Liberal Judaism in the UK asking the big questions....

I wrote this post a few weeks ago, I don't know why it didn't get published on the blog. Here it is....

Just read two excellent pieces by UK Liberal Jews, both of which, from different directions touch on what it means to be Jewish. I know neither author, but agree with most of what both say. The first article I found on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/lj-student-worker/chinuch-article-22-are-jews-a-religion-a-race-or-something-else/314334608621110

It seems to be written by an extremely articulate "Boger" (graduate member) of LJY Netzer, who unfortunately, I don't believe I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, but I hope to one day. He just needs to go on and say what Jewishness is, as well as what it isn't. Maybe he could take some inspiration from the words of another Liberal UK Jew, Rabbi David Goldberg, who writes this article in the Groinyard. (Those who have read my previous posts will note my failure in steering clear of the Guardian's CIF pages).

Goldberg's article is very sensible and very well written. He essentially argues that Jewishness and Christianity still have something to teach when denuded of their religious accouterments.

I do believe, however, that his article may be misunderstood by the average non-Jew, since it falls into the trap pointed out by Mr Walmsley's article above (the Boger of LJY Netzer). It is occasionally misleading, as it seems to suggest that Jewishness and Christianity are co-terminous, parallel entities. As if Judaism is a religion in the same way Christianity is. Jewishness is the culture of an ethnic group called the Jews (I am clearly more happy defining what we ARE than David). Christianity is a faith-based religion of many peoples, invented by a group of Jews and Europeans, but practiced today primarily by victims of European colonialism. Christianity is based on faith, and always has been. To be a Jew has never been based in faith - but rather as an ancient primitive culture, Jewishness assumed an understanding of the world in which the unknown was explained through a mythical Godhead. But the basis of Jewish culture, like all cultures has always been an organic connection to the cultural center through ties of land, language, kinship or shared heritage. Atheist Jewishness is not Oxymoronic - most Jewish heroes have engaged, in one point in their lives, in a rebellion against the mainstream understanding of the divine within their society - in fact - some of our foundational myths rests on the idea of revolting against mainstream understanding of the divine (both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic myths). Christianity, on the other hand, is a faith based cultural narrative. As the now infamous Dawkins' poll, referred to in the article, showed, it is hard to still consider it a faith. And as the author here suggests - after faith, values can remain, and continue to be meaningful. Yishar Koah to UK Liberal Judaism for stoking the fires of interesting debate.

Racism - not the real issue? A paranoid delusion, or something to be scared about?

I wrote this a few weeks ago, and chose not to post it, because if anyone does ever read this blog, I was scared that they would think I had completely lost it, but that isn't a good enough reason, so here is a little piece of class consciousness writing from a non-reconstructed commie....

WARNING! I may have ingested some paranoia juice before writing this. Feel free to ignore, and don't think any worse of me for it. (Please).

Seriously - I don't believe what I am about to write is true, but a little part of my brain thinks it might be, and that scares me. Even if this particular issue is my own fantasy, I worry that the wider message is true...

The recent racism storm that seems to have blown through English football has taken many by surprise. It shouldn't have. Those of us who have an interest in the Barclays premier league would like to think that this barbaric and ignorant prejudice was a thing of the past. That only stupid ignoramuses still took part in racist behaviour and that surely we had done enough to "clean" the game of this sort of thing.

We were the stupid ones.

Anti-Racism is a wonderful cause, but unfortunately, many of us who espouse it, are ignorant of the other prejudices which can creep into our thinking. When we say that racism is a thing of the past, we pretend that racism is about insults on a playing field. Racism is about a lot more than that. It is about who has power and who doesn't and what they do to keep those without power in a position of submission. Racism cannot be torn apart from the class conflict which has been the primary source of injustice in the UK since the feudal system was first brought into question. Racism is a tool of the ruling elite. Those who are currently rich and powerful would like all the poor of the country to fight as much as possible between themselves, so that they will not be able to unify against the ruling elites who would desire to entrench power in their hands.

Don't worry I do realise this is beginning to sound like one of the more paranoid parts of a communist manifesto, but bear with me...

It's not very pc to mention it, but racism tends to be a curse of the working class (and the highest reaches of the aristocracy). This has a number of reasons - one, is that racism can be cured through education, so the more a person has been deprived of an education, the more they are likely to fall under the spell of this disease of ignorance. But the more powerful reason that racism is part of the fabric of the British working class is because the ruling aristocracy desires it to be so. The more the "chavs" (white working class) and the "coloureds" (non-white, mostly working class) are at each other's throats, the less time they may have to realise that most of the issues that they feel aggrieved about actually have nothing to do with each other, but with the economic situation. Why do I mention this - because obviously the vast majority of footballers are working class. The offer of riches is the carrot used to help them make huge amounts of money for the ruling elite. Is it conceivable that all these working class heroes are also AntiRacism warriors? Not sure.

And here comes the dark truth that everyone is beginning to be aware of. Poverty in the UK is a decision of the government. If they wanted a more equitable system, it could be delivered. The government has the power to take from the rich what they have plundered and give it back to the poor. They choose not to. If anyone is wondering where did this storm of racism come from, then look no further than Wall St/the city of London. It is any coincidence that these incidents have been brought to public attention when the people have started to wake up to the fact that 99% of the country is being ripped off by 1%. When that 99% look like they are on the verge of unifying, the 1% got scared. It is unthinkable that these two incidents suddenly happened, when similar incidents have not been happening before. I assume they have been happening in the past. But the media has never been asked to make an issue of them as they were in this case. Usually, it would the opposite of corporate interest to highlight racism in football - doesn't look good for Sky trying to sell their product to the prawn sandwich brigade. But in this case the special interests in the media were bought out - asked to highlight the problem instead of brush it under the carpet - assured that they will be able to make enough short term gain off the issue, and that it would not harm the long term cash-cow too much.

So yeah - all this may be super-paranoia, but...

Isn't it too co-incidental that racism invades the country's richest sport just when class consciousness has raised its head for the first time since Tony Blair killed Labour back in the early nineties?

כאיש אחד בלב אחד - As one people with one heart....

So every now and again, I get asked to write a drasha for someone. Here is one I did for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), that can be seen on there site here: http://www.wupj.org/Publications/Newsletter.asp?ContentID=522

“As one person with one heart” on Parashat Yitro

Parashat Yitro contains one of the most dramatic scenes of the entire Torah, and possibly the pivotal moment of all of Jewish History – it is the Torah portion which relates our primary encounter with the divine. The paradigmatic moment of revelation retold in this parasha serves as the classic example of what it means to have God’s will revealed to us on the collective level. Whatever Reform theology or modern scholarship might tell us about the authorship of the Torah, the tradition views the gathering at Sinai as the defining moment of Divine Revelation. This is it! This is the moment that we become God’s chosen (for those who still believe in that)! This is the moment that Moses stands face to face with the Eternal, and we in turn share in that heavenly intimacy. This is THE moment of truth. This is the moment when the Jewish people are brought together – our national character is defined through this gathering – this meeting with each other and the divine. This is the beginning of our covenant. Our covenant with the divine and with each other. Or is it?

A minute detail of questionable Hebrew grammar may point to a different rendering of this dramatic moment.

At the beginning of Chapter 19 in the book of Exodus, before the children of Israel arrive at Mt Sinai – before this miraculous gathering – we read:

א בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינָי. ב וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן-שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר.

“In the third month, after the children of Israel had left Egypt, on that day they came to the Desert of Sinai. And they travelled from Refidim, and they came to the Desert of Sinai and they encamped in the desert; and Israel encamped opposite the mountain.”

If one was reading the English, or did not understand the Hebrew, the significance of this line would be entirely lost. It would seem a list of geographic details - part of an endless litany of the journeying of the children of Israel with which the Torah is littered. But in the original Hebrew, a deviation is obvious in the subject of the verbs used throughout these two verses. In the first verse, the subject is “the children of Israel.” In the second verse, it seems the verbs that describe the action – “they travelled”, “they came”, “they encamped” – are all in the third person plural, and then at the end of the verse, the subject changes from being “the children of Israel” to “Israel”, and the verb changes from plural to singular.

Now, I cannot pretend to be an ancient grammarian or understand the significance of each minor detail of the Torah’s use of language. But luckily I do not have to – for that, we have Rabbi Shimon Itzhaki, better known as Rashi (France, late 11th century) – the foremost medieval commentator on the Torah. Drawing on ancient midrashim, Rashi attempts to answer all the questions and queries that are brought up by the text of the torah. And what does Rashi have to say about this verse?

Commenting on the change to the singular, “ויחן שם ישראל”, Rashi says:
“כאיש אחד בלב אחד, As one person with one heart.”
He goes on to point out that the previous journeys and encampments of Israel (referred to in the plural) had not been “as one person with one heart” but with murmurings and disagreements.

What does Rashi mean by this expression, “as one person with one heart”? The term has come to be used in modern day Israel as a slogan of national unity. What it expresses in its most simply understood form, is that the people were united when they encamped opposite Mt Sinai – they were already “as one person with one heart” BEFORE they received Torah. When we understand the significance of this, it becomes clear that the giving of Torah did not unite us – we were already united. Something about our shared journey – our shared experience of the ordeal of journeying, the shared fears and hopes of leaving Egypt – had brought us together. If the giving of the Torah is symbolic of our shared belief, while the exodus from Egypt is symbolic of our shared experience, this simple midrash brought by Rashi shows us that it is our shared experience – our history together as a community that unites us, before we come to have a shared view of the world. In fact, even without any basis for shared belief, we have the ability to stand together as one. This unity, which is not reliant on the shared belief brought about by the giving of Torah is called in our tradition, “Brit Goral” – the covenant of fate. While the covenant we enter into at Sinai, that of shared belief, is called “Brit Yiud” – the covenant of faith. These are not reliant on each other. We shared Brit Goral before we joined in Brit Yiud. Yiud literally means “objective” – something to strive for. And indeed we may strive to find common belief. But as members of the people of Israel, we need not strive to find common experience – that is part of who we are.

This basic truth – of our shared experience – of our common past – of our unity of fraternity, if not of purpose, has been forgotten within Israeli society and the Jewish world today. We do not stand “as one person, with one heart”. We stand divided. History has taught us the danger of such a stance. As we approach Parashat Yitro, we are called to remember the possibility of unity despite our murmurings and disagreements – despite the fact we may not share belief, we are called to remember our shared heritage. May we realise the potential of this unity before we fall divided.

It's not about homophobia .... It's about JFS. My reaction to the JFS/JONAH/Homophobia scandal....

I tend to write a lot about the British Jewish community, as I grew up there, and because I think it is a fascinating example of what Jewish life might mean outside of one of the major centers (Eretz Yisrael and modern day Bavel - North America). The latest storm in the British tea cup has been caused by a Jewish Chronicle article about an allegedly homophobic class taught at the school, and raises some fascinating questions about what it means to be Jewish in a country which is neither Jewish by definition (Israel) nor has a democratic separation of Religion and State (the US). In the class in question, the students were shown a presentation which gave information about an organisation called JONAH which seeks to "cure" gay men and women from their homosexual tendencies.

Obviously, most of the people I know, including many former JFS students have reacted to the article with disgust, fury, protest and a desire to put right this obvious wrong (just proving that all the people I know are pinko-commies or wet liberals, like me). But I have to ask, why?

Before this liberal-crusader took to the pages of the JC, did anyone think that JFS was a gay-loving pink idyll? Were people walking around with the understanding that JFS, an Orthodox Jewish day school would actively support all students in their choices about how to deal with their developing sexuality? As far as I was concerned, the shock in the article was that anyone might consider this newsworthy.

Whether it pretends to be something else or not, JFS is an Orthodox institution, and whether it pretends otherwise or not, Orthodox Judaism is institutionally homophobic. While there are many minority opinions within the Orthodox Jewish world who actively support gay rights and welcome LGBTQ members and who attempt to find a way to embrace gay Jews while rejecting male homosexual sex, this is still a tiny minority and in no way represents mainstream Orthodoxy. I sometimes frequent one such minyan which challenges my own shul for the title of pinkest in Jerusalem, but as mentioned - this is the minority voice. It is unreasonable to expect an Orthodox institution to accept homosexuality.

So what is my point?

As long as you believe in the idea of faith-schools, you must allow JFS to continue preaching bigotry and hate. I realise that that may sound harsh, but only an actual democratic separation of religion and state and the end of the bizarre idea of publicly funded private community schools will actually be able to stop these private communities continuing to use the education system to promote their values which are inconsistent with a free, fair and democratic society. I say this fully aware of the complete hypocrisy inherent in my words (if I were to live in the UK, I would probably send my own child(ren) to a Jewish day school), but my own hypocrisy and use of the system for my own selfish gain should not mean that we don't recognise the inherent injustice in the current model of schooling. Jewish day schools (as well as Muslim and Christian ones) are a way that a particular community manages to use the universal societal resources for their own gain. They at once, give a good rounded education, and at the same time inculcate the values of the particular community into the next generation. It is fine for a community to demand that their children be educated on the public dime as long as members of that community pay taxes. It is not acceptable that a particular community expect that the society as a whole should Jewishly educate their children. Particularly if that Jewish education is actually at odds with the value system of wider society.

So - am I appalled by JFS's homophobia? Yes, of course I am. Am I surprised? No, of course I am not. Do JFS have the right to teach homophobia? According to the current non-constitution of the UK - absolutely. As long as faith schools are an encouraged practice, the aggrieved parents and students cannot complain that their children have been exposed to an allegedly homophobic viewpoint as part of their child's education.

It is worthy and admirable to attack each small injustice as we encounter it, as the former head-girl of JFS did in her letter to the school (linked above), but each one of these small fights is meaningless without a more holistic approach to building a just, fair and equitable school system which helps educate our youth towards building a free and democratic society.

Storm in a Turkish Coffee cup? The Returning Israelis video advert controversy.

So, it seems a lot of people have been offended by an offensive set of adverts - no news there, I guess. Except people seem to be getting offended for all the wrong reasons. A lot of my friends on facebook have been posting this article from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/netanyahu-government-suggests-israelis-avoid-marrying-american-jews/249166/

Which was actually originally report on "The Jewish Channel":

http://newsdesk.tjctv.com/2011/11/week-in-review-november-25-2011/

The videos themselves can be viewed in their original context at the Israeli Absorption ministry's website: http://www.moia.gov.il/Moia_he/ReturningHomeProject/

If one goes straight to the ads, without the misleading commentary of the Atlantic article, one will see a set of clumsy (in idea terms, but visually polished) adverts which are blunt, crass, uncouth, and border on racist. The ads suggest that Israelis should encourage their children who have emigrated to return to Israel. What is offensive about these adverts? That the Israeli government would believe we, Israeli citizens, would share their narrow-minded view of identity politics and believe that "preserving Israeli identity" is worth more than doing whatever is best for our children's health and happiness. That is offensive. The idea that Israeliness is something to be defended, that Americanness is such a bad thing - that we would not want our kids growing up as Americans instead of Israelis - that is offensive.

What's not offensive about these ads? Any suggestion that they may say anything about American Jews - because actually they don't say anything at all about American Jews. This campaign is not talking about the difference between Israelis and American Jews - it's talking about the difference between being Israeli and not being Israeli. Or rather being an Israeli living in Israel and one living abroad.

Are the adverts wrong? Obviously it depends what you mean by wrong - if you are talking morally wrong - well yes - as I mentioned before, I think they play on an essentially racist understanding of identity politics which is harmful to the fabric of society and for international peace and wellbeing between people of different cultures. Are they factually wrong? Well no - of course not. It is simple fact that someone who grows up in a country other than their parents' country of birth will feel less attached to that country's culture. And that is all these adverts are saying. Christmas is a national holiday in the USA - so yes - an American kid will understand that is the winter holiday that people celebrate. An American kid will call their dad, Daddy. And a non-Israeli partner won't feel the same about Yom Hazikaron as an Israeli. My son has British citzenship - but, if he continues to be raised in Israel, he will not be as British, in identity terms, as I am. He will not understand Shakespeare in the same way, he will not appreciate a sunny day in May in the same way, he will genuinely truly bless the rain, he won't know that you put milk in tea, he won't know that Turkey leftovers are the traditional food for the weeks following the 25th of December. He may even think (heaven forfend) that the Israeli Premier league represents top class football. He will not be very British. I am fine with that. If the British government wanted to lure me back to Britain and they chose to tell my parents that Aviv (my son) won't be able to quote Shakespeare, won't know what Christmas is, or will call me Abba - I'd be fine with that. I would not be offended in any way.

Any reading of an anti-Diasporic message in these ads is as much part of the neurotic paranoia of the American Jewish community as it is part of the Zionist message of the ads.

These ads are a cheap crude way of playing on all people's emotional desire to see themselves in their descendants. When I want to encourage my mum in her Hebrew homework, I tell her that she needs to do it so that she will be able to talk to her grandkids (of course they will speak English - they are the children of Brits, but will their kids?). But they are not making any attack on the Jews of the Diaspora.

In short - "Diaspora Jewry" - get over it. If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend you don't have an issue to deal with regarding assimilation - that's fine, but don't pretend that we are attacking you when we try and tell the truth to Israeli citizens living among you. And Israeli Government - once again, thanks for making me ashamed to be in any way related to your idiotic policies of stupidity, narrow-mindedness and suicidal short-sightedness - oh, and way to go pissing off "Diaspora Jewry" - we really need to alienate some of the few supporters we have left! You may just have encouraged me to leave!

My (not very) public apology to Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks

First off, let me be clear - I know that Rabbi Sacks does not need my apology. He doesn't know who I am. We have actually met (a few times), but he has met probably a million people. There is no reason for him to know who I am, and certainly none for him to care about what I think of him. My apology therefore is only half for him - it is more for me. It is a good exercise in humility to admit when one is wrong and to say sorry. This may not be the season, I might have missed Elul and the days of repentance - but you know what - Teshuva's a journey, one we are always on (ok, I am stopping with that Drasha now, I promise, I really have done it to death).

So yes - I want to apologise to Rabbi Dr Sacks. I just read a very little booklet he put out for Yom Kippur (Letters to the Next Generation 2). Not one of his epic tomes, no masterpiece of theology - a simple booklet, which you could probably polish off in your average Yom Kippur Mussaf service if you got bored and lost track of the service. I imagine that's the point. The beauty of this little book is that Sacks manages to avoid intra-Jewish politics, and is talking solely to a Jewish audience so isn't trying to suck up to any pc liberals. And yet in his own innately sensitive way, he is defending the Jewish tradition from the critiques of post-modernity, and he does it immensely well. He shows his true genius. He is in fact a great darshan, a skilled writer, a teacher, a rabbi. Chief among British rabbis, by this evidence. So I am sorry for the harsh criticism I have doled out your way in the past. I now realise that you really are a good yid. You are simply a lousy politician. And unfortunately for you - while you wanted to lead Jewishly as a politician, you have been forced to lead the Jews politically. One of the great einstein quotes flowing around the net recently is his classic, about everyone being a genius: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
So Rabbi Sacks - as a rabbi, it turns out you are a genius. And you deserve to be recognised as such, of course, if you keep trying to climb trees, you won't get enough air to your gills....
So, while I may still have no/little respect for the concept of a chief rabbinate, I would love to say thanks to the chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth for teaching me a valuable lesson.

A thought about Bereishit.

A little late admittedly, but I thought I would give a tiny word about Bereishit. Simply because for years I have been carrying around this little mini-drash and I have never written it down (though I have taught it constantly). I am certain that I am not the first to think of this, but I never heard it from anyone else - I just came up with it one day when arguing the merits of what I call positive agnosticism (that's for a different blog to explain what that is..). Anyway here it is.

בראשית ברא אלהים

As we all know - that is how parashat Bereishit and the whole of Torah begins. We all also know that it is traditionally read with two kamatzim under the word ברא - bara. But we all also know that the nikud of the masoretic text is a later addition - it is in itself a version of interpretation. There is another way of pointing the text - instead of with two kamatzim - bara - it could be pointed with a sheva and a kamatz - b'ra - the imperative form. As such the line would no longer read, "In the beginning God created", but rather, "In the beginning, create God". This reading makes much more sense. Even before Darwin, my guess is that most people did not believe the creation myth was intended as natural history - it is intended to teach us something, to impart values and help us shape an identity as moral beings. As such, it starts with a simple formula - create for yourself a deity - a sense of the divine - live as if there is an absolute right and wrong, a morality that you are bound to. This sense of the divine, this אלהים will help you understand the rest of the world as you perceive it and guide you towards being an upright human being.

That's my little drash for Bereishit.