I’ve been away visiting my wife’s family in Israel, and didn’t get to blog about accusations emanating from some liberal circles that Sen. Joe Lieberman is somehow a “bad Jew” for opposing the “public option.”
Needless to say, it’s completely absurd to suggest that Judaism, of any denomination, takes any position on how to reform the American health care system. That hasn’t stopped some from trying. From The Forward:
But Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said his group is focusing on battles where it can make a difference, and winning over Joe Lieberman is one of them. “Senator Lieberman is looking at the same Jewish texts that we are, and reaching opposite conclusions,” Pelavin said.
This, in a nutshell, explains why Reform Judaism (with which I have some sympathy theologically) is dying a slow long-term death (estimates are something like 8 Reform Jewish great-grandparents will produce slightly over 1 Jewish great-grandchild–Reform has received a temporary boost because it, unlike its Conservative rival, which is undergoing its own identity crisis over the issue of homosexual rabbis, accepts children of Jewish fathers); its leaders can find a mandate in “Jewish texts” for nationalizing the American health care industry, which has nothing to do with Judasim, but not for Sabbath or kashruth observance, which have been central to Judaism for 3,000 years.
To be fair, some of Reform’s leaders recognize the problem and are trying hard to change the dynamic, at least on the side of tradition, if not on the side of trying to wean establishment Reform away from identification with political liberalism. But to the extent Reform Judaism offers its constituents the New Deal as its Torah and Barack Obama as its prophet, it’s hard to see why someone should bother being involved in Reform Judaism as opposed to, say, the Democratic Party.
UPDATE: I’ve edited the post to correct my misimpression that Pelavin is a rabbi. His immediate boss at the RAC, however, David Saperstein, is a rabbi.
josh bornstein says:
David,
It’s an interesting issue, and I certainly have heard the occasional accusation of “s/he’s a bad Jew” for supporting or opposing political or social positions over the years. (Usually, but not always, in reference to issues re Israel and/or Palestine and the Arab world.)
But from the quote you gave us from Rabbi Mark Pelavin, I don’t see how that supports your point. Saying that a person looks at the same religious text but reaches opposite conclusions is a far cry from calling him a bad Jew. I was not able to get your link to work (problem is due to my computer, I think), so it’s possible that if I could read the whole article I’d find that it did include a “bad Jew” quote. But if so; I would assume that you would include that bit here. Or, are you suggesting that trying to “[win] over Joe Lieberman” is equal to calling him a bad Jew? I don’t think you’re suggesting this.
Also, do you *really* think the Reform movement equates the New Deal and the Torah, or Obama and a prophet. IMO, this argument weakens your post, as it makes you look more like one of the fringe hysterical mob, and less like a somewhat objective dissenter. I am far from religious, so I’m unqualified to speak to much of your post. But I do know scores and scores of Reform Jews, and not one of them has come close to making either of the ridiculous analogies that you attribute to (at least some of) those in the Reform movement. The ONLY people I’ve heard call Obama the Messiah are nuts on the far right, who I guess are trying to make a clever point by bludgeoning us over the head with their ironic labeling. The more you can distance yourself from such silliness; the more credible and rational you sound. (One of the reasons why I tend not to quote left-wing nutsos and extremists when I am trying to convince others of the soundness of my own positions.)
Your other point–about Reform Judiasm slowly dying–is (alas) probably correct. I am guessing that it’s true of many religions, where the moderates tend to have fewer children, and the more orthodox have a religious mandate to have large families.
December 24, 2009, 7:11 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, that’s just “hyberbole,” a fairly common rhetorical technique. I agree that Pelavin himself didn’t say that Lieberman is a bad Jew, just that he and Lieberman disagree on what Jewish texts teach on health care reform (itself an absurd claim), but others have indeed attacked Lieberman as a bad Jew for his position on health care reform.
December 24, 2009, 7:19 pmPeteP says:
There is NOTHING the left won’t stoop to to defame Joe Lieberman. His co-C-Critter Delaurio wants him ‘recalled from office’ ( there is no such thing, Rosa ! ) for voting in a way she doesn’t like. Barring that, they want him ‘punished’ in any available way. I guess they think C-Critters are elected to ‘do what the bosses in Washington tell them to do’, instead of ‘what they believe’, or ‘what’s right for their constituency, and the country’.
December 24, 2009, 7:21 pmSara says:
What an absurd, disgusting and offensive post, decrying some un-named person for calling Joe a “bad Jew” by falsely implicating and then implying all Reformed are bad Jews.
December 24, 2009, 7:41 pmDavid Bernstein says:
“by falsely implicating and then implying all Reformed are bad Jews.”
Take a reading comprehension class, why don’t you.
December 24, 2009, 7:44 pmCornellian says:
I’ve been away visiting my wife’s family in Israel, and didn’t get to blog about accusations emanating from some liberal circles that Sen. Joe Lieberman is somehow a “bad Jew” for opposing the “public option.”
Well at least he’s not being denied a sacrament for his political views, unlike some religions I could name.
December 24, 2009, 7:50 pmSara says:
I read what you wrote and that is what you did.
December 24, 2009, 7:51 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, in fact, I criticized the Reform establishment, and suggesting that this establishment is failing to inspire its constituents, Reform Jews. I said nothing remotely suggesting that Reform Jews are “bad Jews,” and indeed specified that I sympathize theologically with Reform Judaism, so by your lights I’m accusing myself of being a “bad Jew”. Hence, my suggestion about reading comprehension.
December 24, 2009, 7:56 pmSara says:
I know when a a Jew is calling another a Bad Jew. It sooner-or-later comes down to an accusation of discarding “3000 years.”
December 24, 2009, 8:01 pmRabbi Michael Simon says:
David – your post is right on the mark. Jewish texts speak of helping the less fortunate and healing the sick but as far as I know there is nothing that speaks of support for a particular piece of health care legislation about which reasonable people can differ. B’ruchim Habaim – Welcome back
December 24, 2009, 8:11 pmOrin Kerr says:
I can’t tell if Sara is joking, but if she is serious, she is misunderstanding what David is saying.
On the other hand, David, who are the people saying that Leiberman is a “bad jew” for this? I read the context of the remark you excerpt as being that Leiberman is actually a good Jew but one who has just reached a different lesson, not that he is a bad jew.
December 24, 2009, 8:12 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I borrowed the headline from this article. Beyond that, and the Forward piece when this particular controversy started, I saw some blogs attacking Lieberman for not adhering to “Judaism,” but didn’t bookmark them.
December 24, 2009, 8:23 pmSara says:
I’m not joking, Orin. You, also, see that David is implicating the Reformed in calling Joe a Bad Jew. Then he turns around and talks about how their failing to keep the kids Jewish and discarding 3000 years.
December 24, 2009, 8:25 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Just in case Sara is acting in good faith here, we’ll try one more time. The “3,000 years” point is that the Reform establishment is taking a position on an issue (health care reform) on which Judaism, however defined, has no position, meanwhile neglecting issues on which Judaism does have a well-defined view. This (a) has little to do with individual Reform Jews; and (b) has nothing to do with “bad” or “good,” but with whether a version Judaism can survive in an overwhelmingly non-Jewish environment can survive that adopts standard liberal political positions that have nothing to do with Judaism per se but is relatively neglectful of particulartistic Jewish issues.
December 24, 2009, 8:34 pmSara says:
Please David. They can’t survive as Jews because they are liberal? We already know with your hyperbole that you are not acting in good faith.
December 24, 2009, 8:44 pmCrazyTrain says:
David — I think you know that a public option is NOT “nationalizing health care.”
December 24, 2009, 8:59 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Ok, now we know you’re not either acting in good faith, or simply can’t read. Either way, good bye.
December 24, 2009, 8:59 pmPurple Kooaid says:
I wish more Orthodox would criticize Lieberman for his support of abortion.
ALso, Cornellian says:
December 24, 2009, 9:13 pmWell at least he’s not being denied a sacrament for his political views, unlike some religions I could name.
There is talk of denying communion to proabortion Roman Catholics, but I haven’t heard of it actually happening. Have any of the most prominent including Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Sebalius and the like been denied??
second history says:
….accusations emanating from some liberal circles that Sen. Joe Lieberman is somehow a “bad Jew” for opposing the “public option.”
I agree this is a scurrilous attack on Lieberman. His opposition is based on defending the insurance industry based in Connecticut.
December 24, 2009, 9:19 pmPragmaticist says:
I am a Jew who, religiously, is most comfortable as Reform, and when I attend synagogue, it is at Reform shuls. However, I am DISGUSTED by the Reform movement’s position that leftist politics is the path of righteousness and justice. I believe that welfare-statism and socialism causes poverty and misery; the Reform establishment believes that it alleviates poverty. We both wish to minimize poverty. We have an empirical disagreement that they have transformed into an issue of “righteousness and justice”.
December 24, 2009, 10:03 pmDavid Nieporent says:
As to Obama, that’s obviously just humor. But as to the former, it’s wrong only in that “equating” them would require denigrating the New Deal, in Reform Judaism’s eyes. The Torah is just an anachronistic book written by people and not to be taken too seriously; the New Deal is divinely inspired, and never to be questioned.
A reform Rabbi is more likely to think recycling (*) is a commandment than keeping kosher is.
(*) Yeah, I know; that’s not part of the New Deal.
December 24, 2009, 10:25 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Your faux outrage on behalf of Reform Jews would be more convincing if you knew that we were Reform, not Reformed, which is a protestant movement.
December 24, 2009, 10:28 pmSteve says:
December 24, 2009, 10:36 pmAriel says:
In my Conservative synagogue at Yom Kippur, the rabbi denounced Marx this year, among others. I thought that was really interesting, and kind of surprising in a deep blue state. I suspect it was partly the anti-religious Marx but our rabbi has also had a fair amount of small-c conservative speakers at the synagogue. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that more conservatively religious Jews also tend to be more conservative politically.
December 24, 2009, 10:46 pmbillo says:
“This, in a nutshell, explains why Reform Judaism (with which I have some sympathy theologically) is dying a slow long-term death…”
This is not unique to Jewish traditions. The very same thing has been happening in the mainstream Christian traditions as well. If you look at the mainstream liberal Christian traditions, they have been slowly — and not so slowly — dying. The Methodists are dropping at about 1% per year for decades, and losses have been significant in the UCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, et al. In contrast, more “primitive” and theologically conservative groups have been growing, mostly as nondenominational congregations, as has the home church movement. Christianity, primarily theologically conservative Christianity, is by some counts the fastest-growing religion in the developing world.
There are two big differences between the two groups of traditions. The first is the focus on “primitive” views of God — concrete belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, etc., as opposed to taking them as so-called “true myth” — true in its lessons, but not true in fact. The second is the focus of liberal Christianity on political rather than individual transformation. Interestingly, when conservative traditions got the political bug, they also started showing declines — as the Southern Baptists have found to their dismay.
I’m not surprised that the Reformed Jewish tradition is finding the same — that as they become less a religion and more a political action committee, they lose those who are seeking spiritual rather than political fulfillment.
December 24, 2009, 10:52 pmrpt says:
Another interesting theological juxtaposition this week was Oklahoma senator Coburn calling for prayer for the death or incapacity of (pretty clearly) Sen Byrd, while a memorial service for Oral Roberts, whose ministry was based on healing for all (not just those who could afford it, was going forward in Tulsa. Somewhat of a disconnect.
December 24, 2009, 11:17 pmex-man says:
My ex-wife is Jewish. I attended a number of services with her. I recall back in the day, we went to one and the couple in front of us wore yarmulkes emblazoned with “Gore-Lieberman 2000.” She was pretty ticked at that.
I ought to call her and ask her if she remembers those folks, and if so would she call them up and ask what they think of Joe now!
December 24, 2009, 11:22 pmEli Rabett says:
Yes, the bishop of RI is denying communion to Patrick Kennedy.
Frankly Eli David is a serial bad jew caller outer, so Sara has his sympathy
December 25, 2009, 12:42 amLarryA says:
I just wish all kinds of folks would figure out the difference between “religion says people ought to help the less fortunate” and “religion says the government should hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to help the less fortunate.” Particularly given the historical difference in the effectiveness of the two philosophies.
December 25, 2009, 1:50 amricky says:
“Another interesting theological juxtaposition this week was Oklahoma senator Coburn calling for prayer for the death or incapacity of (pretty clearly) Sen Byrd”
Yes, that’s “pretty clearly” what he was asking for, if you’re a mind reader who didn’t bother to look at what he actually said.
December 25, 2009, 1:51 amDanielO'Neill says:
Due to distances and other problems I’ve not been able to attend Temple for quite a while, but while active I did frequently wonder how so many putatively bright folks could be so unreflectively lefty in their politics. The publicly acknowledged goals of the Left are laudable, but about thirty seconds worth of contemplation makes the Left transform like that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. I see the “pacifism” and see passivism, and am not amazed at all that the tree is dying. I see some bits of self satisfied pride in the Left/Liberalism and wonder why anyone would be proud of their part in driving a downwardly mobile enterprise.
December 25, 2009, 2:33 amjosil says:
Are there politically conservative Reform Jews? I haven’t met any but I suppose it’s possible…as long as they avoid political discussions.
December 25, 2009, 2:57 amrpt says:
The video clip and context was quite clear. Coburn has a record. If you’ve followed the comments of others in certain evangelical streams, you know that imprecatory prayer has a following now, even though it is contrary to new testament doctrine. No mind reading necessary. Coburn simply wanted another senator to either die or be physically incapacitated and unable to vote. Since Byrd was being wheeled in in a wheelchair for every vote, he was the target.
December 25, 2009, 3:15 ampoul says:
in my humble jewish opinion, the people who support the current health care reform are definitely bad jews. the basic motivation of this reform is not compassion, but the class envy, and thus it clushes with the 10th commandment.
December 25, 2009, 3:57 amLeo Marvin says:
It’s not as if both sides do this or anything.
December 25, 2009, 4:19 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Joe Lieberman, Bad Jew? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, person net au. person net au said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Joe Lieberman, Bad Jew? http://bit.ly/7JxaK6 [...]
December 25, 2009, 6:56 amCharles Frith says:
He’s a bad democrat.
That bad Jew stuff is appalling language if anybody is going to be so vulgar as to define what a good Jew is.
December 25, 2009, 7:44 amsputnik says:
no,
December 25, 2009, 8:15 amhe is a bad Human.
billo says:
“he video clip and context was quite clear. Coburn has a record. If you’ve followed the comments of others in certain evangelical streams, you know that imprecatory prayer has a following now,”
Yes, just like if you follow “certain” Jewish streams, Palestinian genocide has a “following” now. And if you follow “certain” atheist streams, taking children away from Christian parents to prevent religious training as a “following” now. So I guess, I can parse anything any Jew says to mean encouragement of genocide and anything any atheist says to mean support of government controlled creches and the forcible destruction of the nuclear family. Got it.
If you want to see the embrace of imprecatory prayer, don’t look at evangelicals, look to liberal churches — at least those who still believe in prayer. It wasn’t Coburn who got up in the pulpit crying for God to damn America. You’ll have to go to Obama’s church for that.
In fact, Coburn did not ask for what you claim. He wished for something specific. His wish could have been granted by a snow storm keeping someone from getting into Washington in time, someone getting some exciting positive news that required his or her presence elsewhere, by any of a billion possibilities that required nobody dyng of being hurt or having any harmful event occurring. You must think that every kid who prays that he gets to miss a test in school is wishing for mass murder of the faculty.
If you think the only way for someone not to show up for a vote is for a death to occur, you need to widen your horizons more. You are willfully insisting on an interpretation that dows nothing more than meet your bigoted stereotypes. You want to see someone with the heart of a raisin, look in the mirror.
December 25, 2009, 9:42 ampublic_defender says:
I see the point of the original post after several clarifications. The original post contained just too much hyperbole. I also don’t see the problem of a religious leader taking a position on a piece of legislation based on the leader’s interpretation of religious texts.
December 25, 2009, 10:13 amPeter Shalen says:
I read the piece in “religion dispatches” that Mr. Bernstein linked to, and I’m alarmed by the very terms of the discussion there. The author of the piece writes that “there is… little that Lieberman has said about which Jewish texts or traditions he might be using in his decision-making process,” as if it were a foregone conclusion that because Mr. Lieberman is an observant Jew, his decision about how to vote must be based on Jewish texts or traditions. It would never be assumed of a legislator belonging to another religious group that his votes were based on his religion; indeed, the idea would, if anything, be viewed with suspicion. Before the Kennedy presidency it was widely feared that a Catholic president would take his orders from the Pope. The idea that Lieberman’s votes must be, and indeed ought to be, religiously based seems to be yet another example of treating Jews (in this case, observant Jews) according to different rules from those that apply to other people.
December 25, 2009, 10:38 amDesiderius says:
Sara,
Check bilbo’s post if you truly wish to discern DB’s meaning. Note particularly his observation on the Southern Baptists. “Mainline” religion has been actively, and ignorantly, insulting bleeding-heart libertarians for my entire lifetime, with dire consequences for both.
DB,
Sara’s vehemence is a sign that you’ve cut to the bone of a problem she feels but can not yet see. The “conservative” instinct to disengage (or, worse, press an attack) at just that point has been the bane of your* persuasive efforts. What is called for just there is mercy, acknowledgment of one’s own limitations/struggles, and, perhaps, a consideration of what 3,000-year-old understandings might truly be in need of reform, if those Sara has treasured are not the ones she was looking for.
* – Our? I agree with you on this point, but don’t think it to be ultimately conservative any more than statism is inherently Leftist.
December 25, 2009, 10:43 amrjs says:
DB: “Needless to say, it’s completely absurd to suggest that Judaism, of any denomination, takes any position on how to reform the American health care system.”
I’m not sure that “Judaism” takes a unified view on any topic.* Putting that aside, your assertion apparently isn’t true of other religions:
“The current health care reform bill is ‘deficient’ and should not move forward without ‘essential changes,’ the chairmen of three committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said December 22. The chairs, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities; Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, of the Committee on Migration, stated their position in a December 22 letter to senators working to pass the Senate version of health reform legislation.”
http://www.usccb.org/
* The stereotypical view, even among Jews, is that Jews can never agree on anything. Some Jews might disagree with me on that. :-) Ask ten Jews what is a “good Jew” or what is a “bad Jew” and you’d get ten different answers. Speaking as a “bad Jew” (which I casually define as a Jew who is unobservant and relatively ignorant), I would not presume to label Lieberman a bad Jew. There are so many other things one (I?) could call him without having to relate any of it to his religion.
December 25, 2009, 11:00 amFrank G says:
This debate shows why religion should not mix with politics. Our elected leaders should make decisions based on their reasoning skills, not based on whether or not their decisions will clash with a religious text.
December 25, 2009, 12:13 pmbillo says:
“This debate shows why religion should not mix with politics. Our elected leaders should make decisions based on their reasoning skills, not based on whether or not their decisions will clash with a religious text.”
It’s not a matter of clashing with a “religious text.” It’s about adhering to a value system.
The reasoning you talk about tells us *how* to do things, not *why.* As soon as one moves into the area of values, then one is, or rather should be, obliged to leave the pretense of a basis in reason. The only difference between folk who base their values on religion and those who pretend to base their values on “rationality” is in which irrational forces one worships and the degree to which one engages in self-delusion. People of faith don’t pretend their values are based in objective reality; so-called rationalists merely pretend they do.
All moral reasoning is based on axioms, and all moral axioms are fundamentally faith-based — whether that faith is a blind faith in a God, a blind faith in tradition, or blind faith in intuition. All such systems begin essentially with a statement analogous to “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
However, what is “self-evident” to one person is not “self-evident” to another — as those who object to the idea of anything being given by a Creator will attest. Rationalists assume that *their* base values are ‘self-evident’ to all “rational” people. That is self-delusion.
The idea that any leader should make value-based decisions relying only on “reasoning skills” is like telling someone that they should sail the seas with a finely calibrated rudder but no map.
December 25, 2009, 12:34 pmMichael Wagner says:
This is a wee bit disingenuous.
I am coming to this very late, but I would like to point out that public health is in fact a concern of the Torah, particularly in Vayikra. It’s hard to read Vayikra without coming to the conclusion that public health care has been central to Judaism “for 3,000 years”.
I would also note that any thought that the Torah would devalue “nationalized” health insurance as opposed to “private” health insurance would require a singular reading of the texts. All of the health care in Vayikra is provided by agents of the state – supported by taxes including “sin taxes”. :-)
It’s probably not an accident that although I live in a state that (historically) very few Jews, my small congregation has provided two state Directors of Public health.
I would also argue that there are serious Orthodox who think that the devaluation of ethical behavior (eg, treatment of the poor, public health) as opposed to ritual behavior (Shabbat kashrut) is a serious issue in modern Judaism.
At least for me, Joseph Telushkin’s “Code of Jewish Ethics” was an eye opener, and he’s an Orthodox rabbi.
December 25, 2009, 1:15 pmJordan Rosenberg says:
regarding: do you really think the reform movement equates the new deal and the Torah?
No. The reform movement believes in the new deal.
December 25, 2009, 1:43 pmDesiderius says:
Michael Wagner,
“I would also argue that there are serious Orthodox who think that the devaluation of ethical behavior (eg, treatment of the poor, public health) as opposed to ritual behavior (Shabbat kashrut) is a serious issue in modern Judaism.”
Indeed it is – and beyond modern Judaism. Could not that devaluation be seen as the fruit of the over-reliance of Jewish leaders (and mainline religious leaders in general) on a particular view of how that ethic is best pursued, especially in light of the fruit that tree has borne and the broader range of approaches available to those more fully aware of the tradition itself?
December 25, 2009, 4:46 pmDesiderius says:
See also.
December 25, 2009, 4:48 pmDesiderius says:
sputnik,
“he is a bad Human.”
As am I, sputnik, as am I.
And yet, Emmanuel.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and to all a good night.
December 25, 2009, 5:08 pmLeo Marvin says:
Likewise. All the best.
December 25, 2009, 6:05 pmEli Rabett says:
LarryA asked that folks would figure out the difference between “religion says people ought to help the less fortunate” and “religion says the government should hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to help the less fortunate.”
In the context of this discussion it is important to note that many commandments that Jews are required to obey specifically hold a gun to people’s heads and demands that they help the less fortunate. For example
December 25, 2009, 7:15 pmFrank G says:
Value judgments can spark the discussion, but value judgments are not the same as leadership decisions. We have a Congress so that all the different points of view are represented in the debate before any laws are passed. It’s the job of each member of Congress to consider all sides and find the best solution to the issue at hand — even if it means considering and adopting some points of view that seem alien at first.
I think your sailing analogy is pessimistic. Sail with a finely calibrated rudder, but also take along as many different maps as you can, because you never know which one was drawn with the best details for the part of the world you end up in.
Merry Christmas!
December 25, 2009, 7:58 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Your quote only says that God commands the individual Jew to leave the gleanings to the poor. It doesn’t say that the individual Jew has the right or obligation to go force another individual, and certainly not a Gentile who is not bound by the commandment to begin with, to do so. More generally, Jewish law about how Jews or the Jewish community must behave internally say absolutely nothing about Jews’ obligations or lack thereof to support coercive redistributive measures via secular authorities in a non-halachic state. (The AALS section on Jewish had an interesting panel with this exact theme some years ago.) One can, of course, try to extrapolate from the halacha to a general ethic, but the premise that one should do so to begin with is not exactly uncontroversial.
December 25, 2009, 8:04 pmbillo says:
“I think your sailing analogy is pessimistic. Sail with a finely calibrated rudder, but also take along as many different maps as you can, because you never know which one was drawn with the best details for the part of the world you end up in.”
It’s not just the map, it’s knowing the destination. Most successful captains don’t attempt to sail their ship both Canada and Brazil simultaneously. Indeed, our Congrecritters need to look at all sorts of things — but they need to have a goal, and values drive the selection of goals and shape what solutions are acceptable. I would hope, for instance, that my Congressman would not choose an evil and morally repugnant course, even if it appeared to be a quick and easy solution for an immediate problem. I suppose you would hope so also. If you do, then you cannot claim that we should have leaders without values.
I will heartily agree with you that it seems that our nation seems, at the moment, to be seeing the result of value-free leadership. My personal opinion is that more successful leaders have values that drive their leadership.
“Merry Christmas!”
Merry Christmas to you, too. And, if you are a Christian, may God be with you in the celebration of the birth of His son.
December 25, 2009, 10:44 pmVader says:
When I take used clothing, furniture, and the like to Goodwill, when it still has plenty of wear left, I am living this law. And yet, no guns, heads, coercion, or governments are involved. So your claim is nonsense.
December 26, 2009, 12:38 pmAnonymous says:
Actually, Rashi seems to have translated/explained Proverbs 14:34 as “Charity will uplift a nation, but the kindness of regimes is sin”, meaning (quoting my Artscroll Tanach) that “Regimes that rob from one group in order to dispense kindness to others” is sin.
So since at least the 11th century, traditional Judaism seems to have had a very negative view of coercive redistribution by secular authorities.
December 26, 2009, 9:37 pmQuick Takes [Darleen Click] says:
[...] Bernstein touches on the Lieberman, Bad Jew meme and finds a reason Reform Judaism is dying [...]
December 27, 2009, 11:02 amSDN says:
With logic like that, I sincerely hope you are not involved in any job that other human lives depend on.
December 27, 2009, 1:27 pmSouthernJew says:
I read the original post and felt that Mr. Bernstein’s decision to focus on the idea that someone, somewhere attacked Joe Lieberman as a “bad Jew” (someone from a source he can’t recall, but which he acknowledges is not Mark Pelavin, who he does cite) is really just stirring the pot of antagonism among Jews of different stripes. I don’t believe much good can come from using hyperbole at the junction of hot-button religious and political issues, especially when it involves getting Jews to be angry at other Jews. What’s the return?
I find Mr. Bernstein’s portrait of Reform Jewish life to be puzzling because it does not connect to my life in Reform Judaism over the past 35 years. I have to ask if either (a) Mr. Bernstein is writing without direct knowledge or experience of Reform Judaism, or (b) perhaps, I have just gone to 3 exceptionally peculiar Jewish synagogues (one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast and one in the South) and 2 Jewish camps that somehow don’t fit Mr. Bernstein’s stereotype.
I am a Reform Jew. I don’t see a resemblance between the actuality of Reform Jewish life and the portrait of a Democratic political rally Mr. Bernstein creates when he writes
“But to the extent Reform Judaism offers its constituents the New Deal as its Torah and Barack Obama as its prophet, it’s hard to see why someone should bother being involved in Reform Judaism as opposed to, say, the Democratic Party”.
What observations led Mr. Bernstein to this particular impression of what happens in Reform Jewish synagogues today? Can he tell us?
There are plenty of political liberals who turn up in Reform synagogues, to be sure, but also conservatives. Our politics might have some relation to how we wind up choosing one or another movement within Judaism, but they don’t really explain why would we worship, light candles, attend Jewish summer camp or have Bar/Bat Mitzvahs. And most of what happens in Reform Jewish congregations is the latter.
What happens in my synagogue is a lot of prayer, a lot of eating, discussion of Jewish teaching, some charity work, and the ordinary discussions about dues and the building fund. Politics might come up in when the Rabbi speaks, or it might not, and it doesn’t always turn out to be a liberal point of view.
There are probably plenty of liberal Democrats in my synagogue but honestly, it doesn’t come up that much. The only political discussion I recently had in my Reform synagogue in the last 6 months was with a vigorous Ron Paul supporter.
I think that there’s little value in making a cartoon out of any movement in Judaism today. Mr. Bernstein’s self-professed embrace of “hyperbole” as a “standard rhetorical technique” probably should be directed to some other topic. If he continues to apply hyperbole at the juncture of religion and politics, it is likely to do more harm than good.
December 28, 2009, 5:05 pm