YUTOPIA

I just received the following email from the Rabbinical Council of America, copied and pasted below.
continue reading...

The past two weeks have renewed global interest in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Between President Obama's original reference to the 1967 borders, a modification of sorts to the AIPAC convention, and a response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jewish and political communities have been arguing over how to make sense of the policies.

One recurring theme has been the repeated call of defensible borders. Under the assumption that peace in Israel must consist of land swap with a forthcoming Palestinian state, parties on all sides have repeated that the border between the two states be "defensible," without further clarification as to what that would mean in terms of specific borders.

However, a more significant question regarding the "defensible border" requirement is why would it be necessary. The "land for peace" mantra assumes that the Palestinian people are really interested in peace, but are oppressed by their Israeli occupiers. Logically then, if the Palestinians were to form their own nation, then it would be as Mahmoud Abbas stated, "a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter."

But if we were to take Abbas at his word, then why would Israel's borders need to be defensible. From whom would Israel need defending if not the "peace-loving" nation? For comparison's sake, the US / Canadian Border is 5,525miles, and yet despite this extremely long border, US is more concerned with illegal border crossings than military attacks. The reason is obvious; the United States is not concerned with having "defensible" borders with Canada because there is no risk of military attack and there is no risk of military attack because the United States is actually at peace with Canada.

The fact that "defensible borders" is still employed in Israeli / Palestinian rhetoric demonstrates that even proponents of a Palestinian state are not fully convinced by the "peace-loving" intentions. Any call for "land for peace" based on "defensible borders" is thus paradoxical to the point of dishonest for it assumes that Israel would still face a military threat despite acquiescing territory.

While I do not have a solution to the conflict, the process would probably be helped if people were more honest about their positions, intentions, and true motivations.

On May 23 2011 several prominent Orthodox Jewish organizations issued a joint statement declaring their opposition to legalizing same sex-marriage. The brief statement is as follows:

On the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear:

We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family.

The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.

Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.

The integrity of marriage in its traditional form must be preserved.

This statement was issued not only by Orthodox institutions considered "right-of center" such as Agudath Israel of America or National Council of Young Israel, but also by more moderate Orthodox organizations such as the Orthodox Union (OU) and the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA).¹ Unlike most religious proclamations which are directed towards specific religious communities, this joint statement advocates a political position - though based on religious principles - to the secular world beyond the normal scope of religious influence. To be sure, this joint statement is hardly the first time rabbinic organizations have issued political statements. Across all major denominations, the Orthodox RCA, Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, and Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis have all passed resolutions advocating public polices exemplifying their respective religious beliefs, with few (if any) complaining about the separation of church and state.

But due to the inherent subjective moral arguments against same-sex marriage, I argue that Jews - especially the Orthodox - would be better served in not opposing its legalization.
continue reading...

In part 3 of his Economics and Social Justice series, Rabbi Yuter addresses the topic of Jewish Labor Laws from a holistic perspective, balancing the rights and obligations of both the employer and the employee.

Economics and Social Justice in Jewish Law - Halakhic Labor Laws Sources (PDF)

Economics and Social Justice in Jewish Law - Halakhic Labor Laws

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Rabbi Josh Yuter begins his special lecture series on Economics and Social Justice in Judaism with an introduction to methodology and a demonstration of a free market ethos existing within the Rabbinic legal tradition. Audio and sources included.

Economics and Social Justice in Jewish Law Part 1 - Free Market Ethics Sources (PDF)

Economics and Social Justice in Jewish Law- Free Market Ethics in Judaism

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The first Tuesday of every month I lead a Beit Midrash session at the Stanton St. Shul. These topics vary from month to month, often coinciding with the Jewish or secular calendar. This month, I chose to deal with some issues of Avoda Zara due to some questions which kept coming up lately in shul.

This class is by no means comprehensive; covering this topic properly would probably take at least a year. Still the point is to raise certain issues and hopefully lead people to ask better halakhic questions.

Episode 8 - Encountering Avoda Zara

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Like most people, there are some experiences in life I usually try to avoid. Most of the time it's part of an aversion to some sort of discomfort, usually phusical or psychological. Then there are those aversions which are completely irrational and get their own category:
I call one of them, "Brooklyn."
I can't really explain why I get so unnerved in Brooklyn. It could be the multi-million dollar mansions situated in anotherwise aesthetically depressed area, or the overwhelming particular Jewisness of the area one that can only be circularly defined as "Brooklyn."
Still, all fears must be confronted at some point so yesterday I joined my mother and grandparents on a little errand running excursion to Coney and J. The thinking was that while the rest of New York would be shut down - I can't remember crusing down the West Side Highway that quickly in midday - Brooklyn would be running along as usual. I didn't break out into hives or start convulsing, but there were definately some notable Brooklyn highlights:

• I was in Eichlers and overheard a father and mother (different families) with respective children recently engaged (not to each other) were comparing notes on wedding preperations (ketuvah, "backup tenaim," etc). In the course of their conversation, the woman complimented the man's tie. In the spirit of holiday, the man replied, "You like the tie? It's yours. I can get these for $5." and proceeded to take off his tie, puts it on the counter, and gives it to the dumbfounded woman.
• Waiting for my mother and grandmother in one of the Brooklyn dress shops, I noticed that the background music was not only sung by female, but the song was "White Christmas." I can excuse the vocalist because the only men who would enter the store would presumably already be beyond saving. But regarding the song choice, perhaps they consider it Jewish Music after all.
• Someone behind the counter of a pizza shop called over a teenager and asked him if he was new in town. The teen said yes and asked how he knew. The man said it was because he noticed that every time the teen got up from a table someone else came and took it, adding with a smile, "you've got to be more careful around here - don't be so trusting."
• And finally there was this priceless exchange at the same pizza store with an obviously appreciative customer:
  

  "God bless Christmas"
  "Yeah, only a Yid could pull this off."

You know, I may need to take Brooklyn off the list.
Maybe just for Christmas anyway.

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...

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?

Brandishing the slogan of "Torah U'Madda," Yeshiva University promotes some form of synthesis between Jewish religious and secular culture. While the term Torah U'Madda is generic, in the context of YU it generally refers to its dual curriculum, combining the religious and secular subject matters in one university as opposed to having them be necessarily in conflict. But beyond the distinction of Torah U'Madda in subject matters, I noticed this past week two instances of Torah U'Madda in the nature of discourse itself.

continue reading...