fbpx

September 12, 2012

What’s so Great about Stanley Kubrick

On Nov. 1, the Los Angeles County of Museum of Art, (LACMA) in partnership with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (those wonderful folks who bring us the Oscars), will present the first U.S. retrospective of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, a project developed in partnership with the Kubrick estate, a show that originated at the Deutsches Filmmuseum in Frankfurt, Germany, but will be seen here in a more expanded form.

Kubrick, who died in 1999 at 70, was — for those short of memory or Netflix membership — the Bronx-born filmmaker of such idiosyncratic and varied works as “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Dr. Strangelove,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “Barry Lyndon,” “The Shining,” “Full Metal Jacket” and “Eyes Wide Shut.”

“By featuring this legendary filmmaker and his oeuvre in his first retrospective within the context of an art museum,” LACMA director and CEO Michael Govan says in the press materials, “Stanley Kubrick will reevaluate how we define the artist in the 21st century and simultaneously expand LACMA’s commitment to exploring the intersection of art and film.”

Well: Bravo! Rarely have I read a quote so loaded and so revealing. All you need to know is right there, and all I need do is unpack Govan’s quote — which I will do, in reverse order.

To wit: 1. “… expand LACMA’s commitment to exploring the intersection of art and film.” I take this as a phrase serving two masters: First, it acknowledges that the May Co. building at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue, which has housed only a smattering of exhibitions and a bunch of LACMA offices, is about to become the home of the new Academy Museum, (although this show will be presented in LACMA’s Art of the Americas Building). So museum-wise, it is LACMA that will stand at the intersection of art and film. On a deeper level, as the encyclopedic art museum continues to search for its distinctive place in the local and national museum landscape, it is a canny move to tap into the region’s most famous industry, the movie biz. This is hardly the museum’s first move in that direction; LACMA exhibitions, such as the recent “Dalí : Painting & Film” and the “Tim Burton” show were also ventures into the intersections of high and popular art.

Which brings us to…

2. “Stanley Kubrick will reevaluate how we define the artist in the 21st century.” Museums, although most often slower moving than the rest of society, are being forced to rethink what they do, how they do it and who they do it for. So, for example, the Annenberg Space for Photography exhibits at its centerpiece digitally projected images — it is a gallery that is not really about what is on the walls, so much as what can capture the attention and imaginations, camera-roll style, of an Instagram-saturated generation. The Annenberg Space, like the downtown-L.A. Grammy Museum, which juxtaposes cultural artifacts and audiovisuals in curated shows, have been successful at breaking ground with regard to what a museum can do.

Jack

Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.” Photos © Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

By contrast, Los Angeles’ veteran Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA), under the directorship of Jeffrey Deitch, has, in its attempt to redefine art as fashion and to outsource its curatorial function, been roundly criticized (and deservedly so) for abandoning its mission and its legacy as the place for visionary, large-scale art historical shows that force us to think — and rethink —  the work of contemporary artists such as Robert Rauschenberg and Arshile Gorky, among others.

Finally, 3. “By featuring this legendary filmmaker and his oeuvre…” You know any time the word French word “oeuvre” (body of work) is used, that the other French term “auteur” (literally, author) is not far behind. And if Kubrick is a “legendary filmmaker,” what exactly is his legend?

Glad you asked: Legend has it that Kubrick, a poor student, became absorbed by photography as a teenager, selling his first photo to Look magazine at the age of 16 and  eventually becoming a staff photographer there. One of his friends from high school, Alex Singer, was working in the offices of the newsreel “March of Time,” and he helped Kubrick get his first directing assignment, “Day of the Fight,” about a boxer. Kubrick shot, edited and did almost all the work on the film, thereby garnering firsthand a wide education on every facet of filmmaking.

Kubrick’s Hollywood career took off with a pair of Kirk Douglas dramas, “Paths of Glory” and “Spartacus,” which he followed with two satirical works starring Peter Sellers, “Lolita” and “Dr. Strangelove.” In those early four films, the actors were the stars. By contrast, though his “A Clockwork Orange” made Malcolm McDowell a star, it was Kubrick who got top billing for the film.

Full Metal Jacket

Lee Ermey in “Full Metal Jacket.”

With the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey” in 1968, Kubrick’s use of music, his attention to technical details, and the ambition and talent of what went on the screen made the announcement loud and clear (and at great length) that Kubrick had become his films’ star. From then on, (with the possible exception of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining” in 1980), audiences went to see a Kubrick film, not to see who was in it.

The exhibition at LACMA promises to reveal the influences and references Kubrick found as inspiration, as well as what archival material, photographs, props, costumes and annotated scripts he used for his technical and artistic innovations.

In his later years, Kubrick became obsessed with controlling every aspect of production, and his research leading up to a project — his perfectionism and his inventive use of special effects, lighting and camera movement — would impact the work of a generation of filmmakers to follow and would add to the cult-like reverence for his work. It would also contribute to the eventual stagnation of his career — he rarely left England and almost as rarely left his home. He spent years on projects that he later abandoned. The result was his work suffered, as evidenced by the fiasco that was his final film, the Arthur Schnitzler-inspired, Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman vehicle, “Eyes Wide Shut.”

Clockwork Orange

Malcolm McDowell in “A Clockwork Orange.”

Film aficionados see Kubrick as a genius. But he was also a Jewish boy from the Bronx who became sealed away from the world by a lens, controlling his narratives on an editing table. Neither he nor his parents were in any way Jewishly observant, but Kubrick, in England, loved to surround himself with Jewish friends, screenwriters and colleagues. His acknowledged great influence as a director was Max Ophuls, whose camera movements he adopted (Ophuls, in turn, gave credit for his use of reverse-dolly shots to director Anatole Litvak — all Jewish directors).

Late in life, Kubrick spent years on a Holocaust-inspired project called “Aryan Papers” (which I had heard was based, in part, on Louis Begley’s “Wartime Lies”), immersing himself in research on the Shoah. There are many apocryphal accounts of why he abandoned this undertaking, but perhaps it was just that the film would have required Kubrick to go to a place that he could not, or would not.

The Kubrick retrospective at LACMA will, no doubt, give each of us much to consider, not only in terms of a career and legacy, but also in helping us to examine whether the ephemera of Kubrick’s life’s work can tell us what’s truly great about Stanley Kubrick.

A version of this article appeared in print.

What’s so Great about Stanley Kubrick Read More »

Delaying the Meeting Between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu Is Wise

As I write this blog it is unclear today whether President Obama has refused to meet with Prime Minister Netayahu when he visits New York later this month. A report in Ha’aretz said that Netanyahu had requested the meeting and the White House had turned him down because of scheduling conflicts – Obama will not be in New York the days of Netanyahu’s visit. The White House has denied that a meeting was requested. It may also be the case that the Israelis were informed weeks ago that the President was not meeting one-on-one with any leader in New York and that his campaign schedule would not permit a Washington meeting. –An hour long conversation between the President and the Prime Minister on Tuesday evening was intended to tone down rampant rumors of a split.

As to the substance: I believe that it is wise that the President and the Prime Minister not meet before the election. My reasoning presumes that Iran will not have a nuclear bomb developed between September 26 and November 6th and hence that the options available to the American President and the Israeli Prime Minister will not change between the date of their presumed meeting and election day.

After the US election, it will be clear who will be the next President of the United States and the President, whether Obama or Romney, will not be burdened or encouraged by electoral politics as he makes a momentous series of decisions: whether to back an Israel attack on Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons; whether to commence an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities; whether to issue a clear and definitive red line in advance of such attacks; or whether to continue on the current course of strong sanctions and seemingly ineffective diplomacy without taking the option of an attack off the table.

Mr. Netanyahu clearly wanted to meet with the President during a time of electoral vulnerability as it strengthens his hand in getting the outcome he seeks. There are ample reasons for the Mr. Obama not to want to risk a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu who is clearly closer to the Republican opposition than he is to the President with whom he has differed publicly and privately over settlements, over negotiations with the Palestinians and over the pace and scope of actions against Iran.

Several times, Netanyahu has used his leverage with the Congress, most especially with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the House Republican, and his ardent followers in AIPAC to pressure the President. And there is no reason not to suspect that he might want to do that again with the election on the line in less than seven weeks if he does not prevail. Obama is currently enjoying two to one support in the American Jewish Community and the only place where the Jewish vote may be decisive is in Florida.

Furthermore, after the November elections the tables are turned. Netanyahu is the candidate for reelection and the President – again whether Obama or Romney – does not have to face the electorate for at least four years, if ever. So the hand of the American President in strengthened. And one of the major responsibilities of any Israeli Prime Minister is managing his relationship with Washington and with the American people.

So one cannot blame Netanyahu for seeking to use his current leverage and one should not blame the President for tarrying a bit so that he has a strengthened hand to make the best decision in both US and Israeli interests, a decision that cannot be dismissed by his current political opponent or, if the operation goes awry by its critics, as political opportunism. One can imagine the scenario of the critics who spoke of the Iraq war as the US doing Israel’s bidding of the post Iran criticism when the US is actually doing Israeli bidding if such an attack were undertaken in the height of political battle.

Clearly, Israel is deeply divided over the question of attacking Iran, seriously divided even as no one doubts that a nuclear armed Iran poses an existential threat of Israel and even as Israelis and other concerned people are horrified by the genocidal rhetoric of the Iranian leaders. We do not know, but presumably the President and the Prime Minister do know, if Israel has the capacity to stop the Iranian program and/or to set it back for a significant period of time. And we must surely hope that the President and the Prime Minister know that Israel has the capacity to face the attacks that would surely follow – though both US and Israeli intelligence agencies have failed before on this very question. The war games scenarios must consider the instability of Egypt and Syria along with the rockets aimed at Israel from Lebanon and Gaza as well as potential attacks in the Persian Gulf region and throughout the world. As

Prime Minister, Netanyahu must make a case to his people and as a candidate for Prime Minister; he must make an even stronger case. Clearly the United States is deeply reluctant, properly so, to enter into yet another conflict in the Muslim world. The American military is dovish precisely because it is exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its battles in Pakistan and potential actions in Syria. One does not take such actions precipitously and one should not make such monumental commitments as President of the United States under the potential appearance of political gamesmanship.

So if the report in Ha’artez is correct and – and Obama delayed meeting with the Prime Minister he was not unwise for this issue is too serious, too potentially explosive, for one not to proceed with caution and with wisdom.

Delaying the Meeting Between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu Is Wise Read More »

The Newish Journal

Is it possible to take a holiday like Rosh Hashanah, which focuses so strongly on human affairs, and apply it to a nonhuman thing, like, say, a community paper? On the surface, this doesn’t make sense: Everything about Rosh Hashanah is about what we do as humans — taking stock of our behavior, repenting for our sins and renewing ourselves for the coming year.

I’ve never heard of a rabbi who gave a Rosh Hashanah sermon on the importance of renewing the décor in our homes or the design or content of our magazines.

And yet this year, as we approached that time of year when we work on renewing ourselves, I noticed I had the same itch to renew a “thing” I work on: the Jewish Journal.

This was not a “religious” process — it was more of an instinctive process whereby my partner Rob Eshman and I looked at a good Jewish community paper and asked the eternal Jewish question: How can we make it better? 

The result is what you’re now holding in your hands, what we’re calling, in honor of Rosh Hashanah, a renewal of the Jewish Journal. 

To kick off this renewal, we asked ourselves: How can we freshen up the overall design of the paper and make different sections stand out? In essence, how can we make the whole experience of going through the Journal a more engaging one?

And, if we had to summarize our mission in three words that would go on our masthead, what would they be?

The three words we came up with were: “Connect. Inform. Inspire.”

Our New Year’s resolution for 5773 will be to deliver on these three words as well as or better than we ever have.

“Connect” signifies that our first mission is one of connection: To connect Jews of all stripes to their community, their tradition and one another, while also connecting the larger community to ours.

“Inform” is the heart of what we do, and it’s how we create these connections. We seek interesting stories, important news, insightful commentary and practical information, and deliver it all in a clear and engaging way. We are storytellers, in the ancient tradition of our people.

Finally, if we do our job right, we aim to inspire you. 

“Inspire” is a big canvas. It can mean inspiring you to get involved with a local charity; to learn more about Zionism and visit Israel; to find new meaning in a Jewish holiday or a Torah portion of the week; to explore the rich and fascinating tapestry of Jewish culture; or even to reach beyond the Jewish community to heal your city, your country and your world.

In this spirit of inspiration, you’ll notice we have added what Rob Eshman (true foodie that he is) has coined “spiceboxes.”

These spiceboxes are little squares scattered throughout the paper that showcase items like the Yiddish or Hebrew word of the week, poetry, moments in Jewish history, life tips, Jewish humor, spiritual “soul bites,” great photos and anything else we feel will surprise and delight you. What’s a good meal without good spices?

And speaking of variety, our new “big word” graphic look will better highlight our coverage of our community’s diversity, which we plan to make even more extensive with the addition of some new sections.

On the advertising front, we have pioneered a new “brandraising” model whereby philanthropists donate branding campaigns to the causes of their choice. So far, through our new creative division, JJ Branding, we have initiated campaigns for nonprofit brands such as Hiddush, Coachart, Spark and American Diabetes Association, as well as for Occidental College and the Nissan Leaf. (If you’d like to donate your own branding campaign to your favorite cause, don’t be shy — contact me.)

Our Web site and mobile platforms are growing and are continually being “renewed.” We now host exclusively more than 80 bloggers, including the renowned Rosner’s Domain. This month, we’re launching Shmuel Rosner’s new book on the 2012 election, “The Jewish Vote” (JewishJournal Books), as well as an innovative new site, HollywoodJournal.com, which will cover “The Soul of the Biz.” 

One thing that will never change at the Journal is our expectation of … criticism. Yes, criticism. We not only expect it, we embrace it. It helps us serve you better.

In fact, this is what helped us get to this “newish” Journal in the first place — listening to your feedback, ideas and critiques.

Maybe that’s why it was so natural for us to apply the Rosh Hashanah mitzvah of self-correction to our paper: Because you, our beloved readers, never let us forget where and when we go wrong!

On that note, please keep the feedback coming, and may we all be blessed for a year of spiritual growth, joyful times and continuous renewal of everything we cherish.


David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

The Newish Journal Read More »

Director of anti-Muslim movie that sparked attacks on U.S. facilities not Israeli

The director of an anti-Islam film that helped sparked attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities is not Israeli as he claimed, a consultant to the film said.

The Atlantic blogger Jeffrey Goldberg reported that a Steve Klein, a consultant to the controversial film, “Innocence of Muslims,” and a self-described militant Christian activist in Riverside, Calif., said that the film's directo,r Sam Bacile, is not Israeli and that the name is a pseudonym.

Goldberg quoted Klein as saying: “I don't know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He's not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved.” Klein said: “His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign.”

Meanwhile, a high-ranking Israeli official in Los Angeles told JTA Wednesday that after numerous inquiries, it appeared that no one in the Hollywood film industry or in the local Israeli community knew of a Sam Bacile, the supposed director-writer of the incendiary film “Innocence of Muslims.”

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other American diplomats were killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and the U.S. embassy in Cairo was attacked Tuesday evening by angry protesters.

Amb. John Christopher Stevens and three unnamed diplomats were killed Tuesday night in a rocket attack on their car in Benghazi, the White House confirmed Wednesday morning. U.S. officials said that the armed attack on the consulate may have been pre-planned.

On Tuesday evening, Egyptian protesters climbed over the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, pulled down an American flag and tried to set it alight.

The attacks follow the release online of an Arabic translation of the movie. Media reports said it was directed by Bacile, who described himself as a California real estate developer. The two-hour movie attacks the Islamic prophet Muhammad, making him out to be a fraud.

The film was screened one time at a movie theater in Hollywood, someone identifying himself as Bacile told the AP.

Bacile said went into hiding on Tuesday night, speaking to international media from an undisclosed location.

Klein told Goldberg that I there are some 15 people associated with the making of the film, all American citizens.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attack.

“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” she said in a statement. “But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

The Los Angeles chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Shura Council are scheduled to hold a news conference Wednesday to condemn the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and attacks on diplomatic facilities and persons in Libya and Egypt.

In Washington, CAIR’s national officials called on Muslims in the Middle East “to ignore the trashy anti-Islam film that resulted in the attacks.”

Director of anti-Muslim movie that sparked attacks on U.S. facilities not Israeli Read More »

Resilience: We can learn from our trials

How life teaches us! We read the wisdom of books and study the lectures of professors and we think we are ready for what life brings us. Armed with our learning, we venture into the world and discover that the formulas of the brain don’t help bind the wounds of the heart.

I remember the first time I went into a hospital room to counsel someone who was dying of a terminal illness. I was accompanied by a wise chaplain with many years of experience. We stood by the patient’s bedside and I expected that we would commiserate with his plight. We would explain that this illness wasn’t a punishment from God, but that these tragedies are random. With the inexperience of youth, I believed that nothing good can ever come from pain, that suffering is but an enemy to be vanquished, never a teacher to be heeded.

Imagine my horror, then, when the chaplain turned to the patient and asked, “What has your cancer taught you?” And imagine my surprise when the patient responded by offering many valuable lessons that he derived from his illness: renewed love of life, better priorities, deeper love for his family. This man knew exactly what the chaplain was addressing, and he was able to share the precious insights  that he had gained at a very high price.

Another memory: When I was 14 I was diagnosed as having a terminal, inoperable cancer. Having endured two years of terrible pain, a pain so embarrassing that I hid it from my family throughout that period, I finally couldn’t take it anymore. After I revealed my suffering to my parents, they rushed me to a doctor, who promptly hospitalized me. There I was poked and prodded by countless experts, each trying to get a fix on my malady and to decide on a productive response. Thank God, one clever dermatologist noticed some bumps on my arm and connected that to my internal affliction. Within two weeks I was undergoing rounds of chemo and radiation therapy that lasted for several months. 

I’m pleased to tell you that the assessment that my cancer was terminal and inoperable turned out to be an exaggeration. But the pain and fear I felt were not. I would gladly never have confronted that trial, never have suffered that anguish. But I also know that I could not be the rabbi, counselor, husband, father or friend I am today were it not for the lessons I learned from my own brush with death and pain.

The truth is that we all suffer at different points in our lives. Each of us faces challenges and endures pain — both our own and that of our loved ones. As creatures who are finite, mortal and flawed, it is not ours to choose whether we suffer. But we do have the power to choose how to respond. We may not be the masters of our fate, but we are the captains of our souls.

It is now in this light that I would like us to think about the binding of Isaac. 

Whenever we encounter this story, it makes us profoundly uncomfortable. Part of our struggle, no doubt, is that we object to a God who demands the sacrifice of what we love most. We hate that Abraham is called to demonstrate faithfulness by offering up his beloved son. We resent the imposition of suffering in a world that is too filled with pain and sorrow. Abraham, as our tradition recognizes, is a stand-in for each one of us. As the Talmud notes, “Sound a ram’s horn before Me so that I remember in your behalf the binding of Isaac and count it to you as though you had bound yourselves before Me” (Rosh Hashanah 16a). The trial of Abraham tries us all. We can all perceive our pain in his silent anguish.

Just like Abraham, we, too, must concede that life puts us on trial. Much as we might wish to determine our destiny, such control is not in our hands. We cannot choose whether we will suffer or not, but we can decide what to do with our suffering.

Abraham, our father, also faced such a choice. The Bible records, “God put Abraham to the test” (Genesis 22:1). Abraham has no exemption from suffering; indeed, his righteousness makes him even more aware of his own pain. As the midrash notes, “God tests the faith of the righteous in that God reveals to them only at a later time the ultimate meaning of the trials to which the are subjected” (Bereshit Rabbah 55:7). Like the rest of us, all Abraham feels is anguish and sorrow. In the midst of his suffering, he cannot discern purpose or pattern. Only pain.

In his experience of pain, he is no different than any other human being. Indeed, the Zohar recognizes that to live is to lose, that to be is to suffer and to grieve: “Rabbi Shimon said: we have learned that the expression ‘And it came to pass in the days of’ denotes sorrow, while the expression ‘And it came to pass’ even without ‘in the days of’ is still tinged with sorrow” (Zohar I:119b).

“Tinged with sorrow.” I can’t think of a better description of what it feels like to be alive. We know that the dominant flavor of life is bittersweet — even in our moments of greatest joy, we recall our losses. Even in our greatest grief, we draw consolation from our love and our hope.

Yet this test need not shatter us; being tried doesn’t have to destroy us. Interestingly, the biblical word for test, nisayon, develops into a word which in modern Hebrew can mean “experience” or “experiment.” We alone can transform our test into an experience — something that provides an opportunity for new understandings and deeper connections. With the right attitude, our trials can transform us. The 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” Our father Abraham learned a similar lesson. I think he would have said, “What doesn’t kill me can make me wiser and more compassionate.”

Why is Abraham’s resilience tested? We are never told. One possibility, however, is that suffering was a necessary — if regrettable — spur to depth, caring and meaning. Throughout his life, Abraham had known only success: a beautiful and devoted wife, great wealth, prominence and intimacy with the Creator of the universe. With all that bounty, how could he learn to empathize with others? How could he not feel smug and superior to other people with their failures and their sorrows? How could he not blame them for their sorrow? Suffering taught Abraham what success could not. The Zohar notes this salutary function when it asks, “Why is it written that God tested Abraham and not Isaac? It had to be Abraham! He had to be crowned with rigor. … Abraham was not complete until now” (Zohar 119b).

Perhaps the worth of Abraham’s trial lay in adding a layer of depth to his faith. How easy it is — when all goes well — to put God in our pocket, to think of God as a big buddy, a Santa in the sky. How tempting it is to think of God as merely there to indulge our obsession with ourselves! Suffering makes such a narcissistic and arrogant faith impossible. By undergoing the ordeal of his trial, Abraham could transcend the bartering faith of his youth for the more nuanced trustfulness of mature faith. As the psalmist sings: “You Who have made me undergo many troubles and misfortunes will revive me again. … You will turn and comfort me” (Psalms 71:20-21). While faith doesn’t exempt us from tragedy, it does provide comfort even amid the pain. Abraham learns that faithfulness between God and humanity is not wish fulfillment. It is commitment, relationship and steadfastness.

The Bible records no reason for Abraham’s trial. And few of us ever know why we must endure suffering and sorrow. But we do know that how we respond to our suffering has the power to transform us, for good or for ill. As 20th century spiritual leader Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan notes, “According to Jewish traditional teaching, a person is not trapped but tested. Our vicissitudes should serve as a challenge to our faith. … To deny the worth of life and to fall into despair because the promise is slow of fulfillment is to fail the test (“Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion,” p. 68). How we cope with the trials of life spells the difference between renewal and resignation, between spiritual growth and spiritual stagnation.

Abraham’s greatness lies precisely in his determination to respond to his trial with resilience and resolve. God calls out the test, and Abraham does not evade the challenge. His immediate answer is Hineni, here I am. Abraham’s willingness to set out on this gruesome path is rooted in faithfulness — to Isaac, to himself and to his God. In the words of 20th century Bible scholar Rabbi Julian Morgenstern, “This is the true faith, which enables us to endure all trials and stand all tests, and prove ourselves fit and ready for the great work for which, sooner or later, God calls every one of us.”

Abraham passes the test because he faces the challenge that is posed to him. Rather than fleeing what lies ahead, rather than cowering and allowing its struggle to cripple him, Abraham moves forward to do whatever needs to be done, to go wherever it is that his path in life will lead.

Abraham learns that suffering — as painful as it is — can be a source of insight. It is in this spirit that the 13th century medieval Jewish scholar Rabbi Moses ben Nahman asserts, “All trials in the Torah are for the good of the one who is being tried.” Not that pain is good — true faith doesn’t celebrate misery. We don’t seek out suffering, and we certainly don’t enjoy it. But neither do we refuse to learn from life’s challenges. In the words of the Jerusalem Talmud, “Why do you scorn suffering?”(Peah 8:9) The great men and women of the Torah were able use their trials to derive great lessons about life. They wrestled with their pain and emerged wiser and better because of how they responded to it. In that sense — and in that sense alone — their trials were for their benefit. They used those trials as occasions for deeper understanding and connection.

Abraham learned from his trial, and it became a source of personal growth and spiritual depth. The Zohar recognizes a hint of that growth from the way the angel calls out his name as Abraham is about to slaughter his son. At the moment when Isaac is bound to the altar, as Abraham raises the knife high in the air, “An angel of the Lord called to him from heaven: ‘Abraham! Abraham!’” 

Why does the angel say Abraham’s name twice? “Rebbe Hiyya said that the angel repeated Abraham’s name in order to animate him with a new spirit and to spur him to new activity with a new heart” (Zohar 119b). Having faced his suffering directly, having been willing to learn from his terrible trial, Abraham emerges with a new spirit and a new heart. Indeed, the Zohar claims that the angels shouted “Abraham! Abraham!” to show that “the latter Abraham was not like the former Abraham; the latter was the perfected Abraham while the former was still incomplete.” Out of the horror of his suffering, Abraham changed. Abraham grew.

“God tries everyone in some way. … The real test is the way we offer our sacrifice, the willingness with which we give up what is dear, the perfect faith in God which we still preserve, and which keeps from doubting God’s wisdom and goodness (‘The Book of Genesis,’ p. 148).” These words of Rabbi Morgenstern, written almost a century ago, translate the great lesson of the test of Abraham: We do not seek to suffer. We do not deify pain. But we know that suffering and pain are part of the journey we call life, and we know that we can learn, and grow, even from an encounter with tragedy, especially from the trials life brings.


Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson holds the Abner and Roslyn Goldstine Dean’s Chair of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies and is vice president of American Jewish University in Los Angeles. This is an excerpt from “Passing Life’s Tests: Spiritual Reflections on the Trial of Abraham, the Binding of Isaac” (Jewish Lights).

Resilience: We can learn from our trials Read More »

Out of Ronald Reagan’s shadow

Even though this is going to be a very close presidential election, maybe closer than in 2008, the Democratic convention of 2012 revealed a party that is stronger today than the dynamic gathering of hope and change that nominated Barack Obama four years ago. For the first time since Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980, Democrats seem to be emerging from Reagan’s shadow. 

In American politics, a first election is not conclusive; what really matters is re-election. It’s easy to dismiss the work of a one-term president. A two-termer has a chance to certify a direction and to leave a mark. Getting re-elected can be a march to glory when conditions are fabulous, but when conditions are tough, it is a hard slog that reveals the character of a leader and of a party.

To really appreciate what happened at the 2012 Democratic convention, you have to understand what the politically skilled Ronald Reagan did to the Democrats. It wasn’t just that the Republicans dominated the political debate after Reagan’s 1980 victory and his smashing 1984 re-election. It’s that he got inside the heads of the Democrats and took away their belief in their own ideas. Who could beat his brilliant phrase stating his political philosophy at the outset of his presidency: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem.” Reagan terrified Democrats to the point that they lost their normal fighting instincts and, at the same time, he imparted a jaunty, aggressive attitude to a Republican Party that had been demoralized by Watergate.

The midcentury Democratic Party of Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had plenty of “brass,” to borrow Bill Clinton’s felicitous phrase. But when educated reformers took the party out of the hands of the blue-collar machines in 1972, and then when Reagan won in 1980, the party’s brawling spirit went right out the window. Since then, it has sometimes seemed as if Democrats required focus groups just to talk to Americans.

If pollsters said voters wanted “nice” politicians, then Democrats tried to be nice. 

The Democrats’ weakness hurt more than themselves; it hurt the country. As the Republican Party has moved further right, its agenda has begun to challenge the pillars of the nation’s social safety net. The only remaining bars to a rightward lurch in national policy are either a renewed and invigorated moderate faction within the Republican Party or a vital, excited Democratic Party (or ideally, both). As of now (although hopefully not in the future), the moderate wing of the Republican Party is too weak to hold back the tide. Ironically, the Democrats’ weakness has reduced the leverage of the moderate Republicans. The result has become that the only strength in the room is on the right — so why not bend to it?

Bill Clinton is justly celebrated today for his political skills, but he did not solve the Democratic problem during his presidency. He brilliantly dodged Republican punches by triangulating and by fighting an ingenious defensive guerrilla battle against the ascendant right wing. But he was unable to reform health care. He could not get a stimulus package passed. His party got swamped in 1994. 
He did, though, show Democrats how to be aggressive without being vicious. He made clear it is possible to fight really hard without being disagreeable. We see this in competitive sports, and it can be true in politics as well. By example, Clinton showed how to educate and inform while engaging in political warfare, how to offer up an intellectual party that can actually talk to people. And, of course, he delivered an economic prosperity that could have been an argument for his party’s policies. 

In 2008, the Democrats were excited but divided, with the Clinton forces devastated by Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Jewish and Latino voters supported Obama in huge numbers, but their first love in the primaries was for Hillary Clinton. Now that division is gone. This year, with Hillary Clinton in the administration, Bill is all in.

Obama has made some progress against economic and political headwinds. He got a stimulus package and he won historic health-care reform. But instead of building a fighting Democratic Party to watch his back, he spent valuable political capital trying fruitlessly to cure political partisanship itself. That cost him dearly in 2010, as energized Republicans flocked to the polls and demoralized Democrats stayed home. Back in January 2010, former President Clinton, addressing House Democrats, urged them not only to vote to pass health-care reform, but to fight for it, to explain its benefits to the voters. He quoted former Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers: “You’ve got to put the corn where the hogs can get to it.”

By 2011, Obama had come to understand that to win two terms, a president needs the full strength of his party. A president needs good politics to make good policy. He has to fight. If he fights, he will have a party to watch his back. And that is the only way that his health-care plan, which will mark his place in history, can avoid being cast into the dustbin.

This convention saw the rabbits turned into tigers. The convention hall was on fire. Perhaps it was the realization that unlike 2008, this is a real fight for real stakes, not a march to some post-partisan heaven. 

Democrats defended the health-care plan they had previously treated like an albatross. They bragged about killing Osama bin Laden. They had fun devising clever ways to attack their opponents. It was old-fashioned politics, of a sort Democrats have not practiced in a generation. When they blundered on the platform by omitting key material about Israel and Jerusalem, they ran a quick parliamentary maneuver to correct it, despite criticism from all sides and even satire from Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show.”

Of course, it’s still a process. It remains hard for Democrats to mention poor people, and it took Clinton to explain that Medicaid is not just for the poor, but also for the elderly and disabled. Democrats have been remarkably quiet about Republican moves to change rules at the polls that would suppress the vote in states they controlled after 2010. Perhaps they think voters haven’t yet noticed that minority and poor voters lean heavily to the Democrats. But this is a mistake; they should stand up for the rights of people whose votes they need, rather than be left wondering after the election why they don’t seem to turn out to vote.

Win or lose, Democrats should take heart from their convention and continue on the path to winning back their brass. They are going to need that fighting spirit for decades to come, because the gains of the New Deal and the Great Society are on the table. 

The country will be better off for having a stronger voice for the social safety net. Moderate Republicans will have a better chance to get back into the game if the parameters of the debate are pulled more to the center.      

That’s the real hope for common ground. 


Raphael J. Sonenshein is executive director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles.

Out of Ronald Reagan’s shadow Read More »

5 theories you meet in heaven

What is the singular essence of Rosh Hashanah?

The core meaning of Rosh Hashanah is the sovereignty of the divine. By sovereignty of the divine, I don’t mean any particular level of Jewish practice. Jewish pietistic literature is well aware that anyone can go through the motions of outward observance. By sovereignty of the divine, I mean finding a way to find a standard for the duties and habits of the inner life.

Our inner thoughts, feelings, emotions, imagination, drives, impulses, sensations, perceptions, judgments and intuitions can all be askew and can push us in various ways in life, often contradictory ways. We need some standard, some criterion by which to assess ourselves.
Saying that “God is sovereign” is just not enough. If the divine will in its moral concern is expressed through the conscience, and if the concerns of the conscience can be expressed in language, then we should be able to come up with the values that ought to guide our lives — for example, love, justice, truth and beauty.

Words such as “love, justice, truth and beauty” remain only lofty concepts until we allow them to actually shape the inner life. When I think of words that name ultimate values shaping our lives, I keep in mind the Hebrew phrase “ohl malkhut shamayim,” the “yoke of the sovereignty of the divine.” The word “yoke,” which comes from the same Sanskrit root as “yoga,” has the sense of joining together, harnessing or directing, whether it is breathing, posture or consciousness. It seems a stretch, but actually it is not much of a stretch to think of Rosh Hashanah in particular, and the Days of Awe in general, as focusing on the yoga of divine consciousness.

How does one, then, take these divine values (I call them the Garments of the Mind of God) and have them, in a practical way, shape the inner life? My most recent articulation of a response to this question has to do with my adaption of the thought of a very fine book by Thomas Sowell, “Knowledge and Decisions.” Sowell demonstrates that one can assess the world of ideas through their relationship to the process of authentication. A vision, for example, cannot be authenticated. A vision for oneself, for society, can be inspiring or foolish (or both), but cannot be rationally assessed, because visions are not arrived at through any systematic process. A vision can be assessed only when it reaches the realm of “theory,” which means at some level it can and must be authenticated by reason.

When people ask me what I mean by the “yoga of divine consciousness,” from a practical perspective,  I respond:  “Do you have theories about what will shape you into the person you want to be, for the way you want your life to be?” Here is what I have discovered. Most people do, indeed, have lofty values, usually having to do with some facet of love, justice, truth and beauty. They might even have a practical theory or two. These values and theories, however, often are pushed aside in moments of moral stress.

For example, when I ask a person what their vision is for their family, they may say “love, safety, respect, nurturing” and so forth. Their values are good. When there is conflict or stress, however, the behaviors don’t seem to coincide with the vision. In the language of Jewish spiritual psychology, we say that the “yetzer harah” (a shaping toward destructiveness) has taken over, and provided the inner life with bad theories.

Here is a tool:  Whenever you are contemplating or assessing some mode of thought, feeling, speech or behavior, ask yourself: “What’s the theory?” and “How does this relate to the values that I hold?” Rationally speaking, does the real theory guiding my behavior line up with my values?

The problem we find is that many of the theories that rule our lives hide in the shadow of the self. Sometimes when I counsel a person, and ask them to give me a theory that accounts for their behavior, they are blank. They can’t come up with the theory. We dig deeper. Theories that often pop out of the shadows are, “If I yell at my kid/spouse enough, they will change,” “If I avoid confrontation, I will get my way,” and “If I had been more loving, it would have worked out.” And so forth.  The theories don’t stand up to rational inquiry, meaning that they don’t match the facts or lead to the realization of the values we hold.

If one starts with a reasonable set of values or axioms, as they apply to given situations, and is willing to work things through rationally, we can begin to distinguish between theories that lead to misfortune and those that lead to blessing.

In years of my work and counseling others, I think that there are several theories that nearly always guide us toward restraining destructive behavior, ridding us of bad theories and helping live lives aligned with our highest values. I’ve tried to boil them down to a few essential guides, metaphorically, “The Five Theories You Meet in Heaven.” Here is one version:

Obligations have to be subjected to rational inquiry. Some people exhaust themselves serving others. Not only clergy, therapists and physicians burn out; in nearly every family there is someone fatigued by meeting the needs of others. A demanding aged parent. A struggling child. An unhappy spouse. When I counsel a person run ragged by the demands of other people, I have them assess those demands by a simple rational calculus. What exactly is the obligation? How did that precise obligation come upon you in particular? Can it actually be done (this is especially important regarding the person who says, “You must make me happy.”)? Are you the only one who can do it? Might it get done in some other way? What is the cost to you, compared to the benefit to the other? Will the other person really be better off if you do this, and for how long?  What I find is that needy people often have a peculiar talent for working guilt-prone people. A good theory can help.

Love is a discipline, not an emotion. I often hear in counseling, “If he/she loved me, I would feel better.” I just turn the tables. “And how is your love for him/ her making them feel?” For some people, when they fall in love with someone, their theory is, usually unconsciously, that love will heal their deepest wounds, make them feel safe and treasured and will be a guarantor for happiness, and if this does not happen, then the other person is doing something wrong.
I offer a different theory, paraphrasing Charles Bukowski: “Love unleashes the dogs of hell.” Love fills us with often wild and unspoken needs and demands. How do we restrain the dogs from hell? See love as discipline of service, whatever the emotions may be. If I love someone, my love should bless them. My love should make their life better.

If you are hurt, this does not mean you have been wronged. It is entirely natural to experience hurt as being wronged. Any hurt or great disappointment looks for a cause, usually outside the self. If we see that another person is the proximate cause of the hurt, we blame them for having wronged us.

Not so fast. To know if we have been wronged, first we have to detail, as dispassionately as possible, what actually happened and it what order. People who like to stay hurt and believe they have been wronged typically never want to examine what actually happened. Their feelings are primary.

Those who want to live within the “yoke of divine consciousness” care about the truth; at a simple level, as much as possible, determine what transpired. I call this in counseling “the police report” — “just the facts, ma’am.”

After one has adequately determined what happened (which often means reconstructing the record with the person who you think wronged you), ask: What moral rule was broken here? For example, if I am not invited to a gathering where I thought I would have been a guest, I may feel very hurt, but I have not been wronged, unless a clear moral rule was broken. When our needs, expectations, entitlements and demands are not met, we feel hurt. It is a great leap from there to say we have been wronged. “Being wronged” has to be demonstrated, not assumed.

If I want to be a just person, I will care primarily about the truth and moral code, not about my bruised feelings.

It is very tough to get to the truth and work out the moral issues, which is why some people prefer just to stay angry. Anger fills you with arrogance. Truth and justice can humble you.

There are better and worse states of the inner life. We are obligated to create inner lives of beauty. I often hear from the angry, the resentful, from those who hate, that they are entitled to their feelings and emotions. “It’s a free country,” I am informed.

The Jewish tradition holds, however, that we should not “hate our kinsman in our hearts” and that we should not “bear a grudge.” The tradition of Jewish moral psychology (Mussar) has long lists of inner states against which the tradition warns us.  Unruly feelings are inevitable; cultivating them and expressing them is quite another thing. Anger and hatred especially make us feel self-righteous, closed off to hearing the truth, from acting justly and lovingly, and from creating harmony and goodness in our lives. Feelings of fear, guilt, shame and resentment, for example, also cloud our vision and impede our well-being. Living in a free country and having inner freedom are two entirely different things. The yoga of divine consciousness requires that, in general, we cultivate inner lives free of toxicity (including whatever those demonic Democrats or reprobate Republicans say next).

Good moral judgment is not judgmentalism. I regret having to subject the English language to enhanced coercion and use the neologism “judgmentalism,” but I have to find a way to distinguish between “using good moral judgment” from “excessive condemnation.” Oftentimes in conducting rational-spiritual counseling, using, for example, the theories listed above, I will hear that I am being “judgmental.” How can one say what love is? What inner feelings are better than others? That what I am doing is wrong? “Isn’t it all subjective?”

All morality, ethics, social justice, etc., requires a judgment: some things are right and some things are wrong, or put more softly, some things are morally better than others. Often times I see in a person’s desire to be tolerant and understanding (of others or of themselves), an unwillingness to assess morally a behavior or an inner state. All concepts, such as love, justice, truth and beauty, can be rationally discussed and applied if we believe that they name real metaphysical phenomena, not just inner states.

This list of five theories is not exhaustive, but rather indicates a way of thinking toward higher consciousness. Within the admittedly wide bounds of human nature, there really are better ways to think and feel, standards of truth that can be discovered, though often with difficulty. There are better and worse ways to love. And we really can create lives of inner beauty, as beautiful as anything you have ever seen or heard.

I hope you find your way to the Jewish “yoga studio” that serves your soul the best, and that you use these Holy Days upon us to shape your inner lives toward your furthest spiritual reach.


Rabbi Mordecai Finley is the spiritual leader of Ohr Ha Torah in Mar Vista and Professor of Jewish Thought at the Academy for Jewish Religion, California Campus.

5 theories you meet in heaven Read More »

Year in review: Highlights of 5772

The following is a review of the news highlights of the Jewish year 5772.

September 2011

An Egyptian mob breaks into the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and Israeli personnel are stuck inside for hours until Egyptian commandos arrive at the scene. Israeli Air Force jets evacuate the Israelis from the country. The attack exacerbates fears in Israel that it is losing a once-reliable ally to the south.

The Palestinians submit their bid for statehood recognition to the U.N. Security Council. In speeches at the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama rejects the Palestinians’ unilateral approach, saying that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate and must be addressed. In dueling speeches in the same forum, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas trade charges of ethnic cleansing.

Lauren Bush, granddaughter of the first President Bush and niece of the second, marries clothes designer Ralph Lauren’s son in a ceremony presided over by an ordained rabbi.

Turkey expels Israel’s ambassador to the country and downgrades diplomatic and military ties.

A California court finds 10 students affiliated with the Muslim Student Union at the University of California, Irvine, guilty of two misdemeanor counts for disrupting a speech in February 2010 by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

Some 15 countries announce before the Durban Review Conference known as Durban III that they will boycott the proceedings. The one-day session receives little attention amid all the goings-on at the United Nations.

 

October

Turkey agrees to accept Israel’s help after initially rejecting assistance during an earthquake there that kills 430 people and injures 1,000.

The terrorist organization Hamas releases Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit after the Israeli Cabinet approves a deal in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Cheering crowds greet Shalit when he finally returns to his family home in Mitzpe Hila after five years in captivity. Less than a week after the Shalit deal, Egypt agrees to release dual American-Israeli citizen Ilan Grapel in exchange for 25 Egyptians, and he reunites with his mother.

The United States stops paying its dues to UNESCO after the U.N. cultural and scientific agency’s vote to grant full membership to the Palestinians. A month later, UNESCO calls for emergency donations because of the loss of U.S. funding. Israel also cuts tax payments to the Palestinian Authority.

The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama is considering granting clemency to convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, but Vice President Joe Biden objects, telling the president that Pollard would be released “over my dead body.” Biden subsequently agrees to meet with Jewish leaders to press the case for Pollard, a U.S. Navy civilian analyst who was convicted in 1987 and has been serving a life sentence in a federal prison.

Five Jewish scientists win 2011 Nobel Prizes: Israeli professor Daniel Shechtman, chemistry; University of California physicist Saul Perlmutter, physics, with Johns Hopkins astronomer Adam Riess; and immunologists Ralph Steinman and Bruce Beutler, medicine.

American Jewish clergy and organizational leaders condemn an arson attack on a mosque in northern Israel by extremist West Bank Jewish settlers.

A protest encampment in Lower Manhattan takes on an increasingly Jewish flavor as services are organized for Yom Kippur and a sukkah is installed for the holiday of Sukkot. Critics charge that the so-called Occupy movement, motivated largely by anger over corporate greed and income inequality, harbors anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist undertones — charges that are vigorously disputed by Jewish participants in the protests.

Former Beatle Paul McCartney marries American Jewish heiress Nancy Shevell in London, the day after the couple attend Yom Kippur services at a British synagogue. McCartney’s former wife Linda Eastman also was Jewish; she died in 1998.

 

November

French President Nicolas Sarkozy calls Prime Minister Netanyahu a “liar” in a private exchange with President Obama during a summit meeting. Obama responds by saying, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.” Sarkozy subsequently meets with French Jewish leaders in an effort to make amends.

Penn State ousts its Jewish president, Graham Spanier, after reports of a child sex-abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at the university. The scandal, in which an alleged pattern of sexual abuse by Sandusky was brushed under the carpet by university officials, also leads to the firing of the school’s iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who dies shortly after his ouster.

The ACLU sues a Michigan bus agency that refuses to post an advertisement calling for a boycott of Israel.

Israeli President Shimon Peres meets in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah to discuss bilateral issues, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians and new developments in the region.

Three cars are set ablaze in a heavily Jewish neighborhood of Brooklyn and anti-Semitic graffiti is found painted on nearby sidewalks and benches. The incident is the first in a string of anti-Semitic incidents in New York and New Jersey that include the firebombing of a rabbi’s home. Two suspects are arrested in the New Jersey incidents.

Evelyn Lauder, pioneer of the pink ribbon as a symbol of breast cancer awareness, dies. Lauder, the wife of cosmetics heir Leonard Lauder and sister-in-law of Jewish leader Ronald Lauder, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1989 and founded the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, which raised $350 million to fight the disease.

Veteran Jewish congressman Barney Frank announces he will not run for reelection in 2012. Frank, a Democrat who represented his Massachusetts district since 1981, made the decision after a redistricting move that would have substantially altered the makeup of his constituency outside Boston.

 

December

Chasidic reggae star Matisyahu shaves his signature beard. Matisyahu announces the new look with a picture posted to his Twitter feed and explains that he was “reclaiming himself.”

Christopher Hitchens, the iconoclastic author, journalist and prominent atheist, dies after a lengthy battle with cancer. Hitchens discovered as an adult that his maternal grandmother was Jewish.

Thousands rally in the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh after a report that 8-year-old Na’ama Margolis was spat on by Charedim Orthodox extremists on her way to school for supposedly wearing immodest dress. The incident sets off a broad campaign to rein in religious extremism in Israel. Charedim rioters remove signs calling for the separation of sexes on city streets and clash with police.

Israel releases 550 Palestinian prisoners in the second stage of the prisoner swap for captured soldier Gilad Shalit.

Netanyahu pulls an Israeli ad campaign to lure home expatriates in the United States that angered American Jews.

 

January 2012

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pleads not guilty to corruption charges after being indicted for allegedly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes during the construction of the Holyland apartment project when he was mayor of Jerusalem and later Israel’s trade minister. In July, after his acquittal, he says he will not return to politics.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson announces that he is donating $5 million to a super PAC supporting the Republican candidacy of Newt Gingrich for president. The gift is the first of several multimillion-dollar donations announced by Adelson and his wife, Miriam, to support Gingrich, who will ultimately withdraw from the race in May. Adelson, saying he will donate “whatever it takes” to defeat President Obama, later gives $10 million to a political action committee backing presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

President Obama names Jacob Lew, an Orthodox Jew from New York, as his new chief of staff. Lew replaces William Daley, who had replaced Rahm Emanuel, who is Jewish and later wins the race for Chicago mayor.

Aryeh Ralbag, the chief rabbi of Amsterdam, is suspended from his post after signing a document on “curing” homosexuality. Ralbag is later reinstated, saying he was wrong to use his Amsterdam title and that the document did not fully reflect his position on the matter.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords announces she is resigning from Congress to recuperate from a shooting a year earlier. The Jewish Democrat from Arizona was shot in the head during a campaign event in Tucson.

The owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times finds himself under fire after penning a column speculating that Israel might assassinate President Obama. Andrew Adler apologizes and, within days, resigns his post.

 

February

The breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure says it is cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, a move that sparks widespread outrage, including among a number of Jewish groups that are vocal supporters of the organization. Within days, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker, a prominent Texas Jewish Republican, announces that the organization is reversing course.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the outspoken author of several best-selling books, including “Kosher Sex,” announces his intent to run for Congress in New Jersey. Boteach says he wants to bring Jewish values into the race.

Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the author of a commentary on the Torah that has become the standard text in Reform congregations, dies at 99.

The Associated Press reports that Alan Gross, an American Jew being held in Cuba on suspicion of espionage, gave sophisticated equipment capable of providing untraceable Internet access to Cuban Jews. The revelation is expected to hamper Jewish communal efforts to secure Gross’ release.

Anne Frank and Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl are discovered to have been posthumously baptized by members of the Mormon Church. The controversial practice has long irked some Jews, who find it an insult to the memory of departed relatives. Church leaders respond with measures to eliminate “unauthorized” baptisms.

A car bomb attack in the Indian capital of New Delhi injures the wife of an Israeli diplomat. Indian police arrest a journalist in connection with the attack who reportedly had ties to Iran. India also announces it has discovered evidence linking the attack to attempted strikes on Israeli targets in Thailand and the republic of Georgia.

French Jewish director Michel Hazanavicius wins an Academy Award for his film “The Artist,” while Woody Allen takes home the Oscar for best original screenplay for “Midnight in Paris” at the 84th Academy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles. Israel’s hopes for a statuette are dashed again when its entry for best foreign film, “Footnote,” loses to the Iranian film “A Separation.”

Year in review: Highlights of 5772 Read More »

CON: Should rabbis endorse candidates?

[Read the pro argument here]

In the summer of 2008 I received a phone call from the Obama campaign asking me to serve as national co-chair of Rabbis for Obama. What prompted the call? First, an article I had written praising the senator for using his name Barack — which he said his father had told him means blessing in Hebrew — rather than the more generic Barry. I mentioned that the Jewish community, which so often Anglicizes its names, could take inspiration from Obama and be prouder of its identity. Another consideration might have been my close friendship with Cory Booker and the fact that, at the time, I was hosting a daily radio show on the Oprah and Friends radio network, and Oprah was obviously quite close with Obama.

Whatever the reason for the phone call, I told them I was flattered but could not accept. There were two principal reasons. First, I had serious reservations about Obama vis-a-vis Israel.

But the second reason was more fundamental. I found the whole idea of Rabbis for Obama, or even Rabbis for McCain, which the Republicans never formed, to be inherently distasteful.

How could a rabbi now running for congress as a Republican say that? I’m not running for office on a platform that says Judaism supports Republicans. Less so am I running on a platform that says Judaism’s spiritual teachers are Republicans. On the contrary, Judaism supports democracy rather any one particular party. Indeed, the halachic Jewish legal process is itself profoundly democratic. “Acharei rabim lehatos,” we follow the majority opinion, Scripture  emphatically declares. Judaism supports different parties offering different visions as part of the full panoply of the democratic process. I am a Republican, but here in my community of Englewood, N.J., is Rabbi Menachem Genack, national administrator for the kashrut division of the Orthodox Union and regarded globally as an outstanding scholar, who is a Democrat and is famous as Bill Clinton’s personal rabbi.

There are indeed Jewish values that would, in my opinion, better follow the Republican line on some things, and there are Jewish positions that might be closer to what the Democrats are advocating.

In the second world war many in the Republican party were profoundly isolationist, wanting America to stay far away from Hitler’s European war. It was Democrats, at the time, through the great personality of Franklin Roosevelt, who wanted to support Churchill and Britain and started lend-lease as a way of getting the ball rolling. In that time, the Republican position directly contradicted Leviticus 19: “Thou shalt not stand by the blood of your neighbor.” Likewise, it is my opinion that when President Clinton did not lift a finger to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and when Democrats largely opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein under a Republican president, they were in the wrong as they would have left in power the greatest murderer of Arab life in the history of the world.

But these are just demonstrations on my part of how different parties can more closely align, on certain issues, with Jewish teachings and values at any given time. What Judaism expressly does not do is say “Vote Democrat” or “Vote Republican.” Judaism hovers above the political fray, informing and influencing the political arena from a loftier perch. And rabbis who are heads of communities, nearly all of whom consist of both Democrats and Republicans, are misguided when they collectively join organizations that state that Judaism’s spiritual leaders, in general, are for any one particular party.

It’s one thing to do so as individuals. Even rabbis are allowed to have political opinions and preferences. But once we go in the direction of Rabbis for Obama, we’re saying Judaism as a religion supports one party over the other. 

I have no problem with the Republican Jewish Coalition, which I admire and to which I am quite close, or the National Jewish Democratic Council. It’s good to see that Jews are politically engaged and involved on both sides of the aisle, as they should be. But rabbis claim to speak for a community, and to burden their communities in their capacities as religious leaders with their own political opinions is misguided.

Thus, even as I run for office, were I to be invited to join Rabbis for Romney (which, I might add, at least has the alliteration that Rabbis for Obama does not) I would decline. I run an intimate shul that is filled with Democrats and some Republicans — indeed for most of my life, my closest friends, colleagues, associates and congregants have been, for the most part, very liberal and very Democratic. This was especially true when I was rabbi at the University of Oxford and working in the American media where most, it would seem, are Democrat. We get along and love each other — because I respect their opinion and they respect mine, as it should be.

But while I object to Rabbis for Obama or Rabbis for Romney, I could see myself bending the rules a bit if it were Rabbis for Shmuley.

[Read the pro argument here]


Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has just published “Kosher Jesus,” is the Republican nominee for New Jersey’s Ninth Congressional District. In October, he will publish a book on the nature of human suffering, “The Fed-Up Man of Faith.” His Web site is shmuleyforcongress.com. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

CON: Should rabbis endorse candidates? Read More »