Don't Bogart My Birth

Officially the government of Communist China rejects reincarnation as superstition. Just as officially they want to make sure that they get to control the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama so as to further their domination of Tibet and the destruction of Tibetan culture. While the Chinese government is convinced that reincarnation is a fiction, it is a fiction believed in by millions of people, and therefore carries tremendous political weight. Who ever the next Dalai Lama is, and they have no doubt there will be one, it would be in the best interest of the Communist Chinese if he were more red than maroon.

Lots of people believe in reincarnation. Hindus do, Buddhists do, New Agers do, and kabbalistic-leaning Jews do as well. What do they know that the Communist Chinese do not? Or, conversely, what does the Chinese government know that the Chinese people do not?

To find out I went to the source, my local Chinese restaurant. I spoke with Lin Tai (not his real name, which he was more than happy to give me, but which I was incapable of pronouncing or spelling), who has run the restaurant since coming to this country to build the railroad. Yes, I know that was well over a century ago, and, no, Lin Tai isn’t that old, but he is the reincarnation of a Chinese worker on the railroad. Or at least I assume that to be the case, since how else do Chinese people maintain their numbers here in America?

Think about it: A Jewish soul couldn’t reincarnate as Chinese because of the pork in their diet. A European soul wouldn’t feel comfortable in a Chinese body, and an African or African American would find the color confusion overwhelming. So only Chinese people reincarnate as Chinese. Since most Chinese people came to the United States to build the railroad (I don’t know this for a fact, but it could be true), all subsequent Chinese must be reincarnations of the original builders.

This, of course, raises issues of pensions. Can a reincarnated soul continue receiving pension checks from a previous life? To find out I went to the source, my local train depot. There I spoke with Billy Bob Wayne John Horton (not his real name either, but only because I think I got the order of his names wrong). Billy Bob was a Christian who belonged to the nondenominational Church of the Blood Drenched Way and was not a believer in reincarnation. Nor did he believe that Chinese people had anything to do with his railroad, having himself worked for the railroad for over thirty years and never once meeting a Chinese coworker. When I asked him about pensions for reincarnated people he sniffed and went to the men’s room to pee. I waited awhile, but I suspect he had been drinking a lot of Mountain Dew and wasn’t coming out anytime soon, so I went back to Lin Tai and the Chinese restaurant.

Lin Tai was out, but I spoke to Francis Xavier Thomas Aquinas (this was his name) who delivered food for Lin Tai. Francis Xavier was a Catholic and didn’t have any idea as to what I was talking about. But he did say that if the Chinese tried to control the rebirth of the Dalai Lama, the President of the United States could bomb them. “And that’s why I’m voting for Cheney in the next election.” Made sense to me.

Winnie-the-Prophet

First it was cartoons and now it is teddy bears. Where will it end?

Britain’s Telegraph reported today that Gillian Gibbons, a first grade teacher at Unity High School, a British International school in Sudan, has been arrested by the Sudanese authorities for defaming Islam. What was her crime? She allowed her class to name their teddy bear mascot Mohammed.

Now I know that most people are going to rise up and cry out against the madness that is Islam, but I am not one of them. Can you imagine a class naming its mascot Christ? Of course not. It would never even occur to people to do that. Of course if you lived in a Spanish speaking community where Jesus is a common first name, you might name your bear Jesus. But certainly that can’t apply to Islam. I mean how many Muslim men are named Mohammed?

I personally know six Muslim men and not one of them is named Mohammed, so, based on my albeit unscientific but nevertheless personally compelling survey, no Muslim men are named Mohammed so the parallel with Jesus (pronounced Hay-Suse in Spanish or Hey Yous in Brooklyn) doesn’t apply.

It is true that one might choose to name a bear Moses and Jews would not find that upsetting, but imagine Jews naming a bear YHVH? The mere fact that I wrote YHVH is a sacrilege, for which YHVH or the followers of YHVH will certainly condemn me. Then again Mohammed isn’t Allah, and the kids didn’t choose to name their bear Allah, so maybe the analogy doesn’t apply. Yet the mascot issue is as much a Jewish concern as it is an Islamic one.

Thousands of years ago the Israelites voted to name their mascot, the Golden Calf, God. When the real God, YHVH (oops, did it again!) heard about it he sent Moses to straighten them out. Thousands of people were killed for the offense of naming their cow God. In light of that act of religious justice, imprisoning and whipping Ms. Gibbons is an act of judicial leniency.

As a Jew who has learned the lesson of the Golden Calf, I am sympathetic to the Sudanese in this case. If the Jews could mistake their mascot for God, letting kids name their teddy bear Mohammed only invites confusion. In time some of them will inevitably mistake the teddy bear for the Prophet, PBH, and once that happens all hell will break loose.

So to Ms. Gibbons I say, “Damn you, woman, knoweth thou not better than to leadeth thy children into blasphemy?”

And to the Sudanese I say, “While you are whipping Ms. Gibbons for blasphemy, take a moment to test that bear for lead poisoning. It was probably made in China. You can never be too careful when it comes to our kids.”

Saudi Back Lash

You can tell a lot a person by the company they keep. Can the same be said of countries?

I am proud to be a citizen of the United States. Sure I hate our foreign policy, and, yes, I think Dick Cheney and the president have gutted the US Constitution, and I admit that we are an oligarchy run by corporations who care not a whit for human rights or environmental sustainability, but we are still the country that brings you the Kindle.

[If you don’t know what that is, look it up. It is number two on my Christmas list. To discover what is Number one keep reading. And while it is true that I do not celebrate Christmas, I will do so if anyone sends me either the number one or number two items on my list.]

You can see just how far we have fallen from the fact that our government lacks the guts to decry what passes for justice in the homeland of Islam. (At least we are on the books decrying the illegal settlements and expansion of settlements sanctioned by the homeland of Judaism, even if we don’t do anything about it.) I am, of course, talking about the vicious justice system of Saudi Arabia that has sentenced a nineteen-year-old victim of gang rape to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a whip. This was an adjustment of her original sentence of only ninety lashes, the increase being ordered to dissuade her from continuing to appeal her sentence. Her crime? Being alone with a man that was not a relative.

Can it be that our fear of terrorism is so great that we will stay mute in the face of any injustice as long as the perpetrators claim to be on our side? Can it be that we are so cowed by our oil addiction that evildoers can count on us to see no evil unless it isn’t leveled at us? Yes, it can be.

We have to do something, and we can’t wait for the government to do it for us. So here is my sugestion: stop driving your car.

I saw an ad in a magazine today for a Vespa scooter.

[Yes, that’s my Number One! And no, I can’t afford one. And yes, I will add Christmas to by list of must observe holidays if someone sends me one. Yellow would be nice.]

It costs $3500 dollars and gets 70 miles per gallon. What if we all bought Vespas and, basing my numbers on my own 2001 Saturn coupe that gets about 25mpg, cut our consumption of gas by 60%?

I know some people worry about driving a scooter for fear of getting hit by an SUV, but if we all drove them that danger disappears. We could leave one lane for cars and trucks, and the rest for scooters. No more traffic snarls. Commutes would be a breeze. And we would help break the country’s addiction to oil that forces us to kiss the ass of these barbarians who whip women and call it justice. Next thing you know they will be excusing water boarding.

[OK, I admit it. I don’t give a damn about Saudi justice, I was just using it as an excuse to shill for a Vespa. Or a Kindle. Or both. Come on, people, it’s Christmas time: be generous!]

Reviving the Real War on Christmas

I am originally from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, home to Bunker Hill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Emily Dickenson, and Mary Baker Eddy. I am proud son of Massachusetts, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that I am anti-Christmas.

No, I am not anti-Jesus, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, or anti-shopping. I am simply pro-Massachusetts, and the great Christian values it brought to this country.

In 1645 Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan brethren took over jolly old England. Deciding that anything jolly was probably of the Devil, they vowed to rid England of such decadent conceits as Christmas. Cromwell and Company banned Christmas and any festivities having to do with it. Not to be bested by their colleagues across the pond, Massachusetts Puritans criminalized Christmas (take that, Bill O’Reilly!), and, in 1659, the General Court of Massachusetts passed the Five-Shilling Anti-Christmas Law:

“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, or the like, either by forbearing labor, feasting, or any other way upon such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for each offense five shillings as a fine to the country.”

The law was repealed in 1681, but I would like to reinstate it. Why? First of all it reflects the true Christian values on which our nation was founded. Second it isn’t limited to Christmas; the phrase “or the like” would spell the end of Hanukkah and Kwanza as well, so it isn’t in anyway discriminatory. Third, it would take the madness and meanness out of the last two months of the year.

There is nothing so hateful as a Christian mob whipped into frenzy by some sales scam linked to the birth of a Jew (unless, of course, it is a Christian mob whipped up into an even greater frenzy over the murder of said Jew). The only thing remotely religious about watching shoppers trample one another to get into a store in order to buy to one sanely priced item on the store’s shelves is that it reminds us of Joseph and the very pregnant Mary trying (unsuccessfully) to elbow their way into a Jerusalem inn at the same of year.

Even though the Five-Shilling Anti-Christmas Law was repealed in 1681, our founders must have seen some value in banishing Christmas seeing as Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution, and Christmas didn’t become a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

Anyway, I think a country whose original illegal aliens were Puritans who hated Christmas, and whose descendents believe that a return to Christian values would be a good thing, cannot but benefit from outlawing Christmas once again. It will take us a while to get the country back on its Christian track, but in the meantime, if you insist upon celebrating Christmas and thus disrespecting this great country, you should fine yourself five shillings (which in today’s fallen dollar is equal to about 89 cents).

Shoppito Ergo Sum

You know America is doomed when Thanksgiving Day—the actual day, rather than the traditional day after—is now touted as the ultimate shopping day for Christmas. We can’t even take one day out of the year for reflection and thanksgiving. All we have left as a people is shopping: Shoppito ergo sum, as Descartes might have put it, I shop therefore I am.

That is what shopping has become in this country, an act of ontological significance. I know I matter because I own tons of stuff. We are so devoid of anything remotely spiritual that debt has replaced faith as the ultimate benchmark of maturity. Our new prayer is “Our Father Who art in Heaven hallowed by Thy Name… Add to our debts as we add to the debts of those who are indebted to us…”

This is madness, and it must stop. Now.

So I am begging you not to go shopping on Thanksgiving Day. Say no to the people who think we are the real turkeys. Stay home. Or, if you can’t resist, don’t go to the mall. Or if the mall is too enticing, don’t go to the bookstore or the record store or to the Apple Computer store. Or if that is too much to ask, just stay away from the religion section of the first, the classic rock section of the second, and the iMac section of the third. Or if that is too hard, just pretend you don’t recognize me when you pass me in the aisles at these places.

Can you imagine? Getting away from the stress and hassle of having to entertain family and spending the day among the glitz and glamour of perfect strangers—heaven! I’m serious. What is the fun of having friends and relatives come over to your house, grind turkey and cranberry sauce into your freshly washed carpets, bore the hell out of you “catching up” (if I wanted to know how you are doing I would have called you since last Thanksgiving), and then scarf down huge quantities of food and drink only to rush home a couple of hours later to suffer the consequences?

I prefer Christmas to Thanksgiving. Why? Because it isn’t my holy day. I don’t have to bother with a tree and tinsel that turns up for months afterward. I don’t have to buy stuff that nobody wants for people I don’t really care about. I don’t have to alter my black and white wardrobe and wear red and green, or pretend to believe that a Jewish mother would allow herself to give birth in a manger: “Joseph you find us a room in a five-star hotel or I swear when this baby is born he will damn you to hel!” Yep, Christmas is my favorite holy day, right up there with Ramadan when I don’t have to fast, and Kwanza when I don’t have to pretend to be African.

But Thanksgiving is a secular American holy day—all the more secular for having the malls open on the day itself—and I am a secular American. This is my day. Dammit!

But now I have an excuse for skipping the family festivities: I have to go shopping. After all if I don’t get to the store on the first day there is little chance that what I want will no be there on the second day.

So enjoy Thanksgiving, America. Just stop calling it Thanksgiving. Call it what it is: National Turkey Day and be clear who the real turnkeys are.

Join My Tribe

True genius knows how to turn lead into gold, or at least lemons into lemonade. I am not a true genius, but every once in a while I stumble upon an idea that is just too good to pass up. My latest breakthrough came from the Kaweah Indian Nation, a fake Native American tribe that has been selling tribal memberships to illegal aliens for $400 per membership. The tribal elders promised that members would get Social Security numbers and become US citizens.

While the Kaweah were declared fraudulent in 1984, and while a current lawsuit prohibits them from continuing their membership drive, I love the idea and wish to apply it to my own tribe, the Jews.

Our numbers are small and shrinking. We need members and current rates of conversion aren’t even making a dent in our rate of decline. Even when counting as Jews only people recognized as Jews by the Reform Jewish establishment we are still a dying tribe. So why not sell memberships? After all it is much easier to market a $400 membership than it is to market the current cost of male membership: circumcision. And, unlike severed foreskins, the cash collected can be used to promote Jewish projects.

My idea has the added bonus of bringing people into a real tribe. The downside is that being a Jew in America is not the same as being an American Jew, and we could not promise social security numbers and citizenship. At least not in this country. But what about Israel?

The Law of Return states that any Jew can become an automatic citizen of Israel. And Israel will help settle them and teach them Hebrew. Getting illegal aliens to convert to Judaism and then shipping them off to Israel would solve two problems. First it would increase the size of the Jewish nation. Second it would provide a workable answer to the question, What do we do with the millions of illegal aliens already in the US?

So my idea is this: First we set up registration tables on the Mexican side of the US border. We can spare people the dangerous trek into the US and fly them to Tel Aviv from Mexico City. This will stop the tide of new illegal immigrants into the United States. Second, in cities across the country we advertise Jewish tribal memberships for $400 (with discounts for families). Some of the money we collect will be used to pay rabbis to perform mass conversions. They will convert the illegal aliens to Judaism and give them a card stating that they are now members of the tribe. At that point they can A) move to Israel, or B) stay in the US and claim the US government’s refusal to give them citizenship is an act of anti-Semitism.

This seems like a win-win proposition to me. I think it could even be done on line. People could convert by pledging allegiance to God, Torah, and Israel, pay using a credit card, and then book a flight to the homeland on Orbitz or Expedia.

I plan to offer my idea to each of the presidential candidates. I’ll let you know which if any choose to use it.

Nine Questions About God

[Here are my answers to an email I received asking me about God.]

Thanks for asking what it is I mean when I use the word “God.” God has been at the center of my life since I was sixteen years old. Meditating on the shore of a lake in Cape Cod the while visiting a friend during summer vacation “Rami” died. What happened during that time—however long or short a time that was—is unknown to me, for the “me” that could know was dead. All I know is that when “I” returned I did so in a state of ecstatic joy, aware of the absolute nonduality of all things as the One Thing. I have never doubted the reality of what happened that day, and I have had similar experiences since then. It is my experience that shapes my thinking about God.

Here are brief answers to your questions.

1. Did God create the universe? No. The universe is to God as a wave is to the ocean. While God is greater than the universe, God is not separate from the universe. I do not believe in a Creator God or in an Intelligent Designer, for both imply separation. I believe that the design itself is intelligent, that the universe is a living process seeking self-awareness. We humans are a way the universe awakens to its true nature as God.

2. Did God write the Bible? No. All scriptures are human creations reflecting the biases and moral limitations of the people who wrote them. Yet there are strands of truth in every scripture reflecting a level of human awakening that transcends the limitations of time and tribe and speaks to the universal truth of God and godliness. These teachings are worthy of serious contemplation and study.

3. Do you pray to God? Yes and no. My spiritual life centers on mediation, both walking and sitting. When I walk and chant the Hebrew Names of God I find myself in dialogue with God, whom I experience as Shekhinah, the Divine Mother. When I sit in silence there are moments when “I” dissolve and only God is present.

4. If God is all, is God both good and evil? Yes. God contains evil as well as good. Good and evil go together like convex and concave. You cannot have one without the other. God is the One in whom there is no other.

5. If God is evil as well as good what is the point of worshiping God? I don’t worship God; I seek to realize God in and as all reality. When I awaken to God I realize my own capacity for good and evil. When I see all things as God I have compassion for everything, and act with an open heart even towards those with whom I am struggling.

6. What is the point of religion? At its best religion serves as the collective memory of God realization. We tell stories of saviors, sages, and saints and remind ourselves that God realization is possible. We see how they embraced the world with justice and compassion, and seek to do likewise. We learn the tools of awakening that they used, and wake up ourselves. At its worse religion is a grand and often violent delusion rooted in fear. Unfortunately religion is rarely at its best.

7. Do we need religion? Yes, but only at its best. We need storytellers who can remind us of the best of which we are capable. We need masters of contemplative practice who can teach us how to use the tools of God realization. And we need a community of seekers with whom to share the path and the struggle to walk it.

8. Are all religions true? All religions are true when they speak to the nonduality of God and the universality of justice and compassion. All religions are false when they claim to being the exclusive carriers of God’s love and truth. Religions are like languages. No language is right or wrong, true or false. Yet each brings a valuable and unique understanding of life from which all people can benefit. The more languages you know the more nuanced your understanding. Our goal should not be to find the right religion, but to learn from all of them.

9. Is Jesus the son of God? Yes. And so are you. When Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” he is like a wave realizing its relationship with the ocean. Jesus was a God-realized human being. He is not to be worshipped, but imitated. What the world needs is fewer Christians and more Christs.

Silence!

I like silence. The Illinois Legislature does too, and passed a law that would mandate a moment of silence at the start of every public school day. A federal judge, however, has ordered the Illinois State Board of Education to put a stop to the practice. Why, you ask? I, too, was curious.

At first I thought it was because the name of the state included the word “noise” (the “E” is silent, so they dropped it to save ink on their official documents). It makes no sense to have a moment of silence in the IlliNOISE public schools. On the contrary, they should start their day with noise, maybe a joyous “Halleluyah!” or “Om Nama Shivaya.”

No, that would violate the separation of church and state since both shouts speak of gods (Yah and Shiva, respectively), which, as it turns out, is what’s wrong with a mandatory moment of silence as well.

Leading the attack on mandatory silence is Rob Sherman, atheist provocateur. The godless Mr. Sherman has a daughter who is a freshman in an Illinois high school, and dad worries that forcing her to be quite violates her First Amendment rights.

He is right, of course, and that saddens me. I would love to see each school day begin with thirty minutes of contemplative silence, not the fifteen seconds Illinois is talking about. It would have to be optional, of course. I would even go so far as to teach kids different ways to use that silence such as contemplative reading and meditation (prayer they should learn outside of school).

And I wouldn’t stop with schools. I would like to see meditative silence at the start of everyone’s day. If nothing else, just sit and breathe. Or do what I do every morning and repeat the phrase, “Has it been thirty minutes yet? Has it been thirty minutes yet?”

I support voluntary prayer in school and did a lot of it myself (“Dear God, please make Ms. Jacobs sick today, I didn’t study for her Algebra II test.”). I support voluntary silence as well, and not just in the morning (it isn’t fair that teachers call on you for answers without your permission). Hell, if it were up to me I’d bring Thich Nhat Han into every school to teach kids how to walk the halls mindfully, and chew their lunch with full attention.

So I am asking the Illinois Legislature, its Governor, and its atheist provocateurs to work together to find a way to combat the “ill” of “nois(e)” and find a way to bring some silence to our mornings and some sanity to our lives.

Math of God, Follow-Up

Remember Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue’s prayer vigil to let God know Georgians are conserving water and should be rewarded with rain? Well it worked. Sort of.

While the storm clouds that formed during the vigil faded away, rain did fall the day after the vigil. This can’t be a coincidence. Sonny prayed for rain and God sent it. But the governor and chief shaman was quick to say, “We’re not gloating about it.” That’s good, because the one-inch of rain that fell in north Georgia and the half-inch that dampened Atlanta did nothing to ease the state’s crushing drought.

So, praying for rain works: ask and ye shall receive, but it doesn't work well enough to make a difference. What is God up to? According to the Governor it “was a great affirmation for what we asked for.” Really? I think it was an insult. God spits on Georgia and the Governor is happy. How sad. So on behalf of my Georgia neighbors let me say this the Almighty, "Quit fooling around, God! What we need is real rain; the kind of rain You sent to Tennessee’s Marion County that heavily damaged the roof of a Baptist church and sent three little kids to the hospital due to cuts they received from flying glass. Now that’s the rain we're taking about."

But wait, why would God send rain to Tennessee when Georgia is the state praying for it? And why would God use His rain to damage a Baptist church? Can it be that God hates Georgia and isn’t too fond of Baptists? The logic is inescapable.

Why would God hate Georgia? Following the logic of evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell I can only conclude that God hates Georgia because it is gay-friendly. After all GA is only one letter away from advertising itself as the GAY state. And Babptists? What does God have against them? Using the same logic is isn't hard to discover that God is pissed at Baptists because too many of their ministers are closet homosexuals.

So here is my suggestion. First, Governor Purdue should invite all Georgia’s gay and lesbian citizens to an all expense paid trip to Dollywood, the Dolly Parton theme park in Tennessee. While they are out of the state, he should then hold a second prayer vigil and let God know he has cleansed the state of homosexuals, thus allowing God to reward Georgia with real rain.

As for the Baptists, I suggest they build their churches with stronger roofs.

Of the Papal, Part Two

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has released its statement on “faithful citizenship” telling Catholic Americans that they may be endangering their eternal souls if they vote for a candidate who supports the “evils” of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, artificial contraception and racism.

According to the statement, “a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.” Who would argue with this? I won’t vote for a candidate who favors intrinsic evil. But I might draw up a different list of evils. How about the evils of torture, corporate greed, environmental rape, war, and seeking to undermine the Constitution and override legitimate laws passed by Congress? If I had to rank my evils, I would place violation of the Constitution above using a condom. But then I’m not a Catholic bishop.

As the bishops hammered out their statement, Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND proposed an amendment warning Catholics of the danger of voting for evil. “Choosing intrinsic evil,” he said, “will have an impact on their salvation.” Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, NY argued against Aquila worrying that the bishops should not link politics to salvation. This is nonsense: the statement itself does this implicitly.

For all their concern with pointing Catholics to the right political position, the bishops seem to offer Catholics a way out. The statement says a Catholic may not vote for a politician who supports intrinsic evil if, by so voting, “the voter’s intent is to support that position.” This is a huge loophole: as a good Catholic I can vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil as long as I am thinking of other policies the candidate supports that are not intrinsically evil. With a loophole this big I can’t see the point in issuing the statement is in the first place.

But what really bothers me is the Bishop’s definition of intrinsic evil. Being against abortion means you are in favor of mothers dying in childbirth. Being against euthanasia means you are in favor of bringing horribly diseased babies into the world to live out lives of brutal agony. Being against embryonic stem cell research means you are in favor of the suffering of all those who may be helped by such research. Being against artificial contraception means you are in favor of the spread of disease, AIDS, and the crushing burden of poverty that over population brings.

I realize I am overstating my case, but the lack of nuance in Catholic thinking regarding evil demands a stark response.

I, Apikoros

I am not a person who shuns labels. On the contrary, I find labels to be a helpful shorthand, and I am always on the lookout for better ones. This week I was given a new one that I especially cherish: apikoros.

I was speaking with an Orthodox Rabbi from Israel earlier this week, and as we shared our views on God, Torah, and Israel he calmly informed me that I was an apikoros, a heretic. I didn’t believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; I didn’t believe the Torah was God’s word; I didn’t believe the mitzvot (commandments) were God’s law; and I didn’t believe the Jews are the Chosen People.

“Then what do you believe?” he asked.

“I believe that God is Reality, an ever flowing system of creative destruction that defies naming and theological certainty (Ehyeh asher Ehyeh as Exodus 3:14 puts it), and which, over time, births more and more inclusive levels of consciousness that eventually awaken to know all creation as God. I believe that Torah is a human creation reflecting the biases of its authors and interpreters, and should not replace reason as our ultimate guide for establishing a just and compassionate society. I believe mitzvot are folkways designed to maintain the integrity of the Jewish people, and should be voluntary and open to constant refinement so as to reflect the best insights of our people. I believe that the people Israel are a people like any other seeking meaning and purpose, and yet often trapped in jingoism and xenophobia. I believe that Zionism is a legitimate movement of national liberation which should work for the liberation of all peoples...”

“Apikoros!” he said, and walked away.

Apikoros is Hebrew for Epicurus, the 3rd century BCE Greek philosopher who taught a secular, atheistic understanding of reality that placed reason and the pursuit of happiness at the center of human life. The ancient rabbis feared the influence of Epicureanism and used the term apikoros (apikorsim, plural) to mean “heretic” in the same way Ann Coulter uses the word “liberal” to mean “godless and un-American.” The rabbis even added a curse upon apikorsim to their liturgy: “may all the apikorsim be destroyed in an instant” (part of the 18th benediction of the Amidah).

I knew the meaning of the word, and was not hurt by being called an apikoros. On the contrary, I took a perverse pleasure in it. Famous Jewish apikorsim include the authors of Ecclesiastes and Job, Alisha ben Abuya, Hiwi al-Balkhi, Spinoza, Freud, Einstein, Herzl, Buber, Mordecai Kaplan, and Ben Gurion. These are all heroes of mine, and I am honored to be counted among them.

Indeed it seems to me that being an apikoros is exactly right for me. It is the Hebrew equivalent of a Holy Rascal, another label I value. In fact I’m thinking of creating a new denomination of Judaism: Apikorsut Judaism for the celebration of Jewish heretics and freethinking. I just have to figure our the dues structure and I’m in business.

Math of God

Praying for rain isn’t new, but when the Governor of Georgia does it on steps of the state Capitol it is news. Last Tuesday, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue and 250 of the faithful held a prayer vigil asking God to end the drought that is plaguing the state and much of the southeastern United States.

Governor Perdue felt that Georgians were being punished by God for their failure to conserve their water resources properly. “But we’re doing better,” the Governor said, “and once we began to do better, I thought it was time to acknowledge that to the Creator,” suggesting, of course that the all-knowing God isn’t so all-knowing.

I wasn’t there, but I imagine the Governor said something like this:

“Lord, this is Sonny. No not THAT Sonny, I suspect He’s busy with pre-Rapture planning. This is Sonny Perdue. No, not THAT Perdue, he is busy with his chickens. This is Sonny Perdue, Governor of the all too sunny state of Georgia. Yes, the Peach state. Well, we are going to be the peach pit state soon because we’ve used up all of our water and You are punishing us for that by not letting it rain. I just wanted You to know that we are conserving more these days. We have learned our lesson. So could You please let it rain… a lot… for a long time? Not Noah long, but long.”

Did it work? Well, almost. As Sonny and the 250 sang Amazing Grace storm clouds formed and floated toward the Capitol (I am not making this up). Unfortunately the clouds dissipated quickly and no rain fell. Why? While I can’t prove this, I suspect that the clouds failed because (and this, too, is true) just around the corner from the prayer meeting, 20 members of the Atlanta Freethought Society, a band of atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and heretics, held a protest rally claiming the Governor was violating the First Amendment. I believe the heretics stopped the clouds from unleashing rain.

What do we learn from this? I think we learn something about the math of God. It takes 251 Georgians to get God to make a storm cloud and only 20 to get God to erase a storm cloud. The problem the Governor faces is not that Georgians failed to conserve water, or that God failed to notice when they began to do so, but that God favors atheists over theists almost 10 to 1. There is a drought in Georgia because there are too many freethinkers in Georgia.

What the governor should do is work with the Atlanta Freethought folks to identify, round up and bus out of state as many Georgia heretics as they can as soon as they can. With the heretics out of town, a second prayer vigil will certainly succeed. Then, as soon as enough rain has fallen, the Governor can invite the heretics back into the state to get the rain to stop.

If this works, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t, atheists around the country could form pay for service flood protection squads moving into areas with too much rain and thus getting the rain to stop. This would be a great way to raise funds for First Amendment legal battles. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

Of the Papal, By the Papal, For the Papal: Toward Theofascism

To what extent should religion influence your electoral vote? This is the question implicitly raised by the U.S. Catholic bishops in a soon to be released statement entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” Being a “faithful citizen,” of course, means voting in line with the values of the Catholic Church, and not voting for pro-choice or pro-gay marriage candidates.

The statement has yet to be finalized, but Raymond Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis who announced four years ago that he would not give communion to John Kerry because of his pro-choice views, has already stated that he would deny communion to Rudy Giuliani for the same reason.

This troubles me for two reasons. First, I think the decision to take communion should be between a parishioner and God. Second, if voting for a pro-life or pro-gay marriage candidate is thought to carry some eternal stigma with regard to one’s relationship with God, a conclusion that many Catholics will inevitably draw from the political meddling of their clergy, have the Bishops just pulled off a coup in America?

I have no problem with voters being influenced by their religion and conscience; on the contrary, I fear a country stripped of conscience. But I want people to think for themselves and not be placed under the thumb of a self-appointed ecclesiastical authority that imposes its morality with implicit threats of eternal damnation. That is theofascism, and fascisms of any type are a grave threat to democracy.

Theofascism is growing, and focusing only on its Islamic version allows us to ignore its influence in Israel and the United States.

As an American I am not troubled by the phrase “One nation under God,” but I am troubled by whose god the nation is under. Is it the god of greed worshipped by corporations, the god of endless consumerism worshipped by the average American, the god of war worshipped by many in the government, the god of who seems to be obsessed with gays, guns, and zygotes, or the god of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus who demands universal justice, kindness, and care for the least among us?

Personally, if I have to live in a country under God, I want that god to be the god of Bill W. who always appends the words “as you understand God” to his use of God in his Alcoholics Anonymous program. Theofascism cannot survive the pragmatic polytheism of Bill W., and that is why I support it.

The question we should ask our politicians isn’t, “Do you believe in God,” but “Which God do you believe in, and what are the ethical, moral, and political implications of that belief?” This is a question that feeds democracy and starves theofascism. Too bad no one dares ask it.

A Torah Free Future

I got a glimpse of the Jewish future this morning, and it is vibrant, caring, global, and Torah-free. I volunteered to work at the United Jewish Community’s 76th General Assembly where the leaders of Jewish Federations and other communal groups gather to learn how to improve their ability to meet the needs of the Jewish community worldwide.

The delegates I met were dedicated, passionate, and devoted to the survival of the Jewish people. We are in good hands. And yet I was troubled by the fact that not a single program was offered in personal spiritual development.

There is a growing national concensus that we need to link social change with inner transformation, yet not a single class or workshop was offered discussing the link between inner and outer change and how to nourish your soul as you go about feeding other people’s bodies. Judaism is as rich in tikkun hanefesh (repairing the soul) as it is in tikkun haolam (repairing the world), yet you wouldn’t know this from the programming at the GA.

But I an outsider to the Federation world, so maybe this is too “new agey.” But where was the chance to study Torah? I understand that the GA is a business conference, but I would think that people who are putting so much money into Jewish education would want to learn a bit at their global convention. Some of the money that was spent bringing in major speakers on politics and Israel could have been used to bring in at least one “A List” scholar. Or, if they wanted to go on the cheap— me!

Yes, there was a 12-Step meeting each morning, and davvenen (prayer) at the appropriate times each day, but most of the delegates were sober and secular, and probably skipped both the meetings and the davvenen. (Please don’t write complaining about the sober allusion. I know AA people are sober; I’m just addicted to alliteration.) I would have liked to see a workshop for delegates interested in learning Jewish contemplative practices such as meditation and chanting, and how to integrate these into their life of service.

I am not blaming anyone for this. It may be that such programming has been tried in the past and was found wanting. It may be that Jewish professionals focused on tikkun haolam are just not interested in tikkun hanefesh. I don’t know, but I worry about a Jewry that is all about the externals of politics and social action. We will survive, but will we thrive? And does a Jewry that is Judaism-free even matter?

Taking Science Seriously

I have been enthralled with science for decades. My 1981 rabbinic thesis, for example, focused on the impact of quantum theory on Jewish thought. It was a very short thesis. Last year I helped create the Mobius Center for Science and Spirituality, a partnership between my One River Foundation and Middle Tennessee State University. As part of Mobius I produced an undergraduate course called “The God of Science and the Science of God” that sought a new paradigm for dialogue between science and religion.

I take science seriously. I honor the scientific method, and do not dispute the truths it reveals. Where science disproves a religious claim, religion must change; hiding from truth behind the wall of scripture is cowardly, and ignoring astronomy, geology, cosmology, and biology in order to hold on to a specific theology is not an act of faith but of foolishness.

I also take religion seriously. Religion is a science in its own right, the science of human transcendence, transformation, and meaning. Where the astronomer uses a telescope and a biologist uses a microscope, the religionist uses poetry, myth, metaphor, and contemplative practice.

Science liberates us from magic. Religion liberates us from despair. And both liberate us from the narrow confines of ego, tribe, etc., to hold out new ways of seeing self and other that provides for a deep and compelling sense of awe and wonder. And then religion goes one step farther.

The step that religion takes that science cannot, is the step into meaning, justice and compassion. Science shows us how life works; religion shows us how best to live it. Science reveals the mind of God, religion reveals God’s heart.

I am of course speaking of religion and science at their best. There is bad science and bad religion. Both share a common trait: refusing to look beyond the biases of the scientist or theologian to see what is rather than what each wants there to be. Good science has reason to fear bad religion, and good religion has reason to fear bad science. But good science and good religion have nothing to fear from one another, for both point toward the ineffable mystery that manifests as reality is all its forms.

The more science I learn, and the more religion I study, the more deep my contemplation, and the more sacred the universe becomes. And the more sacred the universe becomes the more compelled I am to engage life with love. The God that emerges from good science and good religion is not a tribal warlord drooling over the chance to burn unbelievers in Hell, but an all–embracing nonduality delighting in infinite forms and levels of consciousness, surprising Itself now and again with a being that emerges, looks at the enormity of creation and says without the slightest hint of narcissism, “That’s me!”

I want to be that being. Sometimes I am. I wish the same for you as well.

Do Jews Matter?

[This is a summary of a talk I gave this past Friday at Congregation Beth Israel in Northfield, NJ.]

What would the world lose if Jews disappeared tomorrow?

A similar question was asked over two thousand years ago of the High Priest Shimon haTzadik who answered with Torah, Avodah, and Gemilut Chasadim, revelation, worship, and generosity (Avot 1:2). Many years later Rabban Shimon Gamliel responded to the same question with justice, truth, and peace (Avot 1:18).

Given that most Jews know little of Torah, rarely engage in worship, and are not noticeably more generous, just, honest, and peaceful than their neighbors, is there any reason Jews need survive? Of course Jews have a right to exist, but do we have a reason for existing? Do we matter any more?

I answer these questions with an equivocal “yes.” “Yes” because there are things we Jews bring to the world that no else does. And “equivocal” because these things may be fading away.

We Jews bring two things to the world that are desperately needed: a love of paradox and pluralism, and religious humanism. Each of these comes with its own Hebrew catchphrase, and it is through these that I will explore our gifts to the world.

The first is Elu v’elu divrei Elohim Chayyim, this opinion and that opinion are both the words of the Living God. This comes from the Talmud where God declares that the mutually exclusive teachings of the competing rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai are both the words of the living God (Eruvin 13b). If you are not familiar with the Talmudic original, you probably know the street version: “Two Jews, three opinions.”

The Jewish mind is at home with paradox, and multiple and competing truths. We consider it a mark of true intelligence to be able to argue all sides of a case, and a sign of deep humility to grant your opponent’s rightness even as you argue passionately against it. No other civilization is rooted in Elu v’elu. The world needs this broad mindedness. It is the cure for fundamentalisms of all kinds.

Yet I worry that we are losing this trait. Traditional Jewish pedagogy rooted in passionate argument is being replaced by a gentile model of memorizing facts and mouthing well-worn truisms. We are teaching our children what it is to be a Jew rather than how it is. We are teaching content rather than attitude. We need both, but it is the latter that gives us our uniqueness.

The second gift of the Jews is captured in the phrase Lo baShamayyim he, it is not in heaven. The “it” here is mitzvot, the way of godliness. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14 Moses tells us that the way of mitzvah is “not in heaven, that you might excuse yourselves saying, ‘Who can ascend to heaven and get it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?’... Rather it is very near to you— in your mouth and your heart— to do it.”

The way of godliness— the way of justice, mercy, and humility as the prophet Micah defined it— is inside you. Don’t look to heaven for answers to your life challenges, look within. Which brings us to the Talmud (Bava Meztia 59b ) where we find the rabbis debating the fitness of an oven.

All but Rabbi Eliezer said the oven was fine. Failing to persuade his colleagues with reason, Eliezer said, “If the halakha (law) is according to me, let that carob tree prove it.” And a nearby carob tree walked across the yard and replanted itself in the ground. But the rabbis said, “What does a carob tree know of the law?”

Eliezer than said, “If the halakha is according to me, let this brook prove it.” And a nearby stream suddenly flipped and flowed in the opposite direction. Again the rabbis replied, “What does a brook know of the law?”

Rabbi Eliezer then said, “If the halakha is according to me, may the walls of this House of Study prove it.” And the walls of the House of Study began to collapse inward upon the rabbis. Rabbi Joshua rose up and rebuked the walls saying, “When rabbis argue with one another on matters of halakha, what right have you to interfere?” Out of respect for Rabbi Joshua the walls ceased to bend inward; and out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer they did not straighten up.

Finally Rabbi Eliezer said, “If the halakha is according to me, may Heaven itself say so!” Just then a heavenly voice cried out, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is right on every point!”

Again Rabbi Joshua rose up saying, “Lo baShamayyim he; it is not in heaven! The Torah is ours to decide according to the majority (Exodus 23:2); we do not pay attention to voices from heaven!”

Some time later, Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah and asked him what God had done when rebuked by Rabbi Joshua. Elijah smiled and said, “He laughed and laughed saying, ‘At last! My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me!’”

Defeating God by working out our own understanding of godliness is so alien to most people that they don’t know what to make of it, yet it is just this kind of religious humanism that the world needs; affirming the truth of God while insisting that we work out the details of godliness for ourselves.

Yet are we passing this trait on to our children? When we teach the law are we still open to majority rule or have we made a fetish of tradition? Do we teach a living Torah to be explored or a fixed torah to be imitated? The world around us is based on imitation, worshipping the idols of fashion and following the heavenly voices of loud-mouthed pundits. Were to we turn inward? Yet it is this turning that is so desperately needed. Are we teaching our children to turn or merely to follow?

Elu v’elu and lo baShamayyim he, a love of paradox and religious humanism, are what Jews bring to the table. Yet these are not passed down by blood, but by pedagogy. It is not so much what we learn but how we learn that makes us who we are. Of course we must study Hebrew, history, and sacred text, but if we do so in the manner of the gentiles, choosing fixed truths over the open-ended search for multi-layered and often paradoxical meaning, following external moral absolutes rather than internal ethical prompts, we sacrifice what is most unique and important about us.

In a world being ripped apart by absolutes—religious, political, and economic— we need the open-hearted pluralism of elu v’elu. In a world pushed to the brink of World War IV by men inflamed by heavenly voices, we need the religious humanism of lo baShammayim he. In a world that has forgotten the art of conversation, we need people in love with dialogue. We Jews used to be that people. We can be again.

Panties for Peace

Whenever I walk by a Victoria’s Secret store I feel sapped of male energy. Women’s underwear to me is what Kryptonite is to Superman. (The green kind, not the red.) I often suspect that this is the “secret” Victoria is keeping from us: women’s underwear is hazardous to men’s health.

For years I thought I was alone in this; in fact it was fear of having panties and bras thrown at me while on stage that prevented me from pursuing a career as a rock star. That and the fact that I suck at playing music, but mostly the panties.

Recently, however, I have discovered that I am not insane, only Burmese. It seems that the men of Myanmar (formerly Burma) believe that coming into contact with women’s underwear saps their strength. Damn straight! Of course I should make it clear that they are talking about women’s underwear sans women. I have no idea what the men of Myanmar experience when they see women wearing underwear. Personally I find women’s underwear with women in them far less frightening than women’s underwear without women in them. I suspect this is true of Myanmar men as well.

Anyway, now that the truth is out regarding the lethal power of panties and bras, a global network is forming to exploit it. People all over the world are shipping packages of panties and bras to Myanmar’s embassies hoping to topple the junta by sapping the strength of the men as then open the packages. This is like sending anthrax to congress people and newscasters, but trust me, women’s underwear is far easier to get.

Ordinarily I shy away from such violence, and given the fact that panties are dangerous to men I hesitate to suggest that men and women join in this effort for fear that men will suffer from handling the underwear, but the junta in Myanmar is evil and the Buddhist priests can’t defeat them alone. Especially since they, too, have no immunity against women’s underwear.

So, tossing caution to the wind, I am forming the Thongalese Liberation Front for the Liberation of Myanmar (TLFFTLOM), urging all my readers to join the “Panties for Peace” campaign and send women’s underwear to the Myanmar embassy nearest you.

Here are some slogans you might incorporate into your mailing: “Lift and Separate: Free the People of Myanmar!” “Thongs for the Memories: Don’t Forget Myanmar!” “Be BRAve!” “BRAvo Buddhists!” “Throw the Panty-loons Out!”

As the CEO of TLFFTLOM I am trying to contact the president of Victoria’s Secret to enlist the support of the company in making public service announcements showing Victoria Secret models taking off their underwear and throwing it at Myanmar embassy officials. But don’t wait for me. Approach your local Victoria’s Secret and speak to the manager about working with you to free the people of Myanmar.

[Warning to men. Do not handle women’s underwear without protection. I am pretty certain the power sapping capacity of the underwear cannot penetrate lead, so you might want to wear colored plastic gloves and aprons made in China.]

Self, Candy, and Being Present for Halloween

Tomorrow evening is Halloween. I plan to dress up as my self. Not my true Self, there is no costume for that; and not my polished persona, there is little that is scary about that. No, I plan to dress up as my ordinary self: my ego.

What will this look like? The Tasmanian Devil on steroids: a tornado of conflicting thoughts and feelings that change so fast that no one, not even me, can make sense of it.

I will fly up to a neighbor’s door, bang loudly, and when the door is opened scream, “Trick or treat, no wait, treat, treat, treat! No! Tricks just tricks. Gimme candy. And a new Prius and an iMac. Gimme something really cool, but even if you do I won’t care about it two minutes later so you better have something even more cool to give me after that. Oh, forget it. I don’t deserve anything anyway. Just keep your crappy candy. What I really need is a hug and a pat on the head. Good boy. Yeah, say, ‘Good boy,’ that would be nice. But what the hell do you know about me anyway? You don’t know me, so don’t pat my head or kick my butt. And don’t think I won’t kick yours. Who cares about you anyway? Unless you have candy. Gimme candy. And what about that car…”

Long before I finish all this I am certain my neighbor has called 911 or taken a shot at me himself, after all I noticed he subscribes to Guns and Gardens, a new magazine about life in the South (no, I’m not kidding). I don’t blame him. Meeting me would be terrifying, to me as well as to you. But I don’t know you, so I will focus on me.

I hate meeting me. I’m so messy. I try hard not to meet me by staying so busy that there just isn’t time. Yet I do bump into myself once in a while, coming and going; always on the fly or on the run. Never on the sit, which is the one place I really need to schedule the meeting.

So maybe that is what I will do this Halloween. Rather than run next door as me, I might just sit on my meditation cushions and spend some time with me. Which reminds me of a story Roshi Norm Fisher tells about Zen Master Ryon (I’m not certain of the spelling).

The master would call out loud to himself saying, “Rayon!” “Yes, master, here I am!” Rayon would reply. “Pay attention!” “Yes, master, I will.”

This is a good story and an even better practice. Call it Hinneni (Hebrew for Here I Am) practice. This is the way to meet myself: “Rami!” “Yes, rabbi, hinneni, I’m here!” “Pay attention! Don’t get wrapped up in the drama! Do justly! Love mercy! Walk humbly!” “Yes, rabbi, I will.”

My plan now is to sit on my cushions, and call to myself. And then I’ll walk next door and get that candy from my neighbor.

Spirit, Nature, and Story

[Here is a summary of a short talk I gave as part of an environmentalism conference called Spirit and Nature in September of ’07.]

Judaism loves the earth. In the Bible it, along with all creation, is judged “tov” and “tov meod”: good and very good. In the Psalms we are told that God’s glory permeates creation. In the Wisdom literature we are told to learn from the animals even the ant (Proverbs 6:6). In Jewish mysticism ancient, medieval, and modern creation is God manifest. So Judaism loves the earth. Jews, on the other hand, are something else.

Like every other people, most Jews are driven by fear, greed, alienation, and scarcity consciousness. Like almost every other person on this planet we suffer from the delusion of separateness, dualism, and The Other. The people who teach us “Love your neighbor” have lived in fear of their neighbors for two thousand years. “The people who teach us “Love the stranger” are themselves estranged and afraid. This wasn’t our doing, but it is our reality. It is our psyche wound that we have yet to name, let alone heal.

I know this sounds harsh, but it is necessary if we are to avoid the vapid romanticism that so often permeates meetings such as this one. Don’t romanticize religion or tradition, for all its good there is a concomitant evil. Don’t romanticize indigenous peoples, pretending that they somehow escape the human predicament. This demeans them and is a subtle form of racism. Don’t romanticize nature. She is both wondrous and terrifying. Global warming is not a threat to the earth but to humanity. Gaia will take care of herself and remove four billion of us in the process. This is not going to be pretty.

When we stop romanticizing the earth we will stop demonizing humanity. People are as natural to this planet as the earthworm. Yes, the herd must be thinned, but we still matter. On this planet we are one of the ways, perhaps even the only way, that Gaia gets to see herself and say, “Wow!”

The problem with humanity is that fewer and fewer of us still know how to say, “Wow!” We have lost the capacity to wonder, to stand in awe. We have lost the ability to tremble before infinite manifest in the finite.

To reclaim our capacity to wonder and tremble, we need to regain our capacity to tell stories.

At our core we humans are story–telling animals. It is through story that we make sense of our lives, our world, and ourselves. But our stories have grown stale, and for many, and here I would says Jews suffer greatly, insular. We need a new story of creation that honors what we know from science and provides meaning to human existence. We need a story that spans billions of years rather than six days. We need a story that makes explicit what Genesis leaves implicit: all is God. We need a story that establishes a new tribe, the tribe of the living. Unless and until we humans can tell a new and healing story, all our efforts to live in harmony with Gaia will fail.

Insult Voter

I am used to reading about Values Voters, Security Moms, and the dozen or so other sub-groupings of Americans who may vote in the 2008 presidential race. Today I would like to add another group to the list: the Insult Voter. The Insult Voter is a Christian Conservative who bashes a candidate’s religion while supporting his or her politics. The best example of an Insult Voter is Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University.

Jones said that while he is “completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,” he is endorsing the former Massachusetts Governor candidacy. His logic? “What’s the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?” In other words, better to back a conservative who believes in a lie then a liberal who does not.

Logic aside, some in the press are dumping on Mitt for not defending his faith and rejecting the endorsement. But this isn’t fair. Most people who support Governor Romney now, and most of those who will vote for him in the primaries agree with Bob Jones III that Mormonism is a false religion. They aren’t voting for Mitt because he’s a Mormon, they are voting for him because he is, at least at the moment, pro-God, pro-Guns, pro-Life, and anti-Gay. They’d vote for the Anti-Christ if his politics were red enough, and the Rapture didn’t take them first.

Yet some claim that Mitt’s failure to defend his faith is a sign that he stands for nothing but winning. True he did seem willing to lean “blue” to become the governor of Massablusetts, and now he is leaning red to become president, but every candidate is doing that to one degree or another. Candidates essentially buy votes by backing policies that serve constituencies rather than the nation as a whole. And they stay in power by selling influence to wealthy special interests. So Governor Romney isn’t doing anything unusual here. In fact being able to make a deal with Bob Jones might suggest that Mitt has the capacity to broker agreements with America’s enemies, something our current Crusader in Chief cannot do.

But I think Mitt Romney ignored Bob Jones’ insults for a different reason. Mitt knows that as a good Mormon man he may someday become a god ruling over his own planet. At that point he can take his revenge on anyone he damn well pleases. In the meantime there is the New Hampshire primary to worry about.

Dinesh D'Souza, A Response

In his essay “A Christian Foundation” (USA Today, October 22, 2007) Dinesh D’Souza argues, “Christianity has shaped the core institutions and values of the USA and the West. Christianity is responsible even for secular institutions such as democracy and science. It has fostered in our civilization values such as respect for human dignity, human rights, and human equality that even secular people cherish.”

While not wrong, Mr. D’Souza’s statement is meaningless. The West was overwhelmingly Christian, so of course the heroes of the Western democracy and science were Christian, but so too were the despots and madmen. Substitute “white men” for “Christianity” in his argument and, while still true, its silliness becomes even clearer. The fact that people of European Christian heritage brought us democracy and science does not mean that Christianity supported either.
For example, Roman Catholicism, and the Anglican and Lutheran churches supported the divine right of kings, not democracy; and Calvinist churches sought only to limit the king’s power not end it. And while it is true that the Puritans sought to escape the Anglican theocracy of Britain, they did not extend freedom of thought or worship to those who disagreed with them, and set up their own theocracies in America.
Regarding science Mr. D’Souza says, “The greatest scientists of the West…were Christians,” and lists Copernicus and Galileo to prove his point. Again this is meaningless! Copernicus feared death at the hands of the Inquisition if he published his theory that the earth orbits the sun. And when his “Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death, the Church put it on its Index of Prohibited Books. And Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to recant his findings because they went against church doctrine, and then spent that last years of his life under house arrest. While Christian scientists struggled on in search of truth, they did so without the blessing of Christianity.
D’Souza then turns to the self-evident notion that “all men are created equal.” This, D’Souza claims, was only self-evident in Christian countries where “[e]very life has a worth no greater and no lesser than any other.” Ask Jews in Christian Europe if they were of equal worth. Ask Native Americans. Ask Africans slaves. Ask Indians. Ask women.

To prove the superiority of Christian civilization D’Souza then says, “Greek and Roman culture was built on slavery” implying that Christian culture was not. Talk about denial! Not only was America built on slavery; the overwhelmingly Christian South went to war because it was certain it could not survive without it. Yes, many devote Christians were passionate abolitionists, but Christian slaveholders were equally devote, and both justified their positions by citing their Christian values.

According to Mr. D’Souza, since Americans were (and are) overwhelmingly Christian, all things American are rooted in Christianity. Following this line of reasoning we could argue that Christianity is also responsible for slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, genocide against Native Americans, and racism. This wouldn’t be wrong, but it would be totally misleading.

I sympathize with Mr. D’Souza’s desire to defend his faith, but to do so in such an intellectually disingenuous manner does more harm than good.

Is Peace Possible?

[This is the text for a speech I plan to deliver this morning at Christ Community Church in Grand Haven, MI.]

Is peace possible? Not simply the absence of conflict, but true peace, the ability to engage life without anger, greed, jealousy, or hostility of any kind? Or are we doomed by our very nature to war, inner and outer?

I am not asking for an opinion or a conviction, but for an investigation. You may think one way or another, but your thinking is conditioned by your parents and peers, your religion and your politics. You may have been taught that peace is possible, and you may have spent your life cultivating it personally, professionally, and politically, but this doesn’t mean peace is really possible, only that you have been conditioned to think so. Or the opposite may be the case: you were taught that life is a zero-sum game; that if you are going to win others must lose; and that the only way to win is to grab all you can when you can regardless of the consequences.

I was taught the latter. I was taught that life is war, and I am warrior, albeit not a very effective one. My personality isn’t geared for war. I dislike conflict and shy away from it whenever possible. I would rather surrender my slice of pie than defend it. Of course there are limits; there are things for which I will rally, but I prize quiet and calm and being left alone too much to fight for much.

But quiet isn’t peace. The silence of guns and gangs isn’t peace. Being left alone isn’t peace. The battles continue in my own mind, and as long as there is war inside, there will be war outside.

So I am asking, can you be peace? I cannot answer this for you, I can only explore it for myself, and ask that you do the same. So lets look at this for a moment.

I am not peaceful now. I am even at this very moment a jumble of conflicting stories, drives, passions, longings, hungers, etc. To end this inner turmoil is only to add another conflict to the mix. It is bad enough that I am at war internally, now I must be at war with the fact that I am at war. I must declare war on my warring nature. I must defeat my desire to defeat. This is simply more of the same thing.

So, is peace possible? Not if I define peace as being other than I am. Yet if I simply accept what I am and act on it, that is not peace either. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. A classic double bind.

Double binds are the gateway to transformation. The key is to learn to hold reality in a larger context, a bigger mind. Can I simply make room for war without identifying with it? Can I realize that anger, greed, jealously, hatred, fear, and the rest are a part of me, but not all of me? Can I allow them space without allowing them to define me?

This isn’t peace. This is freedom. Freedom allows me to engage the moment in a manner unscripted by my psychological, political, and religious conditioning. I can’t say in advance what this engagement will look life. There is only the truth of the moment. But coming from freedom rather than conditioning I suspect that compassion rather than conflict will be the norm.

Freedom isn’t won. That is another war. Freedom isn’t cultivated, or earned. That is more struggle. Freedom is here and now if you simply look at the reality within you. There is no awakening, or enlightenment, or salvation, or transformation. All these are trapped in linear time, and time implies change and change means conflict as you move from one way of being to another which you imagine is better.

Forget better and worse. Forget peace and conflict. Forget being other than you are. Simply see all that you are. The one who sees is free from what is seen. And that makes all the difference.

Is peace possible? No. Conflict is systemic to the human ego. Is freedom possible? Yes. There is something greater than the ego. And that something is the real you. Live from that.

A Religious Litmus Test

For a nation that supposedly separates Church and State, it is both sad and ironic that we have a religious litmus test for those who wish to become President of the United States.

The test is an odd one, however. First you have to belong to a religion that doesn’t make most Americans nervous. At the moment that means Christianity and Judaism (Islam has made it into Congress, but it will take awhile to get beyond that). Belonging to Wicca or Santeria, for example, will probably keep you out of the Oval Office, for the foreseeable future.

Second you have to be willing to deny your faith in public: not deny that you are a believer, only deny that being a believer matters when it comes to being president: “While I have my personal beliefs, I seek to be president of all Americans, and will not foist my beliefs on others.” And with that we are all supposed to sigh with relief.

A president who can turn off his or her personal convictions for political gain, however, troubles me. If you really believe abortion is murder, then stand up, say so, and try to have it made illegal. I can respect that. But waffling on morality makes me nervous.

If we are going to have a religious litmus test let’s find out exactly what our presidential candidates believe. I would like to see presidential debate moderates ask the following questions:

“Is it true, Governor Romney, that as a Mormon you believe God has a wife?”

“Those of you who deny evolution in favor of creationism, just how old do you think the earth is?”

“Those of you professing the Christian faith, do you believe that non–Christian Americans are going to burn in hell for all eternity?”

“To those of you who profess to be Catholics, I would like to know how you are willing to risk your eternal soul and support American policies and laws the Catholic Church finds offensive?”

“Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination to God, and how do you feel about woman’s rights and their status within your respective churches?”

I would find the answers to these questions very helpful in making my choice on Election Day. I would not vote for a president who refused to take science seriously. I would not vote for a president who thought I was going to be tormented in hell for all eternity. I would not vote for a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, or surrogate for the Pope. I would not vote for a person who simply accepted religious doctrine without thinking it through and questioning it and coming to her or his own conclusions. In short, I would not vote for a person so totally unlike myself as to make me feel threatened in my own country. But unless we ask these kinds of questions, we won’t know for whom we are voting until it is too late.

What's The Big Idea? Part Three: Anti Up

If you have read parts One and Two of my rant against the Big Idea contest sponsored by the Bronfman Foundation you know that I think the idea is well meaning and doomed. There is no Big Idea that will transform American Jewry because American Jews just don’t care about Judaism all that much. Sure it’s nice to know that we’re The Chosen, but if the Bid Idea is to get us to be more Jewish, it just isn’t going to happen.

But, once again, I seem to have blogged too soon, and I want to formally apologize to the Bronfmans and their Foundation for not thinking this through more carefully. I now believe that there is a Big Idea out there that can rekindle the Jewish passions and ethnic identity of American Jews. It’s called anti-Semitism.

Think about it. If the Greco-Syrians hadn’t demanded Jews bow down to their god we wouldn’t have had the Maccabean War. If American medical centers had hired Jewish doctors, we wouldn’t have so many Sinai Hospitals.

When the Southern Baptists declared that God doesn’t hear the prayer of Jews, we Jews went ballistic. The fact that most of us don’t pray or even believe in a God who listens to prayer, was irrelevant. The great Satan of Christian anti-Semitism had reared his ugly head, and we would rise to destroy him. Or at least get him to be quiet.

Similarly, the recent statement of the godly Ann Coulter that Jews need to be “perfected,” that is we need to become Christians, got us hot and bothered.

We may not know how to get Jews excited about Judaism, but we do know how to get them feeling Jewish: anti-Semitism works. The Big Idea that the Bronfman Foundation needs to fund, the one sure fire way to get Jews focused on their Jewishness is an all out revival of American anti-Semitism.

We don’t need a messiah, we need an anti-messiah. The Bronfman Foundation should secretly fund a charismatic Christian Rightist who will get America declared a Christian Nation, and set a Christian litmus test for political office holders. He or she will hold public burnings of the Talmud, and lobby Congress to outlaw circumcision, kosher food (I would add Chinese food as well just to be safe), and Seinfeld reruns.

Of course they would have to funnel money into Jewish organizations fighting this puppet madman so that Jews could rally and fight for their religion and ethnic pride. I am certain this would work. I am also certain nothing else can.

AC-JC and the Perfected Jew

Ann Coulter, in a nationally televised interview, said Jews need perfecting. By “perfecting” she means that Jews need Jesus.

AC wants a nation devoted to JC. It would be more convenient and efficient, she said. Pluralism and freedom are messy. And messy is just what the terrorists want. So come on, Heebs, if you are really loyal Americans you will accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Ann Coulter’s capacity to outrage is in direct proportion to her capacity to make money, so the fact that she said this doesn’t surprise me. I have no intension of picking a fight with her. In fact, I think she has provided us with a wonderful opportunity to gauge the heart of Christian America.

In an age when Christians complain that American Muslims don’t speak up when their coreligionists attack America (verbally and otherwise) it will be interesting to see which if any Christian leaders speak out against the anti-Semitic ravings of one of their own.

Judging from her mock surprise that Jews might be insulted by her notion that they need perfecting, I suspect few true-red Christian will find anything offensive in her comments. After all, as far as they are concerned only Christians are going to heaven, and Jews (along with everyone else outside their self-defined circle of the saved) are damned to hell for all eternity. So what’s to be shocked? We have heard this crap for two thousand years. We should be used to it by now.

But wait, this isn’t supposed to happen in America. George Washington promised us that America not was a Christian nation and would welcome Jews. Thomas Jefferson said there is a wall between church and state that would protect us from state sanctioned religious persecution. America is different.

But America may not be America any more. Driven more by fear than reason, blaming everything from 9/11 to Iraq on Jews and the Israeli Lobby, informed by a media obsessed with ratings, and mistaking decibels for dialogue, we are a people more and more willing to sacrifice our values to secure our vices. As we move closer to electing a new president we seem to be thoughtlessly condoning increased levels of homophobia, misogyny, and racism. We are afraid to stand up for what we used to stand for, and toss our civil rights aside for fear of being soft on terrorism.

Ann Coulter certainly isn’t soft on terrorism, and neither is her Jesus. The Jesus Ms. Coulter wants us Jews to accept is more about the Kingdom of Greed than the Kingdom of God. He is more about sanctioning war than preaching peace. He is a Christ of conformity who wants a nation of June and Ward Cleevers. He is a Jesus whose baptism is water boarding, and whose sacrament is swallowing our conscience.

I hope to hear a lot of good Christians decrying Ann’s anti-Semitism. I won’t be surprised if I don’t. Sad, but not surprised.

What's The Big Idea? Part Two: Annointing a Secular Messiah

I have been giving more thought to the Bronfman Foundation’s contest to find the Big Idea that will transform American Judaism, and the more I think about it the more I pity the winner.

In effect the Foundation will anoint a secular messiah, set her or him on an academic throne for two years, and pay her to perfect the Big Idea. Can you imagine the stress this person will be under? The winning idea is supposed to change everything, to create a Judaism that will capture the imagination of millions of Jews, and it must be produced under the pressure of peer review, foundation watchdogs, and unrelenting media attention: “Have you got IT yet? Have we been transformed yet? Are we there yet? Huh, Mommy? Are we?”

And when it doesn’t work, and it won’t, what happens to our anointed one then?

Why won’t it work? Because we American Jews don’t want to be transformed. We like things just the way they are.

Think about it. If we wanted a more mystical Judaism, we could join CHaBaD Hasidism or Jewish Renewal. If we wanted a more secular Judaism we could join the Society for Humanistic Judaism. If we want a lot of tradition we have Orthodox Judaism, if we want less tradition we can try Conservative or Reform Judaisms. If we want to blend progressive humanist values with tradition we can become Reconstructionist Jews. And if we want Zionism we can make aliyah to Israel. There isn’t anything missing from our options. There is no Big Idea out there.

But even if there were such a Big Idea and a Bigger Brain to think it, it would never last the two years at Brandeis the Foundation is giving the winner to produce it. Why? Because we Jews are hyper-critical. We would pick the idea apart so viciously that the Thinker would have to rethink it so often that she would forget what the original idea was in the first place. Look at me: I am criticizing the very idea of a Big Idea. Just think what I will do to the poor sap who wins the Messiah contest? I will crucify him, and I promise you I won’t be alone.

What's The Big Idea?

Everybody loves a magic bullet; even people who should know better. The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Foundation, one of the most innovative and generous Jewish philanthropies, is looking for the “killer app” that will transform Jewish life. The Foundation is offering a two-year gig at Brandeis and a six-figure salary to the person with the next Big Idea. I have no doubt they will find one, and no doubt it will fail.

The project is offered in the spirit of the 1929 effort by then Sears Roebuck and Company chairman Julius Rosenwald who offered $10,000 to the person who could best answer the question, “How can Judaism best adjust itself to and influence modern life?” The winner was Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, my teacher, hero, and founder of Reconstructionist Judaism.

Is Bronfman looking for the next Kaplan? I hope so. MK was one of the most radical Jewish thinkers of all time, redefining “Who is a Jew” and “What is God” in drastically humanistic ways that did much to change Judaism over the ensuing decades. But the fact that few people today know who Kaplan is, and that the Reconstructionist movement itself is no longer Kaplanian or even neo-Kaplanian in its orientation suggests that no one person, no matter how brilliant, can trigger a real transformation of Jewish life.

It is not that Judaism lacks big ideas and geniuses to think them; it is that the day of the Big Idea for social transformation has passed. Even the Internet, the last great transformation trigger, was not one Big Idea of a many Big Ideas and many more little ones. The Internet birthed a continuing revolution, something Judaism needs but most likely cannot sustain. Indeed, the Bronfman idea of putting the Big Idea in a book and the Big Thinker at Brandeis will render both irrelevant a week after the New York Times prints its book review.

Judaism needs a drastic revolution akin to the rabbinic reinvention of Judaism following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. But it takes a disaster to trigger such a revolution, and Jews don’t take Judaism seriously enough to experience a disaster. The only disaster that would register in the minds of most Jews is an all out military attack on Israel’s survival, and that disaster would trigger a nuclear war that will make concerns about Jewish survival pale to insignificance.

The Bronfman Foundation shouldn’t be seeking to tap the wisdom of one Jew, but the wisdom of the Jewish crowd. My suggestion would be to create an on-line Jewish think-tank that invites Jews to solve their own problems without looking to a Big Thinker or any other authority figure.

It just so happens that I am working on this idea through www.simplyjewish.com (forthcoming). It will be a place where Jews are invited to solve the challenges of Jewish life not by finding one solution but by experimenting with many. I will write more about this when the site is up and running (which means when I get some serious money to build it, so don’t hold your breath). In the meantime, I’m praying that the Bronfman’s find another Mordecai Kaplan.

The End of Judeo-Christian

New times often require new language, and while I am not going to coin a term in this essay, I am going to suggest we retire one and replace it with another.

The term I wish to retire is “Judeo–Christian.” The term with which I want to replace it is “Abrahamic.”

I recently participated in an interfaith panel on community building. As I listened to several wise and well–meaning Christian speakers share their thoughts on the matter I cringed every time they used the word “Judeo–Christian” to refer to the values Jews and Christians share. First of all, the values they cited were no less Buddhist and humanist than Jewish or Christian, and, second, the term Judeo-Christian is insulting to Jews and Muslims alike.

It is insulting to Jews because it makes Judaism an appendage of Christianity, something many Christians believe it to be, and something no Jew would accept. Judaism is a religion in its own right. It doesn’t need to be completed by Christianity any more than Christianity needs to be completed by Islam. So, if for no other reason, let’s retire the term because it is insulting to Judaism. But there is another reason.

The other reason is that it is time (actually it is long passed time) that Jews and Christians recognize that there are three civilizations with roots in the Hebrew Bible: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While there are clear differences among them, there are equally clear commonalities, and each traces its roots back to Abraham. By speaking of Judeo–Christian civilization we exclude Islam. By shifting to the term Abrahamic we widen the circle of inclusivity and speak more accurately. And, as we get more used to the term Abrahamic, I hope we will find ourselves encouraged to seek out basic knowledge about the three Abrahamic faiths and thereby find common ground on which to build true community.

But I want to urge caution when using the term as well, especially when it is used to define a set of values. Using the term “Abrahamic values” is not more helpful than Judeo–Christian values. For all his concern for hospitality and justice, Abraham also treated his consort and his sons in ways that would land him in prison today. And Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have and in some cases continue to countenance behavior that most thinking people would find reprehensible and immoral. So when it comes to “Abrahamic values” we must spell out what we mean, and when we do so we shall discover we are talking about a far more universal value set than the term Abrahamic allows.

Language matters. Let us take care to use words that are as accurate and as clear as possible. It is time to retire “Judeo–Christian,” adopt “Abrahamic,” and find a new term for values all humans share.

Word Wars

This morning I had this civilized chat with a fellow at a local coffee house:

Him: “Are you going to watch the Republican debates on TV?”

Me: “I doubt it. So far all the debates have been too scripted.”

Him: “But we have to know who to vote for; who thinks like us.”

Me: “You are assuming that you and I think alike.”

Him: “Don’t you? I’m Pro-life, Pro-Guns, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-family. Aren’t you?”

Me: “Yes, I am all of those things, but I wonder if we mean the same things by them. For example: I am Pro-Life. That means that in many cases I favor the life of the mother over the life of the unborn. That means I promote sexual education and the use of birth control. That means I am concerned with environmental sustainability and the survival of species other than my own. That means I am concerned with poverty, and social justice, and global climate change.

And I am Pro-gun. I want to see guns in the hands of responsible people: the police and the military. I want to see that civilian gun owners are trained in the use of firearms and have a license to own them, and that no one but the military and police have access to military-like hardware.

And I am Pro-Marriage. I want to keep the government out of our private lives, and leave marriage up to religion. The state should provide civil unions, and in this there should be no discrimination between gay and straight. If a couple wants a religious marriage they should go to a clergyperson who will provide such a service for them.

And I am Pro-Family, all kinds of families, gay and straight. And…

Him: Whoa! This isn’t what those words mean. You’ve got it all backwards.

Me: That is what they mean to me. If they mean the opposite to you, you should say so. You should ay you are anti-moms, anti-nature, anti-law and order, anti-religion, and anti-family. I would respect that. I just hate it when you take my words and use them for the opposite ends.

Him: Look, we own those words. They mean what we say they mean. We own ‘em because we coined ‘em. We own ‘em because we are the majority and the majority gets to decide what words mean. And you should stop using these words that way.

From here things degenerated into “I know you are, but what am I.” Still, he was a nice guy.

Doomed If We Do; Doomed If We Don't

Let’s say, if only for argument’s sake, that there is a Creator God—self conscious, all–knowing, all–powerful, etc.—living somewhere outside of where and when, space and time. Let’s say, again if only for sake of argument, that this God created the world as the Hebrew Scriptures says He did: by sheer will in six days. Or, at the very least, let’s pretend that we are all believers in Intelligent Design admitting that the Bible may not be a science book, but that there is nonetheless a Wise and Intelligent Being beyond creation who initiated and shapes creation.

Given either position one must be ready to answer the question: To what end? Why did God create the heavens and the earth in such a manner as to have them end in total desolation?

There are currently three leading theories regarding the destiny of the universe: Accelerated Expansion, the Big Rip, and the Big Crunch.

Accelerated expansion argues that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and that in time, say 30 billion years from now give or take, everything will be so far away from everything else that you and I will die a dark, cold, death.

The Big Rip is no less appealing. As dark energy continues to strengthen over the next 30 billion years the universe, from atoms to galaxies, will suddenly be ripped apart like a size 34 pair of Dockers trying to hold a size 38 butt as it bends over to tie a shoelace.

And then there is the Big Crunch that argues that dark energy is not growing but fading, and gravity will eventually pull the universe back into the original point from which the Big Bang banged. Perhaps to bang again. Perhaps not.

These are our only options: death, death, or death. You choose. My question is why would God create a world that was doomed? Sure, 30 billion years is a long time, but only to those of us still young enough to enjoy it. What about your great, great, great… grandchild born just a few years from spread, rip, or crunch? What about her? Huh? Don’t you care about her? Doesn’t God care about her?

I guess not. The universe is doomed.

This is why I have decided to believe in the Rapture. It is not enough to get off the planet. The Chinese will eventually have colonies on Mars. We have to get out of the universe, and there is no other way to do this ‘cept the Rapture. According to Rapturists true believers in Jesus will be lifted up to heaven before the earth is destroyed by the Prince of Peace. While this will happen long before the 30 billion year lease on life is up, I am told that those who are raptured will escape the fate of creation.

So, Lord, take me now, or at least sometime in the next 29 plus billion years, ‘cause I certainly don’t want to be here at crunch time.

PC is BS

There are few things more absurd than political correctness. I am listening to an NPR pod cast dealing with religious radicalization of prisoners, both Christian and Muslim. The concern is that prisoners are recruited for terror–prone religious organization, and upon leaving prison, will turn to terrorism in the name of God. The show is interesting and the host and guest are well informed and intelligent.

Then the calls from listeners begin.

One caller says the entire concern is silly because everyone in America is radicalized. To prove his point he sights cheerleaders and their passion for their school’s sports teams. There is no difference between passion for your team and passion for your God and His Team, the caller says.

Had I been the host I would have jumped all over this caller. First, he is mistaking passion for radicalization. It is one thing to cheer your team on and chant for victory, it is another to plant bombs in the opposing team’s locker room. Second he is ignoring the fact that religion, not sports, is responsible for global terror.

What did the host do? He simply deflected the caller’s observation on to his guest, who did his best to justify it. Madness!

Several Muslim callers sought to defend Islam in the prisons, despite the fact that no one was attacking Islam. In the course of doing so, however, they latched on to all kinds of conspiracy theories to claim that so–called Islamic terrorists were in fact US government agents trying to stir up trouble among otherwise peace loving Wahabis.

What did the host do? Nothing. He didn’t ask for evidence to back up this claim, or challenge it in any way. This is worse than madness. This is complicity.

One caller even raised the question why the government might be concerned about Islam which was certainly a religion of peace. No one bothered to point out to the caller that at present the vast majority of active terrorists in the world are Muslims. It may well be that America’s fears of Islam are overblown, but they are in no way unfounded.

What bothers me is the willingness of intelligent people to allow stupidity to pass as legitimate opinion in order to stay politically correct.

When you hear BS call it BS regardless of PC mores. Otherwise there is no hope for intelligent dialogue or democracy. Terrorism won’t silence America, but politically correct cowardess might.

It Pays Not To Sow

Heterosexual intercourse is simple: Insert Tab A into Slot B. Repeat. It is the simplicity of the thing that worries our government. Almost anyone of a certain age can do it, and almost any female of a certain age can become pregnant from doing it. Since the government believes that babies are best born to a couple that has everything in common except gender, they are eager to make sure that Tab and Slot do not meet until man and woman are wed. Hence the millions of federal dollars now being spent to spread abstinence among unmarried adults up to age 29.

Abstinence programs don’t work with younger kids for whom sex is a curiosity, so the government must be thinking that it will work better among twenty-somethings who may not be so curious given the fact that over 90% of them have already had sex.

I love abstinence programs. They are simple, neat, and totally within the control of the people choosing to practice them. The fact that few people choose to practice them is a drawback, but one that is due, so the pro–abstinence faithful tell me, more to human depravity than an error in policy.

The government is concerned about the fact that unwed mothers gave birth to 998.262 babies in 2004. They believe that the only way to effectively reduce this number is to
“just say no” to sex. They are right, of course. Condoms and pills might help but they are not as effective in stopping pregnancy as is avoiding intercourse. To date only one birth to a virgin is on record. So while not 100% fool proof, abstinence is much closer to being so than any other method we know.

To see if this program has a chance in hell of succeeding, I spoke with a variety of university students, most of whom are devote Christians. I did find some who planned to wait until marriage to have sex, and some who had married young in order to have sex, and some who decided that waiting was foolish and that a couple should be sexually compatible before deciding to get married. Most of the sexually active students I spoke with use birth control even if their churches frown on it. While in no way a scientific study, I am pretty confident that abstinence won’t work with the twenty-something crowd any more than it does with teenagers.

When talking about sex, several male students used a farming metaphor: sowing one’s seed. That’s what triggered my own plan to lower the number of out–of–wedlock births. Just as the federal government pays farmers not to sow a variety of seeds, they could pay boys not to sow their seed. This would be a kind of reverse prostitution: you get paid not to have sex.

When I suggested this plan, a number of young men said they would abstain from sexual intercourse for an annual fee of $10,000. I don’t know how this stacks up against traditional farmers, but it seems reasonable. Of course the plan discriminates against women, but a similar discrimination exists among farmers as well. So share this with your government representatives as the election draws and let’s see what happens.

Cherry Picking My Faith

I cherry pick my religion. I take what I like and leave the rest. Most Jews do this, so no one says anything, but few readily admit it. I admit it.

For example, I choose Abraham as my spiritual grandfather. My Abraham was an iconoclast who shattered the idols of his father and brothers. My Abraham was a visionary who intuited an ethical monotheism in a world that had never heard of such a thing. My Abraham put God on hold to rush off and feed three strangers who happened upon his camp [yes, they were angels but he didn’t know that]. My Abraham took up arms to rescue his nephew but did not maintain a standing militia afterward. My Abraham put God to the test demanding that justice and mercy trump divine wrath. My Abraham had no intension of killing Isaac and used the opportunity to see if God was just another bloodthirsty deity deserving only rejection. My Abraham continued to have contact with his first son and built the Ka’abah with him (see the Koran). I ignore the fact that Abraham pimped his wife (twice!), and sent his mistress and firstborn off to die in the wilderness.

For example, I redefine kosher as vegetarian and expand it to speak to consuming things in general challenging myself to limit my consumption in pursuit of simplicity and ecological sustainability.

For example, I redefine Shabbat as a day for deep play. This includes prayer, but allows for many more activities that tradition would continence.

So, in a sense, I am founding my own religion. The only difference between me and other founders of religions is that I do not market my faith as something others can follow. I don’t expect people to follow me. I don’t want people to follow me. I don’t even want to follow me.

What I do want is for people to recognize that they too cherry pick their faith. The reason there are so many versions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism is that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists cherry pick their religions. You don’t want to feel guilty for not practicing the 613 mitzvot? Become a Reform Jew. You don’t want to worry about what the Pope might say? Become a Protestant. You don’t want to deal with caste? Become a Buddhist. You don’t want to deal with Buddhism? Become a Zen Buddhist. There is always a way to make your religion more like you.

I encourage people to create their own religions. I ask only that they be honest about it. If we were honest the violence we use to mask the fact that we are making up our religions to suit ourselves would end, and religion might be more a provider of hope that horror.

Center for Seeking

“If you were to start another synagogue, what would you do?”

The question was emailed to me this week, and for a moment it captured my imagination. When the moment passed I realized I have no desire to lead a synagogue of any stripe. The purpose of a synagogue is to pass on the received wisdom and traditions of the Jewish people. It is an honorable goal and I am honored whenever I am asked to speak at such a place. Judaism, and those Jews who take Judaism seriously, have a gift to offer the world that can only be given by them. The prophetic legacy is the heart of Judaism as I understand it, and serious Jews (religious and secular) should be at its service always.

As a Jew I too seek to live out the prophetic call for justice, compassion, and humility, and support Jewish institutions that do the same. But as a human being I have no desire to limit my search for wisdom to “things Jewish.”

If I were to create something it would be a place for seeking rather than finding. It would be open to all people and all scriptures, both those coming to us from religion and those coming to us from art, music, literature, and science. It would have no fixed liturgy or holy days. Our meetings would blend silence and conversation. We might meet at night to lay out under the stars; or at dawn or dusk to sense the earth turning before the sun; or at the ocean or by a lake or river to learn the Tao of water that is at the heart of compassion and justice.

I used to think that finding trumped seeking, but I had it backwards. When seeking ends, what has been found rots. We should never rest on the known. What we seek is not a fixed thing to be found, but an unfolding mystery to be glimpsed. Seeking is dynamic, challenging, and rooted in questions and doubt rather than certainty and faith. Indeed, my faith is doubt, and my hope is in not knowing.

I would want a Center for Seeking that embraced doubt not as a hurdle to be overcome but as a gift to be cultivated and celebrated. My Center would be a salon for scientists, mystics, artists, writers, poets, musicians—holy rascals who are always willing to step beyond what we know. We would draw on human wisdom and experience. We would read Buddha and Blake, Ecclesiastes and Emerson, Job and Jesus, Paul and Patanjali, but we would not limit ourselves to any canon or to words alone. Math would matter alongside metaphor, and the Hubble Deep Space Field would remind us of the true holy land. We would have no creed but humility, no practice but kindness, no liturgy but wonder.

But we would have dues. You can’t have a center without dues. Well, now. This is something to ponder.