February 2004 Archives

Trying to finally get out of school for a change, I attended Sunday's conference of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. Unlike AIPAC's national conference in Washington, this conference was held in a Chicago Hyatt, and was geared specifically toward the Midwest region. Based on the numbers given, there were anywhere from 1500-1600+ people, 600+ of whom were college students. I cannot confirm if any of these numbers are accurate, but the turnout was certainly impressive.

There were no shortage of dynamic speakers; Daniel Gordis delivered the keynote address (as well as a "breakout" session) and Alan Dershowitz concluded the conference. Furthermore, several prominent government officials were in attendance and spoke briefly.

Despite the erudition and eloquence of the speakers, most people I spoke to regretted the limited range of opinions at the conference - assuming content was actually presented. Although some minor disagreements were heard, debates were downplayed. The clear overriding theme was simply, "we support Israel."

While this upset some participants, my perspective is that AIPAC simply accomplished what it set out to do. Most of the attendees support Israel in one way or another, and are either active or would like to be active in promoting Israel in college campuses or other forums. To adequately advocate for Israel, one needs three things. First is simply factual knowledge of the conflict and its history. This includes dates, events, quotes, or statistics. AIPAC assumes that the attendees either have this information, or could easily obtain this information on their own.

However, once you have this information, what are you supposed to do? The second requirement is personal passion. If you're not enthusiastic, or you don't believe in your cause, you're not going to be an effective spokesperson. Finally, assuming you have the knowledge and the desire, you need to know what to do with them. This is where the AIPAC conference succeeded. Not only did speakers energize and revitalize the participants, but the breakout session provided practical advice for how to channel one's enthusiasm for Israel.

For example, many students on campus are faced with vocal and inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric. While many of these students might be tempted to debate the issues in a loud public forum, speaker at AIPAC encouraged calmer personal interactions. Instead of shouting conflicting numbers, tell people real stories about Israel. Make it real to people. The purpose isn't merely to defend against attacks, call "reactionary theatrics," but to actively build positive connections with Israel.

To me, this attitude parallels the conflict on the ground in Israel in the sense that instead of "stooping to their level," AIPAC encourages a higher civil discourse. Furthermore, the opposition is interested in destruction - of bringing down Israel. If one constantly fights against these challenges, one might prevent destruction, but one doesn't do much to build up themselves in the process either.

I think they're right from a pragmatic level as well. Although mass demonstrations get media attention, how much do they really accomplish, especially compared with actual lobbying? As AIPAC noted, there were at least eight political figures in attendance from both political parties. Did they attend because of flashy sound bytes or though intelligent discourses? AIPAC believes that although some rebuttals are necessary, people have to pick their battles, fight them appropriately, and fight them to the end. However, in general, more will be accomplished by calmly promoting Israel, rather than responding to each and every wild accusation.

Or to quote the wisest of them all:

"The words of the wise spoken in quiet are more acceptable than the cry of a ruler among fools."(Kohelet 9:17)

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.

I've just about finished with the weekly pilgrimages to the cRc, which has been taking much of my time recently. They have all been incredibly helpful, especially Executive Director Rabbi Joseph Ozarowski. I'm not planning on publishing the paper, but if you're reading this, know that they do much more than Kashrut., including (but not limited to) a new rehab program.(Free reg reqd)

I am officially plugging The Queen of Persia from Shazak Publications. Highly recommended for all ages.

Also on the Purim front, I'm working on some shticks, and typing up my shiur from last year on the real halakhot of drinking on Purim. Rav Gedalia Schwartz, the Av Beit Din of the cRc, recently gave a shiur on Purim drinking which confirmed my initial analysis of the sources.

In other news: I'm going to an AIPAC conference for university students on Sunday. I've never been to one of these things before, but I have a feeling I'll have fun one way or another. I'll try to write up some highlights from that. Also, I'm working on my take of Evil in the Talmud and a brief introduction to Jewish Law. Oh yeah, and a thesis of some sort.

I've realized I really missed sitting down in the library and just writing. It's always unfortunate when school gets in the way of education. At any rate, if and when things calm down, I can get back to the good 'ol days of semi-regular pseudo-intellectual blogging.

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.

Shaynale sends an Excel spreadsheet which determines your ideal job based on your name.

Here's how I did:

• Josh = Vibrator Tester


• Joshua = Clown


• Yuter = Rabbit Slayer


• Josh Yuter = Computer Nerd


• Joshua Yuter = Cowboy


• Rabbi Josh Yuter = Mad Scientist


• Rabbi Joshua Yuter = Village Idiot

I'd say this counts as conclusive scientific proof.

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.

"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.

My affinity for theology rarely leads me to places like Grand Forks North Dakota, but Fark linked to an interesting and well written article in the Grand Forks Herald.

The article discusses some modern approaches to an ancient dilemma in Christianity: Which commandments of the Bible are authoritative.

Leviticus not only condemns a man "who lies with a male as with a woman" and the eating of pork. It also prohibits seafood without fins. And tattoos.

So what makes one law still in force and another seemingly obsolete? Particularly when Jesus himself said "not one jot or one tittle" of the law would change?

Or to reverse the argument, if charging interest does not apply anymore because "times have changed," then why can't times change for homosexuality? Some Christians distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, but these arbitrary categories merely shift the debate. Not only will people argue why some laws immutable and others not, but also why certain commandments are purely "civil" and not "moral?"

Not being a Christian theologian, I won't attempt to answer this problem, and thankfully, I don't have to. However, you might notice a similar dichotomy in the development of practical Jewish law. Despite claims of authority and oral tradition, Jews don't always follow the laws of the Talmud. The popular myth is that Sepharadim follow the Rambam or Shulhan Arukh and Ashkenazim follow Ramo or the Mishna Berurah. Neither assumption is that simple and this formula doesn't always hold true. R. Tendler summarized it best in one of my discussions with him: "we pasken like the Ramo, except when we don't."

Many people lack the education or patience (sometimes both) to appreciate and comprehend the intricacies of Jewish law. It's much easier to give a congregation a one line sound-byte and say this is the law because X says so. Furthermore, I doubt that many Rabbis follow a coherent system of Jewish law (assuming they have one) beyond the simple, "this is what we do because this is what we do." Thus, it's not only easier for the congregation to digest the one liner, but it saves the Rabbis from actually thinking.

When Rabbis appeal to the authority of a text, they provide the simplest explanation for the law. Pragmatically this works for most congregations, especially in the short term. However, as congregants and laity get better educated, rabbis will have to provide better answers. People have already recognized inconsistencies in halakha, and need something better than "he said so."

Of course, this would also mean training rabbis to give better answers, and that could take some time.

In an ironic Kuro5hin article, James AC Joyce writes "Why your Movable Type blog must die."

One complaint is, "You are all sheep:"

Whenever you discuss a subject about which you all fake your knowledge, such as "metablogging", the lot of you tend to throw out random and completely false opinions and then temperately argue each other down to a single, unified viewpoint. Which is completely wrong.

Aside from the inherent hypocricy in posting this to a blogging type site, he does raise some interesting issues. It's bad enough we have a new forum for idiots to easily and anonymously run off their mouths, but the blogs mess up search engines. Let's say you're a history major looking for something about Archduke Ferdinand. My shiur, while interesting, doesn't exactly help you all that much.

If it's any consolation, I've been slacking recently, and if things go well I might slack even more in the future.

But if the search engine thing still bothers you, you're free to write a better one, because of course, you can never have enough search engines.

Apparently enough Hillel people liked my presentation on Egalitarian Liturgy that they've asked me to speak again. In honor of Tu Bishvat I will be speaking this Friday night on "Judaism, Ethics & the Environment" or anything else that would go along with that.

Will post details afterwards.

Allow me to jump on the bandwagon of mazal toving Avraham Bronstein and Dani Weiss on their engagement. If I may, I'd like to offer a suggestion for future baby names.¹

1. Surprisingly, Meredith had nothing to do with this.