Recently in Religion Category

With 13 dead, 30 wounded and an Army psychiatrist who shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as he opened fire on them, we must do three things: first, most importantly, we must care for the injured, support their families, and comfort the mourners. Second, we must fight all efforts to use this tragedy to cast aspersions upon an entire tradition and all of its followers. And third, we, and more importantly those followers, must ask probing questions about the relationship between the faith which the shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, followed and the actions which he took.

The human issues really are job one. And the test of that commitment will be in the way which people not only reach out to the families of the victims, but also to the Hasan family as well. They too, by all accounts, are victims. There is no evidence that they supported Maj. Hasan in his terrorist attack, and they are among the most vulnerable to any potential backlash which may occur. While the military and the FBI will certainly continue to investigate all aspects of this case, including Hasan's family, until we know otherwise, they too deserve our compassion and concern.

Despite the headlines in this CNN story about "New Jews", there is nothing really new here. Most of the new practices being described are not so new, as in the case of recently founded prayer groups or Hebrew school teaching techniques which are wonderful but hardly radical departures from that which preceded them. And for those that are new, such as tattooing, the newness lies in the practice, while the intent of those doing it is, in their own words, about ethnic pride and communal connection. What could be more traditional?

In fact, when Jessica Ravitz (Jessica Rabbit's Jewish cousin?) writes, "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai about 3,300 years ago, he couldn't have seen these Jews coming", she is drawing on a Talmudic passage which anticipated the on ongoing evolution of Jews and Judaism, almost 2,000 years ago.

The White House has announced that President Obama will sign new legislation which adds provisions to include Gays and Lesbians among the groups protected by special hate crimes legislation. It would be a great idea, if hate crimes legislation itself was a good idea, but it's not. Hate crime laws undermine the fundamental purpose of any healthy system of justice by using the penal code to address social issues instead of punishing those accused of committing particular crimes.

Such laws also may run afoul of the biblical commandment found in Numbers 15:15 that "there shall be one law for all". While we are not a theocracy, there is wisdom in that practice which we ignore at all of our peril.

While the problems which hate crimes legislation address are generally real, and in the case of Gay and Lesbian Americans who face specific dangers on a regular basis simply because they are who they are, such problems are all too real. Nonetheless, such legislation is not the way to correct this problem.

Punishing individuals for what they believe and not what they have done is a scary precedent which avoids the real cultural challenges we face and potentially devalues the significance of crimes not rising to the level of a hate crime. Just ask the victims' families.

Does it matter to victims' families why they are burying their loved one, or visiting them in a hospital? Of course not. And only those who seek to politicize a particular crime would distinguish between crime victims based on their race, religion, or sexual identity.

And while hate crimes laws are not a good idea, the underlying problems which give rise to them must be addressed. Here are two possible ways to do so without undermining the cornerstone notion that we punish acts not thoughts.

Starting this morning adds begin appearing in New York City subways which tell us that for millions of people, the answer is 'yes'. Following past campaigns in Dallas, Chicago and other locations around the nation this advertising campaign for Greg Epstein's book of the same name, is clearly meant to provoke, not educate. That may be good for book sales, but renders this initiative far less interesting than it otherwise might be. In fact, it looks and sounds remarkably similar to the kinds of pro-God campaigns which annoy those who sponsored this one!

The add campaign is mounted by the "New York City Coalition for Reason", whose name alone is problematic. It suggests, in precisely the way that pro-God groups with names like "union for decency" and "coalition for American values" suggest that atheists are amoral, un-American, or indecent, that atheists are reasonable and theists are not.

What do you think? Can be people be good without God? I ask in two senses and eagerly await the discussion that follows. First, can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some kind of faith in some kind of being greater than themselves? Second, can people be truly happy, as in "I'm good with that", without believing in something they call God?

It's clear to me that the answer is 'no' to the first question, but that in which someone believes may be far different from the standard personal "Guy-In-The-Sky" which many people think of when talking about God. As to the second, I am really not sure. I think it depends upon the circumstances of one's life and how seriously they take the concept of gratitude. Ultimately, it is gratitude which is the key to happiness and although I feel deeply grateful to God, I think the gratitude part is more connected to my being happy than the being to whom it is directed.

Your turn....

Responding to both a growing anti-circumcision movement and her own hysteria surrounding the circumcision of her two sons, Hanna Rosin writes in the most recent New York Magazine about why the case for circumcision is good for everyone, at least all boys. Her arguments are interesting, but I am not sure they are correct.

I am Jewish enough that I never considered not circumcising my sons, (she writes). I did not search the web or call a panel of doctors to fact-check the health benefits, as a growing number of wary Americans now do. Despite my momentary panic, the words "genital mutilation" did not enter my head. But now that I have done my homework, I'm sure I would do it again--even if I were not Jewish, didn't believe in ritual, and judged only by cold, secular science.

Rosin goes on to bring lots of compelling evidence about the health benefits, both personal and public, of circumcision, including reducing HIV/AIDS, multiple forms of cancer, etc. And on that basis tells us that she made her decision "only by cold, secular science". But she also admits that she "never considered not circumcising her sons". So which is it, a scientific conclusion or a declaration of faith and belonging? Of course, the answer is that the two are inextricably linked. As is the decision for those who choose not to circumcise their kids.