Author Archives: Rabbi

Torah Illuminations

Posted on November 19, 2010 | Comments Off

How often does the weekly Torah reading illuminate our current events ? Just about every week, and none more so than this week.

In Parshat Vayishlach, the Torah relates that as Yaakov prepared for his fateful encounter with his estranged brother Esav, “Yaakov (Jacob) became very frightened, and it distressed him” (Breisheet 32:8). What petrified him ? Rashi (11^th century) comments: He was “very frightened,” lest Esav kill him, and “distressed,” lest he have to kill others. Leaving aside the obvious fear that Esav would kill Yaakov, notwithstanding G-d’s promise to protect Yaakov from all harm (perhaps that did not apply to Yaakov’s family), why would Yaakov be distressed lest he have to kill others ? The Torah posits, and Jewish law prescribes (Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a), that “if one comes to kill you, arise preemptively and kill him first” ? If Yaakov successfully repulsed his attackers, even struck them before they could attack him, he has followed the Torah’s dictates precisely. Why should that be cause for distress ? It sounds almost …liberal, reminiscent, in fact, of Golda Meir’s lament that she can forgive the Arabs for killing our soldiers, but not forgive them for forcing our soldiers to kill them. Was she right ?

Rav Yaakov Ariel, esteemed Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan, cited the opinions of two commentators who lived less than a century apart, whose wisdom transcends their generation. The Maharal (Prague, 16-17^th centuries) explains that Yaakov was aggrieved that he might have to kill others – either combatants forced into this struggle against their will or non-combatants that are unfortunately killed in every war. These are people who bad fortune causes them to be situated too close to the hostilities. Yaakov was troubled that he would be forced to do this.

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi (Turkey, 16-17^th centuries) suggests that Yaakov was anxious for another reason. Granted that the Torah permits – even mandates – self-defense in the face of an aggressor. But this only applies to the victim himself. Regarding the threat to the lives of others – his family, for example – the Torah deems the aggressor a rodef, a pursuer who can be stopped at the cost of his life. But, Jewish law dictates that if it is possible to deter such a rodef through merely injuring him, then it is forbidden to kill him. What distressed Yaakov was that he might be guilty of using “excessive force” in battle, and killing pursuers that he could have stopped through less drastic means.

How interesting ! The twin arguments used primarily against Israel in order to induce guilt in the exercise of their natural right of self-defense – “the death of innocent civilians and the use of excessive force,” both staples of the Goldstone Report and every contrived reaction to any act of self-defense on Israel’s part – were both foreshadowed by biblical commentators half a millennium ago and augured in Yaakov’s encounter with Esav 3½ millennia ago. Yaakov shared these same concerns that confront his descendants today. And how did he respond, notwithstanding these concerns ? He prepared for war, engaged in diplomacy, and prayed to G-d.

The fact that innocent (or not-so-innocent) civilians would be killed in battle or that Yaakov might have to employ “excessive force” to defend his family left him feeling distressed – a natural and most human reaction of an ethical person – but did not at all inhibit his preparations for war, and his conduct of that war (if he had been called on to fight). Yaakov recognized the sad but inevitable reality that people die in war, even innocent people, and that the victor usually uses excessive force (that is why he prevails). We can be distressed by it – but that is the nature of war, and the greater immorality is to be defeated by evildoers because our ethical misgivings about the conduct of war. The enemy, of course, recognizes that, exploits it, and would love to have us wallow in our sensitivities (as in Golda Meir’s statement above). It is a case of “sorry, but we have no choice.”

The Torah portion also describes Yaakov’s preparations to meet his brother, in an effort to mollify him, involving acts of obeisance that were often utilized by subsequent generations in dealing with our adversaries. But at least Yaakov knew with whom he was dealing; do we ?

That is to say, when will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton get the “Jim Baker” treatment ? Baker, who served as President Bush’s (41) Secretary of State, was lambasted – properly so – as a Jew hater and worse for his contemptuous treatment of Israel and American Jews, famously (and publicly) telling the former to call the White House operator when they are “serious about peace,” and suggesting the latter perform an anatomically impossible act because “they don’t vote for us anyway.” But at least Baker had the decency not to hide his contempt.

Hillary Clinton – female, liberal Democrat that she is – has somehow dodged these accusations, even though she – and her boss – have publicly humiliated Israel’s Prime Minister on several occasions and continues to treat him as if he heads a banana republic (which, to his eternal shame, he seems to enjoy). The threats, the demands, the public opposition to Israel’s building in YESHA and the lack of sympathy for Israel’s security concerns likely exceed anything Baker ever said or did – but Hillary gets a free ride. When will Jews wake up ? Hillary Clinton is a faithful servant of her president, and her own husband’s repudiation of Netanyahu in the prime minister’s first term in office does not herald well for US-Israel relations in the near future. Clearly, she is pursuing a similar policy goal as did Bill Clinton – get Netanyahu out of power so a more malleable leader can take over – and clearly Netanyahu is repeating the same mistakes, thinking he can sweet-talk Americans and deceive Israelis at the same time.

Yaakov’s deference to Esav was calculated, as he had certain policy goals in mind that he wished to achieve – survival and then separation. He was successful, because for Yaakov, obsequiousness was a tactic and not a personality. Does Netanyahu have articulated policy goals in mind, or he is being seduced by empty promises that will not at all benefit Israel in the long or short term ?

We can only pray – as Yaakov also did – for a return of Jewish sense and pride, honesty in evaluating who are friends and who are adversaries, courage and knowledge. And for that guidance, we are blessed with our Torah, eternally holy and eternally relevant.

Comments Off on Torah Illuminations

Posted in Chumash, Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

The Sequel

Posted on November 17, 2010 | 2 comments

In the early 2000’s, after another secular, nominally right-wing prime minister of Israel let down his constituents by betraying his campaign platform and lifelong values, I suggested to a settler leader that perhaps Binyamin Netanyahu would make a good replacement, having been chastened by his failures in office the first time he served as prime minister. The activist responded: “Usually when the first movie is a failure, they don’t make a sequel.” Behold, the sequel is upon us, and let us count the errors.

As predicted here, one freeze begets another, and then likely another as well. “Negotiations” are to be conducted, if the PA deigns to do so, over the heartland of Israel after Israel has repeatedly demonstrated by its actions that it has no genuine claim to the land. The existence, substance and pace of these “negotiations” are completely dictated by the enemy. The PA can have the Israelis dancing through hoops and doing back flips while reciting Koranic verses, if they wished. To negotiate with such an entity is not as much an exercise in futility as in willful suicide. One side, with the appalling agreement of the other, controls whether or not negotiations will take place, and for how long they will take place, and on which terms they will take place. That side reserves the right at any time to walk out on negotiations, and to declare itself unsatisfied, if not unsatisfiable. Israel is like the pathetic soul who has to pay for a meal in his own home, and then does not even get the meal.

It is astonishing how such an articulate, thoughtful individual as is Binyamin Netanyahu while speaking, writing books, or leading the opposition can completely lose his moral and intellectual moorings when he becomes prime minister. He has claimed that “what you see from here, you don’t see from there.” That is true, but not relevant. What animates most human beings are their values and principles – the Arabs are certainly guided by their principles, as depraved as they might be. A person without principles is hollow; a person who asserts during a political campaign that he has principles, and then reveals in office that he has none, is shameless.

The travesty of denying Jews the right to build homes in the heartland of Israel is compounded by the unseemly horse-trading that PM Netanyahu considers statecraft. How about a few planes, which Israel would likely be sold anyway by a friendly American president ? How about a hint that maybe the US will sort-of veto some anti-Israel UN resolutions for a few months, that a friendly American president would veto anyway as an expression of American values and interests ? And what good are American pledges when Obama himself treated President Bush’s pledges (in writing, no less) as non-entities? Thus the land of Israel promised to the Jewish people by G-d through our forefathers for all eternity is disparaged as a cheap commodity that commands little respect or loyalty. There are dozens of territorial disputes across the globe, and in none of them is either side willing to relinquish any claim or right, however tenuous. From Japan and Russia, to China and Vietnam, to Ecuador and Peru, to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, no country gives any quarter on what it considers its national soil. Just recently the British were apoplectic when President Obama suggested that perhaps the time had come for Britain and Argentina to “begin” negotiations over the Falkland Islands, 6000 miles from the United Kingdom. The suggestion was rejected out of hand. There are territorial disputes on every continent, and the only country actively engaged in surrendering its homeland piecemeal – Israel – is the only country whose territory was promised to it by the Creator. As a Jew, it is embarrassing, but also quite revealing.

I wrote in this space (December 2009) something I heard years ago from one of the leading Hesder Roshei Yeshiva in Israel with whom I discussed the persistent betrayal by Likudniks of any principles they might profess. He answered me as follows: Torah Jews and secular right-wing Jews can all love Israel, fight for Israel and even die for Israel. Both groups can demonstrate great self-sacrifice for both the land and the people – but for secular Jews, it must stop at a certain point. “If it were possible,” he said, “to achieve the same love of Israel through Torah and not-through-Torah, then why would you need the Torah?” Therefore, their dedication collapses at a certain point – each person (Netanyahu, Sharon, Livni, Olmert, etc.) at his/her own level.

What is worse is that this recent collapse comes after Netanyahu’s repeated promises and boasts that the “freeze” was one-time and not-to-be repeated, and after much “Jews have a right to build” rhetoric. Worse than that is the distressing recognition that Israel is the only country in the world that actually feels today it must defer to the American president. Obama just spent ten days in Asia, making requests, demands and suggestions that were summarily rejected by China, Japan, South Korea, India, Britain and possibly the Marshall Islands. On currency, trade and security issues, the American president is perceived as weak, a spent force who speaks softly and carries a wet noodle. Only Israel, perhaps out of nostalgia, somehow feels “pressure,” a reflexive need to be obeisant, and an obligation to kowtow to American demands – without any merit or rationale. Israel, whether it appreciates it or not, is a regional power with a strong, vibrant economy and a robust military. It is only plagued by “leaders” who seem trapped in the 1970s, who perceive themselves as presiding over a nation that is poor, victimized, and decrepit, and that can survive only on the good will of hostile nations and not on faith in G-d who has blessed it with great might and courage. It has maneuvered itself into a situation where it has to beg for scraps of international respect, even as it is begrudged any right of self-defense.

Israel’s crisis of self-confidence that afflicts its leadership, one pathetic soul after another, is belied by the strength, fearlessness and commitment of many of its citizens. It is defined not by its Sharons, Netanyahus, Olmerts, Baraks, Pereses and Rabins, but the people who continue to believe in the G-d of Israel, the Jewish state and people, who weather all storms (physical and political) and continue to build the Jewish homeland with pride – in Hevron and Bet El and points beyond. I have just returned from attending the annual dinner celebrating the rejuvenated Jewish community of Hevron, in the company of many hundreds of devoted, passionate lovers of Israel (even as two dozen self-hating Jews protested outside). Each new home, each new yeshiva, each new business, and each new oleh is a challenge not only to Israel’s enemies across the globe but also to Israel’s spineless, spiritless leaders who squeak to electoral victories on the basis of empty rhetoric, hollow promises and inane campaigns and then bask in the vacuous applause of American Jews desperate for a photo op with the latest pinup star. The Jewish people deserve better, and will ultimately receive better.

As always, Netanyahu thinks he is clever-by-half, with another freeze that is designed to win some short term benefit (planes?! How about Pollard ??) at the price of yet another public declaration that the land of Israel does not belong to the people of Israel. He must reason that the right-wing won’t abandon him to Livni’s Kadima, so he further risks alienating the true faithful of the land of Israel. But no one – left, right, center, Israeli, American, European – trusts him. One who thinks that he is securing Yerushalayim by abandoning Judea and Samaria is betraying Yerushalayim as well. Surely he has noticed that opponents of Jewish rights in YESHA oppose Jewish rights in Yerushalayim as well.

Not to be outdone, the Shas Party – the underwriters of Oslo in the 1990s, if anyone still cares to remember – again demonstrates that its cherished values are for sale to the highest bidder, literally hiding behind “abstentions” so it can claim to its benighted masses that it did not “vote” for another freeze, even though Shas’ abstentions allow the vote to pass. When will Shas voters wake up ?

Israel should not rely on the obstinacy of the Palestinians, even if they will probably again spurn any negotiations; they are always the ones who look principled, and it is obvious they see no benefit in talks. And why should they, when they have garnered windfalls without negotiations? But it is never too late for Israel to turn back and regain its moral and spiritual high ground – to admit that negotiations are futile, that peace is not on the horizon for decades (if that), to put facts on the ground, to ignore the dire warnings of “intelligence officials” (“the region is a powder keg, and if the conflict is not resolved in five or ten minutes, everything will blow up”), to exercise strength and steadfastness diplomatically, politically and militarily, and to remember the destiny of the Jewish people in its land, when it is faithful, worthy and proud.

It starts with a simple declaration, known in a different context to every American of a certain age: “this land is our land, given to us by G-d in perpetuity. We have returned, never to be uprooted. If you wish to live here in tranquility, then let us negotiate the conditions of your residence.” Such a statement cannot be made by the stars of this failed sequel, but it eventually will be made by stars of a different order of magnitude altogether.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Bullying

Posted on November 12, 2010 | 4 comments

Bullying has been part of the recent news cycle, before being drowned out by the elections, because of the tragic suicides of several children (and one Rutgers student) driven to despair by the relentless harassment they allegedly endured from schoolmates. Some were taunted for promiscuity, others for homosexuality (the Rutgers student was publicly outed), all of which naturally led to a campaign to denounce bullying, bullying against homosexuals, or laws to prohibit bullying or cyber-bullying.

It will surprise no one that bullying has been a fixture of the schoolyard since time immemorial, and usually was handled quite adroitly by the victim, his/her friends, or peers of the bully. Children who are different are teased for those differences; it is one way that the young learn (sometimes slowly) to relate to and respect those who are different from them. It affects the tall/short, fat/thin, smart/less so, athletic/not at all – and whites and blacks, Jews and non-Jews, citizens and foreigners, and these days, children who are perceived (rightfully or not) as having homosexual tendencies. While the number of suicides is quite small, every death is of course a tragedy. The numbers, though, do provide perspective: A much-trumpeted 2007study reported that 17% of “homosexual” teens consider suicide, and 5% actually attempt it. That is a devastating statistic, until one considers that the Center for Disease Control reports that (http://www.teensuicidestatistics.com/statistics-facts.html ) that 60 percent of high school students claim that they have thought about committing suicide, and approximately 9% of them say that they have tried killing themselves at least once. Obviously, the problem is greater than the mere bullying of one sub-group, as the statistics reveal that fewer homosexual youth consider suicide than heterosexual youth. Apparently, then, the crisis is deeper than we think, and for reasons other than we assume.

That is not to minimize the anguish felt by young people who sense they have homosexual tendencies. What is often perceived as a crisis depends more on perception than on reality (e.g., an average of two dozen IDF soldiers commit suicide every year, but that sad fact is not advertised as a crisis and the IDF deals with it in a discreet manner), and this particular crisis has gained its notoriety owing in large part to the zeitgeist that sees legitimization of homosexuality as a societal imperative.

Thus the response of the liberal elites, as always, has assumed the usual forms of regulating feelings and promulgating laws. For example, I was badgered by a reporter several weeks ago because I refused to pass the latest litmus test for sensitivity: would I denounce violence and bullying against homosexuals? I stated repeatedly that I would enthusiastically denounce violence and bullying against any person or group – the whole list mentioned above, and including homosexuals – but I would not single out one group for special treatment. No person – of whatever religion, race, sex, orientation, sports team affiliation – should be bullied, harassed, tormented, etc. by anyone for any reason with legal and moral justification. That was not enough for the intrepid reporter, who likely deemed me hopelessly insensitive.

For the same reason, I oppose “hate crimes” legislation. I do not believe that my life is any less meaningful because I do not belong to one of the protected or favored classes in society. People who murder others and are convicted should be executed regardless of who they killed or why they killed them. In law, motive is almost irrelevant; actions matter. Motive is important in the media and movies because they help tell a story, but the story has little probative value in the courtroom. Motive need not be proven, and is rarely an element of the crime. But liberal society has two obsessions: one is defining people by the group to which they belong, and bestowing special rights on members of that group.

In such an environment, the only eligible victims of hate crimes are blacks, sometimes Hispanics or Asians, women, homosexuals and Muslims. Whites, Christians, Jews, men, or heterosexuals need not apply. Rabbi Meir Kahane could be shot or Yankel Rosenbaum stabbed to death without the assailants charged with a hate crime. The Fort Hood shooter, a Muslim named Maj. Nidal Hasan, could kill 12 people (white American Christians, and soldiers at that) and not be accused of a hate crime, only because the victims were not members of the special class. That is bizarre, and inexplicable how the very notion does not violate the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Its very premise is un-American: every person is the same before the law. In this, hate crimes legislation follows neatly the thesis of the affirmative action laws.

The second liberal obsession is also on display here – the recourse to law to effect social change. Laws in many states now criminalize bullying and cyber-bullying, especially in school. Bullies can be subject to suspension (which is fine with me) but also prosecution, which is strange. The problem in the public schools is not an absence of laws but an absence of values, and public schools for the last half-century have been constrained in their ability to impart values by the rigid removal of “G-d” from public education. Without G-d, the notion of objective morality is lost, and “laws” become a poor and ineffective replacement. There was something to be said for posting the “Ten Commandments” in the classrooms of America – it was a constant reminder that we were a “nation under G-d” and had subtle influence on classroom discussion and behavior.

Consider: to label something “illegal” raises several questions in the mind of the potential miscreant – is it illegal ? If it is illegal, will I get caught ? If I get caught, will I be prosecuted ? If I am prosecuted, will I be convicted ? If I am convicted, will I go to prison ? At any point along the line, the miscreant can conclude that the satisfaction of performance of the illicit act exceeds the potentially adverse consequences of apprehension.

By contrast, to characterize something as “immoral” raises only one question for that same miscreant: is the prospective deed right or wrong ? If it is “wrong,” or “immoral,” no other questions need be asked. To the extent that schools – society – educates its citizens on what is legal or illegal and not what is moral or immoral, it will always be fighting an uphill and likely unwinnable battle against all sorts of social ills, including bullying.

A society that trains its young to perceive all others as “creatures of G-d” finds it easier to exercise control over the rambunctious excesses of youth, and, more importantly, when they invariably stumble –as all children do – has a handy reference point with which to delineate acceptable and unacceptable modes of behavior: “The Torah says….” or “Hashem says…” Bullying was as common in yeshiva schoolyards in my days as it is today, but no one thought of bringing in the secular authorities. There really is a Higher Authority whose reach is more pervasive, and Torah education focuses on making G-d’s will and morality a vibrant part of the life of the student. I have often witnessed young children crying in a supermarket (understatement, that) for a particular candy that the beleaguered mother refuses to buy, with the children howling until the (Jewish) mother says, ‘But it is not kosher.’ With that, he howling immediately stops, as the finality of G-d’s moral system impresses even the young. But the parent who is forced to rely on considerations of dinner or appetite, or even health (“the government is cracking down on obesity”, is on shakier ground, ground made even shakier by the persistent shrieks of their tots.

We should treat all men and women with decency and sensitivity, and inculcate that value in our young – and for the best, and ultimately the only meaningful, reason: that all humans were created in the image of G-d. When that simple notion takes root in society, we will be much closer to the day of mutual respect and brotherhood than we are today, with all our sophisticated laws and regulations.

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Constitutional Contortions

Posted on November 7, 2010 | 4 comments

The United States Constitution is the one of the world’s oldest frameworks for national governance that is still extant, and has successfully guided American democracy through wars, depressions, turmoil, upheavals, and multiple elections in which power changed hands willingly, if not gracefully. It is astonishing to consider that the drafting of the Constitution took almost a year to compose, almost two years to win ratification, and yet has been subjected to consistent and usually contentious amendment in the 220 years plus since its original appearance. The Constitutional Convention weighed different and competing interests, resolving some issues forever and leaving others to future generations to refine. In some cases (the framework for the three branches of government) it remains mostly unchanged, whereas in others, the simple intent of the Framers has become almost unrecognizable and far afield from a clear and logical reading of the text.

A case in point is the relationship between government and religion that is one subject of the First Amendment to the Constitution, approved by the States as part of the “Bill of Rights” in the early 1790’s. In pertinent part, it reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Both the words and the intent seem unequivocally clear: Congress shall have no right to declare an official state religion, in obvious contradistinction to Britain where the Anglican Church is the official state church and the monarch the titular head of that church. The United States was to have no official state religion, a practice that has been scrupulously followed in the more than two centuries since.

It never dawned on the Framers that prayer in public schools or the provision of tacit assistance to parochial schools could be “unconstitutional,” because neither involved the “establishment of religion” by Congress. Nor did the Framers ever intend that the federal government for constitutional reasons had to consistently demonstrate hostility or aversion to religion. Chaplains in Congress and the military, paid for by the federal government, and opening sessions with prayers, were the norms then and now.

Hence the puzzle of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence that has stretched the “free exercise” clause beyond all reasonable definition and greatly encumbered the practice of religion in America. For example, the Supremes last week heard argument in the case of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The facts are simple: in 1997, the state of Arizona passed a law that allows residents to contribute $500 ($1000 for a married couple) to a non-profit school tuition organization that they would otherwise pay in taxes. The choice of organization is solely and exclusively that of the parents, and can go to private or parochial school; government is uninvolved in the decision, except to the extent that the tax credit afforded the parents is money that otherwise would have gone to the government. It seems constitutionally innocuous, and a sensible, if modest, way to reimburse families who prefer a religious-based, private education for their children for their otherwise unrecompensed contributions to the public school education of their neighbors’ children. Orthodox Jews, for example, have long been victims of this double-taxation – paying for both the public education of others and the private education of our own children (who, in fact, would greatly encumber the public school system if educated there). In effect, the public school system gets a free ride on the backs of private or parochial school parents, and traditionally the private school parents have little recourse but to fume, skimp, grin and bear these additional costs. The Arizona law was a small attempt to redress this imbalance, which offended Winn, clearly some local busybody and troublemaker.

Yet, the super-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, struck down this law as unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the “establishment of religion” clause, leading to its current hearing before the Supreme Court. But how precisely does affording individual parents the right to divert some of their state tax dollars to their own children’s education amount to a violation of a mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” ? How is Congress involved, and how does this law establish a religion ? It allows people of all religions or no religion to effectively minimize the costs of their children’s private school education.

To its continuing shame, the Anti-Defamation League (and the American Jewish Committee, among other useless and superfluous organizations) filed “Friend of the Court” briefs in support of the respondent Winn, arguing against the Arizona law. This approach is in keeping with the grand traditions of those Jewish organizations in protecting the Jews from the Christian “menace” by waging war against Torah education in America, a war that has been remarkably successful in greasing the skids of assimilation and intermarriage in this country. To its credit, Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union filed briefs in support of the Petitioners, and in support of the Arizona law, which they asserted follows prior Supreme Court precedent (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002). In a 5-4 vote, the Court there upheld a Cleveland school voucher program where the choice of schools was, again, parent-driven and not determined by the government. But why would even four Supremes vote then that the voucher program is unconstitutional ?

The first breach in diluting the simple meaning of the Constitution came in a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association which feared state government encroachment on their religious practices. Jefferson argued there that the First Amendment built “a wall of separation between Church and State.” The phrase, of course, never appears in the Constitution, and it is clear that Jefferson meant that the State has no right to interfere, obstruct, impede or otherwise hinder the practice of religion. But Jefferson certainly never intended that the “wall of separation” prohibited government from extending benefits to all religions or required government to penalize the practice of religion. Yet, that is how anti-religion groups like “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” joined by their fellow travelers in the ADL, et al, insist that the Constitution must be interpreted, and that is how the Supreme Court began interpreting it in the 1950s.

In the 19^th century, the provisions of the First Amendment and much of the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states, and when the secular-progressive agenda began to dominate American culture and the media elite in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Supremes took due notice – questioning (though eventually permitting) the funding of the transportation of parochial school students; banning prayer in public schools – even being troubled by a moment of silence; declaring that the state cannot defray the salaries of secular teachers in parochial schools (bizarre, because the government would have had to pay to build schools, hire teachers, etc., to accommodate these students if there weren’t any parochial schools); permitting the provision of textbooks and milk (sometimes the Supreme Court’s logic is exceedingly arcane, if indecipherable – and sometimes, it just depends on who is sitting on the Court at any particular time); prohibiting religious prayers at graduations, and dancing through hoops wrestling with religious displays on public grounds during holiday seasons, alternatively permitting and prohibiting them depending on obscure factors and dubious reasoning. (The Menora is not a religious symbol? Huh?) Personally, I have always found Jewish objections to Christian religious displays around holiday season to be a function of small-mindedness coupled with intolerance; America is, after all, almost 85% Christian.

To further complicate matters, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed through an amendment to a bill in 1954 that prohibited non-profits and religious organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates, a gross violation of another clause in the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” Johnson justified this restriction on grounds of the “wall of separation,” again completely distorting Jefferson’s meaning of the phrase. (Johnson had been under terrific pressure from some Christian groups, so he just silenced them.)

But, most recently, the issue of school vouchers and tax credits for private and parochial school families has heralded the Court’s reversion to a more text-based and reasonable interpretation of the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses. It is therefore astonishing that the secular Jewish groups are trapped in a reading of the Constitution that was popular with the Court from the 1950s-1980s, and is more guided by liberal dogma than original intent or, especially, recognitions of the general value of religion in public school and the specific Jewish interest in easing the financial burdens on doubly-taxed Jewish families. Shame on them. They seem to be petrified of the role of Christianity in American life and the threat allegedly posed therefore to the survival of Judaism. Evidently, they fear that Crusaders are lurking around every street corner (hence their perception that Christian evangelicals pose a great danger to Jewish life than radical Muslims), and do not recognize that the greatest hazard is not missionizing Christians but Jews who are ignorant of our heritage. In so many ways, and especially in this instance, these organizations are ossified, incarcerated in the past, and irrelevant to modern Jewish life.

The Supremes are always hard to read, and their decisions these days on controversial cases usually rest on one vote – that of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy. And these matters always trigger discussions of the correct mode of Constitutional interpretation – between those who favor “original intent” (ascertaining what the Framers meant, because otherwise the Constitution becomes ultimately meaningless and can be twisted by every generation or Justice) and those who see the Constitution as a “living document” that can be updated by every generation. According to the latter, capital punishment can be “unconstitutional” even though the Framers of the Constitution referred to it and accepted it, and new provisions – like the “right to privacy” – can be located within the penumbra of the document, or hovering in the thin air just above it. (It is fascinating that the Torah is loosely subject to the same dispute as to interpretation – between traditional Torah Jews who are bound to the original intent and try to ascertain the Torah’s meaning based on precedent and application, and the non-Orthodox Jews who shape the Torah as a ball of wax according to their current assessment of prevailing moral notions and the public good.)

In any event, we should hope that the Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit (as they often do), upholds the Arizona law, and strengthens and protects the practice of religion in America so the United States returns to the traditional religious moorings that are the foundation of this Republic.

4 Comments