Unkosher Jesus- Red Meat Commentary With a Side of Cheese

No-Man's Land, or Interfaith Homestead Act?

2009-01-10T12:07:00.011-05:00

Dear Candy Man,

Another great post. Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts and feelings about religion, both those that currently exist, as well as those that are possibly in the embryonic stage. I definitely feel your sense of isolation as you continue to search beyond the boundaries of your faith system and seek new ways of religious expression and human connection. I have certainly felt this way myself! In fact, a commenter on a recent post could have been writing for me as much as for himself when he stated, "What you or I in our own ways may dream of in terms of communications between faiths will no doubt happen one day. We are perhaps on the bottom of long low angle upward curve to the future. The pathway is cleared. One day it will be a highway."

It can be an exciting notion to feel like I am contributing to the birth of new religious forms and reconciliation among faiths. It can also be cold comfort to think that the world I envision won't come into being until after I'm long gone. I hope that doesn't have to be the case. The prologue to the Herman Hesse novel Damien reads, in part, "I wanted only to try to live in accord with the promptings which came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?" In my case, and I suspect yours too, it is "so very difficult" because the prompting from my inner self is causing me to look beyond familiar religious and cultural systems still celebrated and occupied by family and friends who I love.

I want to briefly respond to some of the comments you made in your recent post, and then expand a bit more on my own point of view regarding traditional religious forms and rites, the scriptural basis upon which these rest, and the post-religious era we appear to be entering (or have already entered) wherein the interfaith encounters we both seek have the greatest possibility to flourish.

Candy Man: Jesus was truly a transformative figure in history. He was a tzaddik, and his lessons were not just for Christians.

Unkosher Jesus: I totally agree with you about Jesus. His lessons were not restricted to Christians or Jews, but are meant for all of humanity. Jesus, in both his spoken word and in his living example, expanded tribal, religious and ethnic boundaries in order for it to be possible for these artificial boundaries to disappear and for a deeper humanity to emerge.

Candy Man: But here's the thing, Doug - Judaism today is not an extension of Pirkei Avot. It's more like an extension of kashrut. Jews today get all carried away in different rituals and holidays and foods, anything that makes them feel more Jewish. But feeding the homeless is not a big part of it (unless that homeless person happens to be a member of the Tribe). I generalize here, but the point is that the values of Pirkei Avot - love, humility, kindness, and equality - haven't really permeated Jewish society. Worse yet, in some cases - such as gay rights - Judaism stands in the way of these values.

Unkosher Jesus: In much the same way, institutional Christianity serves as the biggest obstacle to the Gospel message it purports to preach (and while I am specifically referring to the Catholic Church in my comments here, these are also roughly transferable to most other Christian denominations). The dogmatic insistence that belief in Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the Human Race according to the teachings and practices of the Church; the insistence upon the absolute authority of the pope, and by extension the bishop of each diocese; the use of Church authority to condemn homosexuality and abortion while promoting ever more traditional forms of worship such as the Rite of the Latin Mass. Each of these instances serve as examples as to how the Church has abandoned the core message of the Gospel-Good News to the Poor and the transformation of the human self through the Love of God-and replaced these with a self-referential position of authority and importance based upon a selective reading of scripture and Canon Law that predates the modern era. As such, Catholics and members of other Christian denominations also share the same preoccupation of maintaining fidelity to the authority of their respective Churches and the forms and rites of their faith, while oftentimes completely missing the point as to why they are called to practice the faith in the first place.

The limitations imposed by religious rules and authority have been described by none other than President-Elect Barack Obama. In a speech he delivered in 2006 on the topic of faith and politics, he identified the very conundrum that arises as a result of the confrontation between the call to strict adherence to religious rules and teachings and living in a pluralistic world.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

With regard to charting new directions for interfaith encounters and the evolution of religious forms, that's the question most in need of an answer: has God, in fact, spoken, à la Holy Scripture? Are the texts which serve as the foundations of our respective faiths the literal Word of God, wholly authoritative, eternal and irrevocable? The good news (Gospel variety or otherwise) for interfaith movers and shakers is that there is not just growing doubt as to the veracity of any such claim, but a growing body of evidence demonstrating that this is not the case. With regard to the rites and traditional practices of Judaism, Jewish biblical scholar James Kugel posted a blog entry entitled "On Divine Inspiration" which basically undermines certain foundational tenets of Judaism, including:

The belief that the books of the Torah were divinely-inspired or authored; and
The belief that the prayers, rituals and teachings of Judaism are inflexibly cast in stone. On the contrary...

When you actually consider Judaism as it is, the role of the Torah in it is really not what you say it is. Ultimately, Jews are not Torah-fundamentalists. On the contrary, our whole tradition is based on adding liberally to what the Torah says (despite Deut. 4:2), sometimes reading its words in a way out of keeping with their apparent meaning, and sometimes even distorting or disregarding its words entirely. (My book "The Bible As It Was" contains seven hundred pages of examples of how this all began.) What's more, as everyone knows, much of what makes up the daily fabric of Jewish life has only a tenuous connection, or no connection at all, with what is actually written in the Torah.

The historically evolving nature of Judaism is something that has recently been analyzed by Rabbi Arthur Blecher in his seminal work, The New American Judaism. Nor is Rabbi Blecher alone in his assessment of Judaism and the possibilities for growth and transformation in response to the growing rate of interfaith marriage between Jews and Christians. Rabbi Michael Sternfield is also an advocate of the need for Judaism to affirm interfaith relationships by demonstrating that it has the capacity to respond creatively, positively to this phenomenon.

My contention is that Judaism will not only survive; it will flourish if we learn how to deal with the phenomenon of interfaith marriage more creatively. However, we must not expect the nature of Jewish life to remain the same because it will not. A new Jewish/Christian amalgam has come into existence. It is being created by those born Jewish and those Christians who are married to Jews and who are bringing their own sensitivities and mind-set with them.

Could we say that this is a new religion in the making? I am not sure. What I do know is that there is a new religious community in the making, one that is increasingly diverse, wherein the old boundaries no longer exist. As in the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, almost all of the Judaism wants to go on pretending that these kind of phenomena do not exist; that reconciling Christianity and Judaism is not possible. If we care to look, we will discover that this is not the case. They absolutely do exist, and we had better open our eyes.

Likewise, Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong has this to say about the authenticity of the accounts of the four canonical Gospels and the words attributed to Jesus therein:

The gospels are written between 70 at the earliest (Mark) and 100 at the latest (John). Yet all four gospels reveal the impact of this Jesus on a variety of people. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar spent more than a decade going over everything that the four gospels record Jesus as ever having said. When they completed this study, they determined that no more than 16% of the sayings of Jesus are authentic to the man Jesus which, of course, means that some 84% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are not historically accurate. The Seminar did not find a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (John) to be authentic. The Jesus of John's gospel speaks to the concerns of the Christian Church near the end of the first century, not the literal words of a man of history.

Like Rabbis Blecher and Sternfield, Bishop Spong calls upon his own faith tradition to re-examine its teachings and practices in light of what modern biblical scholarship has revealed to be the doubtful nature of specific Church teachings and beliefs about the life and message of Jesus that have stood unchallenged since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. In his 2000 book, A New Christianity For a New World, he writes:

My responsibility as a Christian in this twenty-first century is to separate the wheat from the chaff of my tradition in order to discover the essence and to grasp the treasure of its ultimate insight into the meaning of God. Then, escaping the limits of my own tradition by breaking out of its boundaries at its very depths, I will be prepared to share its purified treasure with the world.

My hope is that my brothers and sisters who find Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism as their point of entry, based upon their time and place in history, will also explore their pathway into God in a similar manner, until they too can escape the limits of their tradition at its depths and, grasping the essence of their system's religious insights, move on to share that essence with me and all the world. Then each of us, clinging to the truth, the pearl of great price if you will, that we have found in the spiritual wells from which we have drunk, can reach across the once insuperable barriers to share as both givers and receivers in the riches present in all human sacred traditions. A new day will thus be born, and Jesus-who crossed every boundary of tribe, prejudice, gender, and religion-will be honored by those of us who, as his disciples, have transcended the boundaries of even the religious system that was created to honor him.

Spong's theology is an extension of that of Paul Tillich, who described God not as the "author of being"-an entity separate and apart from human existence-but the "ground of all being", the very foundation for all of existence. Perhaps this is what St. Paul was hinting at, inadvertently or otherwise, when he preached, "In Him we live and move and have our being."

In your final passages, you grapple with a question that I too am familiar with: is it possible to reform the current beliefs and forms of practice? Or, in order to achieve the transformational interfaith experience we seek, is it necessary to abandon these and work toward the development of new forms?

I wonder whether Judaism today is simply a flawed structure, based on values that are alien to me. Do you ever feel that way about Christianity? To what extent is it worth trying to reform these old religions? Trying to salvage them? Can we keep the baby but throw out the bathwater? Or should we perhaps simply carve a new path, perhaps throwing our weight behind a post-religious humanism of some kind?

I believe that it is time for the development of new forms. The current iterations of our respective faiths are fairly well-entrenched, and have proved quite resistant to any any attempts at change or reform. As I stated, I feel your loneliness when you state that "it's tough wandering in this no man's land alone." To this I would say, first, you are not alone. I'm out there, too, and I suspect many, many others are as well. Second, perhaps instead of a no-man's land, we might regard the current landscape as unexplored territory that is in need of surveyors and homesteaders. To that end, I am willing to uproot and relocate myself in order to continue to explore and discover, to reconcile faiths, to heal historic rifts, and forge a means to experiencing a deeper humanity. This is obviously a break with traditional forms and those who practice these. However, whoever may oppose or take issue with such a break, I would not count God among them. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

What Do Orthodox Jews Really Believe III, and Why Don't They Speak Up? (Jewish Atheist Blog, November 6, 2007)

The Jesus Seminar (Westar Institute, Santa Rosa, CA)

Network of Spiritual Progressives

The Center for Progressive Christianity

Bonhoeffer's Religionless Spirituality (Experimental Theology Blog, October 10, 2007)

Religionless Christianity: The Bonhoefferian (DietrichBonhoeffer.com, August 2, 2008)

Paul Tillich- The Courage to Be (EscapeFromWatchtower.com)

The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, by John Shelby Spong (Book Review by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, SpiritualityandPractice.com)

The Gospel Truth, by Elaine Pagels (New York Times op-ed, April 8, 2006)

The Nag Hammadi Library (The Gnosis Society)

The New Seminary- An Interfaith Seminary (New York, NY)

Our Tribal Ties: Women On Faith Online Chat, moderated by Lisa Miller (WashingtonPost.com OnFaith, December 1, 2008)

Obama's Historic "Call to Renewal" Speech (BeliefNet.com, November 2, 2008)

New Year's Revolution

2009-01-04T17:50:00.003-05:00

Uf-dah! 2008 could not end soon enough, eh? Good grief. One year ago I wrote that "the United States is teetering on the brink of recession." Um, I stand corrected as it appears that the United States had entered an economic recession as of December 2007. Not that things are better anywhere else in the world, economically-speaking.

The state of the world economy may be the meta-story, but there are other human tragedies unfolding across the world. They are too depressing for me to take any time describing here, and it's not as if this stuff isn't reported on the news. The reference section below has some links to the typical year-end round-up stories. In one such story, MSNBC reports that "change" was the 2008 Word of the Year. Barack Obama, joined by running mate Joe Biden, certainly made effective use of the word Change, and swept into office on the strength of his promise to bring just that to both the culture and competence of governance in Washington, DC.

Based on all that has happened and is still happening, I think that change is sorely needed, change on a scale of New Deal proportions. I also know that the magnitude of events like those we are currently experiencing can make me feel especially powerless to effect change on a scale that will actually matter in the face of such daunting challenges. This in turn serves as a reminder of two things that I find very important to remember:

I need help from other people and can't do the big things in life all by myself; and
The greatest change I have control over is the change the takes place in my own heart and mind.

In other words, I say I want a revolution, but we all want to change the world. And while I tell you it's the institution that is responsible for the current state of affairs, I know I need to focus on freeing my own mind instead. (And my apologies, as I'm sure that the nerdiest paraphrase of Revolution you have ever read.)

Revolution, by The Beatles

Speaking of freeing your mind, the spectacular collapse of the worldwide financial system reminds me of an alcoholic who has hit rock bottom, the addict for whom his or her life has become so unmanageable and destructive that even in the midst of addiction they know that something has to change, and are finally willing to take the first steps to affecting that change. Now, I am not saying that the recession has hit the bottom yet, and that markets won't continue to lose value for the next several months. What I am saying is that it is my hope that events as catastrophic as those which took place in 2008 and continue to reverberate into the new year will provide the same revolutionary impetus for change. Our government, our economy, and we as consumers and civic participants cannot keep operating like we have been. And while we may not know exactly what form we want this change to take, it might help to pause, take a deep breath, and recall the words of the Serenity Prayer:

Interesting interfaith sidebar: the Serenity Prayer was reportedly written by 20th Century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. The interfaith angle here is that he was way out in front of any of the Christian churches with regard to the issue of ecumenism. Specifically, while he was an advocate of Christian proselytizing of Jews early in his career, Wikipedia.org states that "'He [became] perhaps the first Christian theologian with ecumenical influence who developed a view of the relations between Christianity and Judaism that made it inappropriate for Christians to seek to convert Jews to their faith.'"

Another good prayer for centering one's self and redirecting one's energy is the Peace Prayer by St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis was a fervent devotee of Jesus Christ and someone who devoted his life to literally living the Gospel message of good news for the poor. Even so, I find this particular prayer to have a certain universal appeal that, while it reflects his beliefs and values as a Christian, is not Christo-centric in its presentation:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

In a similar vein, the following prayer is a basic translation of a small wall hanging with an inscribed prayer that I purchased from a craftsman outside of Cuernavaca, Mexico many years ago. Despite the fact that he was trapped in a life of inescapable poverty, his prayer reflects a gratitude to God for the blessings God has bestowed, not the blessings he has asked for. I like this prayer for its ability to cause me to re-examine what I think are the important things in my life, and to be aware of the blessings that exist even in the midst of hardship.

I asked God for strength to achieve great things;
He made me weak to learn humbly to obey.

I asked for health to do big things;
He made me sick to do good things.

I asked for riches in order to be happy;
He gave me poverty in order to be wise.

I asked for the ability to win praise;
I got to feel weak in order to appreciate the need for God.

I asked for all things in order to be able to enjoy life;
I was granted life in order to be able to enjoy all things.

I asked for luxuries and fame;
My God gave me love and friends, despite myself.
Requests that I did not make, I was granted.

My God! Among all men, I am the most fortunate. My God!

Change is the word for 2009. As Mahatma Ghandi would say, Be the change you wish to see in the world- starting with yourself. Shalom.

- Doug L.

Put The Message In The Box, by World Party

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

The Year In Review 2008 (MSNBC.com, December 2008)

America Greets 2009 By Going Insane (Wonkette.com, January 2, 2009)

Worst Year Ever (Wonkette.com, January 2, 2009)

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out, by Ranae Merle, (The Washington Post, January 1, 2009)

2008: Good Riddance, by Lydia DePillis (Slate.com, January 1, 2009)

The Crash: What Went Wrong (Washington Post investigative series, October - December 2008)

Anatomy of a Meltdown: The Credit Crisis (Washington Post investigative series, June 15 - 17, 2008)

Reinhold Niebuhr Biography (Unitarian Universalist Association Ware Lecture Series, HarvardSquareLibrary.org)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Revolution, by John Lennon and Paul McCartney/The Beatles (SongLyrics.com)

Put The Message In The Box, by World Party (SongLyrics.com)

The Candy Man Can

2008-12-31T23:22:00.003-05:00

Hey Candy Man, it's great to hear from you again. Thanks for your terrific post from earlier today, Doug, Jesus and Me. It sets a really positive interfaith tone, and I think helps set the stage for our interfaith dialogue/diablog, one in which our readers are invited to join in on.

It is New Year's Eve, and as we prepare to turn the corner to 2009 I don't have a lot of time tonight to write a full response to your post and share all of the things I've been thinking of regarding our diablog, re: the path to common ground over Jesus for Jews and Christians. However, I did want to address one aspect of all of this, that being my own interest in the subject. I am not a particularly religious person these days, but while I may not be a doctrinaire or regularly practicing Catholic, Jesus as a teacher and religious leader is very important to me. He is, in the words of Thich Naht Hahn, an "ultimate door" to knowledge of God and of the self. My desire find a way for Jews and Christians to be able to talk to one another about Jesus is not inspired by any need on my part to proselytize or convert. Quite the contrary! It simply has to do with my true belief that Jesus was a remarkable person, a dynamic teacher, and that there is much about him that could and should be re-examined, not only by Jews but by his very followers as well. I think that this endeavor has the real potential to completely transform the dynamic that has served to separate, oftentimes violently, Christians and Jews for over a thousand years.

As I said, I plan to post a lengthier response to Candy Man and his comments. I'm very excited about where our diablog will take us. We both have a great deal to learn from each other, and anyhow, it is always great to find a kindred spirit as you journey along life's highway. For now, I'll close by quoting the Preface of a fantastic and highly topical historical novel, When Jesus Became God. Written by George Mason University professor Richard Rubenstein, this book dramatizes the First Council of Nicea (325 CE), at which the Church first formally enunciated the official Church teaching on the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and his co-equal status with God (Nicene Creed). Just consider that for a moment before you being reading: The Church had not officially declared Jesus to be one with God until 300 years after his crucifixion! I agree with Prof. Rubenstein: this is highly significant, vis-à-vis Jewish-Christian relations. I do not think it is even something that most Jews or Christians are even aware of. At any rate, the following passage reflects in no small part my own thoughts and feelings on the subject of Jesus as an interfaith bridge builder. So, enough of my yakkin'...

I told Fr. Joe that my interest (in studying about the Arian controversy) was in exploring the sources of religious conflict and the methods people have used to resolve it. I wanted to examine a dispute familiar enough to westerners to involve them deeply, but distant enough to permit some detached reflection. The Arian controversy, which was probably the most serious struggle between Christians before the Protestant Reformation, seemed to fit the bill perfectly...

Joe nodded, but he knew my account was incomplete. "And?"

"And there's something else," I responded with some hesitation. "I am a Jew born and raised in a Christian country. Jesus has been a part of my mental world since I was old enough to think. On the one hand, I have always found him an enormously attractive figure, challenging and inspiring. On the other... When I was little, growing up in a mixed Jewish-Catholic neighborhood, most of my playmates were Italian-American boys. They were friends, but I learned to stay in my own house on Good Friday, since after hearing the sermon at St. Joseph's Church, some of them would come looking for me to punish me for killing Christ. Once they caught me out on the street and knocked me down. 'But Jesus was a Jew!' I shouted through my tears. That idea, which they had never contemplated, infuriated them. It earned me a few extra kicks and punches."

Joe looked sorrowful, and I hastened to explain. "That's one side of the story. Sometimes it seems that Jesus has meant nothing but trouble for us. But the other side is that he can't be ignored. I don't worship Jesus, who - I'm sorry, Joe - I believe to have been a man, not God's Son. But what a man! I think that if his followers hadn't caused us so much trouble, we would consider him at least a tzaddik, a great sage. Perhaps even a prophet."

"I want to write about this controversy because it tells us so much about where we come from and what divides us. The story may even suggest how violent divisions can be healed. And, somehow, I believe that the figure of Jesus will play an important role in that healing. I think his life teaches us what it really means to be members of the human family."

Happy New Year! Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, by Dr. Richard E. Rubenstein (Amazon.com)

Jesus in Jewish-Christian-Muslim Dialogue (The Institute of Interfaith Dialog)

In Praise of Christian-Jewish Interfaith Dialogue (JewsOnFirst.org)

Healing the Jewish-Christian Rift: Growing Beyond Our Wounded History, by Ron Miller and Laura Bernstein (Jewish Lights Publishing)

Merry Christmas

2008-12-24T20:54:00.000-05:00

Ho, ho, ho and Merry Christmas to one and all. Unkosher Jesus is busy decking the halls with his wife and in-laws, so I'll save any commentary on the season for another post. For now I'll just say enjoy the holiday, whether you actually celebrate Christmas, or if you still get the day off from work while not actually celebrating the holiday. Whatever your faith, I'm sure you can enjoy the following offering from the one and only Beatles doing a really sharp cover of Rocking Around The Christmas Tree...

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Pope Makes Totally Gay Analogy Between Gays, Trees

2008-12-22T22:47:00.002-05:00

Oh. My. GOD! Pope Benedict XVI, did you really say this today? With a straight (Ha ha, get it? Straight!) face??

The Church should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed. The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.

Um, uh, where to start, where to start?... Is the pope implying that homosexuals are being harvested so that there is more and more land available to grow soy beans which are then processed and fed to the birds that eventually become McDonald's Chicken McNuggets? Or that homosexuals, like lush rain forest fauna, help regulate CO2 emissions and serve as a buffer against global warming?

Or, has the pope actually, simply lost his mind? I pose this question in light of his comments today, as well as in the broader context of Catholic Church priorities that have been brought to the fore under his papacy, including...

...to name a few.

The pope went on to say that we need to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. Apparently, the Church views the intended roles of man and woman is to be available to have sex with each other and make little Catholic babies, the little ones without whom there is no other conceivable (ha ha, get it? Conceivable!) reason to have sex, The End.

Oh, Lord, this is just embarrassing. Honestly, the science exists demonstrating that whatever the cause of any person's homosexual orientation may be, it is a natural state of being and is not an elective choice. Jesus himself says nothing- NOTHING- about the subject of homosexuality anywhere in any of the four canonical gospels. Maybe the pope and his Church need to stop and listen more carefully to what Nature is saying about the intended roles of man and woman. If he clears his mind of all of his preconceived notions about what homosexuality is, he might hear Nature calling all people to live in peace, to support equality and justice, and to make room for the wide range of human possibilities that Nature Herself provides for. As such, he might also hear the voices of homosexual members of his own Church, voices that are as filled with the pain caused by the Church's position on homosexuality as with the hope for inclusion as full members of the Church just as they are, just as God made them. Stop this preoccupation with sex and sexual orientation, put an end to the need for special ministries for homosexual Church members, and minister to them as people who have the same spiritual needs as all other people and allow them to enjoy equal standing as Church members among their straight brothers and sisters.

Gay Catholic Youth Forum, Clip 1 of 10 (World Youth Day 2008, Sydney, Australia)

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Is The Pope a Homophobe?, by Damian Thompson (Spectator.co.uk, October 1, 2005)

What the bible says and means about homosexuality (ReligiousTolerance.org, December 13, 2007)

Dignity USA

Gay Catholic Forum

Gay Catholics Implore Pope to Listen and Love, by Jonathan Rubin, Religion News Service (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 10, 2008)

Human Rights Campaign

Rabbi Jesus

2008-12-19T23:13:00.003-05:00

I was sitting in a discussion circle at the DC Jewish Community Center over a year ago. The event was a reunion of sorts. Couples who had participated in the JCC's interfaith couples course were invited to come back and share their experiences, to check in and discuss how things were working. The discussion was going pretty well, but I detected a pause when I made a comment about how I hoped that continued interfaith dialogue between Christians and Jews could make it possible to openly discuss Jesus as a person and a teacher without consternation or discomfort on anyone's part, Christian or Jew.

I should mention that the JCC does not support interfaith arrangements like the one I have with my wife, and prefer that if someone who is Jewish marries a non-Jewish partner, that the household still be solely Jewish with regard to religious observance. In that sense, perhaps it was wildly optimistic of me to make that comment it that particular setting and expect that the others would be enthusiastic about discussing it further.

Be that as it may, it was still a disappointing moment for me. As I've written previously, it is a source of sadness and frustration for me that Jesus serves as a confounding rather than a unifying figure for Jews and Christians. And so I was excited to read a post published by fellow blogger Lubab No More, and guest-written by Candy Man, called A Rabbi Named Jesus. It's a great post with some important insights as to the identity and message of Jesus from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. For example, Candy Man cites Jesus' inclination to sit at table with anyone with whose company he chose to share. This inevitably meant breaking bread with tax collectors, prostitutes, and the like, as a means to bringing his ministry directly to those most in need of it, a habit that ensured that Jesus would inevitably, regularly violate Torah codes regulating ritual purity. Candy Man's reference to Jesus' eating habits reminded me of the illustration seen above. It's simply entitled The Lord's Supper, and was sketched for The Catholic Worker newspaper by Fritz Eichenberger during the mid-20th Century. A priest I knew in college used to affectionately refer to this illustration as The Last Supper With Bums. I say affectionately because he was not making a joke about the illustration or being derisive towards the homeless. He was making the same basic point as Candy Man: Jesus was a man who saw as more important the need to be present to others and treat them humanely and compassionately than the need to keep ritually clean by avoiding sinners.

Who was Jesus? I think that there is enough historic evidence to show that he was a rabbi, for starters. I've also heard him described as a religious genius. Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong describes Jesus as "a person of history in whom and through whom Jewish people believed that they had experienced the presence of the holy God." Candy Man commented that Jesus saw himself as a teacher within mainstream Judaism who did not seek to establish a new religion, and sought to fulfill the Torah commandments. I would simply add that while I agree with this, I also agree with Bishop Spong's assessment of Jesus' ministry as one of spiritual liberation for all people, Jew and Gentile alike. As Spong writes in his most recent book, Jesus For the Non-Religious, "When I look at this Jesus, I no longer see God in human form. I rather look at Jesus and see a humanity open to all that God is- open to life, open to love and open to being. So the first barrier, which limits humanity with tribal identity, is broken open and in the process Jesus breaks out of the prison of tribal religion. It is the profoundly human Jesus that enables us to step beyond the tribal limits that so deeply impede our humanity."

This is all to say that I am grateful to Candy Man for posting his thoughts about Jesus. I look forward to promoting a dialogue (diablog?) that helps transform Jesus from a dividing figure between Christians and Jews to one who can unite us. So, Candy Man, let's spread peace via the Internet, as you say, and get this dialogue started.

I'll end tonight's post with the following reflection on Jesus that was written by Abram Leon Sachar, a Jewish-American scholar, the first president of Brandeis University, and the author of A History of the Jews, in which the following passage was published:

"It was a tragedy for Jesus that historic circumstances conspired to make some of the leaders of his people intolerant of his ethical teachings. A revival of the militant prophetic liberalism was sorely needed to revitalize the Judaism of his day. Perhaps if Messianic claims had not been intertwined with his teachings, his own and later generations would have taken him to heart and given him a deserved place among the noblest of the Jewish prophets.

"But a greater tragedy was his acceptance by the Greek Fathers who took his name and made it the sanction for a new theology. The Roman world was indeed made better for the conquering faith which it adopted, but Jesus was not honored by the adulteration of his teachings. Through the thick cloud of religious incense, offered by the piety of countless generations, it is difficult to recognize the magnetic teacher of Galilee, who preached a gospel of love in an era filled with hate, whose simple humanity was a solace to those who lived in darkness."

Jesus Christ Superstar

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Reclaiming Jesus- The Jewish Standard, 12.09.2005

From Jesus to Christ: He was born, lived, and died as a Jew (Frontline, PBS.org)

Bishop John Shelby Spong Preacher and Teacher Bio Page (BeliefNet.com)

Jewish Voices About Jesus (Jewish-Christian Relations.net)

The Catholic Worker

Jesus Was a Jewish Liberal magnet (AllPosters.com)

What Wouldn't Jesus Do? t-shirt (BustedTees.com)

Unkosher Jesus-dot-net

2008-12-13T16:50:00.004-05:00

Hey Readers,

Happy Holidays to y'all out there. I hope that the winter months are treating you well, even as financial instability mounts across the globe, &tc.

As usual, there is no shortage of religious/political/cultural topics to comment on this weekend. However, this post is not intended to address anything particularly pressing, but something much more mundane. Namely, I somehow let my subscription to the domain name www.unkosherjesus.com lapse, and it is since been usurped by an online kosher food retailer. So, the new address for the blog is now www.unkosherjesus.net. My New Year's resolution is to pay an equal amount of attention to the technical maintenance of this site as the actual content. Thanks for reading!

Shalom,

Unkosher Jesus

Mormon Baptism of the Dead Is Fatally Flawed Salvation Strategy

2008-12-07T21:05:00.006-05:00

As if the bad PR related to its direct support of California's Proposition 8 isn't enough trouble, the Mormon Church has also found itself defending its actions with regard to deceased Holocaust victims. It seems that church members have been posthumously baptizing non-Mormons by proxy, including victims of the Nazi Holocaust. This in spite of the fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) signed an agreement with a consortium of Jewish groups in May 1995 agreeing to cease this practice with regard to Holocaust victims unless the surviving family members provided consent.

In publicly denouncing this betrayal of what was thought to be a good-faith agreement, Ernest Michel, honorary chair of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors stated, "We ask you (Church of LDS) to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion, We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough." In response, Church of LDS elder Lance B. Wickman casually brushed aside Jewish concerns, ignored his own Church's violation of an agreement that it had signed, and stated, "We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines. If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."

Well, chutzpah may be a Jewish (specifically Yiddish) term for audacity, but it more than certainly applies to Mr. Wickman and his fellow Church of LDS adherents. First of all, no one from Mr. Michel's organization is asking the Church of LDS to "changes its doctrines." As Mr. Wickman's grasp of English appears to be as shaky as his ability to honor signed agreements, let me kindly point out to him that a "doctrine" is something that is taught, whereas a "practice" is an act that is carried out customarily. It is the PRACTICE of Baptism of the Dead that is offending Jews and others.

As for Wickman's comment that Jews who are offended by this practice are at fault for not receiving it in the generous spirit in which it is offered, well, that is just bullshit. The intention clearly doesn't matter here. Various Jewish groups made it clear to the Church of LDS thirteen years ago that they do not wish for the Church to continue the practice of baptizing deceased Jews, and the Church of LDS signed an agreement stating that the practice would indeed cease. Who cares what the intention is when LDS is in clear violation of this agreement?

The Church of LDS has been furtively baptizing deceased Jews, among other deceased non-Mormons, for years. This practice is grounded in a selective reading of Paul (1 Corinthians, Ch. 15, v. 29), a passage that the Mormon Church is apparently exploiting to swell its numbers. Why? Because the constellation of Christian churches do not view Mormonism as a legitimate expression of Christianity. It's possible that the increased numbers gained through proxy baptisms for the dead are a way of demonstrating that there is wider acceptance of Mormon theology than actually exists.

In reading about this topic, I found one Jewish writer whose family has been directly affected by this very issue. Manya Brachear writes a religion blog for the Chicago Tribune called "The Seeker", and in her November 11 entry she describes how her Jewish great-uncle had converted to Mormonism and had arranged for her great-grandfather, a devout and observant Jew, to be posthumously baptized in the Mormon faith. She reflects upon how religion had served as an agent of separation and division in her family's past, and decides to accept this gesture in the spirit in which it was intended.

"We have the freedom to choose whether religion will unite us or divide us. In the past, my family chose to let it divide. Faced with this revelation, I now realize how torn they must have been. Still, I choose to learn from that mistake and appreciate my cousins' gesture."

I'm of two minds on this one. One the one hand, I applaud her reaction from an interfaith perspective. As a member of an interfaith marriage, I have great appreciation for any attempts made to maintain family ties and allowing room for different expression of religious faith. Further, I appreciate the particular difficulties inherent in such a choice for a member of the Jewish faith.

On the other hand, she is speaking in the context of her own family, where certain members actually belong to the Mormon Church and who did not hide their actions. This is not the case with regard to thousands of other Holocaust victims whom Church of LDS baptized in secret without the permission of their surviving family members.

From almost any perspective, and certainly from the perspective of constructive interfaith dialogue and relations, the Mormon practice of Baptism of the Dead is insensitive, invasive, and quite plainly, odd. The recent response on the part of Church leaders to the protests of Jewish leaders has been arrogant and condescending. This practice blithely disregards the painful history of the forced conversion of Jews by Christians throughout the centuries. It also perverts the doctrine of free will, which presumes that each person is free to make his or her own choices on the condition that they must also live with the consequences. It is preposterous to even suggest that someone who is deceased can still concern himself or herself with the question of whether or not to be baptized here on earth. Whatever choices we make in this life having to do with our religious faith is a deeply personal matter that is between each individual, his or her God, and any other people that this decision is shared with. Under this formulation, the Mormon Church is the missing participant for any such deliberation that does not involve someone's embracing the Mormon faith.

My message to the members of the Mormon Church: keep your hands off the dead, and concern yourselves with the living. Oh, wait. On second thought...

- Doug L.

Yad Vashem: The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Shoah group halts talks with Mormons on posthumous baptisms of Jews, by Ben Harris (The Jewish Journal, November 19, 2008)

Mormons, Jews Contend for Souls of Dead, by David Waters (WashingtonPost.com, On Faith, November 11, 2008)

Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews (CNN.com, November 11, 2008)

Vatican Warns of Mormon 'Baptism of the Dead' (Catholic.org, May 3, 2008)

Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue, Favors Interfaith Monologue

2008-12-04T23:30:00.009-05:00

Pope Benedict the XVI is on a roll, but more in the way that a broken record is than a body which is picking up momentum. Since ascending to the Papacy in April of 2005, Benedict has been busy...

His most recent comments on the subject of interfaith dialogue indicate that he does not think much of this type of exercise, since "a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.” In other words, when you engage in a dialogue with someone from a different faith, you might actually have to accept their belifs as completely valid, even if it is counter to what your own faith holds to be true. Um, yes, Your Holiness, I am sorry to have to inform you that that is actually what the price of admission is for holding a dialogue, at least the type where you are actually open to learning something new or gaining deeper insights into something you thought you already did know.

He's making a list.
Your religion's not on it.

The Pope went on to stress the importance of "intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas," and called for confronting "in a public forum the cultural consequences of basic religious decisions." Um... I have an English degree, but I can't really make a whole lot of sense out of that statement. Intercultural dialogue is important, interrelgious dialogue not so much? Don't you run the same risk with intercultural dialogue, e.g., having to put your own cultural beliefs in "parentheses"?

OK, I'm getting lost in the weeds here. Whatever else Benedict might have meant by his recent comments, they appear to be of a piece with the stance that he, and by extension the entire Catholic Church, currently take in relation to the other religions of the world. That is to say: You've Tried the Rest, Now Try the Best. If the Pope truly believes that the entire truth of who God is and what God wants starts and ends with Christ and His Church, why bother even speaking with our faiths or cultures who do not acknowledge or accept this? Even if you want to maintain dialogue for the sake of appearances, why come out with a public comment making it clear that you don't actually believe much good comes from the dialogue in the first place? Why make the comments to an atheist author (Marcello Pera) with a Christo-centric view of European history and who takes an antagonistic stance towards Islam?

It's too bad, really. Pope Benedict is a highly educated man who is clearly at home in the academic realm. But his insistence on absolutes blinds him to the fact that the world is not static, and that everything is dynamic. Including religious faith. This dynamism is fueled in large part by the revelations that emerge when different faiths interact with each other, when beliefs are challenged and reexamined, shared and studied. As I wrote in an earlier post:

"Last year, an Israeli friend of ours asked me about my Christian faith and why I loved Jesus. I thought for a moment, and then replied that I held Jesus in deep respect and reverence for his teachings and his sacrifice on the cross. I added that when I die someday, if I discover that Jesus was not in fact the literal Son of God and was not resurrected from the dead, I would not love or revere him any less. The example of his life is strong enough reason for me to believe in and appreciate Jesus, to borrow Hanh's phrase, as an ultimate door. From this point of view, the teachings and living example of Jesus Christ can be made much more accessible to non-Christians, which in turn furthers dialogue and understanding between different people. Is this not the aim of any faith that preaches 'stability, joy, peace, understanding and love'? How does exclusivity advance this aim?"

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Pope Calls for Greater Understanding Between Catholic, Hellbound (The Onion, January 14, 1998)

What is the point of interfaith dialogue? (dotCommonweal, November 24, 2008)

Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue, by Rachel Donadio (The New York Times, November 23, 2008)

Obama-Nation = Abortion-Nation?!?

2008-12-01T23:10:00.005-05:00

Did you know that President-Elect Barack Obama is the "most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate ever"? Don't believe me? Just Google search that term, and your resulting hits will reveal the dregs of the American Right Wing universe, the members of which spent the better part of this past summer and fall braying about how Barack Obama is not just pro-choice on the question of abortion, he is actually pro-abortion. This is probably news to anyone who was paying attention to any of Mr. Obama's comments on the issue of abortion during the very long presidential campaign.

Regardless of these facts, they haven't stopped various extremists from making the claim. Mr. Obama's candidacy, and now his impending presidency, have worked many people in the pro-life community into a lather. Within this community, the Catholic Church regards itself as First among equals, and continues to lead the charge in tagging anyone who is pro-choice as being pro-abortion. In a rehash of the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain American bishops refused to serve Holy Communion to pro-choice Democratic nominee John Kerry (D-MA), additional Catholic leaders have issued stern warnings to parishioners not to support Obama on the sole basis of his pro-choice stance, and to either skip communion or go to confession if any of them actually voted for him.

I continue to find it saddening, as well as more than a little insulting, to be categorized as pro-abortion by virtue of the fact that I am pro-choice. As I've written before, I don't know anybody who is pro-choice who actively and enthusiastically promotes abortions no matter the circumstances. For the majority of pro-choice citizens, the circumstances matter big time. Even those who are ardently pro-choice can find their level of support for this right challenged in the face of how different individuals choose to have an abortion, as this recent Washington Post Magazine article illustrates.

You know, opponents of the landmark Civil Rights Act were led by Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued that "you can't legislate morality." Yet these same right-wing types who opposed legislating civil rights-based morality are more than happy to support legislation that enforces their own moral code, namely the outlawing of any and all forms of abortion, no matter the circumstances. This is the very position taken by the Catholic Church, a position that has led more than one member of the U.S. Catholic priesthood to come out with outrageous edicts such as the prohibition against serving communion to Obama supporters, or demanding that parishioners who did vote for Mr. Obama go to confession in order to be absolved of this supposed sin. But honestly, would a vote for the supposedly pro-life ticket of McCain/Palin have been a vote for a reduction in the number of abortions, if not the outright elimination of this practice. I truly don't think so. In fact, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the greatest drop in the annual number of abortions performed in the United States occurred during the administration of one William Jefferson Clinton, a pro-choice Democrat whose stated position on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare." It seems that abortion is most likely to be safe, legal and rare in a country that provides for shared prosperity and a robust social safety net, progressive sex education, makes contraception and other family planning services available to all people regardless of means, and concedes that legal abortion is a medical procedure that is in fact sometimes necessary for health issues relating to the fetus, the mother, or both. The current pro-life strategy that is championed by the Catholic Church does not allow for any such circumstantial consideration. It is an approach to a highly complex social issue that is wholly lacking in nuance, and one that some Catholic leaders are finally suggesting needs to be replaced by a strategy designed to effectively address the reality of this issue as it is, not as how the Church wishes that it would be.

Where is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ in the Church's singular fixation on abortion? Does the Church really intend to mortgage the richness of its vast body of social and ethical teaching for the sake of pursuing this one particular end? It is not a reasonable, and therefore not a tenable, position for the Church to be taking. As then-candidate Obama remarked in response to a debate question on abortion,
"But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.' Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

My final question: Does the Church intend to be counted among the reasonable participants in that search for common ground?

- Doug L.

PS- I usually try and limit the number of reference links to ten. However, because of the gravity of this particular issue, my thinking is that the more information that is available, the better. Please avail yourself of the resources I've assembled below. Shalom.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, December 7, 2008):

Nursing Grudges, by Dahlia Lithwick (Slate.com, December 6, 2008)

Barack Obama on Abortion (On The Issues.org)

A Hard Choice: Online Discussion with Lesley Wojcik and Patricia Meisol (WashingtonPost.com, November 24, 2008)

Maria Shriver: Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion (WashingtonPost.com, OnFaith, November 2008)

Will the Pope and Obama Clash Over Abortion? (Time.com, November 18, 2008)

Pope Says Catholics in Politics Must Follow Faith (Christianpost.com, November 16, 2008)

Obama's Promise to Pro-Lifers, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, November 15, 2008)

Catholics for Obama.org

A Catholic Shift to Obama?, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, October 21, 2008)

Can Democrats Reduce Abortions More Than Republicans??, by Steven Waldman (BeliefNet Blog, October 7, 2008)

Born Alive Baloney, by Jess Henig (Newsweek.com, September 24, 2008)

Obama and Infanticide (FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008)

Obama Statement on the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision (BarackObama.com, January 22, 2008)

Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes (National Organization for Women, April 30, 2007)

Why do women seek abortions? (ReligiousTolerance.org, April 27, 2007)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. Senate Version, S. 2020)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. House Version, H.R. 1964)

Fetal Viability, by Franklin Foer (Slate.com, May 25, 1997)

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-27T09:42:00.006-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving, America! Eat yer turkey and giblets, then get yer gun out from the front hall closet and load'er up. The annual War on Christmas begins in 3..... 2.... 1...

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

A Colbert Christmas: Toby Keith Sings

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Catholics and Mormons Tag-Team CA Gays

2008-11-23T23:08:00.006-05:00

Hooray! Catholics and Mormons have made common cause in the Great State of California to (pop quiz)...

Help the homeless find safe, decent, affordable housing?
Open up a statewide network of food pantries and health clinics for the poor?
Lobby the state government for greater state assistance to California's burgeoning immigrant population?
Engage in a Constitution-based version of Smear the Queer?

For all of you who answered Number 4, DING, DING, DING, you win!

So, the Catholic Church is perfectly comfortable making common cause with the Mormon Church against the right of gay people to enter into a civil marriage, the same Mormon Church whose teachings are otherwise rejected lock, stock and barrel by the self-same Catholic Church. Given the important Constitutional ramifications of this particular Proposition and related court challenges, and given the faith-based nature of this blog, I think it's important to point out the blatant hypocrisy and cynical opportunism represented by these two religions teaming up for the express purpose of codifying discrimination against an embattled minority. I mean, excuse me, but it's not as if Catholics or Mormons have never experienced state-sponsored discrimination at any time in American history. Given the respective histories of these two faiths, you would think that their leaders (and their followers) might be more empathetic and open-minded to the issue of the legal rights of homosexuals. Oh, well. Never mind. So much for, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I don't know how any Catholic can blithely ignore this command which cuts to the heart of the Gospel message of Jesus. Does this edict not count for Mormons since Jesus wasn't in North America when he said it? (Publisher's Note: That last comment is nothing but pure sarcasm.)

While the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco (o, irony of ironies!) worked directly with the Mormon Church to campaign in favor of Proposition 8, other faith-based buttinski's also sounded off in favor of state-sponsored discrimination, including:

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America;
The American Family Association; and (of course)
Focus on the Family

Do we need any MORE reminders of why the 1st Amendment wall that separates the workings of the United States government from the whims of any one religion is so important? It is one thing for various religions to prohibit same-sex marriage and to otherwise condemn homosexuality per the precepts of their respective beliefs and teachings. Fine, that is their right to enforce their beliefs within the confines of their respective faiths and places of worship. What isn't fine, what isn't right, is for a religion, any religion, to impose on civil society the beliefs and practices that it imposes on its own members. The right of gay couples to enter into a civil marriage is of NO concern to the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or any other such religious institution. If you are looking for a way to help push back against this effort to discriminate against and marginalize homosexuals, please take your pick from the following advocacy organizations:

As a nice post-script to this whole mess, James Dobson's Focus on the Family has had to lay off over 200 employees as a result of dumping almost three-quarters-of-a-million dollars in organization funds into the pro-Prop. 8 campaign. Talk about instant karma! Let's hope- no, let's pray- that the good karma keeps on rolling, as the California Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments challenging the validity of Proposition 8. Shalom.

- Doug L.

"Prop 8 - The Musical" (Funny or Die)

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, November 24, 2008):

California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8 (San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 2008)

Mormons' Uneasy Victory, by Stephen Stromberg (The Washington Post, November 24, 2008)

Bigotry on the Bus, by Dan Wentzel (The Washington Post, November 24, 2008)

Proposition 8 (2008 Voter Guide, California Secretary of State)

Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8 (San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2008)

Human Rights Campaign

Advocate.com

Newt Gingrich, Divorced Lover of Family Values, Warns America of "Gay Fascism" (Gay.com, November 17, 2008)

Christian Group Lays Off Hundreds After Spending All Money on Prop 8 Passage (Wonkette.com, November 17, 2008)

Ted Haggard Opens New Business Blocks from Old Church (PageOneQ.com, November 23, 2008)

GOP leader: Rebuild party on 'sanctity of marriage' (RawStory.com, November 9, 2008)

Vatican Absolves Lennon: Former Beatle Immediately Released from Hell

2008-11-23T21:18:00.001-05:00

"Are you there, God?
It's me, Lennon."

I don't know whether it's true or not that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano actually did this- I haven't been able to find the article online- but apparently, in a 40th anniversary retrospective of the Beatles' 1968 release entitled The Beatles (aka "The White Album"), the paper reportedly described
Lennon's "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" comments from 1966 as little more than a joke made by "a young English working-class musician who had grown up in the age of Elvis Presley and rock and roll and had enjoyed unexpected success."

I suppose that the paper is right. Although he made it pretty clear in his 1970 song God, and his 1971 release Imagine, that he was not a religious man in any traditional sense of the word, and may well have been an atheist, the following quote from 1969 makes it clear that Lennon had some appreciation for the Gospel message of Jesus as a force for good in the world:

"We're all Christ and we're all Hitler. We are trying to make Christ's message contemporary. We want Christ to win. What would he have done if he had advertisements, T.V., records, films and newspapers? The miracle today is communication. So Let's use it."

God, by John Lennon

So, we're left with two questions: did the Vatican actually absolve Lennon of his so-called sin? What did John Lennon actually believe with regard to who or what God is or isn't? Of these two questions, we can only ever truly know the answer to one, that of course being whether the Vatican actually wrote the article in question. As for Lennon's beliefs, well, he may not have been a religious man, but he clearly believed there are forces at work in this life of a spiritual nature, and that the energy we put out into the world always comes right back to each of us. So just be sure to keep putting the good stuff out there. We all shine on, baby.

- Doug L.

Instant Karma, by John Lennon

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

John Lennon.com

L'Osservatore Romano

Vatican 'forgives' John Lennon (BBC News Europe, November 22, 2008)

Mother Superior, jump the gun (dotCommonweal, November 23, 2008)

What, me worry about you?

2008-07-16T23:17:00.012-04:00

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. Can you guess which one?

Quote #1: He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (The Gospel According to Mark, Ch. 8, v. 34-37 )
Quote #2: "The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'" (Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Quote #3: "...but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good (emphasis added)." (Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801)
Quote #4: "There is a belief now that individuals, especially young people, should essentially ... 'devote themselves' to something greater than themselves -- sacrifice their own wants, their own interests, to serve the common good, whatever they happen to believe it is at the time. To me, that's very un-American. I just don't think it's the role of the government to have me tutoring young kids if I don't want to or digging latrines if I don't want to or cleaning up trash at housing projects. People who serve in the military do so voluntarily, and I think they do so out of their own self-interest. They do so because they want to attack and kill a militant Islam [sic]. They do it very selfishly." (Jonathan Hoenig, Fox "News" Commentator and Managing Partner of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC.)

So, did you guess which quote stands out like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl? If you guessed Quote #4, you are one smart reader! I presume that you've heard of Jesus Christ, Dr. Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson. But Jonathan Hoenig? If you're scratching your head trying to figure out who this guy is, you're likely not alone (unless you're in a room full of people who only watch Fox, in which case Unkosher Jesus will pray for you). The best I can figure is, if Ben Stiller ever procreated with Alfred E. Newman, and then they gave their love child a lobotomy, the result would basically be Jonathan Hoenig.

Separated at birth?

It is the stock in trade of the Fox Network to go beyond the pale on any number of issues and topics. Nothing is sacred at Fox except for crisp dollar bills and the opinions of any of the braying jackasses it employs to squawk at the teevee camera. I do feel, though, that in denigrating the notion of the common good, of a nation whose citizens work together for shared prosperity and security, Fox has literally out-Foxed itself in debasing an ideal that is as old as the Republic. What's more, the timing of this ill-advised slime attack against the idea of the common good comes when Americans are reeling from growing economic instability . Banks are failing, wages are stagnant, prices are rising, new foreclosures are reported every day. Do Hoenig and Fox think that the answer to this dire situation is "every man, woman and child for him or her self"? Talk about un-American. For the one network bent on promoting Intelligent Design over Evolution, you sure are keen on Social Darwinism. And this is the same network that would have us believe that it is the sole defender of the sanctity of Christian values and, by God, of the most holy of all holy holidays, Christmas? Puh-LEAZE.

Finally, a political movement that speaks Jonathan Hoenig's language...

Look, Hoenig and all of your fellow nihilists at Fox, I just have one question for you all: why do you hate America?

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

MAD Magazine

The Impassive Bystander, by DeNeen L. Brown (The Washington Post, July 16, 2008)

Is the Common Good "Good"? (The American Prospect, June 18, 2006)

Jonah Goldberg: Why is Ex-Slave Barack Obama Tying to Reinstitute Slavery? (Wonkette.com, July 8, 2008)

Points of Light Institute

Peace Corps

AmeriCorps

City Year

Idealist.org

Ahead of the Interfaith Curve: Rabbi Michael P. Sternfield

2008-07-11T23:45:00.004-04:00

Unkosher Jesus is a site that I launched for the purpose of discussing and exploring interfaith relationships, marriage and child rearing, among other topics. I've devoted at least a couple of posts specifically to topics of interfaith families and child rearing, and one of the obvious challenges I've described is the lack of religious clergy and institutions that specifically support couples and families who choose to structure a dual-faith household for themselves (as my wife and I have).

Enter Rabbi Michael Sternfield of the Chicago Sinai Congregation. I discovered the text of a sermon he delivered during Rosh Hoshanna in 2002 entitled, And The Two of Them Went Together. It is a beautiful piece of writing that escapes the bounds of mere prose and approaches poetic sublimity. In this one sermon Rabbi Sternfield succeeds in both defining and defending the notion of couples sharing a dual-faith household (specifically, Jewish-Christian in his example, but which can apply to any such dual-faith arrangement). It is also a miraculous statement, as it represents an enormous amount of bravery on the part of Rabbi Sternfield, who delivered this sound defense of interfaith marriage publicly, before his entire congregation at the outset of the High Holidays. I honestly cannot do sufficient justice to the beauty of Rabbi Sternfield's sermon, and would simply like to share an excerpt here.

Every year, many more Jews marry non-Jews than marry other Jews. The preponderance of interfaith marriages constitutes nothing less than a silent revolution, and Jewish life will never be the same. Most of the attention has centered on the belief that interfaith marriage is a threat to Jewish survival. I am in complete disagreement with this prognosis. My contention is that Judaism will not only survive; it will flourish if we learn how to deal with the phenomenon of interfaith marriage more creatively. However, we must not expect the nature of Jewish life to remain the same because it will not. A new Jewish/Christian amalgam has come into existence. It is being created by those born Jewish and those Christians who are married to Jews and who are bringing their own sensitivities and mind-set with them.

The conventional wisdom has it that one cannot be both Jewish and Christian. But, I must tell you that the conventional wisdom is at least partially in error. As much as the formal institutions of Jewish life push for a single resolution concerning religious identity, more and more interfaith couples are creating their own path. Dissatisfied with the answers they are receiving from the institutions of religion, there are many couples who are making a serious attempt to blend their heritages, some with remarkable success.

Could we say that this is a new religion in the making? I am not sure. What I do know is that there is a new religious community in the making, one that is increasingly diverse, wherein the old boundaries no longer exist. As in the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, almost all of the Judaism wants to go on pretending that these kind of phenomena do not exist; that reconciling Christianity and Judaism is not possible. If we care to look, we will discover that this is not the case. They absolutely do exist, and we had better open our eyes.

I have never read, nor have I myself even written, anything that comes closer than this wonderful sermon to describing my own vision of how interfaith relationships can and should work. Rabbi Sternfield’s willingness to acknowledge and accept change as a given and as a good thing is very heartening. Rare is the member of the clergy from either Judaism or Christianity who is willing to state simply and clearly that there is nothing inherently unchangeable or “eternal” about religious observance and tradition. Between God and religious traditions, God is the only One that is eternal and unchanging. The rest… well, suffice it to say that I believe that it is good and proper for us to reexamine what we believe and how we practice, regardless of whether these have been represented as nothing less than decrees from God Himself. Judaism teaches that to be born a Jew is to inherit the faith heritage of your Jewish ancestors, which you are then obligated to uphold. Christianity proclaims the divine authority of Jesus Christ, simultaneously God and Man, through whom all of humanity must be saved in order to inherit eternal life. And so on. All absolutes. Worship Jesus, follow the Gospel and practice the rituals of Christianity-exclusively-in order to follow God’s will and inherit the Kingdom. Worship God, follow the Torah and practice the rituals and teachings of Judaism-exclusively-in order to follow God’s law (and maybe or maybe not inherit the Kingdom, but that’s not really the point of Judaism).

Making room for combined ways of expressing belief and practicing faith traditions means being open to re-examining these beliefs, to changing these very traditions, if not what they stand for. As challenging as this is for most people to do, in the end I feel that the interfaith approach does more to affirm our humanity than restricting belief and practice to one religion. I know that the approach I advocate will strike many as relativist, but I am a believer in few absolutes. That God is One is one of these. That human beings are created to love and serve one another in justice and mercy is another. I don't see how interfaith relationships and religious observances and practices violate either of these. I'm glad to know that Rabbi Sternfield feels the same way, and moreover has the courage to say so out loud. In the simple and profound words of his colleague Rabbi Harold Schulweis, “Things change. People change... Institutions change. Doctrines change.” Amen, Rabbi. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Taking "Yes" For an Answer, by Rabbi Michael Sternfield (InterfaithUnion.org)

The Interfaith Union (Chicago, IL)

The Best Gift for Your Unborn Children, by Rabbi Julie Greenberg (InterfaithFamily.com, July 24, 2007)

Rabbi Arthur Blecher, The Unorthodox Rabbi

Interfaith Approach to Forgiving Trespass, by Julie Galambush (The New York Times, January 1, 2007)

Interfaith Marriage and Families (UnkosherJesus.net, May 20, 2007)

Religious Americans: My Faith Isn't the Only Way (MSNBC.com, June 23, 2008)

Bishop John Shelby Spong (Beliefnet.com)

The New Seminary (New York, NY)

The Chaplaincy Institute (Berkeley, CA)

Expiration Date for Right Wing Religious Gruel

2008-07-03T23:30:00.013-04:00

Ever since the Democrats swept back into control of Congress after the 2006 elections, pundits across the country have been confidently predicting the demise of the Evangelical Christian Right as a political force in America. Me, I need a little more convincing. Every time I hear someone say that Right Wing Christianity is toast, I think back to the horror movies I used to watch when I was a kid. The monster/creature/killer was supposedly dispatched, the weary and terrified protagonists breathe a sigh of relief and wipe the sweat from their brows, and just when I'd let my own guard down, BAM, the monster/creature/killer would lurch back to life to take down yet another victim. I ain't about to let down my guard when it comes to Right Wing Evangelicals, assurances of their demise notwithstanding.

Then again... maybe it is twilight hour for the "Religious" Right. I mean, it's one thing when the shaggy, wild-eyed radical hippie members of the MSM say so, but it is quite another when actual Evangelical Christians publish a document that basically says, hey, we've been exploiting our Christian faith and using it as an excuse to act like narrow-minded assholes for years and years. And this is advancing Christianity how?

I'm referring, of course, to the Evangelical Manifesto, a document that was published this past May and which dares to call out members of the faithful on both the Right and the Left for politicizing religion. To wit:

The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions. Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness (emphasis added).

OK, so it's one thing for the Conservative hijacking of Christianity to have run its course. However, it also appears as though Progressive Evangelicals have literally been waiting in the wings for this moment and are poised to retake the good name of their Christian faith and remake American Evangelical Christianity as a force for positive social change. Just ask Amy Sullivan, proud Evangelical Christian and contributing editor for The Washington Monthly:

"Not long after the 2004 election, a congressional aide identified himself as an evangelical during a public Q&A. He told me afterward that it was the first time he'd 'outed' himself in front of fellow Democrats. 'How did it feel?' I asked. He paused. 'A little scary,' he said. 'But good.' Now he's one of a growing class of consultants who advise Democratic candidates about how to court religious voters."

I am not here to dance on the grave of any one's right to the public expression of religious faith, or to say that religious beliefs do not/should not play an important role in informing the values and convictions of those who profess them. I AM here to rejoice in the demise of a movement that is not religious, but which represents a co-opting of the language and trappings of religion to advance a narrow, plutocratic, anti-democratic agenda. Specifically, the Gospel message of Jesus Christ has never been visible to me in the words and actions of people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others who have amassed power and wealth by exploiting the name of the man whom they claim to worship. Not that there aren't people on the Left who exploit the political process for their own ends, but at least they typically don't claim to do so in the name of Jesus. It goes without saying that there is a place for religious faith in American society- authentic religious faith. Dobson, Falwell, et al. had their day in the sun on Jesus' dime. It's time for the social justice, preferential option for the poor Gospel to displace the "prosperity gospel," and for progressive Christians to retake the good name of the faith that they hold dear. Shalom.

- Doug L.

George W. Bush vs. Jesus of Nazareth

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Evangelical Manifesto

Dobson Rails Against Fruitcake Constitution (Wonkette.com, June 24,2008)

Murky Manifesto: Evangelical Statement Repudiates Theocracy- Sort Of, by Joseph L. Conn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, May 7, 2008)

Why The "Evangelical Manifesto" Wasn't Written For You - & Why That Means You Should Read It, by Pastor Dan Schulz (StreetProphets.com, May 7, 2008)

When Would Jesus Bolt?, by Amy Sullivan (The Washington Monthly, April 2006)

How Would Jesus Vote? (I'm an Evangelical--And a Liberal. Really.) by Amy Sullivan. (The Washington Post, February 24, 2008)

Progressive Evangelicals Look to Reshape Political Image (ChristianPost.com, March 28, 2008)

Ascension: Amy Sullivan says that the era of the religious left has begun, by Paul Baumann (The Washington Monthly, January - March 2008)

Jesus: The Guantanamo Years (ReligiousRight.com, July 24, 2007)

Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born (Wonkette.com, December 14, 2005)

Modern-Day Pharisees and the Politics of Abortion

2008-06-16T23:00:00.006-04:00

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more." (The Gospel of John, Chapter 8, v. 3 - 11)

There is something particularly striking about this Gospel passage. It’s not the first time that Jesus is challenged by his Pharisaic colleagues, not even the first time that he is challenged to condemn someone’s behavior per the precepts of Mosaic law. What is most noteworthy is that he not only refuses to obey the law of Moses, he does so in defense of a woman, someone with limited legal status in ancient Hebraic society. (Notice that her presumably male partner is not also brought to Jesus for condemnation and punishment). Jesus’ refusal to capitulate to the authority of Mosaic law is no small deal among religious Jews, either then or now.

I bring this up in light of a recent event involving a neoconservative Republican, Douglas Kmiec. He happens to be a lifelong Catholic, is a professor at conservative Pepperdine University, a one-time member of the Reagan Administration, and a long-time critic of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Therefore, naturally, he was denied the right to receive Holy Communion at a recent gathering of Catholic business people.

Come again? That's right. What became something of a fad during the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain Catholic bishops threatened to withhold communion from pro-choice candidate John Kerry, Catholic clerics apparently have their sights on ANYONE who does not toe the Vatican line on abortion 110%. And what was Professor Kmiec's sin? He, to the shock and surprise of his conservative friends and colleagues, endorsed the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). The logic here is that, in supporting someone who is pro-choice, Kmiec is essentially supporting abortion, which, according to Catholic teaching, is never, ever permissible, even when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Kmiec has made his own statement on the matter. For myself, I would simply like to point out that this incident highlights certain aspects of Catholic teaching and orthodox Catholic (Pharisaic?) behavior that I find to be troubling and that sadden me personally.

Jesus was a sworn enemy of public hypocrites, as any good Catholic ought to know. Therefore, the cleric who denied communion to Prof. Kmiec should be very, very nervous right about now. He singled out Kmiec for his support of the Democratic candidate for president in a room full of Republicans who presumably have supported anti-Christian Republican policies and the politicians who crafted these. Who among these did this grandstanding (as as yet seemingly unnamed) cleric deny communion to? Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery; he did not condemn her or allow others to. Jesus broke bread at the Last Supper with his disciples, men he knew to be flawed and whom he knew would abandon him in his hour of need. Exactly which of these was denied communion by Jesus himself? In my opinion, this cleric needed to stop and ask himself, What would Jesus do?
The Vatican's worldwide campaign to stamp out abortion, and with it adequate reproductive health services for women, lends aid and comfort to those cultures who also use religion to subjugate women. Particularly, women living in societies where Sharia law is strictly interpreted and enforced and who are subjected to atrocities such as genital mutilation, stoning and other forms of "honor" killing for transgressing strict codes of conduct and morality that apply to women, but not to men. Is the Vatican truly comfortable sharing any level of association with any culture or society that would treat its women so cruelly? If the Church wants the world to take it seriously when it waxes philosophic on the "woman as masterpiece of God's creation", it needs to back up these words with actions and policies that truly reflect the sentiment they espouse.

Senator Obama is not pro-abortion, and is on record as stating that abortion is an issue that saddens him, that has a deeply moral component, but that is something that is intensely personal to the woman who must weigh whether or not abortion is the appropriate choice for her to make, given her individual circumstances. Jesus did not defend the woman in the gospel story because he thought that adultery is A-OK. He refused to condemn her because he understood that there is more to explaining a person's behavior than to say yes she did, or no she didn't, and that understanding the circumstances of someone's behavior can make the crucial difference in evaluating its moral component. He understood that a woman without power or standing before God and the law was at the mercy of men, men who wrote and kept the rules of conduct. In like fashion, Senator Obama is choosing to place his trust in women to make informed decisions about this serious matter with health care professionals who are in the best position to judge what the best health options are. To choose to condemn abortion and the women who have them out of hand is to side with the Pharisees who are uninterested in taking into consideration the possibly painful circumstances of the woman they stand in judgment over.

It is my true wish that Catholics and others among the Pro Life movement could bring themselves to understand that Pro Choice does not equal Pro Abortion. No one that I know or that I am aware of who supports abortion rights does so because they are pleased to see embryos and fetuses destroyed. They do so because they recognize the hard truth that under certain circumstances the painful decision to abort a pregnancy is the best decision for the mother in question. I can't excuse any woman from the obligation to carefully weigh this particular decision, its moral component and its consequences. However, neither will I join modern-day Pharisees who refuse to consider the circumstances under which a women would make this decision and condemn her. Jesus would do likewise, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Senator Obama and Douglas Kmiec have thankfully gotten the message. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Why the Christian Right fears Obama, by Daniel Gilgoff (USATODAY.com, June 16, 2008)

When faith is front and center, by Douglas W. Kmiec (The Chicago Tribune, June 16, 2008)

For an "Obamacon," Communion Denied, by E.J. Dionne (The Washington Post, June 3, 2008)

Abortion rights lawmakers to receive communion (Brietbart.com, April 16, 2008)

Evolution of Church Teaching on Abortion (ReligiousTolerance.org)

Catholics For Choice

Teachings of the Magisterium on Abortion (PriestsForLife.org)

ThirdWay.org

The Ethics of Abortion, by John Hoad (EthicalManifold.net, February 11, 2003)

How to Decide Whether or Not to Get an Abortion (wikiHow.com)

The Real Dream Ticket: Martin and Bobby for Sainthood

2008-06-06T23:04:00.007-04:00

This week's Washington Post reports that the Catholic Church is moving with great speed to beatify the late Karol Józef Wojty, better known as Pope John Paul II. John Paul presided as pope for 27 years, second in duration only to the papacy of Pius IX. For those unfamiliar with Church terminology, beatification is a necessary step in a candidate's journey to sainthood, or canonization. Some candidates stall out at the state of beatification, while others make it all the way to sainthood.

Beatification is tough, but Canonization is even tougher. To be beatified, a candidate must be judged to have lived a life worth emulating by others, AND there must be proof that he or she committed at least one miraculous act. In order to be canonized, a second, posthumous miracle must be documented. Typically what the Vatican is looking for is solid proof that the deceased candidate is in God's good graces in Heaven, and has the power to literally respond to prayers of people on earth. No small feat!

The waiting period that is typically required before any of these proceedings can begin is five years after the death of the candidate in question. The pope reserves the authority to waive this requirement, as Pope Benedict the XVI has obviously done for his predecessor. I have no personal beef with this, but would like to suggest that if we are going to pull out all the stops for someone who has been dead for only three years, can we give some serious consideration for two men who have been dead for 40 years? I am referring to both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Please stay with me, because I am not kidding and I don't mean for this suggestion to be taken lightly. Apply the Church criteria to the life and actions of each man, and tell me that they don't sail to sainthood:

Lives worthy of emulation of others: King and Kennedy lived lives of intense passion and courage, which they, in their own fashion, dedicated to peace and social justice for all Americans. Their shared commitment to these causes continue to serve as touchstones for those of us who have come after them, living guideposts for those who aspire to realize the dream of a just and prosperous world for which they lived and died.
Miracle #1: Dr. King harnessed a movement that would come to define the history of the second half of 20th Century America. He transformed the legal, political and social landscape for African Americans and White Americans alike. The descendant of slaves, he reshaped American history and made it more possible for America as a nation to be more true to its constitutional heritage than ever before.
Miracle #1: Senator Kennedy was born a son of privilege, wealthy before he ever needed to earn his own living. He attended the finest schools in the country and saw more of the world as a young boy and young man than most adult Americans. Yet he made common cause with the poor, the dispossessed and the voiceless of our nation.
Miracle #2: The Church stresses that the second miracle needs to be performed posthumously, providing evidence that the deceased lives with God in Heaven and has been granted power by God to intercede in the lives of people here on earth. I don't personally know of anyone who prays or has prayed to either Dr. King or Sen. Kennedy. Nevertheless, when Sen. Barack Obama became the first African American to clinch the presidential nomination of any major political party this week, I could not help but feel that both Dr. King and Sen. Kennedy both lent spiritual support to the Obama campaign from beyond. Sen. Obama will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver 45 years to the day from when Dr. King gave his historic I Have a Dream Speech. Sen. Obama has also literally been handed the Kennedy mantle of leadership by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy, the late senator's brother. All of these intersections with King and Kennedy, and we're supposed to believe that the two of them aren't working in support of Barack Obama? I don't think so!

Tom Toles political cartoon
The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

The event that is central to Christianity is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the wake of his arrest and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, his mother and disciples were thunderstruck by grief at the magnitude of their loss and the violent manner by which it occurred. On the Sunday after he was crucified, however, the Gospels relate that Jesus appeared to his disciples after rising from the tomb. While some were incredulous and some were confused, they were all eventually overjoyed at his return. Their pain and loss had been redeemed, their hope restored that Jesus' message could still be realized.

Neither Dr. King nor Sen. Kennedy were Jesus Christ, and when they were assassinated, everyone who experienced that loss knew that it was for real and it was permanent. Two of the most special, transformational leaders in the history of America had been brutally taken, with no hope of their return. It has been 40 years since that awful spring when the hopes and dreams of a generation aching for a better America were snuffed out in a puff of smoke from the barrel of a gun. Forty years is a much longer time to wait for redemption than 3 days. After so much time, do we dare to dream and hope again, now that Sen. Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, that everything that Dr. King and Sen. Kennedy both worked to achieve is once again within our grasp? Maybe so, but I'm not taking any chances. Hoping and dreaming are fine, but for myself I'm gonna pray to St. Martin and St. Bobby every day from now until the election! Shalom.

- Doug L.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I've Been to the Mountaintop"
Memphis, TN- April 3, 1968

Robert F. Kennedy's Impromptu Speech
on the Assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Indianapolis, IN, April 4, 1968

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

The King Center

Robert F. Kennedy Memorial

Robert Kennedy, Arlington National Cemetary

What He Overcame, by Eugene Robinson (The Washington Post, June 6, 2008)

Obama's Bridge Between MLK and RFK, by John Avlon (RealClearPolitics.com, June 6, 2008)

Kennedy: "It's now time for Barack Obama." (CNN.com, January 28, 2008)

The Yooper Zen Art of Serenity

2008-05-22T15:55:00.010-04:00

Unkosher Jesus readers might recall a book review that I posted last May for a book by my good friend, Rob Balmes. It is entitled, Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life, and contains some simple yet profound insights on life and how to live it that Rob has experienced over time. Rob recently penned another piece on certain bits of wisdom that have been passed on to him by important women in his life. I am posting it here because I feel these insights are applicable to all people of any faith tradition. So, without further ado, please enjoy The Wisdom of Yooper Women.

A Yooper is a native of the Upper Peninsula, or U.P., of Michigan, which is located in the remote part of the state. I’m from the beautiful city of Marquette, located along the pristine, yet icy shoreline of Lake Superior. I recommend everyone go visit the U.P. and Lake Superior at some point in your life. But make sure and wear plenty of clothing. Dress in warm layers- and that advice is for summer visits! If you decide to go visit in the fall or winter, well, you’re on your own. Good luck.

The great thing about growing up in the U.P. is not only being surrounded by a beautiful, natural environment, it’s the people. Yoopers are a rare breed and pass on from generation to generation a set of great core values based on hard work, honesty, integrity, loyalty and most importantly a friendly down-to-earth nature. So I am proud to have been raised in that environment and it helped make me the person I am today.

In honor of Mother’s Day, I’d like to talk about three Yooper women in my life and how they have had a profound impact on raising me and making me the person I am today. They each taught me one invaluable lesson on life which reflects the values I cherish and how I live my life every day. These three Yooper women are my mother and two grandmothers.

My mother, Mary, was born and raised in Sault Sainte Marie Michigan on the St. Mary’s River, just across from Canada. She has spent her entire life living for the moment, the now, trying to experience all she can with her time. This is reflected in her life, having multiple degrees and several different careers. She has instilled in me the lesson that life is about experience. The most profound statement she ever made to me was that at this moment in time, we’re here because of the multitude of life experiences we have each had and the decisions we have made. At this very moment, we are here because of everything that has happened to us in this life. It’s all led us to this moment in time, so enjoy it and realize that you’re all here for a reason. I have continued with this message in my life so far by always trying new things, new jobs and experience as much as possible and that’s the type of person I wish to be throughout my entire life.

My maternal grandmother, Fran, was born a Canadian. She became an adopted Yooper, a Yooper-Canuck you might say. She passed away just last October a couple weeks shy of her 83rd birthday. My grandmother was a very kind and loving woman. But for much of her adult life, she had a very difficult time getting in a word edge-wise with her five boisterous and extroverted children and very strong, extroverted Irish husband. So with a quiet grand kid like me, she’d take the opportunity to share her wisdom and pass on words of advice. And I remember when I was deciding whether I was capable of leaving the U.P. to move to East Lansing and attend Michigan State University, she sat me down one evening after one of her delicious pot roast dinners. Every Sunday, she’d cook delicious meals for her children and grand kids. She said now Rob, when you make big decisions in life, always remember to follow your heart—follow the burning excitement of your soul. Burning excitement of your soul? At that time, I didn't exactly know what that meant, but I could tell she was very serious. At that moment, I was also experiencing massive heart burn. My heart and soul was ablaze in fire. Raging in pain. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that this was the case since she worked so hard at cooking the great meal. But it was a profound statement and connection that I’d never forget both literally and figuratively. To this day, I base all my major decisions on following that burning excitement inside, heartburn free of course, but with the full intention to move forward, to chase that impulse and desire to achieve my dreams.

The third Yooper woman who I want to talk about is my paternal grandma, Ruth. Ruth is almost 91 years old, lives on her own, drives her own car, and tends to her garden all summer long. She is an amazing and healthy woman. I hope that I have an ounce of her genes somewhere in me, because if I do then I am in great shape. But I think a big part of why she has lived so long is based on the fact that she doesn’t let the nitty gritty, mundane aspects of life get to her. She doesn’t get consumed by internal stress or worry. Whenever it happens, she always turns everything over to God. She has always told me to let God handle the details or the bigger picture. God is in control, not you. So focus every day of your life on doing your best and going for it, but let God handle how things work out. It’s a simple, yet profound statement on how to live life. I get caught up so much in my the details of my own life, worrying and stewing over what’s going to happen next, but when I am overwhelmed by anxiety and anticipation, her timeless wisdom always sets me straight. Just let God or the higher power, whatever your spiritual faith is, handle the outcome. Great words to live by.

In summary, remember that Yoopers are natives of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, live life to the fullest and experience all you can, follow your heart—the burning excitement of your soul, and then let God handle the details. These are great lessons for us all.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Ten Spiritual Lessons for a Balanced Life (Amazon.com)

Gaia.com: Community That Changes the World

The Gaia Trust (Gaia.org)

DailyZen.com

I Wanna be a Yooper t-shirt (Gladsone BP Gifts and Car Wash)

ExploringTheNorth.com: The Upper Peninsula of Michigan Traveler

Upper Peninsula of Michigan's Superior Sights (SuperiorSights.com)

UPTravel.com

Da Yoopers-dot-com

Hofenung Jews Can Believe In

2008-05-12T23:35:00.021-04:00

The State of Israel turns 60 this year. Gliklech geboirn-tog, Israel! To mark the occasion, let's engage in some Barack Talk. What does one thing have to do with the other? Oh, nothing more than the urban legend that Senator Obama is a Muslim who is hostile to Jews and to Israel, and that is enthusiastically perpetuated by neoconservative Zionists here in America. Meet two members of the American Jewish community on a paranoid mission to uncover Barack Obama's "deception" about his Muslim identity and anti-Semitic tendencies.

Debbie Schlussel: Debbie's a classy broad. See the URL for her "I-heart-Barack" page? She calls him Barack Hussein. Get it? Emphasis on the Hussein. Good one, Debster. Classy touch.
Daniel Pipes: Debbie baby, you gave paranoid hatred a run for its money, but like any good conservative woman, you should know better than to try and out-do a man. Meet Daniel Pipes. If you enter "Barack Obama" into the search engine of his blog, your resulting hits will reveal the unhinged writings of a man obsessed with Senator Obama's supposed Islamic identity.

Thankfully, there are other American Jews who take a more reasoned and objective view of Senator Obama, and who are not willing to engage in the gutter art of character assassination in order to malign him with false accusations and allegations. For example:

My Neighbor, Barack, by Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf (The Jewish Week, March 19, 2008). Consider Rabbi Wolf's insightful comments with regard to Rev. Wright: "Of course, race is only one issue on which Wright has stepped beyond the bounds of civil discourse. He's frequently made statements regarding Israel and the Jewish community that I find troubling. But to limit our understanding of Obama to the ill-conceived comments of the man who once led his church is dishonest and self-defeating." Indeed.
Obama on Zionism and Hamas, by Jeffrey Goldberg (AtlanticMonthly.com, May 12, 2008): "The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency."

Why all the blood, sweat and tears to promote the lie that Obama is Muslim, even that he is hostile to Jews and to Israel? Does it have anything to do with his willingness to exercise any amount of objectivity in evaluating any of Israel's policies and actions? I think it does. Is that sufficient reason to attempt to defame and malign the man with lies and inneuendo? I don't think so at all. These actions are indefensible, and add nothing constructive to any dialogue having to do with the security of Israel and peace and stability in the Middle East.

"Heil y'all doin'?"
All this ink spilt to promote the demonstrably false story that Senator Obama is a Muslim, along with all of the Rev. Wright guilt-by-association tactics. All this energy perpetuating lies and distortions. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain is endorsed by one of the most dangerous, war-mongering, meglomaniacal "religious" figures in the country, Rev. John Hagee. Yet as it happens, Rev. Hagee, who has described "how Jews are cursed collectively because the ancient Hebrews once worshiped idols," is embraced by the same neocons who castigate Senator Obama. Why? Because Hagee is the leader of a movement called Christian Zionism, and specifically an organized movement called Christians United for Israel. Obviously, this terminology gives the appearance that Rev. Hagee and his followers are ardent Judophiles. However, take a listen to some of his rants, and suddenly Rev. Jeremiah Wright seems like one of the more lucid, rationale minds of our time.

Talking Points Memo TV:
John McCain Continues to Embrace John Hagee

Hagee and his followers may try and pass themselves off as supporters of Israel and friends of the Jewish people. But anyone who wants to take the time to look will find loads of evidence pointing to their ulterior motive, i.e., the restoration of the Jewish State of Israel, which will lead to Armageddon, which leads to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, which leads to all non-Christians converting to Christianity, and and all non-believers will be torn to shreds and eaten alive a la Left Behind, et cetera, etc., The End.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized
Christians United for Israel Tour

How can anyone honestly think that poisonous gasbags like Hagee and his ilk are concerned with Israel's well-being for its own sake? That is a seriously dangerous delusion. Given that, Joe Lieberman apparently has one of the softest, most malleable minds on all of Capitol Hill, or one of the most duplicitous. He has either swallowed all of this Christian Zionist tripe, hook, line and sinker, or he is willing to join the ranks of someone as odious as Hagee to promote his own personal political agenda. This one-time Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency has endorsed John McCain for president- just like Rev. John Hagee! Senator Joe Lieberman wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age- just like John Hagee! And Senator Joe Lieberman fervently awaits the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the conversion of all Jews to Christianity- just like John Hagee! Oh, um, maybe not so much on that last one. But, hey, two out of three ain't bad. And what's a small difference of opinion among friends?

Whatever else can be said about Barack Obama, either good or ill, he is not a Muslim- not that there's anything wrong with that. And even if he was a practicing Muslim, so what? Would this automatically make him a radical terrorist, or an anti-Semitic foe of Israel? No, and those who conflate the two do nothing but poison the atmosphere and choke off the possibility for rational, constructive discussion of the important issues facing our country. Barack Obama is a friend to Jews and a supporter of the State of Israel. Those who disagree with his positions as a presidential candidate do a disservice to him and to political discourse in this country when they smear him with unsubstantiated charges of Islamic radicalism and anti-Semitism.

From my point of view, the candidacy of Barack Obama represents hope - hofenung - for all Americans, Jew and Gentile alike. The ranting, fear-mongering and saber-rattling of Pipes, Schlussel, Hagee and others is garbage- opfal- we should all beware of. Israel is a beautiful country that is entitled to exist in peace and to defend itself against aggression and terror. It is also entitled to better friends than Rev. Hagee, Debbie Schlussel or Pipes, friends who are willing to be honest in both their praise and their criticism of Israel's actions. Friends like Senator Barack Obama. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (Updated May 22, 2008):

Barack Obama Video:
Hope Changes Everything (YouTube.com)

John Hagee Loves Hitler More than McCain! (Wonkette.com, May 21, 2008)

Obama Admires Bush, by David Brooks (New York Times, May 16, 2008)

McCain in the Mud, by Richard Cohen (The Washington Post, May 13, 2008)

ChristianZionism.org- Challenging Christian Zionism and Apocalyptic Rapture Teachings on Israel and Palestine

A Jewish Renewal Understanding of the State of Israel, by Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun.org)

The Cynic and Senator Obama, by Charles P. Pierce (Esquire Magazine, June 2008)

Where Wright Goes Wrong, by Eugene Robinson (The Washington Post, April 29, 2008)

Obama at a Crossroads, by Horace Campbell (Tikkun.org, March 20, 2008)

Barack Obama is Building a Religion (Wonkette.com, March 7, 2008)

What'll It Be, America? Religious Pluralism or Apocalypse Now? (UnkosherJesus.com, November 27, 2007)

Religious Pluralism Part II: Overcoming the Conservative Hate Machine (UnkosherJesus.com, November 29, 2007)

Survey SAYS!...

2008-01-13T01:02:00.000-05:00

An open letter to My followers, by Jesus Christ

Hey everyone, Jesus here. I know I don't usually communicate with you this way, but after I read USA TODAY this week, I knew it was time for me to just come out and put some stuff to you as plainly as possible. I'm usually happy to let you simply analyze My teachings and come up with your own conclusions about what I want from My followers, but, well, let's just say I'm rethinking the wisdom of that whole approach, given how things have gone for the past 2,000 or so years since I left.

People, I'm going to come straight to the point and say that some of you are simply not cutting it as My followers. If you keep it up I'm going to have to sue for defamation of character, or unauthorized use of My name, or some such. Seriously, people, have you seen this recent survey? This thing was conducted by LifeWay Research (Biblical Solutions for Life)- not exactly the kind of outfit with a hidden agenda to defame Christians. Yet it's right there in their findings:

"A full 72 percent of the people interviewed said they think the church ‘is full of hypocrites,’" Stetzer said. "At the same time, however, 71 percent of the respondents said they believe Jesus ‘makes a positive difference in a person’s life’ and 78 percent said they would ‘be willing to listen’ to someone who wanted to share what they believed about Christianity."

Um, excuse me? Seventy-two percent of those polled think the church is full of hypocrites?! Now, I didn't actually author the gospels myself or anything like that, but don't they tend to describe hypocrites as, like, the type of people I completely could not stand? Yeah, I think they do, and yet here American poll respondents are telling YOU, certain members of My American flock, that somehow the guy who despised hypocrisy more than any other guy in, like, all of history, is worshiped by none other than a bunch of hypocrites. Great job, people. Thanks. I'm sure My message of peace, compassion, love and forgiveness- oh, and that other part about don't be a hypocrite- will be really well received by people who think My messengers are a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh, and could you be any more clueless about yourselves? "What is it about the faith we live that causes our culture to like Jesus but reject the church?" asks LifeWay Research Director Ed Stetzer. Try this on for size, jefe: maybe people have a favorable impression of me, Jesus Christ, because I'm, you know, the all-forgiving Prince of Peace, while you and your church are the ones running around separating My Dad's world between those who are "churched" and "unchurched". I mean, duh! I look in the dictionary for the definition of obnoxious, I see a picture of some evangelical "Christian" pounding his version of My message into some poor guy's face. Yeah, what is it about preachy evangelical Christianity that people are completely sick of and fed up with? Yeah, I wonder.

Look, I apologize for being harsh and a little sarcastic. It happens when I lose My temper, but still, My bad. Thing is, though, My message is as important to Me today as it was to Me when I first preached it over 2,000 years ago. I mean, I was flogged and crucified for that message, and don't go thinking that 2,000 years is enough time to ever forget about THAT. Point is, I love you all, I really do, but I have to tell you, you need to find another way. The world has some huge problems, my message was intended to provide a way for people to solve problems though acts of love, forgiveness and selflessness, and yet you're clearly falling down on the job. I mean, the United States is teetering on the brink of recession, for one thing. Think that might have an impact on the quality of life for people around the world? Yeah, so do I, especially poor people. And working overtime to convert non-Christians helps to address this problem how, exactly? Oh, and thousands of people are leaving their homes and streaming into the United States every week in search of a better life. They're called illegal immigrants. Maybe you've heard about this problem? I thought so. Now, flash quiz: ever hear of the Corporal Works of Mercy? Good, then maybe you know the one about Welcoming the Stranger. OK, I know, it doesn't say Welcome the Stranger in there, not word-for-word, but still. How you doing with that one, America?

OK, now I'm rambling. Look, I know that there are four pretty lengthy gospels that you use to read about My teachings. On top of that, if you ever took the time to look you'd find that there are even other versions where I do and say a whole bunch of other stuff they don't tell you about at church every Sunday. For all that has been written, though, I don't think it's real hard to boil My message down to its essence. Someone once asked Me, "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" I replied, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

OK, so, to recap: Love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. The message is simple, but I never said that living it would be. That goes especially for those of you (you know who you are) who think that all you have to do is "get saved" by Me, and then you are basically scott-free from any responsibility for your actions for the rest of your life. Seriously, that is the most obnoxious cop-out and the world's lamest excuse to be a self-righteous load I ever heard of. Talk is cheap, and what I am really interested in seeing are love, forgiveness, and compassion in action. I didn't live and die the way I did in order for people to talk about loving one another. I was hoping to motivate them to actually do it. Oh, and newsflash: when you're running around trying to convert non-Christians, this can actually get in the way of actually loving and relating to them as one human being to another. I don't need you all working to make everyone else a true believer: I need you to work together WITH EVERYONE to make the world a better place FOR EVERYONE.

This week's survey findings and my little op-ed will hopefully serve as a wake-up call for y'all. You know I'm here to help. Just lay off of the conversion angle. Believe it or not, I love everyone, and no, I don't just mean Christian believers. And yes, just so you know, the same goes for my Dad. Lay off of the obnoxious proselytizing and just focus on the core of my message: love God, love your neighbor as your love yourself. You get that down, the rest ought to become a lot clearer.

Peace, love and happiness,

Jesus Christ

(PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This piece not actually written by Jesus Christ.)

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Survey: Non-attendees find faith outside church (USA TODAY, January 10, 2008)

Is Christian Proselytizing Linked to Religious Hate Crimes? (ReligiousTolderance.org)

Ex-Jews for Jesus

Maryknoll: The U.S. Catholic Mission Movement

The Squandering of America, by Robert Kuttner

Peace Corps

AmeriCorps

Idealist.org (Action Without Borders)

A Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

2007-12-31T00:00:00.000-05:00

And so, this is Christmas.
And what have we done?
Another year over,
A new one just begun.

A very Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year.
Let's hope it's a good one,
Without any fear.

- John Lennon

Here comes 2008! Of course, as a part of the annual New Year's festivities we'll be inundated by retrospective analyses of the past year. Some such reporting will focus on pop culture and other superficial aspects of daily life, while other programs and commentary will be reserved for the political and cultural events that have had an impact on the daily lives of millions of people around the world.

Looking backwards, of course, is just a part of the process of looking ahead: to best know where you're going you need to be aware of where you're coming from, where you've been. By that standard, it might be fair to say that 2008 has the potential to be a rough year. Instability and division continue to plague communities and societies around the world. The United States is highly polarized around the issues of politics and religious affiliation. Sadly, this seems to be the case elsewhere around the globe.

The Iraq Surge may have brought some measure of stability to Baghdad, but the divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims there have pretty much ensured that the new found calm will not be put to any productive use. The Iraq war will enter its sixth year this coming March.
The Bush Administration's refusal to engage the Iranian government in constructive diplomatic negotiations appears to have led the Iranians to seek comradeship from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Putin's government is now arming the Iranians, apparently as a means to reigniting Cold War animosities with the West.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated earlier this month, martyred for the cause of Pakistani modernity and democracy. With her death, the hope for stability and democracy in Pakistan grows dim, while Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda remain at large and the Taliban regains strength in neighboring Afghanistan. U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan since November 2002.

This is but a mere sampling of the growing threats to peace and stability in our world today. Heck, these are just a few of the examples from one part of our world! Never mind what's happening right here in the U.S. of A. with wages stagnating, millions of Americans who lack medical insurance, and a higher rate of HIV and AIDS infection in Washington, DC, than in some Third World capitals.

Of course, if you only look for stories that are sad and depressing, you will likely experience a 100% rate of success. Thankfully, the same goes for looking for those stories that provide hope. We'll need a good deal of that as we begin 2008. Hope is the motivator to continue to strive for peace and justice when times are hard and the outcome is uncertain. In this year of violence and instability, let's remember that the following things also happened:

190 nations agreed to a the terms of the framework under which international policies will be developed and implemented to combat the growing threat of global warming. These will be negotiated during an agreed-upon two-year timetable. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Bali, December 3 – 14, 2007)
North Korea and South Korea pledged to work together to forge a lasting peace between the two nations. North Korea also agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program by December 31, 2007.
After three decades of bloody armed conflict and vicious sectarian strife, Catholics and Protestants joined forces to inaugurate the first power-sharing government in Northern Ireland's history as a member of the British Commonwealth.

I find that in order to shed the emotional weight that bad news brings, and to soak in the hope that glad tidings bring, it is good to find a quiet place to be still, to contemplate, to listen. It probably doesn't hurt to have a good prayer or two handy to help center my thoughts, to keep me focused. So, as we prepare to leave 2007 behind and begin 2008, I offer you the following prayers to take with you to your own quiet place. Before 2008 ramps up and is off and running, take a few moments to look these over, to think about what you are doing to contribute to peace, love and happiness right where you are. If 2007 is any indication, 2008 is going to need every bit you've got to offer. And, if 2007 is any indication, your efforts can definitely pay off. Happy New Year to you and yours from Unkosher Jesus. Peace be with you.

- Doug L.

Hindu Peace Prayer
Oh God, lead us from the unreal to the Real.
Oh God, lead us from darkness to light.
Oh God, lead us from death to immortality.
Shanti, Shanti, Shanti unto all.
Oh Lord God almighty, may there be peace in celestial regions.
May there be peace on Earth.
May the waters be appeasing.
May herbs be wholesome, and may trees plants bring peace to all. May all beneficent
beings bring peace to us.
May all things be a source of peace to us.
And may thy peace itself, bestow peace on all and may that peace come to me also.

Jewish Prayer for Peace
Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, that we may walk the paths of the Most High. And we shall beat our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation - neither shall they learn war any more. And none shall be afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts has spoken.

Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. Amen.

Islamic Prayer for Peace
In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful.
Praise be to the Lord of the Universe who has created us and made us into tribes and nations, that we may know each other, not that we may despise each other. If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust in God, for the Lord is the one that heareth and knoweth all things. And the servants of God, Most Gracious are those who walk on the Earth in humility, and when we address them, we say "Peace."

Happy Xmas (War Is Over), by John Lennon (Karaoke Version)

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

A Human Approach to World Peace (DalaiLama.com)

Prayers of the Day: Peace (BeliefNet.com)

The Peace Abbey Multifaith Retreat Center (Sherborn, MA)

Community Dialogue (Northern Ireland)

Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution (George Mason University, Fairfax, VA)

Mediate.com: Solutions for Conflict

Amnesty International

John Lennon.com

Catholic Church Declares War on Sanity

2007-12-30T15:55:00.001-05:00

SATAN, I mean War on Satan. My bad. Anyhow, "Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan," reads Saturday's headline in the Daily Mail. I just don't know what to even say about this one, other than that it has truly been a red letter year for Pope Benedict XVI. First, he reinstates the Latin Mass. Then, he declares that the Catholic Church is the only TRUE Church. Now he's ordering Catholic bishops worldwide to line up "exorcist squads" because, according to head Vatican exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth, "Too many bishops are not taking this seriously and are not delegating their priests in the fight against the Devil. You have to hunt high and low for a properly trained exorcist." This need to "hunt high and low for a properly trained exorcist" is apparently tagged to a supposed increase in worldwide occult activity, which in turn has been blamed by the Vatican on those who have lost faith in the Church. In its efforts to continue obliterating the legacy of Pope John XXIII, the father of the Modern Church and leader of the Second Vatican Council, the Church is reinstating a particular prayer that had been discontinued as a result of the Vatican II liturgical reforms:

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

I guess just mark me down under Skeptical on this one. For one thing, the actual need for an exorcist to actually expel a demonic presence is a rare thing indeed. The majority of cases that diocesan exorcists are asked to investigate are ruled to be something other than demonic possession of a human being (and are typically mental-health related behavioral issues). For another thing, unless the Church can put up some hard numeric evidence to prove it, I highly doubt that people are leaving the Church in droves and fleeing into the waiting arms of Satanic occultism. Now, don't get me wrong, people are leaving the Church, but for reasons such as the clergy sex abuse scandal, and for its increasingly conservative positions on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and female clergy.

Yes, we make house calls.

At any rate, if the pope wants to initiate his own surge against the forces of evil, that's certainly his prerogative. In the meantime, while he is busy making important decisions about Latin liturgy, who is and isn't a Church, and deputizing a whole slew of Catholic GhostBusters, social issues that the Church used to confront head-on continue to plague people and societies across the world. Poverty, the expenditure of tax dollars on exorbitant defense budgets, and the stagnation of wages for working people are but a few of the issues with a direct impact on peace and prosperity that were once of great concern to the Church.

So, the list of Church priorities continues to expand in favor of a narrowing scope of beneficiaries (e.g., liturgical fetishists and the demonically possessed). In the meantime, the peace and justice issues of our times, and those that Jesus spoke most often and most passionately about, are left to others to sort out. Perhaps Jesus' condemnation of his Pharisaic contemporaries applies to today's Church leaders as well:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, January 1, 2008):

Pope calls gays a threat to world peace (365Gay.com, January 1, 2008)

A Return to Tradition (U.S. News and World Report, December 13, 2007)

How Exorcism Works (HowStuffWorks.com)

NETWORK: National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Voice of the Faithful: Keep the Faith, Change the Church

SocialAction.com: An Online Jewish Resource for Repairing the World

Rerum Novarum: The Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor (Pope Leo XIII, May 15, 1891)

The Exorcist (WarnerBros.com)

Ghostbusters (Sony Pictures.com)

Tough As Nails, Dumb As a Bag of Hammers

2007-12-28T23:40:00.000-05:00

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Who is the candy-ass who came up with THIS stuff?? Oh, right. Jesus Christ. What a hell of a guy. Those are great sentiments, really sentimental and touchy-feely. Good thing he ain't peddling that hippie peace, love and happiness crap here in the modern-day U. S. of A., though, bub. I mean, it was nice of Jesus to (supposedly) start a whole new religion and all and comments like these certainly had relevance in the pre-9/11 era. But I believe it was George W. Bush who said it best when he commented, "I think we agree, the past is over."

He-Man vs. Jesus Christ? No contest, dude!

Some modern American Christians may be interested in winning your heartfelt conversion, but only after having first administered a down-home, Old Testament-style ass-kicking. Take the GodMen ("Where Faith Gets Dangerous"), the heir apparent to that creepy stadium movement of the 1990s, the Promise Keepers. GodMen "creates an environment familiar with and conducive to the way men are made comfortable and the unique way men interact." Now, there are lots of ways to possibly interpret this, including:

GodMen is about groups of men gathering together to watch ESPN and soft-core porn as a means to promoting a male-centric brand of spirituality;

GodMen is about groups of men gathering together to prepare and consume a huge steak dinner, complete with brandy snifters, Cuban cigars, and the dank residue of English Leather heavy in the air; or

GodMen is a homo-erotic, Jesus-centric version of Fight Club.

Whatever the hell GodMen is, it AIN'T got anything to do with establishing a community of believers whose daily lives are modeled on the teachings of Jesus Christ. You know, with these guys peddling this fabricated macho, Iron John spirituality as a form of Christian fellowship, I think that instead of GodMen what you have are MadMen: "What you are, what you want, what you love doesn't matter. It's all about how you sell it."

GodMen may want to kick each other's asses in the name of Jesus, and possibly yours too, you heathen scum. Not to be outdone, however, Justin Fatica wants you to kick HIS ass- in the name of Jesus.

Um.... OK. Clearly Justin is an evangelist in the mold of the lesser Baldwin brother, Stephen, aka "psycho for Jesus": "I represent the new breed of Christians, baby, that are gettin' ready to kick ass in the name of the Kingdom." So, if you follow Brother Justin or Brother Stephen, kids, looks like you'll be trading in your Jesus sandals for some steel-toe shit-kickers. I'm sure it's all right there in black and white in at least one of the Gospels...

I don't know where these lunatics get off promoting this hyper-aggressive brand of physicality as a form of Christian worship and fellowship, but I don't like it. What good can come of it? I mean, if this keeps up, the next thing you know Jesus' own birthplace in Bethlehem will be the staging ground for a mano-a-mano gang brawl between priests. Oh, snap!

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Justin Fatica, Hard As Nails Ministry (ABC News Nightline, December 17, 2007)

Brad Stine's 'GodMen': Promise Keepers on steroids (MediaTransparency.org, December 24, 2007)

Dude, Where's My Cross? (Salon.com, October 19, 2006)

There's No Way I'm Saving that Guy, by Jesus Christ (The Onion, June 28, 2006)

Cuernavaca Center For International Dialogue and Development (CCIDD)

The Catholic Worker

The Complete Bushisms (Slate.com, edited by Jacob Weisberg)

Arthur Blecher and The New American Judaism

2007-12-17T20:30:00.001-05:00

DID YOU KNOW?...

The American Jewish community is in imminent danger of extinction?
Judaism, as it is practiced today, is a religious faith tradition that extends back 4,000 years?
The shtetl of Old World Europe was an idyllic Jewish utopia of shared faith practices, community values and ethnic pride?
The Jewish people and Judaism as a faith tradition have never entertained any supernatural notions such as angels, demons, Heaven and Hell the way that Christians and others do.
American Jewish denominations are authoritative forms of Judaism?
Rabbis are the official leaders of Jewish congregations, as they have been throughout Jewish history?

If you know or otherwise believe these statements, it is likely that you are an American Jew, and even more likely that you are an observant American Jew who is a member in good standing of an Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist synagogue. If you know or otherwise believe these statements, it is less likely, but still possible, that you are a non-Jew who is still familiar with these statements and accept them as fact. Both of you have one thing in common: you have been on the receiving end of an intensive campaign conceived of and executed by the mainstream Jewish denominations to motivate American Jews to strictly adhere to traditional Jewish practices. Oh, and you have one other thing in common: you're both wrong to believe that any of these six statements is a truthful representation of fact.

This is the central premise of Rabbi Arthur Blecher's new book, The New American Judaism: The Way Forward on Challenging Issues from Intermarriage to Jewish Identity. His book is an revolutionary thunderbolt, issued as a direct challenge to the authority of American denominational Judaism, for it strives to expand the ways in which Jewish identity can be expressed and seeks to bestow full Jewish status upon intermarried and other apostate Jews.

As a rabbi and psychotherapist, Rabbi Blecher (aka, "The Unorthodox Rabbi") has had the opportunity to interact with and counsel many interfaith couples in Washington, DC over the past twenty-five years. Because the choice to marry a non-Jew is actively discouraged by denominational Judaism, Rabbi Blecher has also been called upon to provide counsel to Jewish parents whose children had chosen a non-Jewish spouse and for which they were experience intense emotions of conflict and guilt. He relates one such interaction with distraught parents whose rabbi had recently delivered a sermon excoriating the choice to intermarry:

"There is nothing unusual about a rabbi using guilt and fear to promote attendance at services and classes. Clerics do this sort of thing all the time, and so have I. But when a rabbi invokes the Holocaust- that is pulling out the heavy artillery. Here in my office was the same pattern I have seen in almost everything I have read in English about the Jewish religion. We were talking about Judaism in terms of continuity, authenticity and survival. As I looked at the faces and postures of this couple, as I listened to the intonations of their voices, I instinctively knew that something is amiss with how my colleagues and I go about our jobs as religious leaders. How can a community thrive based upon a discourse of anxiety and guilt and on members who feel defeated and hopeless?"

This insight sparked Rabbi Blecher's journey to re-examine what he himself had once considered to be true about American Judaism and to re-evaluate these beliefs in light of the fact that the American Jewish population is far more diverse than the mainstream denominations are willing to allow or even acknowledge. Blecher sees an American Jewish community that has organized itself around principles that applied to the trauma of displacement experienced by Jewish immigrant communities of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but which no longer have any utility for modern American Jews. The organizing principles of Authenticity, Continuity and Survival became the cornerstones of American Judaism, and have remained firmly entrenched within the community's organizational bedrock, unchallenged by anyone in a position of leadership.

Until now. Rabbi Blecher's empathy for intermarried Jews and the anguish they experience has spurred him to examine and directly challenge what he labels as the one Great Myth of American Judaism: "intermarriage is an enemy destroying the Jewish people." The Great Myth of the Evil of Intermarriage has grown out of six separate myths, which he meticulously deconstructs. A cursory synopsis of this deconstruction is provided below:

Myth #1: American Judaism is Teetering On Extinction
"The myth that Judaism and Jewish identity are endangered in America was born from the trauma of cultural dislocation a century ago. The myth lives on in part because Jewish institutions believe they are essential to the preservation of Judaism in America; and the greater the peril, the more important their role."

In this one sentence, Blecher takes direct aim at scare-mongering as a self-serving tactic used on a daily basis by denominational Judaism. It is a tactic that does not hold up under close scrutiny. Using select statistics, as represented by the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS), denominational leaders can certainly give the impression that Jewish numbers are declining in America. The 2000-2001 NJPS Report put the American Jewish population at 5.2 million, a decline from its 1990 finding of 5.5 million.

Myth-Buster: Rabbi Blecher counters that the NJPS under-counts Jewish Americans by relying exclusively upon denominational affiliation and a rigid definition of who "counts" as Jewish. As Blecher states, "Jewishness is happening in new places that do not fit the old categories." These include partial Jews raised in interfaith households, people who still claim a Jewish identity even if the American Jewish denominations will not claim them. It also includes virtual online Jewish communities and information centers such as:

Ladino Komunita

The Jewish Encyclopedia

A Torah Infertility Medium of Exchange (ATIME.org)

Myth #2: Judaism is a 4,000 Year-Old Religion
American Rabbis worked to reassure immigrant Jews that the forms and practices of American Judaism are grounded in those stretching back to the dawn of Jewish civilization. Such reassurances enabled and enables the American rabbinate to offer a liturgical product that provides both Continuity and Authenticity, the cornerstones of the Jewish fortress of Survival.

Myth-Buster: Not quite, says Rabbi Blecher. Throughout its history, Judaism and its practice has gone through important transformations from within, oftentimes in response to influences from outside the Jewish community. For starters, he is able to delineate the epochal events that would transform the Judaism that followed each of these:

The first Kingdom until the Babylonian conquest of Judea in 586 BCE: practices such as shabbat dinner and lighting candles came into existence during the exile period.
The return from exile and the second kingdom through the year 70 of the Common Era.
The era of rabbinic academies (rabbinic Judaism), which lasted until the Middle Ages.
Diaspora Judaism, which was centered primarily in Eastern Europe, and which lasted until the era of Denominational Judaism, which commenced in the twentieth century United States.

Jewish civilization has seen many different iterations of itself throughout its 4,000 year history. The Judaism that is practiced today is not the Judaism of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Hebrew Prophets. And that's OK.

Myth #3: The Shtetl = Jewish Paradise Lost
Twentieth century America Jewish leaders have mythologized the Old World village known affectionately as the shtetl. At least it is known affectionately by those who have never had to live in a shtetl. The word shtetl is innocuous enough: it means "town" in Yiddish. As a word, though, it carries a great deal of symbolic and nostalgic weight among Jews who idealize what it represents. In the popular literature on the subject, the shtetl is held up as an idyllic, timeless community of Jews who live in perfect harmony, each knowing his or her role in the community, all bonded by their adherence to Orthodox Jewish rituals and practices. Blecher quotes from The Earth is the Lord's: The Inner World of the Jew in Eastern Europe, written in 1949 by theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel:

But the Jews all sang: the student over the Talmud, the tailor while sewing a pair of trousers, the cobbler while mending tattered shoes, and the preacher while delivering a sermon... The stomachs were empty, the houses were barren, but the minds were crammed with the riches of Torah... Mothers at the cradle crooned: "My little child, close your eyes; if God will, you'll be a rabbi"... (p. 77).

Tevye sings "Tradition" (Fiddler on the Roof)

Myth-Buster: "Writers who idealize the shtetl are highly selective in what they talk about. Their descriptions of the devout husbands and their devoted, long-suffering wives are amplified by intense nostalgia, in contrast to their silence about the other Jews who lived in the shtetl (p. 83)." These "other Jews" included adults who did not marry, married adults without children or who had divorced, homosexual members of the community, and others who lives did not conform with the rigid expectations of Orthodoxy in an enclosed community (which, by the way, was not always so enclosed or even small). The propagation of this myth causes American Jews to idealize and pine for a community that did not actually exist. This in turn gives rise to the unreasonable expectation that such a community could and should exist here in the United States.

Myth #4: Jews Have Always Been a Reasonable, Rational People, Traits That Have Always Been Reflected in Judaism
Modern Judaism does not teach the belief in Heaven or Hell, or in supernatural beings such as angels and demons, or even a Devil. However, modern Jews are led to believe that it was ever thus, as this notion of historic Judaism was in keeping with the rationalist bent of the founders of denominational Judaism. In order for rationality and reason to be accepted as contributing to Continuity and Authenticity, it became necessary to whitewash certain supernatural elements from Jewish history.

Myth-Buster: The need to "protect" American Jews from the fact that their forebears held supernatural beliefs does not exist now, if it ever did. Rabbi Blecher proposes a four-step plan to shed this habit and set the record straight by simply explaining that:

Jews used to believe in Heaven and Hell, but they no longer do.
Jews used to believe in Satan, but they no longer do.
Jews used to believe in magic and divination, but they no longer do.
American Judaism prefers to understand the world rationally and scientifically. (p. 117)

Myth #5: American Jewish Denominations are Authoritative Forms of Judaism
The four American Jewish denominations- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist- are the authoritative versions of Jewish practice. Smaller, independent communities and fellowships such as minyans, havurot, the Society for Humanistic Judaism and others are merely offshoots of the main four branches.

Myth-Buster: While it is in the best interests of the four principal denominations to be seen and thought of as Judaism's authoritative forms, the fact is that all four of these do not meet the needs of partial/duel-identity Jews and intermarried Jews. For starters, none of the denominations will acknowledge the Jewish identity of any such congregant (and will simultaneously decry the "shrinking" Jewish population). Congregants who are partial/duel-identity Jews and those who are married to a non-Jewish spouse are provided with limited services and status at best. The "purity" model of denominational Judaism does not work in a world where more and more Jews are marrying non-Jews and/or pursuing an interest in other faith traditions in addition to his or her original Jewish heritage. It is not realistic. And those who need Judaic forms that are realistic are looking elsewhere.

Myth #6: Rabbis are the Official Leaders of Jewish Congregations
"Today every Jewish denomination assumes that each of its member congregations is led by one of the denomination's rabbis, and conversely, Americans assume that every rabbi has a congregation. Thus denominational congregations are 'rabbi-centric.'" (p. 149)

Myth-Buster: "This is a radical departure from Old World Jewish practice where the rabbi was not necessarily associated with a congregation, and not every synagogue had a rabbi. The functions of the synagogue and the duties of the rabbi were independent of each other; communities had their rabbis, and communities had their synagogues." (p. 149)

Again, each denominational organization controls their member synagogues to the extent that each rabbi who is considered for a position must be capable of demonstrating fealty to all of the teachings of the denomination- he or she is not an independent actor, as had been the case for rabbis during the centuries leading up to denominational Judaism. This, Blecher contends, is harmful to Jewish congregants, and thus harmful to Judaism itself:

"The harm is that when rabbis- whether by intention or by instinct- make inaccurate claims about the historical facts of Jewish civilization, we undermine our own position in the community. Our ability to serve new generations of American Jews requires us to give up our claims to ancient authority and to accept the fact that our professional role is a modern American creation." (pp. 160-161)

Having exhaustively researched and deconstructed these myths, Blecher's work sets its sights upon building a new American Judaism. Intermarriage is the one important issue at the heart of this goal, as Blecher sees Judaism's response to this phenomenon as critical to the success of any such endeavor. Currently, in order for an intermarried couple to be recognized by their denomination, the non-Jewish partner must at least agree to help raise the couple's children in an exclusively Jewish home, if not convert to Judaism outright. But Blecher cites data that show that at least 30 percent of intermarried couples do in fact raise their children exclusively as Jews, sometimes regardless of whether the non-Jewish spouse convert to Judaism or not.

However, his larger point is that it is completely good and valid to acknowledge the Jewish identity of any Jewish child being raised under different circumstances, in homes that are not exclusively Jewish. American Jewish denominations are completely closing the door on couples and their children for choices that are made today, thus forever forfeiting the benefits they might have accrued from decisions made later in life- for a duel-identity Jew to fully identify as Jewish, for a non-Jewish spouse to convert. The current denominational modus operandi denigrates the choices made by people with mixed-Jewish ancestry. To the extent that they choose to identify as Jewish, Blecher contends that the denominations should encourage this decision rather than cast someone out of the community for being less than 100 percent Jewish.

I have written on the topic of interfaith and duel identity issues here, here and here. In one of the posts I wrote, "It is no irreverence or betrayal to participate fully in the rituals and sacraments of faith traditions different than one's own. Quite to the contrary, Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh sees this as a means to deepening and strengthening one's own spirituality. Exploring the truths taught by many faiths and partaking of the rituals and teachings of other faith traditions s a way of honoring the best values of one's own faith tradition." As such, I truly value Rabbi Blecher's message of expanding the meaning of identity and appreciate the courage it took for him to publish a book that directly challenges the foundational assumptions of the majority of his Jewish contemporaries. The New American Judaism is a rich resource for both the Jewish and the interfaith community, and reverberates with a message of hope and optimism for interfaith couples and other non-traditional Jews.

His work will likely be received with hostility and suspicion by American Jews who remain deeply invested in the perpetuation of the myths he outlines in his book. For those with an open mind, though, The New American Judaism could and should be viewed as a work of creative destruction, an opportunity for American Jews to re-examine those beliefs they hold to be near and true as a means to enriching and strengthening Jewish civilization, to expanding the meaning of identity and community:

"Disassembling myths removes their power to generate apprehension and despair. At the same time, myths endow life with meaning. I believe that recognizing myths for what they are does not diminish their power to capture the imagination or enliven the soul; rather, it provides a way forward. I have written this book with the firm conviction that clearing away myths will reveal a new American Jewish religion whose vitality and diversity far exceed the ability of any institution to contain or any rabbi to define. I offer these pages in the hope they will serve as the beginning of a conversation." So, let's talk. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Question What You Know about Judaism

The New American Judaism (Amazon.com)

Intermarry and be merry, by Rabbi Arthur Blecher (The Baltimore Sun, December 12, 2007)

"Noah More!" by Ed Case (InterfaithFamily.com, August 9, 2007)

A Positive Response to Intermarriage (Rabbi Mark Goldsmith, Liberal Judaism.org, October 2004)

Jewcy.com

The Half-Jewish Network

Am I a Person or Am I a Jew? (Jewish Atheist blog, July 30, 2007)

Jew vs. Jew (SamuelFreedman.com)

"The Social Disability of the Jew," by Edwin J. Kuh (The Atlantic Monthly, April 1908, TheAtlantic.com)

I-Heart-Shiksas t-shirt (BustedTees.com)