Religious Illiteracy

As a PS to my post yesterday on an appreciation of religious diversity, here are some profound words on religious illiteracy from a great article at the Toronto Star by Patricia Pearson:

All of the religious traditions are filled with characters and stories worth knowing. My children are familiar with Christmas, of course, because we celebrate it in our home. But I would love for them to know about the other holidays and their celebrations of human spirit, including Diwali, Eid, Hanukkah and Ramadan.

Unfortunately, though, the trend is toward further ignorance. According to the American professor of religious studies, Stephen Prothero, author of the 2007 bestseller, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn’t, 50 per cent of American high school students think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.

Sixty per cent of American students can name fewer than five of the 10 Commandments, says Prothero.

Is this a problem? Yes, it is. Children raised in such a pedagogical vacuum cannot make sense of a world in which religion governs public and international debate.

At a time of rising bigotry against Muslims, and ongoing prejudice against Jews, ignorance about religion is dangerous.

But daddy, why can’t we have a Chanukah bush?!

My dad was in town on business this week, fortunately timed so that he could join me for the first night of Chanukah. He happened to be here with one of his colleagues (who happened to not be Jewish), and asked if he could join us as we lit the Chanukah candles before going to dinner. Of course, I said yes, and so on the first night of Chanukah, there was a nice informal interfaith thingy in my apartment.

At dinner, my dad pressed his associate to tell me about what his son was learning at school. This being the “holiday season” (insert groan), turns out his young son had learned about the “miracle of the oil,” had also learned all about dreidles, and had in fact been playing with one non-stop at home. I happen to think this is fantastic; learning independently about others’ religious and cultural practices is great, fosters tolerance, and doesn’t succumb to the lame and possibly dangerous tendency to combine different religions into some hybrid mishmash.

See here for my earlier thoughts from a few years ago on how dumb people can get at this time of year when it comes to interfaith interactions.

Later during dinner, my dad’s coworker stepped out to take a phone call from his family. When he returned, he told us that he shared with his son that he had joined us for our Chanukah celebrations, to which his son proclaimed “AWH! Lucky you, dad!”

I still can’t get over how awesome this was to hear. For Jews who most often live in the shadow (the big, beautifully lit and great smelling shadow) of the Christmas Tree, it’s nice to know that it’s possible to foster a mutual respect and appreciate of each others’ traditions.

The Schizophrenic Jewish Hierarchy

I just read that at the JFNA General Assembly, Kadima MP Tzipi Livni addressed the crowd with a message of Jewish unity, calling for “dialog between the Jews of the Diaspora and of Israel to ensure that we would forever remain one people. That is how I see you when I stand here today… not as Reform Jews or Orthodox or Conservative.”

Setting aside the cookie-cutter content of her speech, am I the only one that thinks when someone mentions the three major Movements of North American Judaism in the same breath, there’s an inherent resistance that takes place, our of fear of establishing a hierarchy?

I can imagine Livni’s speech-writers spending hours formulating that one sentence:

– Who do we put first? Reform? If we say Reform first, then we have to say Orthodox second, otherwise it will look like we’re going bottom up along the religious scale.

– There’s a religious scale?

– Of course there is, everyone knows there’s an identity problem in North American Judaism.

– Nu? Maybe we shouldn’t put Reform first, it makes it look like we’re starting at the bottom.

– Ok, so let’s start with Orthodox.

– No, then it looks like we’re starting at the top and working our way down.

– What is wrong with North American Jews?! Why can’t they just be like us Israelis and have one, state-sponsored religious stream. Things would be so much easier that way…

– Yes. Yes, they would.

– Ok, so what about Conservative Judaism… why don’t we start with them?

– If we put Conservative first, then it will be too obvious that we’re trying to avoid establishing a hierarchy.

– Ok, so let’s start with Orthodox, but then go straight to Reform so it looks like we understand religious pluralism.

– Then we’re leaving Conservative for last; people will think we’re making a comment about the dying state of their movement.

And on, and on, and on, and on…

As the old saying goes…

Dotan Harpak (past shaliach to the URJ Youth Division) has written an excellent analysis of the current situation in Israel over at RJ Blog. And when I say current situation in Israel, I mean the situation this week, because heaven knows it’s going to change tomorrow. It’s largely spurred by Bibi’s visit to New Orleans for the Jewish Federations‘ General Assembly.

While you’re there, check out my response in the comments.

I happen to be in Israel right now confronting many of the issues Dotan speaks about, so it was serendipitous that Dotan would write about the things I’m seeing.

BTW – If you haven’t read yet, shit went down at the GA. Some appalling behaviour that is quite typical of the character of much of institutional Judaism these days vis a vis Israel. Please read and learn and keep an open mind.

Law & Linguistics (which even though it sounds so, is not the title of a University course)

Progressive Jews refer to Jewish law/Halacha relatively frequently. For a quick and imminent example, check out today’s Mishnah Day email from the URJ’s Ten Minutes of Torah series.

For those playing the home game, progressive/Reform Judaism (at least institutionally) does not accept Halacha as theologically binding. As Rabbi Mark Washofsky, one of the foremost scholars on Judaism and Jewish Law notes, “we do not regard halakhah as a process which yields mandatory conclusions.”

I don’t want to debate whether or not Jewish Law/Halacha has merit as an institution. I happen to think it does. But I was struck today with what I think is an odd realization…

Question: Is it contradictory – or at the very least, confusing – for progressive Jews to acknowledge that there is an institution called “Jewish Law,” while simultaneously stating that it is not mandatory?

When we call something a law, we implicitly indicate that it is mandatory. Yet Washofsky writes that Reform Jews have their own “unique approach to halakhah.” Hmmm.

I can think of no other example of a group of people that has a body of optional laws, or laws that can obeyed or not obeyed depending on the unique approach to them by individuals. If such a group exists, they certainly don’t wouldn’t call such an institution “laws”.

Of course, civil courts have laws which can be challenged, updated, appealed, repealed, and interpreted in different ways by judges so as to set legal precedent. But in any given moment, for example, Canadian Law as a body isn’t open for individual interpretation. That’s why it’s called “The Law” and not “The Suggestion”. A citizen can’t decide for themselves (without legal ramifications) that theft is justified, even if they’ve studied criminal law ad nauseum.

This is not all to say that Reform/progressive Jews should follow Jewish law in its entirety. That’s not my place to suggest. This is also not to say that Halacha – as a humanly created system – shouldn’t be open to interpretation by humans. I think it should. I also think that any humanly created legal system that is held to the immutable standards that halachah is by Orthodox Jews borders on idolatry and more often than not misses the point of having the legal system in the first place.

What I am suggesting is that there is a linguistic difficulty in calling something that is not binding “The Law”. If, as Washofsky suggest, Jewish Law is “a discourse, an ongoing conversation through which we arrive at an understanding,” then perhaps we shouldn’t be calling it “Law” (at least in English). Perhaps we need another term.

In Hebrew, “Halachah” means “The Way” or “The Path.” Even these translations imply a singular reality, and not the pluralistic approach Washofsky suggests.

If we agree that Jewish Law has a role within progressive and Reform Judaism, it’s time to give it an appropriate name that reflects its role. I’m not a legal scholar or a linguist, so I’m not sure yet sure what is the right word/phrase to use, but I am certain that the language we’re using now doesn’t reflect the praxis that exists on the ground by the majority of progressive/Reform Jews.

An additional thought – a new term may even encourage more people to study and engage with what we call Halacha. Jewish Law as a term is heavy and can be scary unless you’re open to accepting that Law = a binding system.

For the sin of ranting far too much

With thanks to David Wilensky for sending this piece of wisdom my way.

Rabbi Chaim Stern, z”l, the master liturgist who was the senior rabbi at the congregation where I now work, said the following. It seems to me much of the blogosphere could take these words to heart:

“So often my words precede my thoughts, and I feel humiliated. I am a fool more frequently than I am a sage! O God, show me how to keep quiet more often, at least until I have something real to say and someone who wants to hear it.”

Kein y’hi ratzon & shana tova.

Too hot for a profound philosophical discussion about the human psyche

Etgar Keret (all around genius) writes (in Hebrew, but accurately and poetically translated into English) about how to entertain his four-year old son during the dog days of the sweltering Tel-Aviv summer.

Among the options is this brilliant idea that should be either be patented and sold to make millions, or given out to the entire human race for free in the interest of saving us from cultural starvation:

“Watching a stupid 3-D movie. (Idea for a startup: inventing glasses that give the plot some depth when you put them on.)”

Genius.

I’m a “lazy idiot who is raping the economy” (UPDATED)

Updated. See new stats at end of post.

Apparently I am, at least according to Mr. Rush Limbaugh, seeing as I work in the non-profit sector. The good stuff starts at 1:20…

“A bunch of lazy idiots, many of them don’t want to really work. Non-profits – siphon contributions as their salaries and so forth and think of themselves as good people, charitable people. I mean these people are rapists in terms of finance and economy.”

Well then, good to know. I suppose the staff at summer camps across North America really do just amount to a lazy and unintelligent workforce bent on destroying the economy.

This mass-generalizing seems to becoming pervasive throughout the American right as of late. From the ridiculous assertions that Limbaugh and Beck spew at the left each day, to the guilty-by-association condemnation of American Muslims over the past month, this vitriol is contributing to a pandemic of argumentum ad hominem. Limbaugh raises no quantitative or substantive arguments against non-profits, specifically or in general. Instead, he lumps an entire sector of the American workforce together in an attempt to tarnish their character.

What’s the point? If you have a problem with liberal policy specifically, then bring it up in a coherent and meaningful way. Engage in serious debate. I’d love to see the numbers on how religious non-profits are contributing to the demise of the American economy. Instead, all I get is an insult hurled right at my chosen line of work from some fat guy on the radio.

UPDATE: After this brief rant, I started wondering how exactly nonprofits fit into the US economy. Maybe Mr. Limbaugh should have used Google, too. Here’s what I found: According to the The Hill, the US non-profit sector represents almost 8% of the GNP, while the 2008 Nonprofit Almanac reported that nonprofits represent “5% of gross domestic product (GDP) of the U.S. economy, 8% of wages and salaries, and 10% of employment.” Now what was that again about raping finance and the economy?

Is Obama a Muslim?

Brilliant insight from Jeffrey Goldberg:

Such a ridiculous question, is Obama a Muslim? Of course he’s not. He’s a Druid. But a Reform Druid. Meaning he only worships shrubbery.

I can’t believe this question is still being posed. Or that it was posed at all. Or that people seem to be missing the subtext of the question which is that being a Muslim is a bad, bad thing.

So 20% of Americans think Obama’s a Muslim? 20% of Americans also believe in UFOs and think that 9/11 was an inside job.

People will always believe in dumb and irrational things for the sake of the sensationalism that comes with “standing out”.

Enough, already. Let’s move on.