Brad Hirschfield: February 2009 Archives

President Obama's newly released budget is a bold and massive affair. Is it the best thing for the country? No one can be sure. Is there wasteful spending, about equally divided between Republicans and Democrats? Yes. Did it make a mistake in its approach to charitable giving in America? In my opinion that would have to be a "yes" as well.

Under this budget, Americans making $250,000 or more a year are going to see the deduction value of their charitable donations go down from 35% to 28%. So, for example, a person making a $10,000 contribution to a charity would, under the Obama proposal, receive a tax deduction of $2800, as opposed to $3500. Does that really matter? It sure does!

Just as we are being told that recovery will require an unprecedented partnership between the public and the private sector, the administration devalues individual charity. That is not smart and it is not right. Diretor Orzag and his crew of what my friend Nathan Diament of the OU's Institute for Public Affairs calls, the "green eye shade folks" (apparently that's slang for accountants, and since I just learned that, I thought I would share) really messed up on this one.

Anyone concerned about the coercive use of religion should find these two stories interesting - upsetting but interesting. And anyone not concerned about the coercive use of religion in the world today, should read a paper.

Both the United States Supreme Court and that of Israel have ruled in two cases one in each country, involving the religious rights of minority citizens. In each case it seems that they have relied on technicalities to reach pretty crazy and perhaps deeply damaging results.

The Obama administration has repeatedly commented on its desire to engage Iran more constructively. And while the possibility of success can be debated, it seems that failing to try would only guarantee the current unacceptable status quo. The New York Times' Roger Cohen returned from a trip to Iran and reaches similar conclusions, but for very bad reasons -- ones which suggest the acceptability of racial and religious bias which should never be acceptable.

Cohen is correct about both the failure of what he calls Green Zoneism, advancing Middle East policy based on the conditions and partners we wished existed instead of those who really do. But basing his conclusions on his experiences in Esfahan's Palestine square could not be more wrong. He reports on the lives of Jews who admit that they live, in their own words, as a "tolerated" minority. Hardly something which either Mr. Cohen or anybody else should find comforting.

Jews in Iran live as a permanent underclass that must constantly prove their loyalty to the nation in which they live by shouting the loudest about the actions of fellow Jews in other countries. They are like German Jews in WWI, who were especially proud of the French and English Jews they killed because it demonstrated that they were "really" German. That's tragic. It's shameful to see it repeated in the 21st century and hardly the basis upon which to build a new and smarter foreign policy.

It's not that I believe Cohen's informants were insincere in their comments to him; simply that they were coerced, either overtly or more subtly.

75% of those surveyed said that they opposed the sale of land in Jerusalem to Christian organizations that would build churches there, according to a just released survey conducted by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and the Jerusalem Center for Jewish-Christian Relations. The survey studied Israeli Jewish Views of Christians and Christianity and got responses to a variety of questions, including which religion is closest to Judaism. According to 41% those responding, the answer is Christianity. According to 32%, the answer is Islam. What do you think?

Let's conduct a highly interesting, if not scientifically sophisticated survey of our own. Please answer the following questions from the survey and I will tabulate your responses.

Jewish and other sacred texts are more available in more languages to more people than at any time in human history. This leads to greater democratization of faith, which is a good thing. But the ready availability of such material can also make it easier for us to read alone, and that is not so good.

Reading sacred texts alone, for both clergy and laypeople, is a bit like masturbation - it's safe and fun, but not likely to be as productive as sex with a partner. And before anyone misconstrues this analogy, in no way do I endorse the notion that all human sexuality should have the potential to create a life. Jewish tradition, as understood by almost all authorities, approves of many, if not all forms of birth control. But in both the bedroom and in the study hall, it prefers partnerships to solo acts.

Both sex and study are understood as acts of discovery.