Recently in News Category

Who are the nation's 50 most influential Jews? The Forward has published this year's list -- they call it the Forward 50. But what does it mean? What is an "influential Jew"? Is it the same as someone who wields influence Jewishly, based on Jewish values? Is it someone who has influence over Jews? Does anyone make these distinctions?

As I read the list, I wonder if it's even an appropriate endevour. Is this a manifestation of appropriate ethnic-religious pride or an example of some wierd tribalism that simply enjoys that "one of ours" has made the headlines?

Do other religious groups make lists like this? Where are they found?

What is the relationship between ethics and ethnicity? How does any group balabce it's committment to itself and its committment to others? This cut to the very heart of the celelbration of Jewish Peoplehood, a concept that I do support. On the other hand, if a group is simply about its own perpetuation, do they really need to exist?

What do you think?

At first blush, the idea that a couple is divorcing over a husband's flirtations with a virtual woman may sound funny. But if we take online communication seriously, and respect the power of imagination, there is nothing funny about it. In fact, it is simply a new manifestation of a problem that has been known to spiritual teachers for centuries. But first a bit of background.

A woman in England is seeking a divorce because her husband's virtual altar ego, known as an avatar, has been carrying on a virtual affair with some other person's avatar in the fantasy game known as Second Life. They are not the first couple to end up divorcing over this kind of occurrence. The attorney who is handling the wife's complaint remarked that it was the second such case that came to her desk in the last week alone. And why not?

If people can fall in love online, why would the other online relationships that they have be any less real? In the case of this English couple, the fantasy world of Second Life is so real to them, that they (their avatars? At some point, it's hard to know the difference) went so far as to get married in the context of the game.

And that is why this is no laughing matter. For people who take this kind of game seriously, the ethical obligations of playing must be taken seriously as well. It's really no different from the fact that in some cultures, polygamy is not experienced as cheating, but for most of us, it would be. It's not simply that our traditions and our laws forbid it. We would feel that the intimacy of our primary relationship had been breached. That is what cheating is all about. And that is what the wife experienced in their relationship.

The husband was cheating virtually, not virtually cheating. And between those two, there lies a world of difference.

Saudi King, Abdullah Abdul Aziz al Saud, spoke this week at the UN. His remarks about the dignity of religious difference sparked global controversy. Is this part of a new world in which the custodian of Islam's holy places advocates for religious liberty and the individual's right to choose their faith, including no faith at all?

Or is it the cynical ploy of a powerful leader pushing a Trojan horse into the General Assembly, one which sacrifices genuine spiritual freedom in the name of respect for a few specific faiths? Probably a bit of both. But the upside potential far outweighs the downside risk, so we should greet this effort with joy, if cautiously so.

Many, including Donald Argue and Leonard Leo in the Christian Science Monitor, claim that all of King Abdullah's work bringing global faith leaders together is nothing more than a ploy to rally support for a global blasphemy law. The idea being that the faithful of many traditions can be enlisted to work for passage of a global law that would limit religious freedom and spiritual expression to parameters agreed upon by a select group of religious authorities. The passage of such a statute would be a disastrous mistake.

A global blasphemy law (the legal import of which is dubious, even if it were to be passed) would fly in the face of the personal liberty which most Americans, at least, treasure. But the idea of such a law may be, in fact, a part of the king's agenda. Based on my personal experience with most religious leaders, including many here at home, it probably makes a great deal of sense to them. Most religious people in the world imagine that seeking good belief is more important than assuring the freedom to believe, even bad things. But that fact should not keep us from welcoming the king's actions. Here's why.

The long-simmering dispute between Jewish leaders, particularly the children of Holocaust survivors, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) is boiling over. And as is often the case, the issue at hand is not really the problem. It's merely the battleground being used by each side to pursue a whole other agenda. That is probably why the two groups are talking past each other, with neither side getting any satisfaction.

In case you didn't know, LDS has a standing practice of performing posthumous conversions. That's right; they convert people after they have died. Basically it boils down to their desire to keep families together in the after-life.

Mormons believe that when they die they will be reunited with family members who were faithful Mormons. Thus, church members have a solemn obligation to identify the deceased -- especially those who weren't Mormons -- and baptize them by proxy to give them the option of accepting Christ and becoming Mormon in the afterlife.

So the Mormon's practice is a kind of twisted double whammy, which offers the wrong solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. But that is not how church leaders see it at all. They think that they are doing these souls a favor, making what they call a "freewill offering" which "should not be a source of friction to anyone". Are they kidding?

It's not that I doubt the sincerity of the LDS leadership, but it's hard to understand how they miss the implication of what they are doing or why it might be deeply painful to the families of those whom they have converted. It's hard to understand how they miss the perceived ugliness of anything that even smacks of forced conversion, especially for people who have been forcibly converted or died resisting such efforts for two thousand years.

So why do they keep at it? Are they that mean-spirited? I don't think so. They look so clean cut and speak so nicely when they offer their faith in the world. So what's really going on?

Proposition 8, the California initiative defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman was voted into law by a 52% majority and black voters favored that outcome by a margin of 70%. In fact, Evangelical Christians were the only numerically significant demographic to favor Prop 8 by a larger margin - 80%. Those statistics leave many astounded at the seeming incongruity of one minority being so hostile to another. But it's far from clear that is a fair analysis of the facts.

Why is opposition to Prop 8 synonymous with homophobia, as many insist? According to news reports, proudly gay music star, Elton John, favors civil unions over gay marriages. Is he a homophobe?

Is there no room for people who have genuine concern about the rights of gay people, yet maintain reservations about redefining marriage, the definition of which has been largely agreed upon in the Western world for 1,000 years? Perhaps that kind of redefinition would be better accomplished in a healthier way through a longer process of consensus building that through a polarizing political fight.

Admittedly, were I voting in California, I would probably have voted against Prop 8, favoring a civil definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples. Yet, in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I am also a rabbi who refrains from officiating at the marriages of same-sex couples. And before the extremists on both sides call, "hypocrite", I will explain my rationale.