Ilya's post on rabbis' (and other clergypeople's) economic ignorance reminds me of one of my pet peeves, D.C. area rabbis who give overtly ideological sermons on general political topics like gun control, environmental issues (see Sam Kazman's post My Green Rosh Hashannah), and the like.
Put aside the issue of whether such sermons are appropriate as a general rule, and whether rabbis are completely miscontruing the concept of "tikkun olam" when they claim a special Jewish interest in such issues under that heading; I have a narrower complaint. In the D.C. area, no matter how much any given rabbi studies up for a sermon on, say, the living wage movement, immigration reform, or national health insurance, there are always going to be hundreds of individuals far more knowledgeable on the topic available as guest speakers. Indeed, in many cases one or more real experts will be in the chapel as the rabbi gives a rather ignorant talk on the subject (I've found myself in that position, once).
In short, why would I go to a synagogue to hear a rabbi speak about, say, the prospects for U.S. intervention in Darfur, when I could attend a speech by a real expert at Brookings, SAIS, or some other DC venue? If the rabbi has some wisdom to impart regarding how Jewish law and/or tradition specifically speaks to the topic of his sermon, that's another story. But in my experience, most of these sermons are more akin to a bad op-ed written for a general interest newspaper, and can only be attributed to some combination of laziness (much easier to write up a quick talk on gun control than the philosophy of the RAMBAM); pandering to the overwhelmingly liberal congregation; misusing the pulpit, in a rather inefficient way, to further one's own political ideas; and rabbinical frustration at not being a real "player" in DC.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Pet Peeve--DC Rabbis Blathering About Politics:
- Law and Economics Training for Religious Leaders:
"I wish the Rabbis would just shut up about politics. They shouldn't be concerned which political party controls the Reichstag."
On a substantive note, I am not Jewish, so perhaps I should not comment. That said, while it is true that there are innumerable experts on any given subject, they all are not as readily accessible as to both time and location as is a rabbi's (or a preacher's) sermon.
My experience is that rabbis love to preach politics, and almost never make an effort to relate it to Jewish scripture and tradition. Often this is because the scripture and tradition are in the wrong direction.
Some examples I've seen:
--Preaching liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, without ever mentioning that stoning-to-death thing;
--Preaching land-for-peace in Israel, without mentioning those passages where God has other views;
--Preaching religious freedom at Chanukah, ignoring the fact that the Maccabees were the Taliban of their day.
When I was young, rabbis were wise. Now they are younger than me and they are idiots.
agreed
heh...i know a lot of older jews who arn't so orthodox themselves but attend orthodox services just cause they are sick of all the politicing in conserv and reform ones
charlie..are you suggesting boulder is more political than DC??
Clergy (like all experts in a particular subject) need to recognize when they are leaving their area of expertise and heading into another area. That being said, even a very loud and ignorant rabbi is unlikely to cause enduring harm. At least they aren't deciding cases or passing laws. Of course those in government have amici briefs and helpful lobbyists to cure their ignorance, problem solved.
"the Maccabees were the taliban of their day"
when exactly did the Maccabees take the lives of civilian greeks on greek soil?
Also, doesn't god in the old testament explicitly tell the jews to beat the asses of anyone who tries to take that land he gave them and that he would be most irate if they were to fail this? Didn't that same god depose some of the kings of israel for failing to prosecute war with sufficient skill or fervor? (yes, it was Saul for failing to completely exterminate the Amalekites) Wow god didn't mess around back then.
the maccabees may have been fundmaentalist..but i dont remeber a lot of killing of jews to sujugate the population
btw
the concept of the maccabees being the taliban of their day..is what..not anachronistic?
But I'm attending a highly political church right now, and my particular church actually avoids these kinds of political sermons quite well. They don't do it by avoiding political subjects, but by preaching a theological message with political implications. What those implications actually are will depend in part on the facts on the ground. We may learn about the need to care for the poor and be reminded about why we must care for the poor — to be on our guard against doing so for self-gratification, to be on our guard against giving materially and robbing spiritually, to remember to humble ourselves before the other, and so on. We don't get a sermon about whether the minimum wage ought to be increased or decreased by 50 cents an hour.
I think this may betray the problem. Preachers who feel the need to get away from theological topics and get their hands dirty with politics are frequently under the impression that God's revelation just isn't the stuff of reality. Damnit, rabbi, of course your a real player in DC. You preach the Torah, for God's sake! How can you ask for more than that?
That FDR is a warmonger, we need to impeach him before he drags us into a quagmire. We should just TALK to Hitler. He'd probably just settle for France, Poalnd and a bunch of small countries. He doesn't want to kill anyone. And why don't we just give Hawaii to the Japanese? And why are they intercepting foreign cables? it's a violation of all our rights.
Separation of church and state mentioned - critical of christians - THEY don't believe in it. This, in the midst of all but saying the Torah commands us to vote Greenie Meanie or Democrat.
Oh ,yeah, Throw in some abortion choice blather as well
First time in my 38 years I've heard politics from the pulpit.
Maybe M.O. might better suit me.
i think people dont mind being guided by their rabbi/other clergy about personal ethical choices....
but national ethical choices i.e. politics...theres the rub
Actually, I think it is okay for both to do so, because religion is about morality and politics involves making moral choices, so the two are intertwined.
I would expect the clergyman to be able to show me how God's teaching relates to my life.
And if anything the 20th century has taught us that governments never slaughter so efficiently as when they do so in the name of social justice
What's wrong with JF Thomas' comment? Not the substance, which I dispute, but which essentially amounts only to, "DB's objections are dangerously ill-advised." What's offensive is how he chose to say it, using inflammatory rhetoric which crosses the line of civil discourse.
Do you see where I'm going with this yet, Mr. "STFU?"
as for the midrash involving matithias and the square at modidn...thats a pretty good point...
two responses:
1. the story may not off really happened that way..i belive in the historical reality of the hanukah story to some extent...but the only historical source for your incident really is from migilat anitochus...a good story..a famous sotry...but a apocriphal tale notheless
2. the story is told particularly becuase it is so exceptional..this indicates that summary execution by the maccabes for idol worship didnt really happean..and was only done by matithias in this one instance
regarding your continued point on the anaranisim of greek soil:
nobody said anything about athens. i said greek soil...the king in the story..aniouchus..ruled over many lands and was sovrign over a huge empire (albeit an emprie shared with other rulers)...i dont remeber the maccabees conducting terror (killing of greek civilians) on that soil
you still fail to give a single example of that..which would rightfully compare them to al quada or the taliban.
your continued armuent of the point that there was no 'greek soil' at the time..and thus no real greek citizens analagous to us citizens on us soil (such that wer killed by the taliban)..strikes me as an argument of symantics
the ditinthion can indeed be drwn...
the maccabees are not the taliban...they were a gurrila group of figherter that targeted the greek military....
apocraphal and isolated incidents of zelotry notwitstanding.
I have actually heard worse - rabbis opining on Jewish subjects - ancient history, archaeology, etc., in which some of the members of the audience were more well versed than they...
And let's not get started on the length of the speeches. Keep them short and to the point.
but national ethical choices i.e. politics...theres the rub"
Yes, George, that would indeed seem to be the case. :-) But what are politics and national issues if not "personal ethical choices"? I'm not trying to start an argument, and won't pretend to be ignorant of how people view these things, but as an observer and sometime attender of services with my wife and daughter, I'm...well, bemused.
And if they don't, either through ignorance or willfulness? Seriously, don't you feel some responsibility as a spiritual and moral teacher?
heres one thing to think about
well....national issues do invole many of the same ehtical issues that we face everyday as individuals..clergy are people (really good ppl)..so they understand this stuff pretty well
but national issues also
invovle complex facts..like economics and complex legal realities...sometimes these clergy have difficulty with that part..even if they understand the ehtical ssues involved.
its kinda like a judge knowing what the law is...but not having heard the facts of the case first hand
I wasn't going to be so blunt, Jason, but the thought did enter my mind. :-)
"its kinda like a judge knowing what the law is...but not having heard the facts of the case first hand"
Honestly, this strikes me as a dodge. All evidence points to the Bible as containing just about anything we need to understand about humankind, and yet certain issues are too "complex" for the teacher of faith...I have to wonder at that.
went to a panel discussion with a reform, reconstuctionist, conservative, and modern orthodox rabbi on differenc/directions of the movements.
reform Rabbi was all about her feminism and used 'communist' as an adjective with positive connotations.
Reconstuctionist Rabbi was very concerned with gay issues and egalitarianism to the exclusion of all else except to say that the traditions were useless.
The orthodox Rabbi spoke of continued adherence, got a bit testy when the reconstructionist said "in the beginning there was reform" when talking about movements. His most/only overtly political statement was when the question of abortion went around and he said "i don't know, the Torah says to choose life so I think that's what we should do."
Conservative Rabbi sort of mediated and did a bit of dancing around the issues.
nice talking with you
np
i think people are also a little about the whole church and state thing
even when the bible takes a clear positon on an issue..is it reallyokay for us to consider that in terms of public policy?
Reform and Conservative Judaism will die out anyway, going the way of the Shakers (albeit more slowly).
Your Reform and Reconstuctionist Rabbis seem to have lost their moral compasses. That assumes they once had a compass to lose. Judaism affirms life. “Spengler” over at the Asia Times writes about the Jewish affirmation of life in his essay-- It's easy for the Jews to talk about life.
You may be interested in the monograph Judaism, Markets, and Capitalism: Separating Myth From Reality published by the Acton Institute and written by the Executive Director and President of the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, a pro-market think tank in Israel. (https://secure.acton.org/BookShoppe/main/title.php?id=557 and in PDF at JIMS' website: http://ftp.jims-israel.org/Jews&Liberalism.pdf)
Full disclosure: I work for JIMS
But do you have children?
It isn't necessary for the preacher to stick to the level of generality, nor even to avoid topics that relate to society. It is necessary that the sermon at its core be an exposition on the word of God. Referring to Jesus as He/She isn't offensive to me because I care so much that Jesus was male, but because it's so obvious that gender-inclusive language, as proper as it may be in general, is given dogmatic status, and the Gospel is only given secondary standing.
I suspect that a fine sermon might be given about reconciliation in the holy land that could even be a call on political leaders to ease up on their stubbornness, if it were a critique about idolatrous behavior.
The rabbi at my reform temple is, uniquely, passionate about Judaism, about G-d, about studying the Torah and about Israel, not necessarily in that order. Every service includes a prayer for the American soldiers who are fighting for the "liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan." He also preaches, sometimes, about charity and G-d's commandments to help the poor. Alas, he is retiring and I despair that we can find someone to replace him - we'll probably end up with your typical reform rabbis, a half-baked Marxist who thinks G-d hates President Bush as much as he does.
Mr. Bernstein, do you honestly not understand the difference? I'm not religious at all and yet this seems a hopelessly clueless statement.
Then again, perhaps you do get it an are only perturbed by what these Rabbis choose to speak about. I would like to give you more credit than that, but you are either too cynical to be honest with your readers or too naive to know that there's a difference between a pundit speaking and a religious leader speaking.
Tony, some people at some point realize either that a) sexism is only factor, and the beauty of the rest of traditional Jewish practice (there is no formal Orthodox Jewish movement, it was simply the label given by the reformers to all the groups that existed before). Or b) that G-d is the ultimate sexist for having created two sexes.
There was some comment about this above and the commenters above all seem to agree, but can we get a formal vote on this: who thinks politics is or should be an extension of their ethics?
"I believe in X personally and order my life so, since my religion, derived from eastern Mediterranean shepherds' supersition, says I should. My country should also organize itself along those lines." The US can't break the Commandments now, no special forces team to assassinate enemy physicists to forestall Iranians weapons development? How about: you carry a broom to sweep ants out of your path on your commute because life is so precious to you, so your country should never go to war or assert its interests in any way that may lead to killing humans (no giant broom to sweep them out of the way). Right?
But if your religion says "don't kill except in self-defense" or "don't kill except in extreme situations" or something like that, you can't conclude enemy scientists can't be killed without making what is fundamentally a nonreligious decision. Preaching that your religion demands leaving enemy scientists alone is then dishonest.
Little details like this:
"But they were led by bitter constraint on the king's birthday to the sacrifices: and when the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were compelled to go about crowned with ivy in honour of Bacchus. And there went out a decree into the neighbouring cities of the Gentiles, by the suggestion of the Ptolemeans, that they also should act in like manner against the Jews, to oblige them to sacrifice: And whosoever would not conform themselves to the ways of the Gentiles, should be put to death: then was misery to be seen. For two women were accused to have circumcised their children: whom, when they had openly led about through the city with the infants hanging at their breasts, they threw down headlong from the walls. And others that had met together in caves that were near, and were keeping the sabbath day privately, being discovered by Philip, were burnt with fire, because they made a conscience to help themselves with their hands, by reason of the religious observance of the day."
The man who offered to make the sacrifice was an open collaborator with a hostile force.
In other words, I am very comfortable with the clergy preaching "You ought to give money to the poor," but am very uncomfortable with "You ought to vote so laws will be passed to forcefully take money (taxes) from everyone and given to the poor."
I am pretty confident on what the Bible says about giving to the poor, but I am a lot less sure on what the Bible says about using the raw political power of the government to force people to "give" against their will at the threat of imprisonment.
There is a difference in what is moral and what is/ought to be legal. In general, clergy should stick to the former from the pulpit- we do not live in a theocracy.