Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

A chazeer is the Hebrew name for the “pig” and when it is used in Yiddish, it is one of the worst insults you can give. You see, the chazzer is never happy unless the person can get something for nothing. Typically, the chazzeer is the kind of person who goes to a fancy restaurant and orders the most expensive dish and then complains so loudly, the maître d’hôtel gives the meal away for nothing, so he won’t harm his business. That’s a chazzeer. If someone is giving shirts away, the chazzer won’t be happy unless he walks away with triple the amount everyone else has.

Congress has plenty of chazerim—piggish people, who won’t stop at nothing to get themselves reelected—and spend ALL of your money!

Pork barrel politics is also an interesting metaphor; it generally refers to any kind of governmental project that yields jobs or other economic benefits to a specific locale or industry in exchange for campaign contributions or votes.

As we debate the question whether the debt ceiling should be raised or not, I am among those voters who believe we have way too much pork in our government’s arteries. Pork barrel projects have a pejorative meaning in modern society—and for good reason.

Well, the Republicans have at least come up with a list of items they wish to cut. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has yet to come up with a comparable list.

While the Republican list offers some specific guidelines worth looking at, I believe there is still plenty of pork barrel projects neither party wishes to remove that could probably make an even greater difference.

Since I do not believe that bad behavior should be rewarded, I think the time has come for all Americans to adopt a simple voting strategy for the next election: Vote the incumbents out. Plain and simple, not one politician should be allowed to remain in office especially when we examine how they have mismanaged our monies. When you look at the list below, you have to wonder why did it take so long for these charlatans to get rid the below-listed items?

Mr. Obama, that means we are going to get rid of you. As we say in Yiddish, you and your chevra can gei kaken ofen yam, baby!

Now, I want to see the Republicans come up with a plan that gets rid of 7 trillion dollars in the same time period—and not a penny less! End the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan-that will also save a couple of trillion dollars. Rome ceased to be a superpower after it had spent all its capital fighting stupid wars. We must learn from history too. I would encourage the Democrats come up with their own list of pork barrel list and let’s get rid of both of their choices. This is a common sense approach that I think the public would cheer and actually support.

Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

 

Although I did not write this article, I do approve of its message.

 

“Our Ten-Trillion-Dollar Man” Victor Davis Hanson

Borrowing Is No Longer Stimulus?

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On July 24, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office not long ago forecast that Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus annual deficits — scheduled over the next decade — would result in almost another $10 trillion in aggregate debt. Going back to the pre-Bush tax rates this time won’t balance the budget. Slashing discretionary spending will not. So large has the splurge become, and so hooked are the constituencies of federal money, that massive cuts to entitlements necessary to stave off financial implosion may well prompt Greek-like protests.

That staggering sum was apparently conventional wisdom until the November 2010 election. But now there is fear that at some point in the future, Obama will not be known as the first African-American president. Nor will he be cited even as the hope-and-change phenomenon of 2008. Instead, posterity shall know him as the single greatest borrower in American presidential history, a novice who nearly wrecked the U.S. economy by borrowing over $4 billion a day without any feasible proposal how to pay back such a vast sum — taking a post-recession recovery and turning it into a stagflationary mess. In the third year of his tenure, Obama is still left only with “Bush did it” as an explanation of what went wrong.

Obama has managed the nearly impossible: the greatest peacetime deficits in U.S. history — about $1.5 trillion per year — in his first three years achieved almost no economic expansion. Instead, unemployment is chronic and stays over 9.2%; growth is stagnant; gas is sky-high — and the president seems stunned that none of what he had promised came to pass. All his liberal nostrums have been tried and been found wanting. There is no successful EU model, no winning blue-state statist paradigm for guidance.

Remember that his key advisors — Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers — have now quit and did not last even three years, their policies orphaned by the very parents who spawned them. Even the president joked that “shovel-ready” was a joke. When he evokes “stimulus” and “investment,” in response, we do not even think “borrowing” and “taxes,” but rather “he’s clueless again.” The old argument that we simply did not borrow enough (say, $5, $6, $7 billion a day?) is laughable beyond the point of caricature, given that the administration followed the Bush record of record peacetime debt. The only mystery is whether the massive Obama borrowing was a product of incompetence, a poorly thought out gorge the beast way of increasing taxes and redistributing income, or a more cynical effort at creating a permanent constituency of millions of new food stamp recipients and federal workers. Or more than that still.

Your Debt And None Of Our Own

Obama himself recently proposed a massive deficit budget that not a single Democrat in the Senate could vote for; then suddenly he flipped, and said that red ink of the sort that he ran up was now unsustainable. When did the president of the United States metamorphosize from the greatest Keynesian in presidential history to a fiscal hawk — January? March? April 1?

As he calls for higher taxes, he still has not offered any plan whatsoever that details where the president himself would cut. Remember that he conceded in December that higher taxes were bad; but by July they were then good again. He courts Wall Street one day for campaign money, yet on another calls them “fat cat” bankers and deplores their jets. Food stamps recipients now number 50 million — and we dare not imagine that even one has taken a dime without good cause.

The would-be employer is told to hire, but on what confident supposition, what rationale? That he knows well the tax rate to come, the health care costs to come, the regulations to come, the pro-business, veteran CEO appointee to come, the next presidential slur to come? Apparently Obama believed that capitalists were so greedy, so wealthy, so money-hungry that they would not mind much the redistributive obstacles he erected.

He talks grandly of getting America back to work, as his subordinates try to close down a Boeing aircraft plant, layer more regulations and burdens on energy production, reverse the order of creditors in the Chrysler mess, and take over GM — even as he continues the old “spread the wealth” and “redistributive change” adolescent rants with newer, sillier faculty lounge concoctions, claiming that at some point we have made enough money and that he himself has hundreds of thousands of dollars in income that he does not need and thus should have higher taxes on. (If so, please, help the Treasury out by offering to pay the gas for the Costa del Sol, Vail, and Martha’s Vineyard first-family freebies). One expects such banalities from the college dorm lounge, but not the middle-aged president of the United States.

Carter 2.0

Abroad the misdirection, confusion, and petulance mirror-image the debt mess. In Libya we have no mission aim, no methodology, and no desired outcome — our consolation only that Libya is a tiny country compared to a nearly 30-million person Afghanistan or Iraq. Obama went to the Arab League and the UN, but not the U.S. Congress for authorization — but to do what? Help the rebels? Enforce a no-fly-zone? Kill Gaddafi? Overthrow the government? All, some, or none?

All such mission objectives have come and gone. Now Italy has joined Germany and half of NATO in opposing the effort — apparently on the logic that either Obama will eventually give up on an oil-rich Gaddafi, or that he should, given the bleak replacement prospects. France, which cooked up the campaign, is fence-sitting. Is this the new multilateral “leading from behind”? The only reason I can think why we bombed Gaddafi, and then allowed him to survive, is that we ourselves are terrified of the possible end-game and aftermath, given that we have little idea of who the rebels are, and even less whether they would be better, the same, or worse than the horrific status quo. If and when they storm Tripoli, expect a pogrom against any sub-Saharan African in Gaddafi’s pay, or, rather, any sub-Saharan African in general still in Libya.

The uncertainty in Libya is like that in Afghanistan, which the president once praised as the good war, then failed to meet his commanders for months, then escalated, then suddenly decided to start pulling out in fears of reelection in 2012, even as he appointed his fourth ground commander in less than three years. All that was sort of like pontificating that drilling new oil does not lower gas prices, but pumping previously drilled oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve apparently might in time before November 2012. Or was it similar to praising campaign finance reform, then being the first president to reject it? Or was it analogous to blasting Goldman Sachs and BP after hitting them up for cash and becoming their most favored recipient?

Bush Obama Did It.

Remember the Obama 2007-8 demagoguery on the war on terror? We live now in Lala land where the bad Bush’s Guantanamo, Predators, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, Iraq, Afghanistan, wiretaps, and intercepts have become the good Obama’s protocols. We, the public, are supposed to nod and in Orwellian fashion get with the new Ministry of Information line, screaming at Bush on the big screen as the bad becomes good, the old good bad.

Remember the Cairo mythological speech, the falsehoods about an Islamic-enhanced Enlightenment and Renaissance, a multicultural Cordoba (with few Muslims in the late 15th century?) being an Islamic beacon of tolerance during the Inquisition? Remember the administration commentary on the underwear bomber, on Maj. Hasan, on the Ground Zero mosque, on trying KSM in New York? The al Arabiya interview, the sermons to Israel, the bowing to Saudi royals?

Juxtapose all that with the Obama’s administration outlawing of “jihadist,” of “terrorism,” of “Islamist.” His team instead gave us “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters,” seemed to think that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular, and proclaimed that Israel — not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Iran, not Syria (recall Assad the “reformer”) — is the problem in the Middle East.

Obama Is Obama

So we have what we have always had — the most partisan and the least experienced man in the U.S. Senate as president, elected by a perfect storm of events (e.g., the 2008 meltdown, the media adulation, the anemic McCain candidacy, the furor over Bush and the Iraq war, the orphaned election without a single incumbent, etc.), in which no one was allowed to ask “Who is this stranger?” and “What has he ever done?”, in which the media finally gave up its last shred of impartiality and became a megaphone, as we were assured that Mr. Obama’s most intimate associates were really total strangers, his once praised avid church-going was merely sporadic, his most partisan voting record was in truth bipartisan, and his bad habits of saying disturbing things were simply a symptom of racialist, raise-the-bar nitpicking on behalf of his Neanderthal critics.

In short, Obama came into office with all the Carteresque assumptions on how to take over a private-sector economy and outsource foreign policy to international bodies. He now finds to his utter amazement — as Carter discovered in late 1979 after Teheran, Afghanistan, and Central America — that in the real world none of what worked in word worked in deed. Those who assured Obama that his Harvard lounge fantasies were real have either quit, are now offering new advice, or are criticizing him for once taking them at their word.

So what is he left with? Not much other than hoping that all the ten-trillion-dollar man’s printed money finally starts inflation to coincide with the 2012 election. Otherwise, we get only the same-old, same-old: blame Bush for the deficit each week; or a slur about starving granny with Social Security cuts; or a speech from an African-American congresswoman from the floor of the House attesting to the racism behind doubting Obama can do the job. Nothing much more than that.

The Wages of the 1960s Continue Reading

For at least two hundred years, the Norwegians have found it very difficult to feel any kind of compassion for the Jewish people. Yes, Norway’s disdain for Israel and Jews in general has a long history. Here are a few little-known details that may surprise many of our blog readers. When Norway first declared its independence, the country’s constitution blatantly exclaimed, ““Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget.” Translation: Jews are still excluded from admission to the Kingdom).” Well, by 1851 the ban was rescinded but later reinstated by the infamous Nazi sympathizer and collaborator Vidkun Quisling in 1942, but later rescinded in 1945.

Anti-Semitism cannot be so easily erased from a culture and society that has gotten use to using the verb “Jew” for anyone that acts dishonestly. However, the deeper you examine Norwegian society, you will also find that from the 8^th to the 10^th grades, 33% of the Jewish students experience bullying from their Norwegian neighbors. As one report reads, “Last month’s publication of a study ordered by the Oslo municipality on racism and anti-Semitism among students of the 8^th through 10^th grades in the town’s schools came as a shock. The study found that 33 percent of the Jewish students regularly experience bullying at school. According to the definition used, this means that at least two or three incidents of verbal or physical abuse target these Jewish students per month . . .

After Jews, the next most pestered group was Buddhists, with 10 percent experiencing bullying; “Others” were at 7 percent and Muslims at slightly over 5 percent. Fifty-one percent of all students believe that the term “Jew” is used pejoratively, 41percent had heard ethnic jokes about Jews and 35 percent heard insulting comments. Close to 5 percent had been present when the Holocaust was denied in class. Only 25 percent of the students never witnessed anything negative about Jews in school.”[1]

Norway certainly finds itself morally challenged and their contempt toward the Jew is consistent with their national animus toward the Jewish people in general, and especially toward the State of Israel. While erasing old anti-Semitic slurs is a reasonable first step toward normalcy, eradicating ancient canards against the Jews is a lot harder to confront and eliminate. When you hate one ethnic or religious group, hatred will spread like a contagion toward other peoples and faiths. In short, hatred attacks the heart and soul of the human family.

Earlier this past year, on March 29, the internationally renowned lawyer, Harvard law professor, who also happens to be a staunch supporter of Israel Alan M. Dershowitz, decided to publish an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about his recent experience in Norway. Continue Reading

Ahh, Norway offers a remarkable contrast to the Jewish State of Israel today. Israel is surrounded by many countries that have been in state of war since Israel’s inception as a modern nation. Israel has to deal with the threat of terrorism on a daily basis, whereas the people in Norway live a much more placid lifestyle—they live far away from the daily dangers of terrorism, or so we thought . . .

Last Friday’s terrorist attack of Oslo affords the average Norwegian a rare opportunity to identify with Israelis, who experience this type of attack on a daily basis. In an age of terror, even Norwegians get to walk in Israeli moccasins.

When the Oslo attack occurred, everyone assumed that it was just another garden variety of Islamic terrorists who attacked this peaceful city. How wrong they were! Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing extremist confessed to the authorities. His views are very anti-Muslim.

Hopefully, this kind of violence won’t happen again. However, if I were a Norwegian, Swedish or Danish government leader, I would feel nervous. Friday’s attack is a wake-up call.

What evidence is there to support such a conjecture?

Although the Islamic terrorists wanted to take credit for this sensational attack, they still feel that Norway is a legitimate target for terrorists. A terrorist group named Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or “the Helpers of the Global Jihad,” issued a statement and claimed responsibility for the attack. Its leader, Al Nasser, wrote that “Norway was targeted in order to become a lesson and example for the rest of the countries of Europe.” “The attacks,” he said, were a demand for “the European countries to withdraw their armies from the land of Afghanistan and to halt their war on Islam and Muslims.” He added, “We renew our warning again to the countries of Europe and we say to them, ‘Answer the demands of the Mujahideen, as what you see is only the beginning and what’s coming is more.’”

In addition, he further alleges that Norway has made a number of unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad. One suspects he was probably referring to the Danish cartoons parodying Mohammed. Perhaps a course in Geography 101 might have solved Al-Naser’s confusion. We all know he was lying, but Al-Naser may reveal that a new diabolic attack is being contemplated against the people of Norway, Denmark, or Sweden for their blasphemous disrespect toward Mohammed.

You decide . . .

Again, let me reiterate his words, “What you see is only the beginning, and there is more to come.”

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL?

Here’s the real problem that Europeans need to consider: multiculturalism has failed miserably in many, if not most, of the European countries.

Unlike the openness of American society, which encourages the “melting pot” philosophy of our ancestors, Europeans prefer that ethnic and religious groups remain apart. With a growing Muslim population, racial tensions could get a lot worse before they get better. Eventually, the ethnic divide will lead to a growing vulcanization of tensions unless European countries find novel ways to better integrate these cultures into their own.

As the JPost editorial pointed out it, from the 1998 Nobel Prize laureate Amartya Sen to make it’s point: “Without a shared cultural foundation, no meaningful communication among diverse groups is possible, Sen has argued.” …

If the current trends continue, European countries may be seeing even more civil unrest from the traditional and new ethnic populations unless a better solution is worked out that will teach the importance of respect and religious tolerance for all peoples. It is always easy to hate the “Other” especially when one has nothing to do with one’s neighbor. However, the more different ethnic groups relate toward one another, the racial and religious tensions begin to weaken.

Saturday Night Live once did a skit on an Islamic sleeper cell that existed in LA. A terrorist kingpin contacted one of his top lieutenants, who happened to be married to a Jewish woman. When the kingpin arrived, the lieutenant had just finished picking up his Jewish children from a Bar Mitzvah lesson! The writer of the skit wished to show how Americanization can successfully and peacefully detoxify someone whose life was pre-programmed with bigotry and hatred. The lieutenant had changed—he was no longer the same man he had once been before. Continue Reading

Once there was a rabbi and soap merchant who were debating the pros and cons of religion. The soap merchant said, “Frankly I really don’t see the good of religion. Observe how corrupt the world is because of religion!” The rabbi listened and said nothing. As they were walking together, they came across a youngster that was playing in a mud puddle. The rabbi said, “My goodness, I really don’t see the value of soap, why doesn’t soap keep the mud off of him? Just look how filthy that child is!” The soap merchant said, “But rabbi, owning soap is not going to make you clean; you must use the soap daily in order for it to be effective!”

The rabbi, replied, “So too is it with religion. It’s not good enough to simply have or own a religion—you must use it daily in order for it to be effective.”

But how effective is religion today? Is religion really good for people? Or is religion debilitating? What value is faith?

Jonathan Swift once said, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough religion to make us love one another.”

C.C. Colton put it in even more forceful terms, “Men will wrangle for religion; write for it, fight for it, die for it; anything but live by it.”

When I was 15 years, I used to love reading philosophy. One of the most memorable books I recall reading at that young age was a book entitled, “Why I am Not A Christian” by Bertrand Russell. Russell regarded religion as, “ . . . a disease born of fear, and a source of untold human misery to the human race” (p. 24).

Bear in mind that Russell did not live to see the rise of Islamic fascism, but he did understand how Christian fanaticism caused centuries of untold suffering, Russell was correct, just read Fox’s Box of Martyrs.

One of my old Hassidic colleague told me about his father, who was once asked, “Why are religious Jews so dishonest in business?” He quipped, “If this is what a person is like with having the benefit of Torah, just imagine what a person would be like without the benefit of religion?” Mind you, this story occurred long before Al Gore invented the Internet!

Well, while I admire the rabbi’s wit, his answer really fails to address the real question: Why are there so many stories breaking out daily in the news about crimes one would ordinarily never associate with religious people?

On the one hand, we should not cast blame just on one group of people. Conversely, if Jews are indeed God’s “Chosen People,” then how does one explain the scandals affecting the Orthodox community—whether it be money-laundering, fraud, grand-theft, pedophilia, drug-dealing, the failure to provide proper kosher meat to the public, arson, and even murder—one must come to the inevitable conclusion that the yeshiva world has failed miserably in teaching its students how to behave morally and decently toward one another. The stories appear throughout the daily news all over the world. I shudder to think this is a new phenomenon or not; perhaps because of the Internet, we are now more aware of the problems than ever before.

Rabbinic tradition offers a valuable teaching of wisdom that I believe speaks to our problem. Once upon a time a 3^rd century sage named R. Reuben, stayed in Tiberias where he met a certain philosopher.

Philosopher: What is the most hateful person in the world?

Rabbi Reuben: The man who denies the One who created it.

Philosopher: How is it possible that God told Moses, ‘Honor your mother and father,’ ‘You shall not kill,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet’ (Exod. 20:12-17)?”

Rabbi Reuben: “Know that a no person commits any of these infractions without first denying the First Principle (i.e., God), and a person does not turn to a life of transgression unless he already denied the One who gave the above proscription.” [1]

Thus, the real atheist is not the person who denies God in word per se, but rather it is the person who denies God by his deeds. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the principle reason this is so rampant is because even “Orthodox” Jews are experiencing “loss of soul,” and no longer seem to recognize how ethics and faith are closely interrelated. Soul loss occurs whenever a people or community no longer feel spiritually connected to the traditions and ethical teachings of their people.

If religion is man’s “ultimate concern” as Tillich observed, what is the “ultimate concern” of people who routinely rip people off in the name of religion? What is the reason they act in such an antisocial manner? Actually, I think I can answer that question in one word: survival. The Ultra-Orthodox have painted themselves into a corner because they have for the most part, rejected the idea that working at a livelihood is an important religious value. In Israel, the vast majority of Ultra-Orthodox subsist on government welfare checks, while having large families they cannot financially support. In Brooklyn, unless one has a family that works in the jewelry business, most of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews do not have a college education; many of them never graduated high-school! Their fear of the general culture and its seductive values is the principle reason they have constructed an ideological force-field around their communities. Outsiders are thus perceived as a threat to their spiritual lifestyle. And so with each passing generation, the problem of survival increases with even greater ferocity and dysfunctional behavior becomes their destiny.

Because they are so poorly equipped and prepared to enter adulthood with a capacity to earn a decent living, many of them have resorted to any kind of underhanded shtick to make ends meet. Their behavior resembles the drug-lords of ethnic communities that think selling drugs is an easy way to become prosperous—regardless of the ethical consequences to other people around them. Rabbis, who can barely read English, have come up with novel ways to earn money by imposing new Halachic stringencies that people have wisely ignored for centuries. Why? Is it because of piety? Or the “piety” really a smokescreen that serves a purely economic purpose?

The dog-eat-dog world of halachic expediency is, oddly enough, grounded in a world governed by a Social Darwinian ethic rather than the ethics of Judaic tradition.

One of the important concepts introduced in the early 20^th century is the notion of Social Darwinianism as popularized by the 19^th century British social philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). The Social Darwinian is the kind of person who sees life as a struggle for existence that likens societal behavior to the type of behavior seen in the animal kingdom. The social forces typically pit its weaker members against the stronger members in their struggle to survive; hence, “he who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in this world where eternal struggle is the law of life has no right to exist.”

But where did the Social Darwinians go wrong? For one thing, the human race belongs to a highly social species where human cooperation must also be seen as a part of natural selection. The reason why we have survived as a species is because we have learned to live together and offer mutual aid to those weaker than us, or for those members of society who depend upon our assistance for survival. That being said, survival is not necessarily for the sole benefit of the species; we have learned over countless generations of evolution that we as individuals do so much better by working cooperatively than we would otherwise. The human race’s future depends upon us continuing this evolutionary heritage that our ancient for-bearers learned.

In practical terms, I think the solution affecting the Ultra-Orthodox world is definitely fixable. The rabbis need to start stressing the importance of self-sufficiency and the importance of hard work. Not everyone is meant to be a Talmud scholar and most of the yeshiva students who graduate would do themselves and their families a huge favor by seriously learning a career in computer technology, or attend a vocational class that will teach them a practical skill like welding, tailoring, or accounting.

Secondly, ethical behavior—especially in the area of business ethics—must be taught from elementary school through the most advanced classes in the rabbinical academies. There are countless teachings that stress the centrality of religious ethics, which ought to serve as the fountainhead of all of our interpersonal values.

Thirdly, the Orthodox world must re-prioritize its spiritual values. Ethics must take on greater importance than the laws of hadash (grain not eaten between Passover and Shavuoth), or bugs in the broccoli. The real meaning of kashrut is not just limited to the kitchen or stomach; it operates within the epicenter of all interpersonal relationships. As they say in Yiddish, “You cannot have erlichkeit (refined character) without mentschlickeit (plain human decency) that inspires people to act considerately toward all of God’s creatures. Continue Reading

Many years ago, I remember the time when I was sixteen years old and I asked the obvious question on a Mishnaic passage to my Talmud teacher: “What if the husband refuses to grant his wife a divorce?” He answered, “In New York, whenever the husband refused to give his wife a religious divorce, a number of men in the community would take him to the cemetery and start digging a grave for him. They would then issue the following ultimatum: ‘The Mishnah says that a woman can become free either through a get, or through the death of her husband.’[1] One way or the other, your wife will be free. Now, how do you wish to free her? You decide.”

There can be little doubt this solution probably worked quite well in the medieval period, but what about now?

Actually, just a few days ago something like the above scenario occurred in the timeless world of Trenton, New Jersey. A Lakewood rabbinic scholar named David Wax, along with his wife, decided to take the halacha into their own hands—quite literally-and they physically threatened to bury an Israeli Orthodox man alive if he refused to grant his wife a get.

According to Reuters News, “Wax and at least two unidentified men administered a beating, showed him a body bag and promised to bury him alive in the Pocono Mountains if he did not agree to the divorce, the complaint alleges. Wax also allegedly forced the man to call his father in Israel, who recorded the call, authorities said.”

Rabbi Wax and his wife may have to spend the rest of their lives in jail for kidnapping. This is serious business.

After reading the article, I remarked to a friend, “Well, I have heard about a shotgun wedding before, but who ever heard of a shotgun divorce?” Perhaps the Chinese are right: we are “living in interesting times.”

Very interesting indeed, but for a rabbi, David Wax acted like a fool. For one thing, there is an important rule that Rabbi Wax completely discounted—with, what I might add, “grave” consequences! The 4th century sage Samuel said, “The law of the State is law.”[2] Secondly, the Bible forbids kidnapping human beings as well as buying or selling stolen or kidnapped persons (cf. Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). Rabbi Wax should have realized the seriousness of these biblical proscriptions.

Vigilantism is forbidden by law; no man may take the law into his or her own hands; there must be due-process. No rabbinical authority has the right to assert that he is above the law when it comes to matters of physical retaliation.

Rabbi Wax of all people, should have known better especially since he wrote a learned exposition on the 613 Mitzvot.

While a part of me feels no pity for the Israeli sleazebag for getting the scare of his life, the real problem that nobody wants to address is the fact that most of the cases involving the laws of “chained wife” ought to be sent to the Halachic phantom zone where other obsolete laws belong, e.g., the law of executing one’s child for insulting a parent (Exod.21:15, 17); or, when it came to executing a rebellious adolescent (Deut. 21:1-21).

Historically, the halacha has always allowed for annulment in cases where men abused the Halachic system in order to torture an unhappy spouse. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Haredi Judaism’s greatest hero and champion, always found a halachic way to dissolve marriages of this type. Where there is a halachic will, there is always a halachic way of solving a problem of this magnitude.

If I were Rabbi Wax’s attorney, I would make this case vividly clear. The real solution is simple and the troglodyte “Gedolim” of our time, simply lack the vision and ethics to do something realistic and practical about it.

One of the great Orthodox scholars of our time, Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman , the former dean of Bar Ilan University wasn’t afraid to retroactively negate the marriage. It is a pity the rest of the Halachic world lacks the moral resolve and courage to do the right thing and free those pathetic women who often remain “chained” for life.

Despite the daily pogroms, persecutions and misery of the old European Shtetle, the pre-modern Jew had an inner faith in a personal God who was always close to his heart. The Eastern European Jew resembled Shalom Aleichem’s character Tevye, the old pious Jew who addressed God as freely and intimately as one would speak with a friend or neighbor. His spiritual language portrayed metaphors that were shamelessly personal, passionately rich and profoundly anthropomorphic. It was a culture of intense intimacy, spirit, song, dance, and tears. The Eastern European Jew could still address God as Tatte (Yiddish for daddy). God was perceived as a Bore Olam - Creator of all the world. God-talk contained many terms of endearment and signified how God’s living Presence could be discerned in the world.

The political, social, scientific events that shaped the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries exploded the naiveté and innocence that characterized the pre-modern Jewish world. An early 20th century Jewish existentialist Franz Rosenzweig, tells about a conversation Herman Cohen, a famous Jewish neo-Kantian philosopher, once had with an old pious Jew. This conversation typified the dilemma Jewish intellectuals in the post- Emancipation era experienced when the ghetto walls finally crumbled down:

He once expounded the God-idea of his Ethics to an old Jew of that city. The Jew listened with reverent attention, but when Cohen was through, he asked, “And where is the Bore olam (Creator)?” Cohen had no answer to this, and tears arose in his eyes.

Rosenzweig added:

Here the term Bore Olam does not mean something remote, as the content of the words seem to indicate. On the contrary: in popular speech the words are fraught with emotion, they are something near, and in the case of the God of the heart, the heart never for a moment forgets that He is the one -who is. So here the spark does not merely oscillate between the two poles of nearness and remoteness, but each pole has a positive and a negative charge, only in a different pattern. The Creator who is above the world takes up his “habitation,” and the abstract God of philosophy has his “being in the crushed heart.”[3]

Herman Cohen’s concept of “ethical monotheism” utilized the idea of God as the organizing principle and nexus of ethical behavior. The God idea was a necessary postulate in order to have a just and ethical world. However, Cohen’s reduction of God to an idea meant that Jews would not have to relate to God on a personal level. Cohen was convinced that any “personalization” of God was nothing more than a Christian aberration.

Despite Cohen’s secularity, he still felt a sense of homelessness when it came to his relationship with God. It did touch his heart. In many ways this feeling is emblematic of the way many Jews today feel about their faith in God, and in their own identities as Jews. The current sensation of “homelessness” stems from fragmentation and ‘loss of soul’ that has become commonplace in today’s postmodern Judaic community.

As if the changes initiated by the new historical consciousness were not enough, the trauma of the Holocaust shattered the old pious world-view of the Jew into a million pieces. Like the old nursery rhyme, “All the kings horses and all the king’s men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpy back together again.”

Since the end of the second World War, picking up the pieces and redefining the nature of our faith has proven to be a profound challenge; our traditional ideas of God have dissolved in a sea of doubt and endless questioning. Our capacity and personal ability to experience of the God of the Exodus has proven cognitively as well as emotionally difficult.

Still and all, while the experience of God may seem problematic for many, I would encourage you to follow Maimonides’ principle: Before you can arrive at what you do believe in, you must first determine what you do not or will believe in. Faith requires that we see our lives in terms of a great and wonderful quest that leads to the greatest discovery of fulfillment and purpose. Yes, Tillich is correct: religion is about our Ultimate Concern and hopefully, this realization will help us redefine our relationship with the Divine. Continue Reading

In July of 1969, a team headed by of anthropologist Edmund Carpenter, went to study a primitive Stone Age tribe in a remote part of New Guinea off the Sepik River. These anthropologists were eager to study how the natives would react to the gadgetry of the Western world. Loaded with various paraphernalia from the West, e.g. mirrors, instant cameras, and video equipment, the native villagers were at first surprised, bewildered and fearful of the foreigners’ Western technology. Eventually, they became enamored by the culture of the West.

When Carpenter returned with his crew, three months later, they were shocked by what they had seen: “At first I thought I had made a mistake and come to the wrong place. It had changed completely. Houses had been rebuilt in a new style. The men wore European clothes, carried themselves differently, acted differently. They had left a village after our visit and, for the first time, traveled outside the world they had previously know . . . . Suddenly the cohesive village had become a collection of separate, private individuals. Like the hero of Matthew Arnold’s poem, they wandered “between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born.”[1]

Carpenter discerned that everything the tribe had regarded as sacred became commercialized and de-scaralized. Modern society violated the world of an archaic civilization. Shocked by what his seemingly innocent experiment had caused, Carpenter and his crew realized they had inadvertently done was nothing less than cultural murder.

Psychologist Carl G. Jung observed that once a primitive tribe’s spiritual values are exposed to the impact of modern civilization, its people will lose the meaning of their lives; the social order disintegrates; the people themselves morally decay. In this condition, man is out of touch with himself, and can no longer make sense and meaning out of his life. To the person who experiences “loss of soul” society’s myths, rituals, symbols, images and traditions cease to have any relevance.

What does this mean in a practical sense?

Whenever “soul loss” occurs, the world of religious tradition no longer holds sway over the conscious psyche. Religious dogma and its symbols become diminished, along with the individual’s sensitivity for its cultural values. In effect, the individual has already assimilated to the dominant culture’s values. This is an important point for the Jewish community in particular because it really doesn’t matter whether one calls oneself “Conservative,” “Reform,” or even “Orthodox.”

Whenever a society or individual experiences soul loss, life seems to have no purpose or consequence. People lose not only their sense of past, but their sense of future as well. It is for this reason, Jung regarded the loss of soul is also one of the primary causes of the social discord and spiritual chaos of our times.

Antecedents of soul loss to a certain degree, could be seen when the Industrial Age began producing rippling changes throughout the world. Before that time, people everywhere from Europe to Africa, experienced the meaning of their lives in the context of the tribal and religious customs of the community. Whole tribes were completely displaced from their ancestral roots. The old standards were irrevocably changed and severely shaken by technology and the forces of capitalism. The power of money became the yardstick that measured the value and utility of the person. (Indeed, the same cultural phenomenon can be seen in today’s “outsourcing” of American jobs to third-world countries that can produce the same goods for a much cheaper cost to the manufacturer and the consumer, people in our own country suddenly feel completely displaced in many parts of our country where jobs are no longer existent.)

As families scattered to the cities looking for work, the bonds that had integrated families and communities started to disintegrate. The social order began to unravel. Without his faith, the individual was left unprotected. Isolated, and cut off from his spiritual roots, the modern technological man was left to fend for himself in his attempt to make life meaningful.

Modernity produced what sociologist Peter Berger describes as the “heretical imperative.” The English word heresy comes from the Greek verb hairein, which means “to choose.”[2] Values were no longer eternally given or defined by God — man became the creator and chooser of value, The pre-modern society was a world of religious certainty; deviation was the exception rather than the norm. By contrast, the modern situation is a world of religious uncertainty; the boundaries differentiating the religious world are hazily defined. Religious affirmation must be consciously affirmed rather than assumed. Once the choice for self-definition was made, the pre-modern societies began to unravel and disperse. Modernity helped shattered the historical consciousness of traditional religious societies.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, describes the modern age as “protean” named after Proteus, the Greek sea-god of many forms. He asserts that the protean age is one of great historical changes, and is characterized by great social upheavals that have dramatically impacted community and individual life alike. The social institutions that have traditionally anchored human lives have become ineffectual.The modern man/woman is a historically fragmented creature and has adopted change (proteanism) as a way of overcoming homelessness. Continue Reading

Poor Leiby Kletzky, angels weep for his soul.

This young Hassidic boy was recently murdered a few days ago. Yesterday his casket was carried into a synagogue for his funeral service that was held in Brooklyn, which was attended by thousands of mourners.

It’s every parent’s worst nightmare come true. Leiby’s family feels a pain that penetrates the heart of God Himself in Heaven. But how does a community make sense of something that is so senseless and numbing? It is one thing to hear about an adult who is kidnapped and murdered, but when a young boy is the victim, we cannot express in words the sense of loss everyone feels. It doesn’t matter who you are, or what ethnic group you belong to, or what religious beliefs you may subscribe to.

Leiby’s death also strikes home because we know that it might have happened to any of us. This death might have under different circumstances been your child, your niece, your grandchild, your neighbor’s child. But what can anyone say? How does one explain this tragedy to one’s children?

Does Jewish tradition offer any kind of therapeutic response or wisdom? Are there any stories in the Bible that might offer some degree of solace and direction to a family that suffers?

THE PRISON OF SILENCE

Semites grieve much more openly than Europeans. If you have ever attended a Arab or Sephardic funeral, the shrilling sound of crying is unforgettable. Semites do not behave stoically like their European counterparts.

The death of children occurs in several biblical narratives, e.g., the death of Judah’s two sons, Er and Onan (Gen 38:1-10); the “supposed” death of Joseph (Gen 37:34); the death of David and BatSheva’s son (2 Sam. 12:18-24); the death of Absalom (2 Sam. 19:1), and the death of Job’s children (Job 1:19-22).

In the interest of brevity, we will focus on (1) the death of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Abihu—both who die from an unexpected explosion as they were serving God (2) the death of Absalom, (3) the loss of Job’s children.

With regard to the former, the biblical narrator says in but a couple of words the reaction of Aaron: וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן (wayyidöm ´ahárön) “And Aaron was silent” (Lev. 10:3). Nowhere does the biblical narrator provide us with a sense of what Aaron must have been feeling. Did he blame himself? Was this God’s pay-back for when he made the Golden Calf?

While the law forbids a High Priest to mourn, on the surface, Aaron’s reaction is consistent with the office he has dedicated his life to. On the other hand, it is also feasible that Aaron simply cannot react—even though he wants to. The senseless death of two young men leaves him with no simplistic answers. To decipher Aaron’s response, we must read in between the lines and look for clues.

Among the Hebrew words for silence “dumah” stands out as a term associated with Aaron’s grief and loss. Dumah denotes: astonishment, numbness with grief, lifelessness, being stone-like, a feeling of being cut off, the sensation of terror, and lastly—the silent yearning for hope.

DAVID’S RESPONSE

David’s reaction appears in one of the most famous passages of the Tanakh. After David emerges victorious in his battle with Absalom, his son, David asks one of his loyal servants whether Absalom was safe from harm, “But the king asked the Cushite, “Is young Absalom safe?” The Cushite replied, “May the enemies of my lord the king and all who rebel against you with evil intent be as that young man!”The king was shaken, and went up to the room over the city gate to weep. He said as he wept, “My son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you, Absalom, my son, my son!” (2 Sam 18:32-19:1).

Nothing else is said about David’s poignant reaction. He too, like Aaron, probably feels guilt-ridden that he could have prevented his son’s death, if only . . . Like Aaron and David, most parents would gladly sacrifice their lives so that their children might live.

CONTRASTING JOB AND AARON

Whereas Aaron’s silence is pierced with a divine visitation by God, Job is not as fortunate as Aaron. Job’s own silence and the silence of God, threatens to destroy him. Compounding his problem is the fact that his three friends condemn Job’s sinfulness as the root cause for his children’s untimely death. Job is fed up and angry, for although he offers the platitudes of faith (Job 1:21-22), he is mad as hell at God, at his community for not giving him proper support, and at himself for not preventing his children’s death.

Job’s own personal and psychological resurrection will not begin until he verbalizes his pain to both his God and his friends and only then will Job will find release from his suffering. Although Job praises Job’s opening complaint is unforgettable:

 

God damn the day I was born!

and the night that forced me from the womb

On that day-let there be darkness;

let it never have been created;

let it sink back into the void.

Let chaos overpower it;

let black clouds overwhelm it;

let the sun be plucked from the sky . . . .

Job 3:3-5 (Stephen Mitchell’s translation)[1]

Job can no longer act as if everything’s OK, because it’s not. Once he finally speaks about his pain, only then does he eventually find some meaning to his suffering.

Job teaches us about the importance of verbalizing pain. Suffering must find a voice that will allow a sufferer to speak openly about the pain. Silence in the face of monstrous evil is akin to death itself. There can be no healing unless people and communities verbalize and identify their pain.

BREAKING FREE FROM THE SILENT WORLD OF PAIN

For the Hassidic and Ultra-Orthodox world of Borough Park, Brooklyn, the community must come together and verbalize their pain and loss.

Questions like, “Are there any lessons at all that can be learned?” or “How does any community prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening?” are only the opening salvo for a discussion that must be publicly discussed for all to see, hear, and understand. Talking about the problem can help prevent it. The conspiracy of silence affecting traditional religious communities must come to an end.

Here are some other practical suggestions that a community might consider implementing or at least discussing:

• Do not assume that just because people live in an austere religious community that they are immune to the problems of pedophilia. It affects all social classes, ethnic groupings, and religious communities.

 

• Religious communities must take a much stronger stand against the pedophiles living amongst them. There is a tendency for community leaders to believe that such individuals can be helped and possibly cured of their psychological illness.

 

• Rabbinical leaders should reemphasize the prohibition of yichud, no adult male should be alone with any child without (1) the door being open, (2) or preferably, another adult ought to be present during a lesson. A number of years ago, a well-known cantor in Upstate NY lost his job for fondling a bat mitzvah girl; I know of several other similar stories. Clergy would be wise to always have a parent present whenever teaching a child. As clergy, we must subscribe to the highest degree of professionalism.

• Sex education in the religious schools and the yeshivot would help young people recognize the dangers of pedophilia. Such a change in the religious communities is necessary.

• Parents must caution their children: DO NOT TALK TO STRANGERS and NEVER TAKE A RIDE FROM A STRANGER

• Expose the pedophiles living among you. Give them no rest. Like the lepers of old, this group really needs to live far away from any kind society that has children living nearby.

• Cars picking up children in schools ought to have special stickers indicating they have a right to pick up a child.

Over a year ago, I taught a course at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, IA on the Seven Deadly Sins. In one of the sessions, we looked and discussed new variants for the Seven Deadly Sins that were proposed by the Vatican, which included: (1) genetic modification, (2) human experimentation (3) polluting the environment (4) social injustice (5) causing poverty (6) financial gluttony (7) taking drugs.

It is striking the Vatican did not include abortion among the seven. But even more surprising is the fact the Vatican did not mention crimes against children—not just those who are unborn, but especially for those who are already born. Such a statement would have made a serious contribution and show a modicum of repentance for the pedophilia scandal that has decimated the Catholic Church and its communities. Orthodox religious communities have been doing cover-ups for decades-and I suspect this travesty has been going on for countless centuries. Thank God we are living in the age of the Internet, where pedophiles can no longer hide their deeds from the community. Continue Reading

The Hellenistic Jewish community revolutionized Judaism in a way that was truly unique. Living among a complex group of gentiles in Alexandria made our ancestors very cautious about the kind of image of Judaism they wished to represent to the Graeco-Roman world.

This evening, I wish to bring to your attention an example of the type of brilliance and foresight our ancestors had in designing the most ambitious literary the ancient world had ever seen: the translation of the Torah into Greek.

All translations to some degree serve as a type of commentary and offer the reader a rare glimpse into the ethos and values of a community. Of course, it takes an astute eye to discern the hidden sociological and psychological nuances that are inescapably present within the text.

For example:

“You shall not curse your God . . .” (Exod 22:28)

The Septuagint translated the text as, “You shall not blaspheme gods” (LXX)

Philo writes in his Special Laws 1:53, “After Moses had given the proselytes among them an equal share in all their laws, along with the privileges, and immunities for having given up the pride of their fathers and ancestors, Moses now cautions the Israelites not to verbally put down their new neighbors by blaspheming and ridiculing those deities their proselyte neighbors once venerated as ‘gods.’ Moses feared that the new proselytes would get exasperated at such ill-treatment, and would retaliate by uttering irreverent language against the one true and holy God.” [1]

Put in modern terms, disrespect breeds disrespect-and often violent retaliation!

Along the same lines, Josephus writes, “Let no one blaspheme those gods which other cities esteem such; nor may anyone steal what belongs to strange temples; nor take away the gifts that are dedicated to any god.”[2]

How odd! We know that blasphemy against God is a serious crime, but why would the ancient Jews of Alexandria make a special note not to even curse the gods of other peoples?

Tonight, in my class on “The Origin of the Seven Noahide Commandments,” I raised this question to my students and helped them try to think about situating themselves within the cultural world of Alexandria, ca. 3^rd century B.C.E.

We know that anti-Semitism abounded in much of Alexandria. I believe that when the translators of the Septuagint were refining their work, they feared what the anti-Semites would say if they read that the law of blasphemy served as proscription only against YHWH. They might say, “Look at those good-for-nothing Jews! They only worry about cursing God, but have no problem when it comes to showing contempt toward our gods!”

The ancient Sages realized the potential awkwardness and feared that if their communities started showing disrespect toward their pagan neighbors’ religion, they could very easily cause a pogrom by making a foolish or irreverent remark that could easily cause a riot.

More importantly, they taught both Jew and Gentile the importance of respect. Respecting the faith of others is the beginning of spiritual maturity and wisdom.

Why is this relevant? Maybe because in our enlightened period of human history Jews , Christians, and Muslims have much to learn about the importance mutual respect. When the Taliban destroyed the statue of Buddha after taking over Afghanistan in 2001, or when the Palestinians destroyed the Tomb of Joseph in 2003, or when Haredi Jews routinely spit on Catholic or Greek priests leaving a Church in the Old City of Jerusalem—each of these cases reveal that we have a long way to go in integrating the gentle and sage-like wisdom of the Alexandrian Jews of Late Antiquity. Continue Reading