Dissension is nothing new in Jewish tradition. One of the most famous biblical disagreements is found in this week’s Torah portion, where we read about the famous controversy between Korah and Moses (Numbers 16ff.)

Yet, unlike the debates between Hillel and Shammai, which for the most part were conducted in an amicable manner, Korah’s rebellion was not predicated upon a desire to know truth, but on a ruthless “will to power.” Demagogues frequently claim to say they have the interest of the people at heart. Slogans like, “Power to the people,” are routinely heard in every election, yet which “people” are these politicians referring to?

In Jewish tradition, we celebrate diversity in every manner possible. Rabbis and their students engage themselves in perpetual debate in the Talmud. Yet, as the Sages taught us long ago, it is not what people debate about that is important. The reason for debate is more important. Arguments for the sake of truth are very important and the great debates of history regarding the beginning of human life, or the question: When does a soul enter the body? Does the order of the universe reflect the mind of a Designer? Such questions have puzzled many of the world’s greatest thinkers. Unfortunately, today, such questions get squelched in the classrooms. As teachers, we have a responsibility to evoke wonder in our students—whenever they focus on the mega-issues that pertain to the mystery of the universe and the human soul.

Conversation opens the doorway to discovering truth. It begins with two people struggling to discover answers to life’s many profound questions.

What is the purpose of a conversation? The root “converse” connotes an informal or intimate verbal interchange of thoughts, information, and feelings between two or more persons. When we converse, we are engaging in one of the quintessential features that define us as human beings.  Participating in conversation involves listening, asking questions, responding, agreeing, and disagreeing—depending on the content and context of the discussion. The fluidity of conversation moves and expands, depending on the input of its participants. Oftentimes, it involves disagreeing with the person who is conversing. I prefer to refer to this  neologism, “con-versing”. Common characteristics of a conversation typically include:

(1)   An autobiographical understanding that each party brings from his or her own life.

(2)  A personal narrative that often includes earlier conversations on a given topic.

(3)  A combination of spoken and unspoken dialogue that may influence each participant’s perspective.

(4)  An agreement to disagree in order to keep the channels of dialogue flowing. Respect is essential in any kind of communicative setting.

In short, the essence of meaningful conversation involves an element of surprise; i.e., disclosure that defies predictability in the germination of creative thought. The absence of predictability along with the flow of asymmetrical ideas allow for a creative tension and a deepening of insight; when we converse, we sense a movement towards a telos (goal) which becomes illuminated by the contrasting hues of understanding. The trajectory of a conversation may even become chaotic as new and unanticipated directions unfold that become infused with different shades of meaning and significance. For honest dialogue to occur, participants ought to shed the ego’s desire to monopolize or control the flow of thought. The beauty of conversation allows each participant to expand his/her horizon of perspective, allowing for growth and transformation of all of the participants through meaningful dialogue.

When one converses with people about the ideas of the past commentators, an interesting question occurs: Must a contemporary reader or scholar  subordinate one’s voice to the great teachers of the past? While it is important to honor and understand the great luminaries of Jewish history, one is strongly encouraged to test the veracity of any idea—regardless if the originator of a exegetical thought happens to be Rashi or Maimonides—how much more so does this truth apply to questioning and interrogating the insights of any contemporary scholar.

Rashi’s own grandson, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (a.k.a., “Rashbam,”), writes about his formative years growing up with his grandfather, Rashi—the most famous rabbinical commentator, whose works are still studied today throughout the Jewish world. As a young man, Rashbam recalls how he often had face-to-face arguments with his grandfather over his scriptural commentary.  Relentless in pursuit of the truth, Rashbam writes that his grandfather finally conceded that had he more time, he would have revised his earlier commentaries.[1] Rashi’s concession is important for he admitted that no commentator is immune to critical thought and revision. In the commonwealth of ideas, old thoughts will be supplanted by new thoughts, much as Hegel defined in his famous dialectical method of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—a concept that also resonates throughout the enormous corpus of rabbinical literature. Ideas must always be subject to a process of trial and error.

One 16th century rabbinic scholar, Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, exhibited integrity transcending the parochial world he inhabited, and called upon his readers to show an independence of thought that challenged the theological correctness of his era.  His prescription for honesty and intellectual truthfulness can certainly apply to our own generation as well:

Neither should we be concerned about the logic of others—even if they preceded us—preventing our own individual investigation. Much to the contrary, just as [our forbearers] did not wish to indiscriminately accept the truth from those who preceded them, and that which they did not choose [to accept] they rejected, so it is fitting for us to do. Only on the basis of gathering many different opinions will the truth be tested. . . . Do not be dismayed by the names of the great personalities when you find them in disagreement with your beliefs; you must investigate and interpret, because for this purpose were you created, and wisdom was granted you from Above, and this will benefit you.[2]

From R. Ashkenazi’s opinion, we may surmise that the truth can always stand up to scrutiny. Let us hope that in our search for truth, we assert positions–not to aggrandize the ego as Korah did, but in order to discover the great ideas that unite the human race.

*

[1] Rashbam’s Commentary on Genesis 37:2.

[2] Cited from Alan Dershowitz’s The Genesis of Justice (New York: Time Warner, 2000), 18-19

Almost a year ago, President Obama spoke about how his attitude regarding homosexual marriage changed over time. One year later, even the Boy Scouts of America is beginning to change its thinking. More and more states—even countries are revising their thinking.

Many people get upset when such a topic comes up. I understand that very well. However, if everyone thought exactly alike, the world would sure be a boring place. In a democratic society, the homogenization of public opinion is not always possible or even desirable. People have a right to their opinions on this subject—even if I, as a citizen, may not necessarily agree.

There is a higher issue at work here: It’s really about personal autonomy, i.e., the freedom for consensual adults to live one’s personal life without government interference. Therefore, I support anyone’s right to choose having a same-sex marriage.

In all honesty, I did not always feel this way.

Let me share a story with you. In the late 1980s, I lived in San Francisco and I was the rabbi of a Modern Orthodox congregation in the Richmond District of San Francisco. My father was a Holocaust survivor who had witnessed many terrible things in Auschwitz and Majdanek, two of the worse concentration camps of the Holocaust era. Hitler, as you may know, went after the gay community and killed approximately 15,000 in the camps. My father remembered seeing how they were treated. Their suffering left an impression upon him that he never forgot.

After settling in Alameda, CA., my father helped establish Alameda’s first Reform synagogue—Temple Israel. Well, one Sunday, I went to visit my father and he was on his way to attend a wedding. I asked him, “Where are you going?” He replied, I am going to be a witness for a gay Jewish wedding.”

Feeling surprised—even shocked—I observed, “Dad, you never cease to amaze me; you are the last person I would have ever expected to participate in a marriage ceremony, given your religious background . . .” Dad replied with a smile, “What’s the matter with you son? What’s so terrible about two human beings wanting to affirm their love and commitment to each other?”

My Father’s words left a lasting impression. He helped me to look beyond the religious barriers that tend to stigmatize or marginalize feeling people in the name of “Tradition.” Just as I mentioned earlier, same-sex unions between consenting adults is a privacy issue. Nobody—whether it is the State or the Church or synagogue—has the right to micromanage people’s personal lives.

Earlier this past week, I briefly participated on an Orthodox blog named Hirhurim, and while I was on, I was surprised to read some of the comments regarding Rabbi Elliot Dorf, who happens to be an outstanding Conservative rabbinical scholar. One person felt it was wrong to call Rabbi Dorf by his title, “Rabbi,” since he endorses gay marriages. Some of us demurred. I wrote, “Whether you recognize Rabbi Dorf as a rabbi is not the issue here; it’s really about treating those folks who have different viewpoints with respect. You cannot go wrong showing kindness to another person. One can politely agree to disagree without being disagreeable.”

As the conversation ensued, one participant quipped, “According to the Torah, homosexuality is punishable by death!” I asked him, “Can you show me a single instance in Judaism where anyone was ever executed for being a homosexual?” He had no answer. I pointed out that there are two kinds of cases where a homosexual may be executed according to the Mishnah. One case pertains to someone who is threatening to sodomize a man, i.e., homosexual rape. Alternatively, the Mishnah may be speaking of someone threatening to sodomize an underage male child (BT Sanhedrin 73a).

However, both cases appear to be only theoretical for there is no court record of any homosexual ever having been executed. In the medieval Jewish period, the death penalty was sometimes administered on an ad hoc basis—depending upon the urgency of a given situation.
In our discussion, I explained that the scriptural basis of this law most likely derives from the famous biblical story of Lot and the angels:

• But before they laid down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” (Gen 19:4-5).

Obviously, the townspeople were interested in not inviting the guests for coffee, cake or crumpets. However, one thing is motivating their behavior—a desire to show that they are in control. Homosexual rape has nothing to with love or even, “free love (for you ex-Hippies). However, it has everything to do with dominance and control. This would also explain why the Torah considers the rape of a male—”an abomination” (Lev. 20:13). Although this term is not used for cases of ordinary rape, one must remember that in a patriarchal society, sodomizing someone against his will evokes disgust and primal fear. In fact, it still does—even in the 21st century.

So, in the final analysis, what does this mean? For one thing, ancient Israel’s society differed considerably from our own. Just because Abraham and Sarah lived in tents, doesn’t mean that we should also live in tents in order to emulate their particular lifestyle. In ancient Judaism, monogamous male relationships probably did not exist, or, happened to be extremely uncommon. Greek and Roman societies were different.

In addition, I would add that there are numerous passages that we do not interpret the Torah literally. The Torah tells us to “circumcise the foreskin of our hearts” (Deut. 10:16). Yet, I do not know of any fundamentalist who would interpret this passage literally; if he did, he would be a fool. In fact, the rabbis frequently refused to interpret biblical legislation pertaining to the death penalty literally because of their concern for the social welfare of the community. We do not stone people for adultery either. If we did, a sizable portion of our society would be dead by now.

Unlike the Fundamentalists of the evangelical community, which tends to focus on the literalism of biblical truth, Jewish tradition has long argued that exegetical interpretations are derived contextually as well. Evangelical scholars often derive the prohibition against same-sex marriage from the biblical passage, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 24:25).

While it is true the Genesis passage speaks of a marriage between a man and a woman who create new life, one must remember that marriage is not only for the sake of siring children. The emotional bond of marriage, i.e., “becoming one flesh” can also mean a fully monogamous life that involves sharing and caring to one another. Marriage is the most profound connection that binds two human beings as they face good and sorrowful times together. Each partner is always present supporting the other. “One flesh,” entails a lifelong, exclusive attachment of one person to another—both physically and spiritually; this sharing involves a willingness to eliminate all the barriers that keeps their hearts apart from one another.

In summary, a contextual reading of the Torah dealing with homosexuality allows for a more elastic postmodern interpretation that could conceivably permit same-sex marriages.
One last question arises: Is it Halachic?

The answer depends largely upon one’s definition of “halacha.” Briefly stated, Halacha is never monolithic; Halacha is not a static system. Halacha allows for a radical re-visioning of Jewish law based upon the ever-changing social circumstances. Hillel, for example, permitted people to circumvent the agricultural laws of the Sabbatical Year—despite the fact scripturally speaking—all debts are cancelled.

People who have committed suicide used to be buried in the outer parameters of a Jewish cemetery as a sign of disgrace. Today, psychoanalysis has completely altered our understanding of suicide, which often has physical or psychological causes that the early rabbinical authorities could never imagine possible.

Similarly, most of the rabbis of the Talmud did not understand or legislate against pedophilia, but given what we now know about this terrible social and psychological disease, we would be foolish to rely on the views of Sages that lived almost 2000 years ago who thought molesting a child was harmless. Women never voted in biblical times; today, despite the fact that many Halachic scholars think it is biblically forbidden for women to participate in an election or even run for a political office (see the Woman’s Suffrage debate of the early 20th century in the halachic literature.

Continue Reading

How the Haredim Saved Jerusalem

“Without these Haredim, Israel would probably have lost all of Jerusalem in 1948 rather than only part. Yet had it depended on their rabbis, the city would have fallen: It survived because ordinary Haredim were less religiously extreme (and perhaps more Zionist) than their leaders.”

Haredi fighters  in Israel’s  1948 War

 Haredim fighting along their brothers in 1948?

You might wonder: Are you serious?

Yes I am–dead serious.

Yes, a picture says more than a thousand words.

A remarkable article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post Premium Edition that surprised many people—especially the Haredim. The writer is Evelyn Gordon and she did a fine job talking about one of my favorite rabbinical heroes—Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren.

Rabbi Shlomo Goren was one of a kind. He had the personality of a Hollywood celebrity. Goren had an original mind and knew how to think outside the box. Besides being a brilliant Talmudic and Halachic scholar, he had a vast knowledge of classical literature and used the entire corpus of Judaic literature to make his points in Halacha.

Many years ago, when I was a student in yeshiva (rabbinical school), I was amazed how Shlomo Goren examined the texts of the Pseudepigrapha as easily as he would interpret the Talmud. For me, personally, Rabbi Goren made a lasting impression and whenever I study the Talmud, I try to use the same tools that he used in my interpretation of modern and classical Jewish problems.

In addition, R. Goren was also a paratrooper who was proud of the Israeli soldier—quite a contrast with the kind of Chief Rabbis we see in Israel today.

Evelyn Gordon quotes a story, from Rabbi Shlomo Goren’s autobiography.

• During the War of Independence, Goren, the IDF’s first chief rabbi, was summoned one Friday morning by the army’s commander in Jerusalem. Army intelligence had just learned that Jordanian tanks would invade central Jerusalem at 11 A.M. on Saturday. Jerusalem had no weaponry that could stop a tank column, the commander said, so the only chance was to dig trenches to bar their path. But since Jordan was shelling the area constantly by day, they could only be dug after sundown, thereby violating Shabbat. Moreover, his soldiers were all fighting at the front and couldn’t be spared, so the only men available were haredi yeshiva students who hadn’t enlisted.
• Could Goren recruit them?Jewish law mandates violating Shabbat to save lives, and both Goren and then-Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Herzog agreed this situation qualified. But they feared the students wouldn’t accept their rulings. Herzog therefore sent Goren to the rabbi of Neturei Karta – who flatly forbade violating Shabbat, especially since “it won’t help anyway: The city will fall.”So, Goren decided to appeal directly to the students. He went from yeshiva to yeshiva, explained the situation and requested volunteers – and at each, including the Neturei Karta yeshivas, every hand in the room went up.
• That night, over 1,000 haredi yeshiva students dug trenches in Jerusalem. Saturday morning, the first three Jordanian tanks hit those trenches and overturned. The rest turned tail and fled.Without these haredim, Israel would probably have lost all of Jerusalem in 1948 rather than only part. Yet had it depended on their rabbis, the city would have fallen: It survived because ordinary haredim were less religiously extreme (and perhaps more Zionist) than their leaders.
• Today, most haredim are still more moderate, and more Zionist, than their leaders. Yet this story probably couldn’t happen today, because it depended on the students not knowing their rabbi disapproved: Unable to traverse the besieged city to consult him, they had to decide for themselves. Today, they would simply telephone. And once told “no,” they wouldn’t disobey. To haredim, their rabbis’ rulings are daas Torah (the Torah’s opinion), and therefore can’t be questioned – regardless of how often they’ve proven wrong.…

What a refreshing article!

It’s like the old Latin song, “Pics don’t lie” (I hope Shakira doesn’t mind I took a little poetic license with her famous song and music video).

Yes, the above picture says it all.

It is hard to believe that the Haredim served in the Israeli army; it is even harder to imagine the important role they played in keeping Jerusalem Jewish. We can only hope and encourage today’s Haredim in Israel to look back at their forbearers and see them as a real model worthy of emulation.

Monsters never cease to strike fear in the imagination of people. Western culture has a morbid fascination for these creatures. Whether it be a vampire or a werewolf, or just another variation of the old Frankenstein story—monsters resemble human beings, and yet they represent something that is completely “Other” from us.

With respect to vampires and werewolves, they are drawn to blood. They feed off of life. Attacking people, tearing at human flesh—all with the intent to kill, represent some of the most primal impulses that reflect the most primitive stages of human evolution and moral development. According to folklore, vampires and werewolves in particular are adept in shape-shifting and are capable of morphing into any contemporary society. When watching these old movies on the silver screen, we like to think we have conquered these demonic beings. However, in the modern era, we can always count on some new incarnation of evil to manifest itself anew.

However, the real monsters don’t look like those depicted in the movies–they look like you and me.

Just as many people get in touch with their “inner child,” so too there are some people in our society who are more comfortable in getting in touch with their “inner beast.” According to Jungian psychology, the “inner beast” represents the Shadow archetype—i.e., the hidden, buried, and repressed part of the personality that most of us would prefer to keep buried in the depths of the human psyche. Conventional principles of ethics helps us keep these anti-social urges in check. However, religious fanaticism has encouraged these powerful psychological forces to manifest itself into consciousness.

Religious fanaticism and intolerance of the Other—as seen in Jihadist Islam (but not just Islam per se)—is an atavistic force that threatens the world with nuclear destruction. When one considers the kind of attack that took place in London, where two British Muslims carved and beheaded an English soldier as though he were a piece of meat, we are in very serious trouble. For once I would love to see 100,000 Muslims make a rally and condemn such barbarity. For once, I would love to hear Imams issue public fatwas against these murderous thugs. For once, I would love to hear that suicide bombers be denied a ritual burial in a Muslim cemetery. For once, I would love to see the Muslims of the West grow a spine and show some genuine courage and condemn the religious crazies that commit mayhem against young women for not dressing properly.

As Jews, we remember Daniel Perl, who was beheaded by Al Qaeda. Such a fate awaits all the Jews of Israel if the Jihadists of Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran have their way. They are the new and improved Nazis of our time. Jihadist Muslims are willing to sacrifice their own people to kill innocents in the name of Jihadists theology. Al Qaeda’s modus operandi of killing “non-believers” has become the hallmark of their atavistic religion. The fate of the “infidels” can be ours also–if we allow this diabolical excuse for a “religion” to spread its influence and mayhem in our country.

There is something else hideous about the London attack. The crazed Jihadists did not run away; instead, they waved their blood-stained hands in the faces of the London people passing by. They boldly said, “We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. The British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!”

It’s time for all of us to be honest with ourselves.

Isolated attacks like we saw in London only reflect part of the problem. Jihadism is inspiring homegrown terror cells like we saw a few weeks ago at the Boston Marathon. However, the problem is more systemic. Jihadist Islam is a far greater menace than Nazism ever was precisely because it uses religious passion to fuel its conquest of the West. Iran is attempting to build a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons—dozens and dozens within a short spate of time.

We would be wise to remember how Islam Jihadists destroyed over 80 million people in the medieval era in the sub-continent of India. With the help of modern technology, we must realize that the human destructiveness of this Jihadist Islam poses continental genocides to an unsuspecting and naive humanity.

Doing nothing is never an option.

When religion inspires people to become human monsters, the civilized world must first recognize that a danger really exists; then they must take a stand against these demonic forces that threaten not just the people of London—but all humanity.

For all my friends and readers in Egypt and in Iran, I encourage you to fight any government that wishes to impose Sharria Law upon its people. Such a barbarian and antiquated system of government belongs in the dustbin of history. Fight for your freedom. Fight not just for the freedom of religion–to worship as you wish to choose–but you must fight for the freedom to be free from religion. You are not alone in this battle. We have similar fanatics in Israel, but fortunately, the Israeli people are taking a political stand against them–just like you must do as well against the fanatics who have infested your faith. 

A tornado flattened much of the town of Moore, Oklahoma with gale winds exceeding over 300 miles an hour. This was not the first time tornadoes visited the area of Oklahoma, better known as “Tornado Alley.” In 1998, 2003, and 2010, smaller tornadoes left their mark on the communities in the Oklahoma City vicinity.

So far, the death count is at 24 and many are still missing. Among the victims, nine of those killed were children—which makes the catastrophe ever more tragic. Over 100 survivors were rescued from the rubble. So far, about 240 people were injured.

The twister was frightening to see; it was 17 miles long, and 1.3 miles wide.

People of faith inevitably wonder: Where was God in this disaster?

Of course, one could ask this question whenever a natural catastrophe occurs. The Torah says that God got out of the flood business, but the recent tsunamis of South East Asia would probably beg to differ.  The Torah says nothing about God getting out of the tornado business.

One might wonder: Why does God allow natural disasters to occur in the world? Isn’t enough that we have to deal with moral evil? Is it reasonable that we should also be responsible for the natural catastrophes that occur in the world too?

In Late Antiquity, the philosopher Epicurus likewise fleshes out the cognitive dissonance people experience when contemplating the problem of God’s justice and fairness in the face of evil in the world:

1. Is God unable to prevent evil?

2. Is God unwilling to prevent evil?

3. If God is able and willing to prevent evil, then where does evil come from?

4. If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then why do we call him “god”?

Unfortunately, Epicurus did not differentiate between moral vs. natural evil. Nevertheless, his questions are nuanced.  More to the point: Is all natural evil directly or indirectly due to moral evil? The moral and theological debate came back with a Jobian vengeance when the Lisbon earthquake struck in 1759, many skeptics wondered how God could allow such a devastating disaster to strike. From the modern critical perspective, the story of the Flood raises serious issues regarding the relationship between natural evil, commonly referred to as “acts of God,” and God’s justice.  In the case of moral evil, the impact felt by the victim is identifiable and with the help of the law, the perpetrator(s) can be brought to justice. Nevertheless, natural evil poses a different kind of problem. One cannot subpoena an earthquake, tornado, or a fire, or a disease after they strike. When natural evil strikes, the effects leave for the most part, little positive benefits with nobody to blame—except God.

After the Lisbon earthquake, the French philosopher Voltaire articulated his own brand of Epicurean doubt. Voltaire wondered how religious people could still refer to God as “benevolent” or “loving” after the death of so many thousands of innocents. In response to Voltaire’s criticism, his fellow Frenchman, Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that human beings must take the primary responsibility for what happened during the Lisbon earthquake. Poorly designed structural buildings, along with a lack of thoughtful urban planning and human error, played a role in the corporate damage the earthquake caused. A superiorly designed city might have suffered much less casualties and death. [1]

Might the same argument be said about community leaders who deliberately build their homes in an area known for its deadly twisters? Jean Jacques Rousseau would probably argue that there is some degree of human culpability in this instance.

Jewish tradition has its own unique response.  One Midrashic text speaks about the imperfection of this world. Nowhere does the Bible say God created a “perfect world,” but rather, God created an imperfect world that requires human beings to perfect it.

• A Roman general named Turnus Rufus once asked R. Akiba, “Whose works are more superior—those of the Holy One or those of flesh and blood?” R. Akiba said: Obviously, those of deeds performed by flesh and blood are lovelier!  Turnus Rufus replied: Oh really? Take heaven and earth—can man make anything like them?   R. Akiba: Do not speak to me of matters that are beyond human capability; speak to me about matters that are in the range of human power.” R. Akiba brought Rufus ears of grain and delicate breads and said, “The ears of grain are the work of the Holy One, the breads the work of flesh and blood–are not the loaves of bread more comely?” R. Akiba also brought him flax stalks and garments made in Beth-shean, and said, “The first are the work of God; the second, the work of man. Are not the garments more to be admired?” Rufus: Why do you have yourselves circumcised? R. Akiba: I knew that you were going to ask me this question. That is why I anticipated you by saying, “The works of flesh and blood are lovelier than those of the Holy One.”  Rufus: “Assuming that He desires circumcision, why does not  the infant emerge from his mother’s womb already circumcised?” [2] R. Akiba: “Why does the umbilical cord emerge with the infant? Should not the mother have had the infant’s umbilical cord cut off [in the womb]? As to your question of why an infant does not emerge circumcised, it is because the Holy One gave the precepts to Israel to purify them.” [3]

In Rabbi Akiba’s deep response, only people can transform the chaos of the world into an orderly cosmos; God limits His power so that people might step up and eliminate suffering wherever and whenever possible. When people act in the highest  interest of the human family by sending food, clothing, medicine, and money to those who suffer from a natural catastrophe—we are responding with compassion. In my opinion, this seems to be the only logical response to the problems of natural evil. With respect to human evil, we are totally responsible when it comes to eradicating human generated evil. In the final analysis, whether it is natural or moral evil—we need to spiritually grow up and take total responsibility in how we confront the forces of chaos that seek to unravel our lives.

===============

In the medieval era, jesters played an important role in the courts of kings. Aside from the comic relief that they provide, they point out the asymmetrical aspects that exist within society and our inner lives. Jesters, like fools and clowns, have a boldness of spirit that does not yield to the norms of conventionality. They confront us with the absurdities that we often consciously deny. In modern times, the comic’s sharp acerbic tongue also serves to keep us cynical of leaders who claim to have the country’s best interests at heart.

Throughout all cultures around the world, the comic intrudes upon our perceived notions of order, where business is as usual. By laughing at them, we also laugh at ourselves. The comic forces us to look at the mega issues that we too often consciously deny and refuse to see. Bravely and with impunity, the comic or fool mocks the machinations of religious orders; treating its leaders with an irreverence that makes even the religiously devout aware of the grotesque realities of their religious lives.

With this thought in mind, the comic today plays an extremely important role in the repressed parts of the Arab world, which aims to stifle freedom of speech. One of the most unexpected voice of freedom of speech in Egypt comes from a heart surgeon who has embraced humor and satire as a means of critiquing the Muslim Brotherhood. This man’s name is Dr. Bassem Youseff.

In a free country like the United States, we are used to comics satirizing the antics and hypocrisies of presidents and politicians alike. In Egypt, Bassem Yousseff has emerged as one of the most important champions fighting for the right of free speech. He is known as the Egyptian version of Jon Stewart. Stepping on toes is what Youssef does best in the political arena.Youssef made international headlines recently when an Egyptian court ordered his arrest for insulting Islam and the nation’s president, Mohamed Morsi, as part of a wider crackdown on dissent. Some of the Morsi lawyers tried to ban Yousseff’s show for  insulting Morsi and for making sexual innuendos was thrown out by a Cairo judge in early April on grounds of free speech. His language on the show is unabashedly pedestrian. He tells it exactly the way it is. After he returned home from his arrest, he said that he hoped that they would arrest him every day–”It’s great for the ratings.”

Jon Stewart wrote about Youssef for this year’s list of the 100 most influential people for TIME Magazine,  praising his counterpart’s ability to find humor in the most direst of situations: “Yet even under these difficult circumstances, he manages to produce an incredible show: a hilarious blend of mimicry, confusion, outrage and bemusement, highlighting the absurdities and hypocrisies of his country’s rebirth.”

His show is the most widely watched television program watched in Egypt alike. He has a huge following throughout the Arab world. One young Arab woman, dressed in a very traditional Muslim dress spoke about how Yousseff inspires people like her and others to speak their minds. Another fan from Saudi Arabia, who has his own radio show, thanks Youssef for giving him the courage to speak about the listless spiritual lives of people living in Mecca.

Often times, people ask Youseff, “Aren’t you afraid of what might happen to you or your family?” He boldly answers, “If I show fear today, then I will show fear tomorrow.”

Youseff is convinced that the power of the Internet and YouTube will ultimately win the minds of the people. He said, “YouTube and the Internet are the keys to changing the world . . . You cannot take this away.” Although governments will always try to limit the freedom of speech, arguing that they are trying to act in the moral interest of the public, in reality the solution is simple: “The key is not less speech, it is more speech . . .”

On the subject of religion, Youseff says openly that he is proud to be a Muslim. However, without missing a heartbeat, he points out how the Islamic religion has been hijacked by the religious fanatics. “Indeed,” he adds, “this is not only a problem affecting the Muslim world, we see this same problem in the fundamentalist Christian world, and among the Orthodox Jewish communities, where religious fanatics seek to control the minds of their followers, forcing them to accept their religious tyranny.”

In one show, Bassem Youssef discussed his decision to host an openly gay performer on his “El Bernameg” satirical news program. Of his experience with Mashrou Leila, which is lead by gay frontman Hamed Sinno, Youssef recalled, “I heard their songs and I didn’t ask about his orientation … Did we discuss [his] being openly gay on the show? We didn’t.”

Just in case you did not know, the mad Jihadists and their cohorts stone homosexuals on a daily basis, whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Just ask the Saudis, the Iranians, and the Taliban.

He continues his attacks on the Morsi government with complete impunity. One suspects that the Muslim Brotherhood is terrified of this man–and for good reason.

Youseff’s fearless style of satire is relentless; he uses the words of Morsi and others to remind the Egyptian people that they did not sacrifice so much in order to restore a new dictator or Pharaoh upon the Egyptian people.

After watching numerous shows, I came to realize that the power of One man or woman can shake down the foundations of tyranny. If our State Department had any common sense, it would start investing money in supporting more comics like Bassem Youssef, who has proven that the comical word is mightier than the sword.

For anyone interested in watching Bassem in action, check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUNT4kzM_G4&feature=endscreen

or:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/bassem-youssef-al-bernameg-egypt-arab-jon-stewart/5175d87bfe3444602d00038a

Are all societies deserving of equal respect? Multiculturalists would like to have us believe that they are all equally worthy.

The answer depends on what we are talking about. It is difficult for me to say that Chinese or Kosher cuisine is superior to Middle Eastern or American; this same observation may apply to fashion and art.

However, when we apply this to the principles of democratic values and history, this where we must draw the line. Societies that devalue women because they are women will never be on par with Western societies that protect the rights of women. The same applies no less to the rights of homosexuals. Islamic countries that stone homosexuals to death cannot be compared to societies that protect their rights for autonomy and happiness.

In several Western countries, e.g., Canada, the U.S., and other Westernized countries that accept a continuous stream of immigrants from non-Western societies, multiculturalism is actively inhibiting the melting pot that enables minorities to integrate and assimilate into their host countries. More and more multiculturalists are insisting that the host country adapt their countries to accommodate their unique societies. Not only does such errant thinking virtually ensure ethnic conflict, it undermines the principles that structure liberal democracies.

In the case of Islamicists, creating miniature communities where Sharia Law governs the lives of its members ensures that the coals of religious bigotry and intolerance will intensify and ultimately squelch any progressive voices that seek change and accommodation to American values. Islamicists are at war against any society or movement from within its ranks that promotes freedom of speech. Islamicists consider equal rights of men and women as modern day blasphemy. Many Islamicists are invested in maintaining an ideological war with other religious and secular groups. For the Islamicist, infidels are not worthy of being treated with the spirit of peace and tolerance.

Anyone who critiques the faith of Islam is an heretic worthy of death–just ask Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses.

How can any sane person say that this kind of barbaric world view ought to be treated as an equal in the civilized world?

One of the relatively more Westernized Arab countries in the world is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The music is definitely Westernized and resembles America’s MTV. I have personally enjoyed watching these programs at my Palestinian friend’s Middle Eastern Restaurant.

Although UAE has  impressive discotheques, mixed beaches, and other Western amenities, there is still an undercurrent of Islamic fundamentalism that is dangerous to women in particular, who happen to be working or vacationing there.

A young and attractive Australian Alicia Gali made the mistake of taking a job in the UAE hotel, Starwood. One night, three of her Arab male co-workers spiked her drink and raped her for several hours. Waking up alone and naked, she took a taxi to the local hospital. What she didn’t realize is that according to the UAE strict Sharria Laws, “if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.

After serving eight months, the courts pardoned her and sent her home in March 2009.

Does anyone with a modicum of natural intelligence still think Sharria Law is something desirable to see in the United States?

Although Dubai has made considerable strides in attempting to embrace Western culture, their draconian leadership probably has at least two generations or more to free themselves from the Islamic shackles that spits in the face of liberty and individual freedom. To my brothers and sisters in Egypt who are fighting for true freedom and reform, I encourage you to challenge and fight the Muslim Brotherhood and the other garden varieties of Jihadist insanity that threatens the well-being of all peaceful people in the civilized world.

The story about Alicia Gali is very similar to what happened a couple of years ago to the CBS correspondent  Lara Logan when she was covering the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a “60 Minutes” story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy. The Jihadists mobs attacked her, stripping her of her clothes and mercilessly gang-raped her. Had it not been for a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers, she probably would have been killed.

No, not all cultures or religions are equal in the world. Western countries must do everything in their power to see that its immigrant populations are assimilated into the Western mainstream.

Fundamentalists of all religions who oppress women must be held accountable in the forum of justice and truth. The time has come for American women’s groups to take the streets along with the Gay and Lesbian communities to confront the evils of Sharria Law that is oppressing millions of innocent people in the Middle East, and in any other country that is stupid enough to give it respectability.

Last and not least, I want to add that the Jewish community has its own Jewish variety of Jihadism, which we see unfolding in Israel today with the fanatical Haredim. In Israel, for example, we saw how the Women of the Wall won a remarkable civil rights case that protects their rights to pray as a prayer community at the Western Wall—much to the chagrin of the Haredim and the Hasidim.

For those of you who support Chabad in particular, guess which side Chabad is on all of these issues pertaining to the Haredim? Yes, they are consistently against the forces of modernity, yet, liberal American Jews–engulfed in the multicultural mire of foolishness–continue to support Chabad without thinking about the morality of their financial behavior. This same observation applies no less to American Haredism.

The real war in the Middle East is between those countries who wish to embrace the civilization of democracy vs. those who are determined to bring the world back to the Dark Ages.

For you my readers, it’s time to choose which side you are on.

For over two decades, the fight for women’s participation at the Western Wall has finally received its day in court. The Israeli District Court ruled that the women have the right to gather at the Western Wall and pray there as they wish; this decision opened the doorway for bat mitzvah celebrations, and other special life-cycle events.

As one might expect, the Haredi and Hassidic population is up and arms about this decision. The Women of the Wall and all their supporters felt elated—as well they should.

Israeli policemen opened the paths on the right and the left, as throngs of Haredi men and women sneered and threw refuse at the women making their way to pray—as a community for the first time in open sunlight. But this time it was different. It used to be that whenever women wearing prayer shawls to the monthly service, they would be arrested for breaking a law that outlawed any deviation from “local custom” at the wall. Police arrested three Haredi protesters, and a police spokesman said more arrests may be in the offing as police review video.

Imagine women wrapped in prayer shawls, singing as a community!

Haredi Jews’ misogyny became more evident when they jeered at the women to, “Go back to Germany,” and they did not hesitate to throw stones at the busses that brought the women to the wall.

In the past, the police deliberately let the Haredim run amok; women in the past were even arrested for wearing a tallit. But this time was different. The Jerusalem District Judge Sobel ruled that the police had a responsibility and duty to protect the women and let them pray at the main plaza and the police did exactly that—they protected the women.

Interestingly, over 6000 Haredi seminary girls crowded the plaza at the behest of the Haredi rabbis—something that was unprecedented. Remarkably, the young women watched in disbelief and made do with a silent prayer as their form of protest.[1] Yet, when compared to the vociferous reaction of the Haredi men on the other side, one must wonder whether the 6000 young seminary women stood in awe and in solidarity with their brave sisters of this historical event.

I suspect that many silently did.

In their own quiet way, these 6000 young women probably  wanted to be part of Jewish history in the making.

=====

=====

Notes

[1]  Read more: http://www.jta.org/2013/05/10/news-opinion/haredi-orthodox-youth-mob-western-wall-to-protest-womens-prayer-service#ixzz2SwEMt9tO