YUTOPIA

Despite being a demographic minority in America, Jews seemingly wield a disproportionate influence in American politics such that the "Jewish Vote" becomes an annual topic of interest. Politicians are concerned with this minority that both Democrats and Republicans equally compete for the "pro-Israel" label, and any missteps must be swiftly addressed. There has been some recent discussion as to the nature, significance, and future of the Jewish vote specifically mostly focusing on party affiliation and voting patterns. Today on YUTOPIA we will be reconsidering if partisanship is really the ideal context for defining the Jewish vote.

Continue reading "Whither The Jewish Vote?" »

Posted by Josh at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In a recent Newsweek article, devout atheist Sam Harris laments religion's influence in American politics and in shaping public policy. While we might expect such arguments to assert the seperation of church and state, Harris' main objection is that religions are fundamentally immoral and unethical.1

Continue reading "Faith In The System" »

Posted by Josh at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There's a great quote today courtesy of Rev. David Clippard speaking at the Missouri Baptist Convention's annual meeting in St. Louis. While his speech was littered with anti-Islamic statements, his comments afterwards were perplexing to say the least:

Clippard said Tuesday that his message was really about love.

"I don't hate Islamic people," he said. "We need to love these folks, go after them and love them, one at a time. We need to crucify them with Christ."

And here I thought the crucifixion was a *bad* thing when really it was just a little "tough love" by the Romans. My question is are 2x4's now considered acceptable gifts for a 5th or "wood" anniversary?

Posted by Josh at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Most New Yorkers, especially subway commuters, have had experience with random and often comical street preachers. Most are harmless. If you're on the street you can act like the New Yorker and ignore them like you do everyone else, and if you're on the subway they tend to change cars or trains after one stop.1

Recently Jews For Jesus has stepped up a missionizing campaign in New York. Unlike the typical street preachers who minister to whomever happens to listen, Jews For Jesus actively tries to proselytize individuals with direct confrontation.

These confrontations can be very uncomfortable for most Jews. Few are well versed enough to respond to the challenges,2 and even those who are competent in the sources might not have the personality or debating skills to have an effective argument.

Ideally, I would suggest that when confronted the best response would be to walk away,3 however this is not always possible. So as a public service and in the interests of "know how to respond to heretics" (Avot 2:17) I'd like to offer my suggestions as a brief guide to handling the overly aggressive missionaries.

Continue reading "How To Effectively Respond To Missionaries " »

Posted by Josh at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's not surprising that as we approach the GLBT World Pride in Jerusalem (August 6-12), we find increasingly critical and hostile rhetoric against the event. Jerusalem is no stranger to religious controversies, and the opposition to homosexuality is nearly universal among the major religions.

My understanding is that there are two major goals of the Pride events. The first is to provide support and encouragement for the GLBT community internally, and the second is to promote tolerance and acceptance. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification). From the World Pride mission statement:

It is time to demonstrate to our community, to our neighbors and peers and indeed to the world, not only that we belong, but that our love and our pride can cross the harshest borders that divide people.

"In these times of intolerance and suspicion, from the home of three of the world's great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders." [emphasis added]

World Pride is not simply a matter of communal bonding or promoting tolerance, but a subliminal protest against intolerant religions. There is of course an intelligent strategy at work here. By assuming a greater challenge, the GLBT community can more effectively galvanize itself by breaking another barrier (if peaceful) or standing strong in the face of opposition.

But consider some of the stated themes of the upcoming World Pride:

• Our values are guided by tolerance, equality and pluralism.
• The parade in Jerusalem is conformed to the city's nature in respect toward the local orthodox populations.
• The pride events bring a new inner-faith message of equality and tolerance.
• Obeying the law and avoiding violence and harsh criticism are some of our messages.

Given the underlying attitude towards religion, these statements are disingenuous at best. If the values are guided by tolerance, then a better location should have been selected. The parade obviously does not conform in respect to the Orthodox populations as evidenced by the vehement opposition. And if the theme is truly to avoid harsh criticism (unclear if it refers to giving or receiving) then why select such a volatile location?

My issue here is not questioning the right to assemble or even the right to protest GLBT's treatment in the major religions. But I personally find it hypocritical to do so under the banner of tolerance. The choices of Rome and Jerusalem seems to be an "in your face" approach almost daring people to pick a fight. If the message is really about tolerance, then this strategy is counter-productive since the parade will most likely breed even more resentment.

I do think there can be a compromise between religion and the GLBT community, and I offered my own suggestions to that effect. But as I argued regarding pluralism, tolerance does not mean that other people must unilaterally accept you on your terms. There first has to be mutual acknowledgement and respect of each other's beliefs and perspectives, and this would have to entail avoiding obviously antagonistic actions.

If one requests tolerance, one must be willing to give it as well.

Posted by Josh at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Apparently, if I'm not blogging. people think something terrible must have happened. Between numerous e-mails and random IM's I realized that either have a loyal fan base or disturbed cult following. Either way, I figure I've got to get back and somehow work out a way to turn a profit. In the meantime, I'll try to respond in due time.

As to what I've been doing for the past month or so, I leave that as an exercise to the reader, especially if you're proficient with Photoshop.

Getting back to normal here, you might have seen the stories about the Church Of Fools, the first interactive sanctuary on the net.¹ As part of my ecumenical procrastination, I decided to check out this community which serves the spirituality seekers who cannot be inconvenienced to leave their computer.

Behold, my first foray into Church.² Screenshots included.

Disclaimer: I don't have the time right now to thumbnail the images. If you are offended either by Christian imagery or slow web pages, please to not read any further.

Continue reading "Get Me To The Church Online" »

Posted by Josh at 2:36 PM | Permalink

James Hitchcock writes a wonderful article in February's First Things titled The Enemies of Religious Liberty. (Read the article)

Dr. Hitchcock cites several examples where people claiming to promote freedom and personal freedom, will deny others the right of religious observance - when their positions disagree with them.

For a quick refresher, see The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The problem of course is at what point does the "freedom" to worship become a federal "establishment" of a religion? Or from the opposite perspective, when do federal laws prohibit the free exercise of religion?

One doesn't have do much research to see how issues like school prayer and gay marriages reveal the conflicting ethics and "rights" of their proponents.

Even the ACLU can't seem to make up its mind. In their statement on religious liberty, they claim, "the free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference," and that the "ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business." In practice, they repeatedly appeal to the courts to restrict prayer if held publicly.

As Dr. Hitchcock notes, for many legal scholars religious freedoms are only granted where the secular culture allows. If there is any conflict or "divisiveness," the personal freedom of religion bows to the ethics governing the secular society.

Dr. Hitchcock also writes a column for Women for Faith and Family which "issues occasional public statements on matters of concern to Catholic women, their families or religious communities." Should provide some interesting reading for the elusive spare time.

Posted by Josh at 9:32 PM | Permalink

I'm working on a few serious posts, and I've been busy with school and life. Hopefully, we'll have some good stuff coming up, but in the meantime, more snark.

Reuven first introduced me to these guys and their attempts at creation re-education. Ben Resnick shows me they've expanded their youth programming with Jesus 4 Kidz.

Some highlights:

The mascot "Lambuel" has a girlfriend "Ruby the lioness" and apparently they want to get married someday. Personally, I think Lambuel would do much better with a wolf.

An elephant character "Habu" is asked: "Wouldn't you rather have just one God who loves you a bunch than a bunch of gods that don't love you at all?" Fortunately, "Jesus loves everybody, even the unsaved like Habu!"

Oh, but stay away from Mr. Gruff the atheist:

If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

You may be moved to try and witness to
these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!

Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

And if that fails, you can always call his Scottish cousin McGruff. Click on the goat's head and he'll say things like, "Coffee's the only thing that gives me solace" and "Hey Kid, wanna read some Ayn Rand?"

Also check out Hopsiah the Kanga-Jew and Professor Giraffenstein. No word yet on future marketing plans, or the release date for the animated version of The Passion.

Posted by Josh at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bobby Labonte has a new sponsor for the Daytona 500. His car will plug Mel Gibson's movie - The Passion

No word yet if he'll also have a plastic Jesus riding on the dashboard. I wonder if he asked himself what would Jesus drive?

As an aside, the worst pun I saw about this story was in today's Red Eye Chicago: "Jesus Christ Supercar."

Just so you know I'm not the worst one out there.

Posted by Josh at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"It is as sport to a fool to do wickedness, and so is wisdom to a man of discernment."(Proverbs 10:23)

Inspired by Kurt Warner's recent accusations that he was benched because of his religion, ESPN's Robert Lipsyte writes about Sports, God & Religion.

Nothing really new here. Some players like to invoke the name of the Lord before they go out to who knows what. On the other hand, some owners are suspicious of players who (halilah) believe in a power greater than football. Reading this article, I'm reminded how similar this community of worshipers mimics almost every religious community.

I'm sure there are plenty of professional athletes devoted to their respective faiths. Others merely pay lip-service because it sounds good to other people and they demonstrate some degree of humility. How many people do we know of sit on either side of this mehitza?

I also find interesting is the jihad aspect of football. Whoever has more faith, has God on their side, and therefore deserves to win. Dennis Miller had a great line (not quoted by Lipsyte for some reason): "the winning team always has God on their side, but no one ever says 'Jesus made me fumble.'" It's easy to thank God when things are going well, but how often do we see the hand of God in the bad as well?

From what I've seen, the Lord is invoked in football more than other sports. This could be because of shortened season, heightened intensity, or following George Carlin - baseball is just wimpy. With fewer and more intense games, football players will understandably be more emotional than after one of the many insignificant baseball games.

Of course, all athletes get emotional at the end of the season. Players thank God for a good season or for the opportunities they had. It's a time of reflection and retrospection where players reevaluate themselves and prepare for the future season (or retirement). For intents and purposes, this is the end of their year and the off-season is a time for renewal and optimism. We shouldn't be surprised then that athletes have their own "Rosh Hashana" rituals.

It's easy to mock athletes for irrational, inconsistent, or insincere faiths. Just realize that underneath the pads and multi-million dollar contracts, they're just people like everyone else. And the flaws we see in them, might very well be the flaws we refuse to see in ourselves.

Posted by Josh at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's time now for my response to Rabbi Daniel Stein. Sorry for the delays, but I do have schoolwork to do here. I've been working on a response that will adequately address R. Stein's points, while not succumbing to ranting. As comical and entertaining as a Grach-type review would be, I feel that R. Stein's article deserves a serious analysis and critique.

(Rants may come at the end)

Continue reading "The Stein Line" »

Posted by Josh at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Thanks to everyone for their comments, e-mails, and IM's about the "nice guy" post. Please feel free to continue sending in feedback. I'll do a follow up sometime in the next week and a half or so.

Also, many thanks to Potter for telling me about ieSpell - a free spell checker for IE text boxes. Highly recommended - especially for bloggers.

Tomorrow I should be giving my presentation in the Theorizing Religion class on asceticism in rabbinic literature. The professor is writing a book and is using the class for feedback. I have an assignment to critique his thesis in general, and I'll post that when it's ready. In the meantime, I will focus on the current topic of discussion of Virtuosi Practices: Asceticism.

Dr. Riesebrodt views ascetic practices as the accepting of crisis upon oneself for the purposes of alleviating the crises of the laity. Meaning, when the virtuosi accepts the crisis on himself, the masses will reevaluate and devalue their own personal crises. This acceptance of crisis - or what would normally be considered crisis by the laity - may lead to an empowerment of some kind to perform some miraculous acts and to gain eternal life.¹

I did not find sources in Rabbinic Literature which corresponded completely with the thesis. Most ascetic practices would either have a different purpose, and those actions which served the purpose are not typically "ascetic." Fasting, would be a classic example of an ascetic practice. However, the virtuosi do these acts not for the masses to look upon their suffering and feel better about themselves but for repentance. R. Zadok fasted over 40 years so that the Temple would not be destroyed (B. Gittin 56a). Certain "individuals" fast during a period of drought, but if the drought continues this obligation extends to the community.(M. Taanit 1:4-5)²

There are instances of Rabbis going to extreme lengths to do mitzvot - especially facing financial hardship. When Hillel couldn't afford the admission to the study hall, he climbed to the roof and was buried by snow.(B. Yoma 35b) This is certainly not a typical ascetic practice, but it does put the individuals' daily struggles in perspective. Considering what Hillel did, it's not so unreasonable for the masses to fit in some learning during the day.

These however are exceptional cases; normative Rabbinic law eschews personal asceticism.³ Shmuel calls someone who fasts (presumably optionally) a "sinner" and Reish Lakish says that a Sage is not allowed to fast because it will interfere with his "real" obligations.(B. Taanit 11a, 11b). Another formalized ascetic practice would be the Nazir who may not drink wine or get a haircut. The Talmud explains that even R. Elazer, who stresses that the Nazir is "sacred," would only do so when there is no personal suffering.(ibid)⁴ Even in the event of drought, one should not necessarily resort to virtuosi practices. R. Shimon Ben Shetach nearly excommunicated Honi for his famed prayer in the circle.(M. Taanit 3:8)⁵

Dr. Riesebrodt's thesis, as presented here, partially works for Rabbinic Judaism or at least from the sources I have seen.⁶ The definition of "crisis prevention" should be expanded to include vicarious suffering or repentance on behalf of the masses. Other Rabbis held themselves to a higher standard of observance, but I would not classify those actions as "ascetic." I don't know of any explicit sources which describe individuals accepting ascetic practices for the purpose of alleviating the crisis of the masses. If anyone knows of something I might have missed, please let me know. (Just try to understand I'm trying to keep this short and I can't cite every possible source).

For further reading on asceticism in Rabbinic Literature, see Sara Epstein Weinstein's Piety and Fanaticism. For general stringencies, see the "Humra" mekorot (parts 1 and 2) and the section on Rabbinic and Communal Leadership from my mahshevet hazal shiurim.

1. Condensed version of the thesis. I will elaborate more in the overall review.
2. And even the "individuals" may be more inclusive. See B. Taanit 10b
3. M. Avot 6:4 does prescribe to live a life of privation. However, the 6th chapter of Avot is not Tannaitic. This statement does appear in later midrashic sources, but not anywhere in either the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud. There is no indication that wealthy rabbis like R. Chisda gave away all their money to follow this "mishna."
4. R. Elazer HaKappar in the name of Rabbi emphasizes that the Nazir is a "sinner." This dispute is commonly assumed to be between Rambam and Ramban with Rambam taking the position of Elazar HaKappar. Ramban only partially follows R. Elazer. See Ramban on B'Midbar 6:14.
5. He didn't because he couldn't argue with the results. The result is that it should by no means be considered to be a normative or accepted practice.
6. Technically, it works a little better than as presented here, but I don't have time to explain the intricacies of the thesis.

Posted by Josh at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)