We have a responsibility...

Sullivan on Waxman-Markey:

In pure economic terms, I'm not sure this bill is worth it (if it accelerates new energy technology, it still could be). But in reflecting on this, I do believe that my generation of humans should not be responsible for altering in unknowable ways the eco-system that sustains us and so many other forms of life. We have a responsibility not simply to advance our own material welfare, and weigh costs and benefits, but also to conserve our natural inheritance as much as we can. I reach this from a religious perspective, but it is easy to reach it from other grounds. And if this bill is the beginning of a process we can improve on and tweak and finesse in the coming years, then I think it's worth the loss of economic growth. Some things count for more than money or our own species' well-being. And climate change could take on a momentum impossible to impede if we carry on the way we are.

Ricci

Fantastic, must read analysis by the indispensible Glenn Greenwald of the Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci case. You've got to read the whole thing, but the gist is:

1. given that multiple judges on the state and appeals court levels, as well as a four-justice Supreme Court minority, sided with Judge Sotomayor, it's impossible to claim that this decision proves she is somehow out of the judicial mainstream (not that that will keep RW partisans from doing so, and the MSM from parroting their claims);
2. there are no activist judges like conservative activist judges, who consistently promote their own political preferences in their judicial decisions regardless of fact or precedent; and
3. the SCOTUS' decision overlooks the real legacy of racial discrimination, a nearly all-white (and not merit-based) firefighting department.

Regarding point 2 above, here's a potent quote:

Here we have the conservative wing of the Court declaring illegal the employment decisions of local government officials, who used a political approach -- diversity -- which conservatives dislike on policy grounds. So often, the outcomes of the allegedly neutral conservative judges are completely consistent with (and aggressively advance) the political preferences of conservatives (Bush v. Gore being only the most obvious example). Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise -- the true test for whether one applies to law independently of political and outcome preferences.

It has seemed clear to me all along that a test that cannot be passed by African Americans is ipso facto a flawed test, and that it is the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court which has the law right in this case. It's a testimony to how corrupted our judicial conversation has become by conservative partisanship and propaganda that this poorly decided case will be a cudgel with which to beat the highly qualified and much needed Judge Sotomayor.

Parshat Korah

This week’s parshah is named for and recounts the story of Korach, who led a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, claiming that they were too self-aggrandizing and powerful: “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and God is in their midst. Why do you raise yourself above God’s congregation?” (Num. 16:3)

Moses is “much aggrieved” by their accusations, and in the end the ringleaders – Korach, Dothan and Abiram – and their families are swallowed up alive by the earth, and their supporters are killed by a fire from heaven. Whew – that showed them!

Of course, what exactly Korach and his followers did to deserve this fate is the subject of much discussion by the commentaries. They are wrong to challenge Moses’ authority, but are they not right to say that “all of the community are holy”?

Contemporary commentator Yeshayahu Leibowitz says that this is exactly what they did wrong. For if all the children of Israel are holy, then what are they to strive for? What is the point of the Jewish way of life? We are told in Leviticus that the goal is to become holy – that is, it’s a promise, a goal, and not a status to be satisfied with in the present. We must always believe there is more to do, more to accomplish, in our spiritual pursuits. That helps keep us humble.

A commentary in the Women’s Commentary “The Five Books of Miriam” also expresses concern that not only the sinful men were destroyed, but their wives and children were too. What did they do? In verse 22 Moses and Aaron stop God from overreacting by saying, “When one sins, will you be wrathful with the whole community?” but that seems to be what God and Moses do here.

It turns into a typical case of male brinksmanship, drawing lines in the sand: You’ve gone too far! No, you’ve gone too far – and I’ll call on my God to prove it! If women had been in charge, we certainly would have handled the situation more sensibly.

This implies that Moses may have overreacted, which he seems to be doing more and more in this part of the story. We can contrast this with how Aaron handles the challenge to him that comes later in the parshah – he defends himself by having his staff sprout blossoms, while his opponents’ staffs remain bare. This is an altogether more agreeable and peaceable approach than Moses’, befitting Aaron’s reputation as a pursuer of peace. Challengers may be mistaken, or even ill-intentioned, but they must be dealt with as gently as possible, for that is the only way to retaining the possibility of re-integration. Moses’ method precludes that; Aaron’s promotes it.

Shabbat shalom.

ACES

The Waxman-Markey Climate bill is coming to the floor of the House today. I hope it passes. The vote is later today, and you still have time to call your Representative to encourage a yes vote.

Having said that, the bill is pretty much a disappointment. If you look at the language that was used in the campaign last year, or that was used by climate change experts like Van Jones or Al Gore, in order to be at all effective, climate change legislation would have to

1. bring down carbon emissions significantly (25-40%) from 1990 levels, which means
2. pretty much eliminating new coal-plant construction,
3. offsets would have to be sold at market prices to raise money to pay for
4. putting more of our eggs into the renewable energy basket.

Because of the combination of the legislative process, the power of the coal and energy lobby and Obama's focus on health care legislation, we're not getting any of this. You can look at this posting by devilstower on Daily Kos today, but the gist of what is about to be passed is

1. the decline in carbon emissions will be 4% below 1990 levels at best,
2. "clean coal" (an oxymoron, remember, as none of the technology talked about is much past the theroetical stage) is getting massive subsidies and (as this LA Times article explains) coal will continue to provide the lion's share of the country's energy needs for many years to come,
3. up to 85% of the offsets will be given, not sold,
4. Renewable energy standards are weak.

So it's not much. In fact, although Al Gore and Sierra Club (and other big, Beltway-focused environmental organizations) are strongly supporting the current legislations, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are opposed to it as too little. Potent quote (h/t Meteor Blades, also on Kos):

There's a simple reason polluting and irresponsible corporations support the Waxman-Markey bill: It showers them with hundreds of billions of dollars, but doesn't require them to reduce pollution fast enough to avoid devastating climate change impacts. Worse, the bill guts the EPA’s preexisting authority to use the Clean Air Act to reduce this pollution.4 That means the bill is actually counterproductive — enacting it into law would be a step backward. What we need from Congress is much stronger legislation that puts us on a path to the clean energy future President Obama talked about during his campaign.

An energy bill written by corporate polluters is not a solution.

The same Kos diary also links to Chris Bowers, who stresses that without lines in the sand, either from Obama or from progressives in Congress, all the compromises on climate legislation will be to the Right:

Without a hardline group of progressives willing to join with Republicans and defeat Democratic legislation unless that legislation meets certain progressive criteria, every legislative fight will follow this process of backroom deals with corporate interests resulting in an inexorable right-wing slide. Further, this group of progressives, which I call a Progressive Block (and yes, the "k" is intentional), needs to publicly draw clear lines in the sand long before draft legislation is introduced. Such public announcements allow the netroots and grassroots to help organize around the line in the sand. Otherwise, given the backroom nature of these dealings, there is no way for the progressive activist base to play any meaningful role in the legislative process, and all negotiation power is ceded to corproate lobbyists.

So why am I supporting it? Good question. I guess I think that if this legislation is defeated it will result, not in better legislation, but in no legislation at all for the term of this Congress, and maybe this presidency. We have to establish a baseline of climate change legislation that can then be strengthened later, and not give climate deniers and do-nothings the chance to claim victory. In other words, I agree with Sierra Club et al when they say,

We believe this is one of the most important votes of our time. There are rare moments in American history when the urgency to act is clear, the stakes are high, the costs of inaction are untenable, and the need for courageous leadership is paramount. Now is one of those moments. An opportunity like this may not come again for many years.

Sanford

I got my recommended daily allowance of schadenfreude over the past few days watching SC governor Mark Sanford first disappear and then reappear and admit adultery. Twitter has been quite enjoyable as people all over the country make fun of him (my personal favorite was the one about how outsourcing adultery puts American homewreckers out of work).

The only thing I know about him is that he was on McCain's VP shortlist and that he spent most of the early part of this year posturing over the stimulus package. That's enough of a reason for me to want to see him taken down.

Most of the criticism on the left has been pretty circumspect about the adultery aspect of this, focusing more on the dereliction of duty inherent in him disappearing for 5 days. Most progressives focus on the sin aspect only in the context of Sanford's role as a typical Republican family values blowhard and hypocrite. Talk of the Nation on NPR is talking about this even as we speak: is cheating on one's spouse enough of a reason to disqualify someone from further public office?

If you put it that way, the answer's no. I don't think that Sanford should have to resign just due to the adultery, although if you add the dereliction of duty aspect the answer might be different. But neither do I agree with my progressive friends who say it's only a matter between Sanford and his wife. I definitely think that a person's personal behavior should be weighed as a factor in deciding whether or not to vote for them.

My reasoning is this: marriage is not simply an exclusive sexual arrangement; it is a deep commitment - a contractual obligation, if you will - that one person makes to another. And if we cannot rely on a person to live up to his/her commitments to the person they are closest to, then why should we expect them to live up to their commitments to the voters?

Now, that doesn't mean that I would vote for someone with whom I disagreed on every issue if the only thing in their favor was that their opponent was known to sleep around. But all things being equal, or in a primary situation where both candidates are more or less acceptable ideologically (John Edwards against Hilary Clinton, say), I would absolutely decide who to vote (or against) based on their ability to live up to this commitment. If that makes me a puritan, well, put a buckle on my shoe, because I can live with that.

The GOP Position on Climate

By Tom Toles:

(soon to be reused as "the GOP position on health care reform")

Bibi's speech

Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave his much-hyped speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at Bar Ilan University. (You can read the text here.) This comes in the aftermath of much nail-biting over the past month or so regarding the relationship between the US and Israel, or perhaps it is the personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, in the aftermath of various shots across Israel's bow from Washington regarding the expansion of settlements. Obama of course also gave his speech in Cairo 10 days ago, and that had a lot of Israel-Palestine material in it as well, including the first use by a US President of the word "Palestine."

Suffice it to say that Bibi did not say the word "Palestine." I more or less agree with the analysis of my friend and colleague Rabbi Brant Rosen on the issue, which is to say, It wasn't much. Potent quote:

He offered “peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions” then proceeded to spell out the all too familiar prior conditions that everyone knows are non-starters for the Palestinians (i.e. Jerusalem remains the “united capital of Israel,” “natural growth” of the settlements would continue, there would be no right of return for the Palestinians.)

Same old, same old.

This would have been a groundbreaking speech in 1988, but the idea that uttering the words "Palestinian state" is somehow significant (the slender reed upon which Gideon Levy hangs his hopes this morning) is making much ado about nothing. The conditions are so onerous (no control over their own airspace) that there is little chance of a state breaking out on this basis anytime soon.

Another word Bibi didn't say is "occupation." When Sharon said that word, it was significant, and he said it in the context of recognizing that the continued occupation by Israel of the Palestinians in the Territories was unsustainable in the long run. Olmert, same thing. They were recognizing that it will be impossible in the long term, if it isn't already, for Israel to retain its character as a Jewish and democratic state while remaining in control of the lives of a million Palestinians.

But there is no similar sense of urgency coming from Netanyahu. For him, control of the Palestinians is just something "we do not want to do," not something we must not do. Not only can one not see any deadline in this speech, one cannot even see much of a goal at all. Bibi seems to be saying, If the Palestinians will meet our conditions, then we can talk. If not, well then, we'll just go on like we are.

What Obama has been saying, and thank heaven because it needs to be said, is that we cannot go on like we have been. Statehood is not a favor we would bestow upon the Palestinians, nor is it because of their rights as a nation (which it is, and which is yet another concept Bibi cannot articulate), but because the current situation is bad for Israel. The American president understands that. It's a pity that the prime minister of the State of Israel seems not to.

Today in Iran

Big things are happening in Tehran while CNN reheats Michael Steele. The failure of the cable news industry to cover this story is remarkable.

Parshat b'Ha'alot'kha

In the aftermath of some bitter complaining from the Israelites regarding the limitations of their diet in the desert (no meat), Moses himself bitterly complains to God about having to bear the burden of leadership alone. “Why have you dealt ill with your servant, and why have I not enjoyed your favor, that you have laid the burden of all this people upon me?” (Num. 11:11) In response (in addition to severely punishing the Israelites for their kvetching), God decides to empower 70 elders to share the burden of leadership with Moses.

Moses goes and gathers 70 of the elders and brings them to the tent. God comes down in a cloud (as is God’s wont) and “drew upon the spirit that was on [Moses] and put it upon the 70 elders.” (11:25) They begin “speaking in ecstasy” (a Hebrew scriptural version of speaking in tongues?) and then they stop, the transference complete. Meanwhile, back in the camp, two people who hadn’t invited to the party, Eldad and Medad, all of a sudden also start speaking in ecstasy, right where they are. This disturbs Joshua, Moses’ adjutant, who goes to the boss urging him to stop them from their unauthorized prophecy.

Moses’ response strikes me as a model of mature, positive, results-oriented leadership: “Are you wrought up on my account? Would that all God’s people were prophets!” (11:29) Moses doesn’t get upset at the infringement of his position or power, he realizes that he is overburdened, and that it is to the benefit of the people for others to be involved in the leadership. Even though it is specifically said that some of spirit of God is being removed from Moses to enable this to happen, he is not only okay with it, he welcomes it. And even when some of that spirit heads off in an unauthorized direction, to people he didn’t even realize had leadership potential, he is happy about that too. He realizes that when leadership is shared in this way, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This is really something that leaders of all kinds – business, not for profits, synagogues, federations, etc. – can stand to learn. Leadership must be shared – if leaders keep it all in their hands, not only will the people get restive, but the leaders will get resentful. When that happens, other people will be brought in to the process, even people we may not have foreseen as being interested in or capable of leadership. And when the spirit of God is shared in this way, then the potential for holiness – of success – of the entire endeavor is much improved. In fact, it is guaranteed.

This week's links

I got a big e-mailing today from the Regional ADL office regarding security at Jewish communal events and links to studies of the increase in rightwing extremism. If you want to see the whole thing, send me an email and I’ll be happy to forward it to you. But here’s one link from it, “The Emerging Threat of Right Wing Violence."

JTA links to four commentaries on the incident on the Washington Post “On Faith” site.

And speaking of extreme rightwingers, the European Jewish community is concerned at election results in European parliamentary elections last week which showed much greater success for extremist and nationalist parties in some European countries, especially Hungary. The blame is placed on the economic crisis, but it also seems to suggest a fault in the diversity education in these countries, or maybe it’s a reaction to the increasing multiculturalism throughout Europe. Via JTA.

Also from JTA, an analysis of the tension between Netanyahu and Obama: Netanyahu is scheduled to make a major policy speech on Sunday, and Ha’aretz says that the Administration (having seen a copy) is already saying it won’t go far enough.

The Forward this week ran a piece on the executive pay of senior officials in the Jewish communal world, and which ones did or did not cut their own pay in face of recession and lay-offs amongst their staffs. All of the execs in question make upwards of $400,000, and outgoing UJC CEO Howard Rieger made, with salary, benefits, and cost-of-living-in-NYC increments, about $700,000. Yowser! I hope my donors don't see this!

I know UJC is looking for a new CEO - I'll do it for $200,000 - a bargain, I'm sure you'll agree.

Closing benediction

Tomorrow at 1 pm at Hebrew Congregation there will be an interfaith service in the aftermath of the Holocaust Museum shooting (of course, it's the aftermath of the Tiller shooting as well, but we've already had a service for that). The theme of it is "Love Overcoming Hate." I was asked to lead the closing benediction, and for the purpose I wrote an interpretation of the second prayer of the Aleynu. Here it is:

We hope and pray to you, Eternal One our God, that we may soon behold your full splendor in the world around us, and see false and hateful actions, and the ideologies that spawn them, vanish from the earth. May we soon be blessed to make and see tikkun olam b’malchut Shaddai – a healing of the world under your sovereignty, so that hatred and enmity and those who purvey them will find no followers, and that all humankind will turn to you and to each other in peacefulness and in mutual care and love.

Let all who dwell on earth perceive and know that it is to you, dear God - whose name is truth, whose name is love, whose name is peace – it is to you that every knee must bend and all tongues swear loyalty. Before you, dear God, let us humble ourselves, recognizing that our ideologies, as strongly as we may hold them, must retain within them the possibility that we are wrong, because perfection resides only in you. May we cherish the dignity of your name, and accept your instruction that we care for the Other in our midst.

As Martin Buber said, “When senseless hatred reigns on earth, and people hide their faces from one another, then heaven is forced to hide its face. But when love comes to rule the earth, and people reveal their faces to one another, then the splendor of God will be revealed.” Help us to reveal your splendor, oh God, by revealing our faces to each other. For in that way, and only in that way, will your sovereignty rule over all of us, speedily and forevermore. And as it is written in your holy Torah, “On that day, the many names of God will be one.”

And let us say, Amen.

Reform rabbinate backs Obama on settlements

I have one particular friend here who asks me for a comment everytime someone forwards her an anti-Obama screed from a rightwing website, particularly if it has anything to do with Israel. Actually, we've been having this conversation since the campaign, with all the vilification that was therein. That's why I was happy to be able to refer her to this (h/t JTA):

The Central Conference of American Rabbis, which represents nearly 2,000 Reform rabbis, said it believes the president's call for a stop to all Israeli settlement activity and his "outspokenness" on the issue is "in the best interest of the United States, of the State of Israel, and of peace."

The statement goes on to express concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions and the continuing terrorist threat to Israel, which is only proper.

The idea that Obama is selling Israel out, that he doesn't care about the Iranian threat, or that he equated the Holocaust with Israel's actions in the territories, are all red herrings promulgated for partisan political reasons, or worse. It's always worth pointing out that American Jews supported Obama 78-21 percent in last year's elections, despite the long-term, concerted efforts to scare the Jews about him. I think Jews by and large trust him and want what he's doing to succeed.

The quintessential target

Here's an interview with Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center on today's shooting at the Holocaust Museum in DC. Potent quote:

This represents something else that is perhaps distinct to Jews in America compared to other groups. Other religious targets may be subject to vandalism or even discriminatory acts but there are few other religious institutions that day in and day out must be concerned about acts of terrorism in the form of bombs, gun attacks, etc. On many levels Jews have been and remain the quintessential victims of religious intolerance and hatred in western civilization.

Our prayers go out to the family of the murdered security guard, Stephen Johns.

Obama's speech

Ok, 4 days late, here's my response to Obama's speech in Cairo.

I liked it.

OK, so no news flash there, I guess.

I am completely supportive of Obama's focus on stopping the growth of settlements. Settlements and the continued growth thereof are the number 1 impediment to progess coming from the Israeli side. Continued land expropriations, Israel-only infrastructure (such as highways) and onerous "security measures" (such as roadblocks and checkpoints) make the lives of Palestinians unnecessarily difficult, as Obama rightly pointed out. Plus, they are supported by the most radical, theocratic and anti-democratic elements in the Israeli polity, people who should be arreseted for incitement, not coddled and given tax incentives.

There's a strain of thinking on the hardcore pro-Israel side that believes Obama is selling Israel down the river. I don't buy this one bit. The man who got on stage in Cairo and said the following to the Arab and Moslem world:

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

is not selling out Israel, its legitimate aspirations or its legitimate security needs. Focus on the word "legitimate."

When the Deputy General Counsel from Chicago was here last year, I asked him why Israel was not living up to its obligations under the Road Map to dismantle settlement outposts and stop the growth of the main settlements. He said, We won't do anything unilaterally - if they don't live up to their commitments, we won't live up to ours. I think this is counterproductive, but in any case, stopping settlement activities does not and should not depend on a final peace agreement. Israel's security needs should be defined as being within Israel proper, or at least inside the borders of the security fence. The idea of building a separation barrier and then continuing to build settlement infrastructure on the Palestinian side of that barrier is a stick in the eye to everyone, Arab or Israeli, who wants this conflict to come to an eventual conclusion.

I asked my friend Richard what the mood was in Israel in the aftermath of the speech, and he said that there was a lot of surprise that Obama and Netanyahu seem so determined to be on a collision course. I never would have thought that Obama would have taken on the settlements so directly, as that is the very thing that ruined the relationship between the OJC and Bush I, but he has proven himself once again to be a better political strategist than I. Settlement construction has been understood to be a violation for years by administrations and congressional leaderships of both parties, and stopping it is an undertaking that Israel itself has made numerous times; despite all the winking and procrastination that has gone on on the subject, few congressmen, or Jewish communal organizations for that matter, are going to go out on a limb for the sake of it.

Now the Israelis are saying there were oral agreements between Bush II and Sharon that "natural growth" in settlements was to be allowed, but "Bush said we could" is unlikely to be very persuasive to this administration, not only in the absense of written understandings to that effect, but in the presence of repeated written understandings to the opposite effect.

It'll be interesting to see who blinks first. I bet it will be Bibi, and it may cost him his coalition. Goldberg thinks that's what Obama wants, but I don't think he's that Machiavellian. I think he'll be happy to work with whoever's there, as long as they are willing to stop settlement expansion. Of course, no Arab state is going to sign an agreement with the egregious Lieberman, and none of Bibi's coalition partners, with the possible exception of Barak, give a fig about the Americans, the Palestinians or anybody else, so a little coalition shakeup is probably going to be necessary.

Part of my job description is speaking on behalf of Israel in public forums, and I can't even tell you how hard that has been over the past few months, in the aftermath of Gaza and the elections of the Israeli version of the nutters. If Obama is able to bring Israel back to its senses, put it on the path of reasonable coexistence with its neighbors and away from its (largely self-imposed) Samson posture, then he will be doing me - as well as Israel - a big favor.

Lemonade

Well, it's been quite a week, in the aftermath of Dr. Tiller's assassination last weekend. Yesterday there was an interfaith service organized by a couple of ministers downtown who are board members of Interfaith Ministries - Michael Gardner at First UMC, and Cathy Northrup at First Presbyterian. MKJF was a cosponsor. It was probably attended by about 400 people, the service was High Mainline and it worked well, very emotional, especially the candlelighting ceremony. (I was interviewed by Channel 12.) Today was the funeral.

The one thing about it that bothers me is that the statement for the interfaith event was so broad and non-political that the exteme "pro-life" elements were able to sign on to it. While I can understand the impetus to a community-wide statement, if Troy Newman is able to sign on to it, it's too broad a statement for me. I'm tired of being so concerned with the honestly held beliefs of extremists - for me, that's over now.

I'm hoping that what will come out of this is a renewed conversation on reproductive choice, even if it's just a little for a little while. There's so much extremism on this issue out here, it's incredible. Every year the legislature tries to move the line of constitutional permissibility significantly to the right (we'll do this, let a court strike it down) and you'll see the Republican candidates for Senate falling all over themselves to be more "pro-life" than the other next year. If this serves to make the most extreme practitioners of pro-life politics a little radioactive politically, at least that would make some lemonade out of some very bitter lemons.

One thing I'm thinking might work, is a public meeting with some clergy talking about the religious argument for choice. I think we could pull it off before the attention goes elsewhere and the status goes back to quo. It'd be better if there was a local RCRC chapter here, but it's dormant, maybe we could kick it off again. I don't know if the progressive clergy would be into it. Stay tuned.

Parshat Naso

This week’s parshah contains one of the strangest and most difficult rituals in our Torah. It is the Sotah, or “deviant woman” ritual.

If any man’s wife has gone astray and broken faith with him … [by sleeping with another man] and there is no witness against her, but a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy comes over one and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself – the man shall bring his wife to the priest. [Num. 5:12-15]

Here we see a slight of hand by the Torah: first it seems like this is in response to a woman’s adultery, but only a couple of lines later it becomes apparent that it’s really about the man’s jealousy. Since there is no witness, the only reason the case is brought at all is because of the man’s suspicion of his wife.

Nevertheless, the woman has to undergo a rather grueling ritual, involving uncovering her hair and making her drink a potion made up of water, earth from the floor of the tabernacle, and the actual written text of imprecations that the priest recites, to the effect some rather painful things should happen to her body if she’s guilty. If, after she drinks the water, these things don’t happen, then she’s not guilty and is free to go, her husband’s faith in her presumably restored. Her faith in him, of course, goes unmentioned.

This is one of the few (perhaps the only) trials-by-ordeal in the Torah – that is, that guilt or innocence can be established from a ritual unrelated to the facts of a case, that God Godself will indicate the guilt or innocence of the woman. Some commentators say there may have been recognition that this ritual would never return a guilty verdict, although it’s hard to see how it could assuage a husband’s jealousy if that were so. Yohanan ben Zakkai, the 1st century CE rabbi who established the rabbinic school in Yavne after the destruction of Jerusalem, cancelled the performance of this ritual as part of his innovations, which indicates that there was an awareness fairly early on that this was an unfair test. Like I say, a difficult text.

It also seems to be an early case of men making decisions about women’s bodies based solely upon men’s suspicions or beliefs. This is, as we know, something that still happens all over the world and even right here at home. This makes this a rather appropriate and cautionary text for this week, it seems to me.

The Etz Chayim chumash points out that the imprecations dissolved into the potion include the four-letter name of God, which is usually prohibited from being destroyed, and cites the midrashic text Numbers Rabbah to the effect that, “For the sake of peace between husband and wife, God has ordered that the divine name be blotted out.” Of course, it is actually the man’s jealousy and wish to control his wife's body that causes the Divine Name to be destroyed; still, the idea that even after that, peace between them can replace that which was destroyed is a powerful one.

In a sense, the Divine Name was destroyed this week in Wichita, by a man who wished to control what women could and could not do with their bodies. Only if we can come to some measure of peace, reconciliation and justice, can that Name, that divinity, that trust, be replaced – not fully perhaps, but at least in part. It’s all we can hope for, all we can do.

Shabbat shalom.

Something about me

Or, why am not a good pulpit rabbi.

I am totally the guy who will defriend you if you go all RWNJ (right wing nut job) on my blog or Facebook page. Latest example: the guy I knew in Israel who went on for 14 posts (!) about how the Ricci case proves that "the left" is racist. Honestly, the only time some people start worrying about racism is when it becomes difficult to utilize. Yerrrr outta there!

Just to be clear: there are many people who I don't have political conversations with - especially people who have to do with my job - and there are people who I disagree with politically who I am very friendly with. Here I'm talking about people who tend to be tangential people in my life, or people from my past, who insist on expouding on their political positions in ways I find obnoxious or disrespectful. And I have been defriended by others for similar reasons.

I realize that for some people politics may seem like a weird or superficial reason to dump someone as a friend (actual or facebook). But in all but a handful of cases in my life, my political commitments are far more important to me than my modest friendships.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's the way it is.

Nu, so what's wrong with a little levity?

John Buass turned me on to this. Check out the website if you want some more.

My God is a God of love, peace - and women's health

Wichita is still reeling from the murder Sunday of Dr. George Tiller. Sunday night there was a candlelight vigil in Old Town Square which attracted nearly 1000 people. There was no pre-arranged speaker list so people just spoke if they felt called to do so, and everybody who spoke was touching and moving, speaking from their hearts about their experience with the man either personally or professionally. Some women had had abortions, some had been clinic escorts or staff, some (like Rabbi Davis) had given spiritual help to people who came into town for what were often difficult circumstances brought on by malformed fetuses and the like. Everybody testified as to what a warm and caring individual Dr. Tiller was, in his practice, in his church, in his kids' school activities, etc. Not at all the caricature of the rabid right. The vigil was a hopeful end to a very tragic day.

The Jewish legal approach to abortion is based on the talionis material in Exodus 21:22,

If men strive, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and miscarriage results, but no other harm ensue; the one responsible will be fined according as the women's husband may exact from him, the payment to be as the judges determine. But if other harm [to the woman] ensues, then you shall give life for life, foot for foot... etc.

In other words, damage to a fetus is treated by Torah as property damage, reparable by paying a fine, and not as harm to a human being, which would be punished by a sentence. Now, abortion has generally been prohibited by Jewish tradition, particularly as a retroactive form of birth control, but most authorities (I think it's safe to say "virtually all," but the ultra-Orthodox tend to side with the Right-to-Lifers on it) will permit exceptions for the health - including the mental health - of the woman.

So we can conclude that while Jewish tradition may not fall on the most pro-choice end of the spectrum, its teachings cannot be accommodated by the "pro-life" position; that's why most Jews and Jewish authorities tend to take a pro-choice approach politically.

Although American jurisprudence had tended to be fairly hands-off in the early stages of pregnancy and more stringent thereafter, and although this position is largely in keeping with traditional Jewish approaches to the matter (Rashi said that for the first 40 days, the fetus was indistinguishable from water), one could make the argument that providing later-term abortions is more in keeping with Jewish practice, inasmuch as early abortions may be retroactive birth control and later ones more likely to be in response to fetal abnormalities.

Be all that as it may, in a pluralistic society, no one's religious dicta are incumbent upon anyone else. The idea that a fetus is a person at conception is a religious principle, not a scientific one or a legal one or binding in any other way. This society has spent a lot of effort struggling to come to a reasonable common ground on this issue, and although that ground is a lot farther to the right than I would like it to be (particularly in Kansas) anything more would be the imposition of others' religious principles on those who don't hold them, which is unconstitutional.

Anyone, even Bill O'Reilly, is welcome to try to affect that debate. Resorting to violence when you don't get what you want, it should not be necessary to say, must be punished fully, including those who may have known about it or otherwise enabled it. This act should be treated as the domestic terrorism it is. Further, anyone who "pals around with" domestic terrorists and their supporters, such as Operation Rescue, must be made to pay a political price similar to the one the right hoped Obama would pay. Bill Ayers was a casual acquaintance of Obama's. These are people who are fully integrated into the "life" community, and there must be a political cost to that. Anything less is letting them get away with murder.

Dr. Tiller's funeral is Saturday morning at 10AM at the College Hill United Methodist Church. On Friday at 4 pm there will be an interfaith service of prayer and reconciliation, cosponsored by (among many others) Inter-Faith Ministries and the MKJF, at First UMC. We are also told by the Wichita PD that Fred Phelps and his nutters will be picketing the funeral and both synagogues on Saturday morning. I urge you to attend one or more of these events. Show that our God is not one one of hatred and violence, but of love and peace, reconciliation - and women's health.

Approval, if not endorsement

Two trips to Israel, lifelong friendships in the Jewish community, a compelling personal story of immigrant success that resonates with the American Jewish experience, and reasonable and moderate opinions all combine to predispose the Jewish community well to the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.