Recently in Religion Category

Taking advantage of the recent national holidays I gave a two-part shiur series at The Stanton St. Shul. Part 1 was given on December 25th (fourth day of Hanukah) on Rabbinic Responses to Greek Culture and Part 2 was delivered this morning on Rabbinic Responses to Christian Thought. (The initial plan was to combine both into one shiur, but that was unrealistic).

I'm not writing them up because to be perfectly honest most of what I did was done before, and much better than I could ever hope to do. In particular I borrowed heavily from Saul Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine / Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Ephraim Urbach's The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, and Haham Jose' Faur's new book The Horizontal Society which I hope to review shortly.

Still there are those who may be interested in the source sheets, which may be downloaded in PDF:
Rabbinic Reactions to Greek Culture
Rabbinic Responses to Christian Thought.

Also, I'm going to be posting future source sheets - and slowly migrating old ones - to a new section of YUTOPIA: http://joshyuter.com/shiurim/

Enjoy!

A few weeks ago I received the relieving news that my master's thesis from the University of Chicago finally passed after several years and several attempts. The approved version was actually a draft and needed some degree of editing for typos, grammar, and a few structural changes. After mulling it over for a while and getting some positive feedback I've decided to post the thesis here with a few explanations.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'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.