Menorahment

I’m flying to Atlanta on Friday morning, and skimming the SkyMall catalog. I never find anything to buy in the catalog, but I always find something I wish I had invented. A colostomy bag that filters urine through a lemon processor connected to a lemonade dispenser hat with disposable cups hanging off the earflaps—why didn’t I think of that?

Anyway the item that caught my eye this trip was the Menorahment or Hanukkah Tree Topper®: a plastic Star of David attached to a wire coil that fits over the top of any Christmas tree. According to SkyMall this is a “must-have for interfaith marriages.” I assume they meant “interfaith couples” seeing as interfaith marriages need nothing other than a bride and groom of differing faiths, and someone to officiate at their wedding. The purchase of the Menorahment guarantees that an interfaith couple can “celebrate the warmth and wonder of both Hanukkah and Christmas.”

I have a few problems with this item. First it is a Star of Davidment and not a Menorahment. A menorah (or more accurately a hanukkiah) is a nine-branched candelabrum and has nothing to do with a Star of David.

Second, while I have no problem with consenting adults marrying whomever (or even how many ever) they wish, I do have a problem with the assumption that interfaith marriage always means a Jew marrying a Christian. Is there no warmth and wonder for a Jain who marries a Buddhist?

Third, there is no such thing as a Hanukkah Tree, so a Hanukkah Tree Topper® is absurd. The only reason to put a Jewish Star on a Christmas tree is to honor the religion of Jesus, though this may be offensive to many who follow the religion about Jesus.

And fourth, why put a Star on top of a tree rather than a Cross on top of a hanukkiah? The official candelabrum of Hanukkah has eight candleholders, one for each night of the festival, plus a ninth holding the candle used to light the other eight. Why not make this ninth candleholder in the shape of a Cross? Given that Hanukkah and Christmas can be weeks apart, having a Crossakkiah ® as your official Hanukkiah Topper ® and a Menorahment allows the interfaith couple to botch both sacred occasions equally.

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that the Crossakkiah is my ticket to fame and fortune (who needs warmth and wonder?). So don’t be surprised if next Autumn’s SkyMall catalog features one these bad boys for the holy days.

Banned Books Week

We are in the midst of Banned Books Week, and I must confess that my feelings on banning books and other materials have changed drastically over the past few years.

There was a time when I would defend the freedom of speech and the publication of books no matter how noxious, but that time has passed. I now wish to urge the passing of a Blasphemy Law here in the United States, and, as a Jew, I will take as my model Articles 170 and 173 of the Israeli penal code:

170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object that is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.

173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment: (1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others; (2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

Here are just a few of the books that must be banned and who authors should be jailed:

The New Testament in that it blasphemes against Judaism by insisting that God had a child with a Jewish woman, and defames Jews as the spawn of Satan (John 8:44); The Qur’an in that it blasphemes against Christianity by declaring Jesus a prophet but not the Son of God, and defames both Christians and Jews; the Writings of the Baha’i Faith in that it blasphemes against Islam by denying that Mohammed is the final prophet of God; the writings of any Protestant Christians whose books defame the Catholic Church; the writings of any Catholic Christians whose books defame Protestantism; and the Book of Mormon in that it blasphemes against both Protestantism and Catholicism by insisting that the Trinity is comprised of three separate persons, and that God has a body.

The list could go on, but this is a good start. As far as jailing the authors of the books just mentioned, most of them are dead though there are plenty of living Protestant authors who defame the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon so we shouldn’t give up on jailing blasphemers.

So there you have it. Ban Judy Bloom if you must, but ban the Torah, New Testament, and Qur’an right next to her. Like all other book banning advocates, I am certain the world will be a better place without these books—with the exception of Judy Bloom’s books which we will really miss.

Pulpit Free Day

This coming Sunday, October 7^th, is Pulpit Freedom Day, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of clergy (mostly Christian) will violate the IRS ban on political endorsements by clergy of tax-exempt institutions. I support them 99%. Where I disagree is this: they want to keep their tax exempt status even as they flaunt the rules attached to it. I want them to renounce their tax exempt status.

The power to tax equals the power to destroy, and because that is thought to be true religions are protected from government intrusion by being exempted from taxes. But I don’t want religion protected from the government by the government (which of course suggests the protection is illusory at best). I want religion to take a prophetic stand against government corruption, abuse, overreach, and immorality, and it can do this best when it has some skin in the game.

Whether or not you like the result or not (and I don’t), you have to admit that Christianity in the Soviet Union, and Islam in secular Arab dictatorships like that of Mubarak’s Egypt were forces for revolutionary (or devolutionary) change. I have no doubt that if secular America really sought to destroy religion in the United States (as opposed to the faux wars on religion ginned up on Fox News), it would face no less an oppositional force than that in Communist and Muslim countries.

I will be preaching this Sunday at our local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (something I do almost monthly), but I won’t be endorsing a candidate. Here’s why:

1)   Pat Paulson isn’t running; and

2)   I’m not the leader of this community and it isn’t my place to jeopardize their relationship with the IRS.

Even if I did lead a congregation, however, I would still refrain from endorsing a candidate because I wouldn’t want to put a barrier between myself and those who might vote differently than me.

It seems to me that Pulpit Freedom Day ought to be a day when clergy urge their congregations to abandon their tax exempt status, and take their place in the trenches fighting the immorality of government without at the same time having the government protect them from taxation. Doing anything less—breaking the rules without being willing to pay the price—is cheap theatrics and cowardly.

Bibi is not my leader. Israel is not my country.

Last week on Meet the Press, host David Gregory called Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu  “the leader of the Jewish people.” At that very moment I was flying back from New Delhi where I told my audience at a world peace conference that we Jews didn’t have a leader. Who is right: Mr. Gregory or me?

I think I am. We Jews don’t have a pope or an ayatollah. We can’t even settle on one Chief Rabbi in Israel. Even when we did have one leader, Moses, we revolted! Had I lived then, I would have sided (and died) with Korah and the elders of the people who demanded a more open system of governance over Moses’ one man (him) one vote (his) leadership style.

But what would it mean if Bibi were the leader of the Jewish people? After all he got that job by being elected Israel’s Prime Minister, and most Jews, not being Israelis, are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. Would we American Jews be forced to adhere to his policies? And what would happen if Israelis voted in a liberal PM? Would we suddenly have to change our values and follow the new PM’s dictates?

Israel is a sovereign state seeking to govern through a mixture of Jewish, democratic, and socialist values. Doing so is a real challenge as these values are often in conflict with one another. It is all the more difficult when we try to define these values and discover (at least on the Jewish side) that we can’t even agree as to what they might be. I admire them for what they are trying to do, but I am not one of them.

I’m not an Israeli; I’m an American. I’m not an Israeli by choice, and I choose to stay in the United States because I believe the United States is the freer and more liberal country, and my loyalty to freedom and liberalism trumps my loyalty to Israel. I support Israel insofar as she lives up to my values (which of course I claim are the authentic Jewish values), and disagree with her when she follows some other value system (which of course claims to be the authentic Jewish values, but which of course cannot be authentic as they disagree with my values which are, as I just stated, the authentic Jewish values). If the United States becomes a Christian Nation as many if not most of my neighbors hope, I will change my mind and move. Maybe to Israel, but, given the state of Israeli politics and policies, more likely to Canada.

Whenever I say something like this I am attacked by American Jews who make the same choice I do but hate to admit it. If Bibi is your leader, if you are going to let him tell you how to vote in the American presidential election, move to Israel and vote for his political heir instead. If you think Israel is superior to the United States, become an Israeli and make it the best it can be. But if you chose to remain an American, do so proudly and vote for your choice of presidents, not Bibi’s. 

Why Vote?

I just read that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed today not to raise taxes on the rich even if President Obama wins in November. So why vote? If the system is rigged against the 99%; if the GOP is blatantly in the pocket of the mega–wealthy and devoted to their betterment and not the welfare of the country as a whole, why vote? 

First, let me say that the United States is a plutonomy, a country of, by, and for the wealthy. It has been this way for decades, and both political parties are guilty of doing the bidding of the oligarchs. I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do in the Republicans when it comes to freeing the system to promote the middle class or see to actually help lift the poor out of poverty. 

Second, I am a values voter. Since my pocketbook doesn't really matter to either party, and the economy will tank regardless of which group of oligarchs owns the politicians in power, I tend to focus on values issues: civil rights for all Americans regardless of gender, sexual preference, race, etc. being chief among them. A Republican president will tilt the Supreme Court even further to the right, making it more difficult for America to live up to the call to freedom at its heart. 

The GOP values weapons more than women. I don't. The GOP values ignorance over reason, and faith over science. I don't. The GOP fears Islam. I fear extremists of all stripes. So I will vote Democratic not because I think the Dems will lead this country to greatness, but because I think they will take longer to lead it to its doom.

Dumb and Deader

 According to a recent study, the life expectancy of white men without high school diplomas has dropped by four years since 1990. I planned to take this fact to a number of sooner to be dead uneducated white men and get their responses, but I was busy, so I simply responded for them:

“It’s a wash as far as I’m concerned. Hell, I woulda spent those four extra years in high school anyway, so what’s the loss?”

“I’m goin’ to be with Jesus when I die, and if skippin’ high school gets me there sooner, well I’m all for it.”

“I guess that means I oughta take Social Security at 62 ‘cause I might not make it four more years to 65.”