Recently in Politics Category

Jewish support for initiatives addressing co-existence among all citizens of the State of Israel, both Jewish and Arab, has gone mainstream. Is this a good thing or not? Depends on whom you ask.

Last week's unanimous endorsement of the cause by American Jewry's largest religious movement, at the biennial conference in Toronto of the Union for Reform Judaism, was the latest sign that Jewish support for Israeli-Arab causes has become popular. But such support is not limited to Reform Jews.

Activists from secular to Orthodox have taken up this cause, though there is no doubt that the numbers skew in one direction - and it isn't toward the traditional community. That disturbs me personally, but should not actually be an issue in the debate about the wisdom of this trend.
It seems to me that this is ultimately an issue about which those on the left and the right, both politically and religiously, ought to agree.

The uproar over President Obama's bow before Japanese Emperor Akihito refuses to die down. As soon as it happened, it brought to mind the Biblical Book of Esther, and the story of Mordechai refusing to bow down to Haman. As in the case of the President, although much emotion is evoked by the story, one wonders why it is such a big deal.

Although Mordechai's refusal to bow before Haman is viewed as a heroic defense of Jewish pride and identity in the face of overwhelming power, it may well have been a needlessly obstinate decision to make a point in public, even if such point-making is neither wise nor called for. Very early on, the Sages noticed this and felt compelled to provide a reason for Mordechai's refusal.

Any time the citizens of a state, particularly a democracy, invoke their faith to pray for the demise of those they oppose politically, we should be concerned. When the call for such prayers becomes one of the most popular Google searches in the country, we should shake, especially those of us who believe in God, prayer and the Bible. Psalm 109, verse 8, went viral this morning in just that way.

Among the world's top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words "Psalms 109 8", and "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama". For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads "May his days be few, may another take over his position." And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".

In light of events at Fort Hood, pretty much everybody from President Obama in his remarks about the murders and the role of religion in them, to an earlier posting of mine right here on Windows and Doors, is talking about faith and the armed forces. So I ask, does God have a role in the military? Here's my response.

Recent events should not alter the military's policies on faith among the forces. God should be welcomed into the army, whether as Adonai, Lord Jesus, Allah, or any of the other names by which God is known. So should the presence of those who believe that God does not exist. And all should play by the same rules.

First, the individual religious beliefs of service personnel are just that, individual beliefs. Were that not the case, we would probably need to examine Christians and the role of faith among the increasing numbers of them who commit domestic abuse.

Admittedly, most of them do not invoke Jesus as they beat their wives and children, but many of them do attend church and then go home and do so. Bottom line, there is no reason to pay special attention to the practitioners of any particular faith. Especially in the most recent case, there is no evidence at this time, that Maj. Hasan was part of any larger conspiracy, religious or otherwise.

Of course, the behavior of those who invoke their faith to justify hostility to our nation or those who do not share their faith should be scrutinized even if doing so strikes some as less than politically correct. That however, is a matter for Military Police, the FBI and other federal agencies to pursue on a case by case basis, not a religion by religion basis.

The short answer is almost certainly not. But after yesterday's column in the New York Times, many people are asking, and not without some justification. In writing about Goldman Sachs, the famously/infamously successful investment bank, Dowd dredged up ancient and dangerous motifs which have inspired hatred of Jews for two thousand years.

Comparing the employees of Goldman Sachs to "the same self-interested sorts Jesus threw out of the temple", and also linking blood lust and GS bankers' lust for money, Ms. Dowd stepped over a very important line -- one which when crossed in the past cost thousands, if not millions of lives. At the very least she demonstrated how deeply the metaphors of hate are rooted even in the lives of some well meaning people, and that alone is deeply disturbing.

The story of Jesus driving the money changers, all presumed to be Jewish, out of the Temple was used for centuries to justify the pernicious linkage of Jews and money, and helped Christians to kill Jews with precisely the glee Ms. Dowd ascribes to Goldman CEO, Lloyd Blankfein's approach to making money. It was also used to justify driving Jews from their homes since, like the money changers in Jerusalem, they had no place in God's house or, as the interpretation ran, in any decent house.