yossi Klein HaLevi has the story in the current TNR. Money quote:
The threat of massive conscientious objection on the right is the worst internal crisis the IDF has faced since the early years of the state.. The organized refusals could complicate the Gaza withdrawal... Worse, massive refusal would destroy the army's role as Israel's last unifying institution, perhaps provoking counter-refusals on the left to defend settlements. And, if thousands of religious soldiers do carry out their refusal pledge, the result will not only be catastrophic for the army, but for religious Zionism. The refusal issue is the cruelest dilemma the religious Zionist movement has ever faced, pitting the community's two main achievements of this generation--building settlements and assuming leadership roles in the army--against each other.Ah, the familiar specter of Jewish infighting. Have you see this movie before?
One leading opponent of withdrawal, former General Yaakov Amidror, wrote an op-ed in Maariv comparing refusers to the ancient Zealots who, during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, burned the granaries of rival factions in the starving city.Ashrecha yisroel, mee komocha... right?
Monday, March 07, 2005
Pope Death Watch Continues
Pope thanks Jews, Muslims for their prayers
I want names. Who among you has prayed for this pontiff?
[I owe you an article, an article that will explain my ill will toward Pope John Paul. It's near done, but still too long. I may just scrap it all and post links instead. Stay tuned.]
Pope thanks Jews, Muslims for their prayers
I want names. Who among you has prayed for this pontiff?
[I owe you an article, an article that will explain my ill will toward Pope John Paul. It's near done, but still too long. I may just scrap it all and post links instead. Stay tuned.]
Arrogance
Alleged serial killer's arrest: Churches' prayers played a part
Had BTK eluded capture, would the minister have concluded that prayer is pointless? And is God his personal policeman? If so, is the minister angry with God when He acts on his own initiative and allows criminals to be caught, absent a prayer session?
Alleged serial killer's arrest: Churches' prayers played a part
The community has seen what can happen because of prayer,"Fox [the minister] said. It's just been neat to receive the kind of phone calls from people who have been calling.Fox also noted, "I don't think [our church] will ever be the same. There's going to be a huge momentum to pray more. It's taught our church a lesson ... that when God's people join together there's incredible power in prayer.... Members are saying, "Pastor, God really heard us," and that prayer has helped capture BTK.Like you, I'm impressed with their logic. And also by their nerve.
Had BTK eluded capture, would the minister have concluded that prayer is pointless? And is God his personal policeman? If so, is the minister angry with God when He acts on his own initiative and allows criminals to be caught, absent a prayer session?
What will the Republicans claim the AARP supports next?
[related]
(choose one)
Mandatory gay sex with illegal immigrants
Abortion on demand for women 65 and over
Abolishing prayer during last rites
Legalized pot for Al-Qaeda
[related]
(choose one)
Mandatory gay sex with illegal immigrants
Abortion on demand for women 65 and over
Abolishing prayer during last rites
Legalized pot for Al-Qaeda
Double Standard
When campus liberals say mean things about Israel, the Jewish blogospher goes into turbo overdrive.
So where are those mighty keyboard warriers today, when a conservative christian UNC fraternity wins the right to discriminate against Jews?
Libertarians, I am sure, will make their tired, predictable argument: The government can't force the fraternity members to associate with people they don't like. Ok, but this isn't about the government, it's about UNC, and it cuts both ways: If the fraternity members aren't required to tolerate Jews, why is UNC required to tolerate the fraternity?
Updated:
People, let me break this down for you:
The Christians were asked to sign the University 's non-discrimination policy, the same policy every other on-campus group is required to sign.
The Chirstians said no.
The University said ok: you get no money, you get no facilities, you get no recognition - to us, you're nothing.
The Christians SUED
The judge ruled in THEIR favor.
Why is that acceptable? This isn't about people having the right of free association, or about people having the right to be bigoted morons, if they so choose. This is about a University being forced by an activist judge to throw out its own values, and to embrace something the University finds reprehensible.
Why aren't you saying, "If the fraternity finds the University's policy to be so onerous, let their members find another school?"
I don't understand why you all tear kriah when a judge forces a school to do something moral, but are silent when a school is forced, by a judge, to tolerate immorality.
When campus liberals say mean things about Israel, the Jewish blogospher goes into turbo overdrive.
So where are those mighty keyboard warriers today, when a conservative christian UNC fraternity wins the right to discriminate against Jews?
Libertarians, I am sure, will make their tired, predictable argument: The government can't force the fraternity members to associate with people they don't like. Ok, but this isn't about the government, it's about UNC, and it cuts both ways: If the fraternity members aren't required to tolerate Jews, why is UNC required to tolerate the fraternity?
Updated:
People, let me break this down for you:
The Christians were asked to sign the University 's non-discrimination policy, the same policy every other on-campus group is required to sign.
The Chirstians said no.
The University said ok: you get no money, you get no facilities, you get no recognition - to us, you're nothing.
The Christians SUED
The judge ruled in THEIR favor.
Why is that acceptable? This isn't about people having the right of free association, or about people having the right to be bigoted morons, if they so choose. This is about a University being forced by an activist judge to throw out its own values, and to embrace something the University finds reprehensible.
Why aren't you saying, "If the fraternity finds the University's policy to be so onerous, let their members find another school?"
I don't understand why you all tear kriah when a judge forces a school to do something moral, but are silent when a school is forced, by a judge, to tolerate immorality.
Maybe the Times really does hate us?
On Friday, the New York Times ran an article, by Debra Nussbaum Cohen, on religious blogging, and I must confess, I found it offensive that the one Jewish blog they chose to highlight is a blog that's been updated just 9 times in the last six weeks.
This is no reflection on Aidel Maidel, who is a great Jewish blogger, and a wonderful writer. But, please, let's be honest: She hasn't written anything of substance in weeks, and it's been even longer since we had a legitimate Aidel Maidel post to enjoy.
Why represent Jewish blogging with a blog that is all but inactive? The choice suggests that Jews don't take blogging very seriously, that, unlike the other religious blogs cited, we lack the time or the talent to post regularly, that while others religious groups are busy "Track[ing] questions, answers and minutiae on blogs," we Jews move more slowly.
The fault doesn't lie directly with the Times, of course. It must be shared with their reporter Debra Nussbaum Cohen.
Debra and Aidel, you see, have a history. The last time Cohen visited Jewish blogging, in a Jewish Week article from July, 2004, that article also started and finished with Aidel. In fact, the article was so Aidel-centric, Aidel herself offered an apology.
In 2004, though, Cohen's choice made sense. Aidel was hot. She was posting regulary, and her blog was lively and interesting. Now, that's no longer true. Yet, Cohen still considers Aidel the face of Jewish blogging. We, therefore, have reason to ask: did Cohen simply go back to her old notes, and rework an old article - without stopping to consider that the subject was out of date? Or, is the reporter simply blinded by her infatuation with the nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn?
In either case, there's enough blame to go around: The Time's editors and fact checkers have an obligation to protect their readers - and the subject of their articles - from a reporter's reluctance to properly research her subject.
On Friday, the New York Times ran an article, by Debra Nussbaum Cohen, on religious blogging, and I must confess, I found it offensive that the one Jewish blog they chose to highlight is a blog that's been updated just 9 times in the last six weeks.
This is no reflection on Aidel Maidel, who is a great Jewish blogger, and a wonderful writer. But, please, let's be honest: She hasn't written anything of substance in weeks, and it's been even longer since we had a legitimate Aidel Maidel post to enjoy.
Why represent Jewish blogging with a blog that is all but inactive? The choice suggests that Jews don't take blogging very seriously, that, unlike the other religious blogs cited, we lack the time or the talent to post regularly, that while others religious groups are busy "Track[ing] questions, answers and minutiae on blogs," we Jews move more slowly.
The fault doesn't lie directly with the Times, of course. It must be shared with their reporter Debra Nussbaum Cohen.
Debra and Aidel, you see, have a history. The last time Cohen visited Jewish blogging, in a Jewish Week article from July, 2004, that article also started and finished with Aidel. In fact, the article was so Aidel-centric, Aidel herself offered an apology.
In 2004, though, Cohen's choice made sense. Aidel was hot. She was posting regulary, and her blog was lively and interesting. Now, that's no longer true. Yet, Cohen still considers Aidel the face of Jewish blogging. We, therefore, have reason to ask: did Cohen simply go back to her old notes, and rework an old article - without stopping to consider that the subject was out of date? Or, is the reporter simply blinded by her infatuation with the nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn?
In either case, there's enough blame to go around: The Time's editors and fact checkers have an obligation to protect their readers - and the subject of their articles - from a reporter's reluctance to properly research her subject.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Havel Havelim...
...Hakol havel." Or, "Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless."
That said, welcome to Edition #12 of Havel Havelim, the weekly roundup of the Jewish blogosphere. Edition #11 is here. Edition #4, also a DovBear production, is here.
Rebbetzin Agonistes. One of our better bloggers, the Ren Reb, is contemplating retirement. Dear Ren Reb: We're with you in your hour of torment. We like your writing. We like your attitude. If you do decide to pack it in, the blogosphere with be poorer. You can guest blog here, anytime.
And therefore? Achar gives a lesson in higher criticism, but it is a one-sided lecture: None of the opponents of the method are discussed. Be like a cloak, Achar. Fall on all sides, equally.
I know that pain: Naomi Chana, of Bareita, says: "I do get uncomfortable, every once in awhile, when something happens to make me realize that there are sane and articulate people out there who consider my form of Judaism so illegitimate as not to be Jewish." I'm Orthodox, NC isn't. But her experiences with the Ordinary Orthodox, echo my own with the Ultras. Mussar haskil: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.
The Daf is done, &c: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI. And the rest. (You're invited to search DovBear for my own thoughts on the subject.)
Literally: My opponents are pygmies!
The lifespan of man is 120? The JewZoo sees that and raises you 5.
Waste of time: Hirhurim posts the RCA's statament on metzizah b'peh. Why bother? The people who like the RCA, already know that "the requirement of Metzitzah is fulfilled completely and unambiguously by the use of oral suctioning through a tube." The people who don't like the RCA, will say and I quote, "If they told me not to wear tefillin, would I listen?"
Really? In the Yated? The mouth-piece of Meah Sharim slandered Rav M.D. Tendler on the subject of metzizah. Mr. Neklaf has the Rabbi's reply. P.S: Let it be said that Pravada Ne'eman is doing the Lord's work
Insensible: Batya writes "[Yad Vashem] is opening another new wing and the same heads of state who wouldn't come to celebrate live Jews are willing to pay their respects to those murdered in Europe by Nazis and others." A) Many, perhaps most of those leaders represent states that have and/or continue to give money to Israel. B) Celebrate live Jews... how? C) You prefer that they stay home? How is nothing - no recogniziton, no commemoration, no acknowledgement - preferable to this?
Can I plug my own blog? A pair of venerable Jewish mind-sets are on display on this comment thread. My take? Surah Malka's liberalism wins. Liberalism is a more deeply pragmatic approach--more open to change, more receptive to empiricism, and ultimately better at producing policies that improve the human condition--than conservatism. All Surah Malka wants to do is help people. All Repunzel wants to do is shrink government.
More good stuff:
Rose's story continues. PT discovers that what goes around, comes around. Urban Kvetch has a new home, and a new take on Shalit. Miriam discovers the Hezbolleh/Wales connection. Zman Biur considers offering aliyot to women. Ben Chorin attends a wedding; then ponders the awe of heaven. Robert Byrd compares GOP tactics to those of Adolph Hitler, and Z calls foul - on Byrd's critics.
Ha!
Sarah's inner child plays with a Gali doll. Jack says I love you - to a customer. Moby meets a bas kol. MoC's wife chews him out. Lisa cooks strawberry jam. Dilbert posts on the pope. The Hedyot invites the "real Orthodox Judaism" to reveal itself, while Sarah wonders what "Orthodoxy done right" might be. The Barefooted Jew photo blogs, and a great Jewish blogosphere institution is revived.
Sincere apologies to those of you who may feel unloved. By all means, drop an email to yourfavoriteblogger@hotmail.com, and if the spirit moves me, I will address your grievance.
We'll see you next week - March 13th - at Israpundit, for another exercise in Jewish vanity.
...Hakol havel." Or, "Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless."
That said, welcome to Edition #12 of Havel Havelim, the weekly roundup of the Jewish blogosphere. Edition #11 is here. Edition #4, also a DovBear production, is here.
Rebbetzin Agonistes. One of our better bloggers, the Ren Reb, is contemplating retirement. Dear Ren Reb: We're with you in your hour of torment. We like your writing. We like your attitude. If you do decide to pack it in, the blogosphere with be poorer. You can guest blog here, anytime.
And therefore? Achar gives a lesson in higher criticism, but it is a one-sided lecture: None of the opponents of the method are discussed. Be like a cloak, Achar. Fall on all sides, equally.
I know that pain: Naomi Chana, of Bareita, says: "I do get uncomfortable, every once in awhile, when something happens to make me realize that there are sane and articulate people out there who consider my form of Judaism so illegitimate as not to be Jewish." I'm Orthodox, NC isn't. But her experiences with the Ordinary Orthodox, echo my own with the Ultras. Mussar haskil: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.
The Daf is done, &c: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI. And the rest. (You're invited to search DovBear for my own thoughts on the subject.)
Literally: My opponents are pygmies!
The lifespan of man is 120? The JewZoo sees that and raises you 5.
Waste of time: Hirhurim posts the RCA's statament on metzizah b'peh. Why bother? The people who like the RCA, already know that "the requirement of Metzitzah is fulfilled completely and unambiguously by the use of oral suctioning through a tube." The people who don't like the RCA, will say and I quote, "If they told me not to wear tefillin, would I listen?"
Really? In the Yated? The mouth-piece of Meah Sharim slandered Rav M.D. Tendler on the subject of metzizah. Mr. Neklaf has the Rabbi's reply. P.S: Let it be said that Pravada Ne'eman is doing the Lord's work
Insensible: Batya writes "[Yad Vashem] is opening another new wing and the same heads of state who wouldn't come to celebrate live Jews are willing to pay their respects to those murdered in Europe by Nazis and others." A) Many, perhaps most of those leaders represent states that have and/or continue to give money to Israel. B) Celebrate live Jews... how? C) You prefer that they stay home? How is nothing - no recogniziton, no commemoration, no acknowledgement - preferable to this?
Can I plug my own blog? A pair of venerable Jewish mind-sets are on display on this comment thread. My take? Surah Malka's liberalism wins. Liberalism is a more deeply pragmatic approach--more open to change, more receptive to empiricism, and ultimately better at producing policies that improve the human condition--than conservatism. All Surah Malka wants to do is help people. All Repunzel wants to do is shrink government.
More good stuff:
Rose's story continues. PT discovers that what goes around, comes around. Urban Kvetch has a new home, and a new take on Shalit. Miriam discovers the Hezbolleh/Wales connection. Zman Biur considers offering aliyot to women. Ben Chorin attends a wedding; then ponders the awe of heaven. Robert Byrd compares GOP tactics to those of Adolph Hitler, and Z calls foul - on Byrd's critics.
Ha!
Sarah's inner child plays with a Gali doll. Jack says I love you - to a customer. Moby meets a bas kol. MoC's wife chews him out. Lisa cooks strawberry jam. Dilbert posts on the pope. The Hedyot invites the "real Orthodox Judaism" to reveal itself, while Sarah wonders what "Orthodoxy done right" might be. The Barefooted Jew photo blogs, and a great Jewish blogosphere institution is revived.
Sincere apologies to those of you who may feel unloved. By all means, drop an email to yourfavoriteblogger@hotmail.com, and if the spirit moves me, I will address your grievance.
We'll see you next week - March 13th - at Israpundit, for another exercise in Jewish vanity.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Post Shabbos Wisdom
Next time around I am going to marry a Hasidic woman.
I made this decision today, when I realized that if I had told a Hasidic woman that there is a custom not to daven mincha (the afternoon prayer) on Shabbas Mevorchim Chodesh Adar (ie, today) she would have replied, ""Oh Husband. You possess both wisdom and understanding. Go back to sleep, Beloved.""
She would not have drawn on her high falootin' education and she would not have said, and I quote, "Get out of bed and get dressed."
Next time around I am going to marry a Hasidic woman.
I made this decision today, when I realized that if I had told a Hasidic woman that there is a custom not to daven mincha (the afternoon prayer) on Shabbas Mevorchim Chodesh Adar (ie, today) she would have replied, ""Oh Husband. You possess both wisdom and understanding. Go back to sleep, Beloved.""
She would not have drawn on her high falootin' education and she would not have said, and I quote, "Get out of bed and get dressed."
Friday, March 04, 2005
Toras Mortara
I am reading Daniel Kertzer's The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara.
Briefly, these are the facts of the case:
In 1858 a 6-year-old Jewish boy was taken from his parents' home in Bologna, Italy, by agents of the Papal inquisition. The year before, Edgardo had been secretly baptized, by the Mortaras' Catholic servant (or so she claimed); it was against the law for baptized Christians to be raised by Jews, and so, in the eyes of the Church, the kidnapping was only just.
Outraged? Good. Me, too.
But, hold on.
As I read, I had a thought, an insidious thought, I would like to share with you.
Suppose, the facts of the case were as follows:
In 2015 a 28-year-old Jewish woman was taken from her home in Jerusalem, Israel, by agents of the Sanhedrin. The year before, Chani, previously divorced by her first husband Boruch, had married Aaron, a kohen; it is against the law for a divorced woman to marry a kohen, and so, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, the kidnapping was only just.
Still outraged? If not, why?
I am reading Daniel Kertzer's The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara.
Briefly, these are the facts of the case:
In 1858 a 6-year-old Jewish boy was taken from his parents' home in Bologna, Italy, by agents of the Papal inquisition. The year before, Edgardo had been secretly baptized, by the Mortaras' Catholic servant (or so she claimed); it was against the law for baptized Christians to be raised by Jews, and so, in the eyes of the Church, the kidnapping was only just.
Outraged? Good. Me, too.
But, hold on.
As I read, I had a thought, an insidious thought, I would like to share with you.
Suppose, the facts of the case were as follows:
In 2015 a 28-year-old Jewish woman was taken from her home in Jerusalem, Israel, by agents of the Sanhedrin. The year before, Chani, previously divorced by her first husband Boruch, had married Aaron, a kohen; it is against the law for a divorced woman to marry a kohen, and so, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, the kidnapping was only just.
Still outraged? If not, why?
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Pope Post: Answered
In this post I challenged the readership to determine which of several circumstances would have been unknown to 18th and early 19th century Popes.
The answer, of course, was: An official Vatican newspaper that frequently published "scientific proof" of the Jewish "need" to eat blood at Passover.
Though such newspapers did exist, and did much to ready the soil of Europe for the holocaust, these were phenomenon of the last part of the 19th century, having been created to combat the liberal and Jewish press. As Eliyahu noted, this does not fit my time frame.
However, this should not prevent me from sharing a small taste of their poison:
And what of the other items on my list? The yellow hats? The locked ghetto? The Carnivale debasements? The stolen Jewish children?
It will, I hope, anger you to learn that all of this and worse would have been familiar to 18th century Popes. Familiar, perhaps, is the wrong word. Endorsed, is better, for the Jews of the Papal States literally belonged to the Pope, and he was free to do with them as he chose.
Not until the liberal, enlightened, forces of Napoleon arrived was the ghetto destroyed, the Carnivale humiliations canceled, and the forced sermons reduced and finally ended. With the coming of the French forces, Jews were finally allowed something of a normal life, and some security in their daily existence.
Sadly, this change was not permanent. Gradually the old privitations were restored. The ghetto itself was rebuilt in 1840 by Pius IX, a singularly evil man who presided over the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortora (among a laundry list of other crimes against nature, truth and Jews) and once said that Jews ''had been children in the House of God,'' but ''owing to their obstinacy and their failure to believe, they have become dogs. 'We have today in Rome unfortunately too many of these dogs, and we hear them barking in all the streets, and going around molesting people everywhere.''
PS: This pope was beatified by John Paul II in 2000.
In this post I challenged the readership to determine which of several circumstances would have been unknown to 18th and early 19th century Popes.
The answer, of course, was: An official Vatican newspaper that frequently published "scientific proof" of the Jewish "need" to eat blood at Passover.
Though such newspapers did exist, and did much to ready the soil of Europe for the holocaust, these were phenomenon of the last part of the 19th century, having been created to combat the liberal and Jewish press. As Eliyahu noted, this does not fit my time frame.
However, this should not prevent me from sharing a small taste of their poison:
'The Jews -- eternal insolent children, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars, ignoramuses, pests and the scourge of those near and far . . . managed to lay their hands on . . . all public wealth . . . and virtually alone they took control not only of all the money . . . but of the law itself in those countries where they have been allowed to hold public offices . . . [yet they complain] at the first shout by anyone who dares raise his voice against this barbarian invasion by an enemy race, hostile to Christianity and to society in general.''This passage is from Civilta Cattolica, the newspaper published by Jesuits under the direction of the papal secretary of state. Ideas like this appeared regulalry Vatican papers like Civilta Cattolica, and L'Osservatore Romano, in the last half of the 19th century, and on through the first hald of the last century. These papers also published the Vatican's endorsement of things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the guilt of Alfred Dreyfus and the charge that Jews regularly commit ritual murders of Christian children.
And what of the other items on my list? The yellow hats? The locked ghetto? The Carnivale debasements? The stolen Jewish children?
It will, I hope, anger you to learn that all of this and worse would have been familiar to 18th century Popes. Familiar, perhaps, is the wrong word. Endorsed, is better, for the Jews of the Papal States literally belonged to the Pope, and he was free to do with them as he chose.
Not until the liberal, enlightened, forces of Napoleon arrived was the ghetto destroyed, the Carnivale humiliations canceled, and the forced sermons reduced and finally ended. With the coming of the French forces, Jews were finally allowed something of a normal life, and some security in their daily existence.
Sadly, this change was not permanent. Gradually the old privitations were restored. The ghetto itself was rebuilt in 1840 by Pius IX, a singularly evil man who presided over the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortora (among a laundry list of other crimes against nature, truth and Jews) and once said that Jews ''had been children in the House of God,'' but ''owing to their obstinacy and their failure to believe, they have become dogs. 'We have today in Rome unfortunately too many of these dogs, and we hear them barking in all the streets, and going around molesting people everywhere.''
PS: This pope was beatified by John Paul II in 2000.
Falafel for Brains
Why does Bill O'Reilly hate the ACLU?
And if he manages to destroy it, who will stand up for the constitution*? Him? Don't make me laugh.
*And look: I don't want to get into a whole big argument (featuring Surah Malka, another commentator par excellance, calling everyone and their uncle a capitalist pig) about degrees. For the sake of shutting you all the hell up, I will stipulate that the ACLU sometimes goes overboard, and takes up causes that it should not.
My question, therefore, is one of categories. If the falafel-fairy grants Bill O'Reilly his fondest wish andgives him a whole pool of secretaries to harass and abuse makes the ACLU go away, what will take its place?
And (part 2) can we agree that if nothing takes its place, we're in a wee bit of trouble?
Why does Bill O'Reilly hate the ACLU?
And if he manages to destroy it, who will stand up for the constitution*? Him? Don't make me laugh.
*And look: I don't want to get into a whole big argument (featuring Surah Malka, another commentator par excellance, calling everyone and their uncle a capitalist pig) about degrees. For the sake of shutting you all the hell up, I will stipulate that the ACLU sometimes goes overboard, and takes up causes that it should not.
My question, therefore, is one of categories. If the falafel-fairy grants Bill O'Reilly his fondest wish and
And (part 2) can we agree that if nothing takes its place, we're in a wee bit of trouble?
Here We Go Again With Another Guest Post
"Shifra," one of several DovBear commentators, par excellence, has submitted a new guest post, one I look forward to discussing. Here it is:
Keeping Up Appearances
Judaism has a somewhat unique distinction of being both a religion and a culture. This begs the question: How much of our Jewish lifestyle is substance and how much is form? Sometimes I ask myself: Do I dress the way I do because I believe it is right, or do I do it to identify myself as part a group? How much of what I do is really what G-d wants from me and how much is just keeping up appearances? Does this make me a fake or am I more “me” than I need to be already? How important is a person’s individuality to their Judaism anyway? Then I get dizzy and need to lie down.
Torah living and community go hand-in-hand, it is certainly much more difficult to keep up your spirit and your observance if you are alone in your efforts. On the other hand, how much of our torah observance is merely social pressure to conform?
"Shifra," one of several DovBear commentators, par excellence, has submitted a new guest post, one I look forward to discussing. Here it is:
Keeping Up Appearances
Judaism has a somewhat unique distinction of being both a religion and a culture. This begs the question: How much of our Jewish lifestyle is substance and how much is form? Sometimes I ask myself: Do I dress the way I do because I believe it is right, or do I do it to identify myself as part a group? How much of what I do is really what G-d wants from me and how much is just keeping up appearances? Does this make me a fake or am I more “me” than I need to be already? How important is a person’s individuality to their Judaism anyway? Then I get dizzy and need to lie down.
Torah living and community go hand-in-hand, it is certainly much more difficult to keep up your spirit and your observance if you are alone in your efforts. On the other hand, how much of our torah observance is merely social pressure to conform?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)