April 30, 2009 | 8:06 pm

Retired footballer goes frum

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

“From football to faith,” the TV reporter begins, “you’ve heard that before. A pro football player retires. Then becomes a minister, maybe a preacher. But this story is different. You are about to meet a former NFL player from Miami who has to be the only ultra- Orthodox Jew who wears a Super Bowl ring when he prays.”

To which Ari Goldman, a new member to the GetReligion team, responds: “And thus begins a lovely but superficial story on NBC6 in Miami about Alan Veingrad, a former player who helped lead the Dallas Cowboys to Super Bowl victory in 1993. In the parlance of Orthodox Jews, Veingrad became ‘frum.’”

Goldman continues:

What they do show are the externals, all described in the clever language of trades. Not only did Veingrad trade “football for faith,” he traded football pads for tefillin, his helmut for a yarmulke, Lambeau Field for the the Chabad House of Coral Springs, a place that “restored the camaraderie he lost on the football field.” Along the way, we are told, “he lost 55 pounds and added a beard.” Virutally the entire piece is shot in the synagogue, with Veingrad studying and praying.

(skip)

Even the most Orthodox Jew spends only a few hours a day in synagogue. What else does it mean to live an Orthodox life? Has it changed Veingrad’s daily routines? What about the kosher foods he eats? What about Sabbath observance? What about his relationship to his fellow man and woman?

What these reporters failed to grasp is that religious transformation runs deeper than the visuals.

Maybe TV news will get a mulligan in 20 years with Igor Olshanksy. Though I wouldn’t count on them handling such a story any better.

April 30, 2009 | 6:11 pm

Obama ... he’s huge in Japan

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Only in Japan can you get an Obama roll. But is the presidential sushi bigger than chocolate Jesus?

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 30, 2009 | 3:44 pm

‘Talmud vs. Torture’—a Jewish perspective on ‘enhanced interrogation’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about whether the United States does or doesn’t use torture to get the information it wants. Anti-torture activists are marching in Washington today, demanding a criminal investigation of members of the Bush administration; President Obama talked about the efficacy of “enhanced interrogation” during his 100-days address last night. But religious leaders haven’t had much to say.

“That’s in part the fault of a media that tends to ‘get’ religion only when expressed as either innocuous spirituality — the stuff of inspirational tales in the Saturday paper — or dangerous fanaticism, perfume or mustard gas,” Jeff Sharlet wrote yesterday at Killing the Buddha. “But it’s also in part the fault of religious leaders who’ve failed to draw a bright and shining line between their faiths and torture — that is, who’ve been too timid to ask their congregations, often split between supporters and opponents of U.S. policy, ‘Which side are you on?’ That’s why Rabbi Ben Weiner’s article for Religion Dispatches, ‘Talmud vs. Torture,’ is so important.”

Weiner is a Reconstructionist rabbi and writer. Here’s an excerpt from his article:

Jewish legalism, at its best, is a means of actualizing the dictates of the prophetic voice through a regimented system of behavior: a code of conduct thoroughly imbued with an ethos and a morality. The most articulate condemnations of torture that Judaism has to offer are therefore presented most effectively as deeply spiritual legal analyses.

The best of these, in recent years, was composed by Rabbi Melissa Weintraub for Rabbis for Human Rights, an international organization focusing on a number of progressive issues both in America and Israel. Weintraub’s series of essays, published in 2005, outlined a case against torture, rooted in Talmudic teaching and Jewish collective memory.

In the Talmudic dictum ain adam mesim atsmo rasha (“a person may not incriminate himself”), she found the basis for traditions militating against self-incrimination that were even more extensive than the parallel American statutes, and included particular provisions against coerced confession. She followed this with a discussion of the overarching principle known as kavod ha-briot (“human dignity”), contrasting notions like tselem elohim (“creation in the image of God”) and hamalbin pnei heviro b’rabim (“whoever shames his fellow in public has spilled his blood”) with the depredations of Abu Ghraib.

Jewish law does clearly place preeminent value on the preservation of life, and articulates circumstances in which a rodef (a “pursuer”) may be harmed or killed to prevent his murder of another. But in her third essay, Weintraub demonstrated how the application of this principle to the kinds of practices then being sanctioned by the Bush Justice Department was a gross miscarriage of its meaning.

Finally, turning from the discursive to the evocative, and rooting herself in the Torah’s injunction against “abusing the stranger, for you know the heart of the stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt,” she suggested that a history of slavery, martyrdom, discrimination, and genocide should predispose Jews against systematic policies of wanton abuse.

P.S. I don’t recommend doing a Google Image search for “torture” and “Abu Ghraib.”

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 30, 2009 | 2:48 pm

Atheists offer ‘Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

As I mentioned Tuesday, atheists have been more vocal about their godlessness in recent years. You would think this would make the work of Christians both easier and more difficult: While the unbelievers are more obvious, they’re also more committed to an antagonistic cause. So what is a Christian evangelist to do?

Here’s some advice from atheists. Sort of.

“It’s a list of the Top Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists,” Hemant Mehta wrote on his Friendly Atheist blog. “The purpose is not to make the conversion of atheists easier. Rather, it’s to make the Christians who do this sort of thing more tolerable (since we have to deal with them on a regular basis).”

Here are numbers eight through 10:

8. Don’t assume that we have “God-shaped holes in our hearts” and try to get us to admit it.

I certainly think that religion helps meet various psychological needs, and there are plenty of warm, fuzzy feelings (and deeper emotional experiences as well) that come along with it. But just because you have a proverbial hole-in-your-heart that only Jesus can fill doesn’t mean that all of us do.

Trying to convince us that our lives suck or are incomplete without God isn’t going to work. Stop insulting us and implying that we’re secretly miserable. We’re getting along just fine without any gods, so this line of strategy won’t work.

9. Don’t compare your past experiences to our present.

I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard Christians enthusiastically share their stories of horrible, sinful lives that left them feeling empty and lonely.

These “sinful” lives usually consisted of such shockers as swearing, going to R-rated movies, looking at porn, drinking, partying, smoking, and occasionally doing drugs. Oh — and having premarital sex.

The thing is, maybe these things made you feel guilty or empty; maybe you developed addictions or other problems relating to these activities, and maybe you’re much happier now that you don’t do them. That’s great. But it doesn’t mean that hearing your story is going to shock us or convince us to change our ways. There is such a thing as a healthy balance, and it can include some (or maybe all) of those “vices.”

This tactic seems especially silly when different Christians groups and denominations can’t seem to decide what’s sinful and what’s not.

10. Don’t talk down to us, as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.

Many of us have read the Bible, prayed, attended church for years, and still ended up as atheists. There’s no magic bullet that converts people to Christianity. Whatever experience led you to believe probably happened on a pretty personal level. We haven’t witnessed anything miraculous or heard any voices, and we don’t see anything self-evident about God in nature or humanity. So if you insist on trying to save us, at least familiarize yourself with our perspective before jumping in, because assuming we’re simply uninformed or dumb is only going to hurt your chances.

Read more, or see just what happens when you disregard this list, at the Friendly Atheist Forums.

23 Comments — Leave your comment

April 30, 2009 | 12:17 pm

UCSB professor talks about ‘parallel images of Nazis and Israelis’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The Los Angeles Times today picked up on the controversy surrounding a professor at UC Santa Barbara who in January sent his students an e-mail with 42 “parallel images of Nazis and Israelis.” I blogged about this Monday.

What I didn’t know then but what the Times reports is that the sociology professor, William I. Robinson, is Jewish. This means his supporters will find his actions brave and his opponents will identify Robinson as a self-loathing Jew instead of an anti-Semite.

Robinson didn’t respond to the e-mail I sent him, but he did speak with Doug Henwood of the liberal Counterpunch. Here is an excerpt of that interview in which Robinson seems to be claiming—and I don’t know how he can do this considering the subject of his email was “parallel images of Nazis and Israels”—that he didn’t actually make such a comparison:

DH: Now, I think some people found offensive that you had likened Israeli behavior to the Nazis. Is that an issue?

WR: Well I didn’t do that. What I did was I forwarded several items from the world media, from the internet media. One item was an article written by a Jewish journalist in a Jewish newspaper here in the United States, and it was criticizing the invasion of Gaza…

DH: So you didn’t endorse this position?

WR: I didn’t endorse it but I did include, I said, in presenting this material, I said that Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw and I explained the context. That’s because in Warsaw the Nazi’s surrounded Warsaw, concentrated Jews in Warsaw, wouldn’t let anyone in, wouldn’t let anyone out, wouldn’t let supplies in, wouldn’t let supplies out; as a result there was famine and disease and so forth…

DH: Which is exactly what’s…

WR: ...exactly and precisely what the Israeli’s are doing in Gaza. And that’s been denounced by the Red Cross, the United Nations, the international human rights organizations, and moreover, academic freedom totally allows me to present such controversial material and that’s part of what the university is all about.

You can read the rest here.

72 Comments — Leave your comment

April 30, 2009 | 9:27 am

Time to rethink celibacy in Catholic Church? Jesuit publication says so

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

In the past 10 years, journalists have repeatedly broached the topic of celibacy in the Catholic Church, wondering whether this contributed to the clergy sexual abuse scandal or whether the election of a new pope might open the door to married priests. But it’s not everyday that a leading Catholic publication, in this case the Jesuit magazine America, urges church leaders to diligently and sincere consider rescinding the centuries-old—it goes back to Medieval times—prohibition against priests marrying.

Among other possible solutions to the continuing decline of Catholic priests, the editors at America opined:

Silence and fervent prayer for vocations are no longer adequate responses to the priest shortage in the United States. As the church prepares to observe the Year of the Priest, which begins on June 19, open discussion about how to sustain the church as a eucharistic community of faith and fortify the pastoral life of Catholic congregations has become imperative. For making do within the limits set by present demographic trends presents a double threat to Catholic life: Catholic communities will become only infrequent eucharistic communities, or eucharistic communities will be severed from the pastoral care and public witness of priests.

(skip)

What about the recruitment and training of married men as priests? Married priests already minister in the Catholic Church, both East and West. Addressing the married clergy of the Eastern Catholic churches, the Second Vatican Council exhorted “all those who have received the priesthood in the married state to persevere in their holy vocation and continue to devote their lives fully and generously to the flock entrusted to their care” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests,” No. 16). That exhortation now applies to the more than 100 former Anglican priests and Lutheran ministers who have entered the Catholic Church, been ordained and now serve in the Latin rite. As we face the challenges of the priest shortage, some of the more than 16,000 permanent deacons in the United States, many of them married, who experience a call to priestly ministry might be called to ordination with a similarly adapted discipline. In addition, the views and desires of some of the more than 25,000 priests who have been laicized (and are now either single or married) should also be heard.

Our plea is modest. The bishops of the United States should take greater leadership in openly discussing the priest shortage and its possible remedies. These should not be conversations in which we face a problem only to find every new avenue of solution closed. Rather, they should be exchanges fully open to the possibilities offered by the Spirit.

Two years ago, I wrote about Bill Lowe, of those former Anglican priests who was about to become the first married priest in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. An excerpt is after the jump:

Read more of this post

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 30, 2009 | 1:11 am

Why Birthright Israel alum don’t give back to Jewish community

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Birthright Israel is the crown jewel of Jewish philanthropic innovation. In a decade, the program has taken more than 200,000 Jews, age 18 to 26, to Israel. The results, at least in terms of increasing the connection young Jewish adults feel toward Israel, have been excellent. But a new study finds that the Jewish communities to which Birthright alum return have failed to make the connection.

“The study, ‘Tourists, Travelers, and Citizens: Jewish Engagement of Young Adults in Four Centers of North American Jewish Life,’ seems to suggest that the problem is that somehow the organized Jewish community has failed at attracting this enthusiastic and turned-on generation of young Jews, leaving them bereft after the high of their journey to Israel,” Andy Bachman writes in a JTA op-ed. He continues:

But the study never takes into account that structurally the post-trip programming is destined for failure because it fails to make equal partners out of the strong number of Jewish start-ups, JCCs and active, thriving synagogues ready to meet these young Jews where they’re at and welcoming them into Jewish life.

I know this from firsthand experience.

During the early days of Birthright planning, I was invited to a focus group with other Jewish leaders that included brainstorming on what to do once program participants returned home. Several of us made it abundantly clear that we needed access to the names of participants. Birthright officials made it clear that this would not be possible. At the time it was stated that this valuable list of Birthright alumni would be used for fund raising to help support and sustain the program—a rather counter-intuitive pursuit for engaging the young and disconnected, and one that only now, eight years later, is being launched in a serious way.

In my capacity as director of the Bronfman Center at NYU; as founder of Brooklyn Jews, considered one of the many success stories of local Jewish community organizers; and now as the rabbi of one of New York City’s fastest growing, multi-generational synagogue communities, my experience has been that Birthright has no desire to share the names of trip participants who live in and around Brooklyn.

The troubling implication is that Birthright is not interested in establishing partnerships with an array of great new grass-roots Jewish initiatives that have a proven track record at engaging young people—the clear, stated and laudable goal of sending them to Israel in the first place.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2009 | 6:58 pm

Pig flu fever

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This little piggy ... (BusinessWeek)

The World Health Organization upped its swine flu pandemic meter today to a level five. Health officials now fully expect a global pandemic to follow. Though we still know very little about the flu strain, how it is spread and just how serious a threat it poses, hysteria is starting to set in. For example: When I was told today that a colleague on the ad side of our office had just returned from Mexico, I wasted little time before leaving the building; when I had to walk by her cubicle, I held my breath.

In Egypt, one of the few Muslim countries where religious minorities raise pigs, the government has ordered the slaughtering of 300,000 swine. China and Russia have said they don’t want American pork, even though the disease is not a food-borne illness (great report from Marketplace). And the Catholic Church announced it will change Mass practices to prevent the flu’s spread.

More from the Catholic News Service:

Father Michael Dugan, director of the Office of Liturgy for the Diocese of Dallas, reminded parishioners of their obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. If a parishioner is sick, however, Father Dugan recommended that he or she stay home to avoid spreading the illness.

Father Dugan also said that “members of our congregations should not be offended at this time if someone chooses not to shake the other person’s hand at the sign of peace.”

“If you are ill, the appropriate response to someone extending a sign of peace might be to bow to them and say, ‘Peace be with you,’ to avoid bodily contact, or one might wave slightly at the other person,” he added in the online statement.

Father Dugan also suggested that parishioners who feel sick should receive Communion in their hands and avoid drinking from the communal chalice.

Read more of this post

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2009 | 5:35 pm

Pat Robertson to retire as Regent University president

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s been a long time since the voice of Pat Robertson, once a fixture of the Religious Right, has had much cultural currency. Like Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who stepped aside in February, Robertson represents a bygone era of Christian conservatism. Their constituency still exists, but its numbers have dropped and priorities have shifted. Liberals can even be found today at Regent University, the Christian institution that Robertson founded.

Yesterday, Robertson announced that he would retire as university president, effective July 1, 2010:

“Serving as Regent University’s president has been an honor and a joy,” Robertson said in a statement from the university. “The accomplishments of our faculty, staff, students and alumni are truly remarkable and I am so delighted by the achievements of our rapidly growing school. As chancellor and a trustee, I will now focus on helping guide the university toward the next level of strategic growth and the implementation of our master plan.”

Though Regent’s founder, Robertson did not become president, the school’s sixth, until 2000. More from the university:

Dr. Robertson, recognized and awarded for his visionary accomplishments in broadcasting and many other arenas, is known also for his distinctive contributions to higher education in general and Christian higher education in particular. He helped Regent pioneer many “firsts” since it opened its doors in 1978 with 77 students and seven faculty as the nation’s first free-standing Christian graduate school.

(skip)

In the next year, Dr. Robertson will oversee a new campus master plan that he developed for Regent, with specific attention to the continued growth of the university’s undergraduate and graduate online and on-campus programs, and the university’s overall global impact.

“Regent University is blessed to have reached many milestones, both academically and in the spiritual development of our community,” Robertson says. “Our mission remains steadfast: to train Christian leaders who serve with excellence in every area of their lives. I have seen that excellence firsthand and I know that we have only just begun to see the fruits of our labor.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2009 | 3:47 pm

Phillip Markoff: father Jewish, mother not

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Markoff, right, with his attorney

“Is Phillip Markoff Jewish?” That’s a question a lot of people were asking after the young medical student was arrested on suspicion of being the “Craigslist Killer.” I wrote Monday that the answer was unclear, but that what’s more interesting is our inclination to ask it. A robust discussion followed in the comments section.

Here is what we now know:

Markoff’s father, Richard, is a dentist in Syracuse, N.Y. I just called their offices and confirmed that Dr. Markoff is Jewish.

But Phillip grew up in Sherrill, N.Y., with his mother Susan Haynes, step-father, Gary Carroll. “In his senior yearbook, Markoff lists Carroll and Haynes as his parents,” according to the Utica Observer-Dispatch. “There is no mention of his father.”

Neither Haynes nor Carroll are Jewish, and the family occasionally celebrated Mass at St. Helena Roman Catholic Church. “More often,” the paper reported, “Carroll and Haley would come without the rest of the family.”

So there you have it. Under Jewish law, Phillip Markoff, whose mother was not Jewish and was raised in a Catholic home, would not be considered a Member of the Tribe.

“END OF STORY,” a commenter identified as Gordon wrote. “For shame to whoever wrote this article without doing ANY research. Mr. Brad A Greenberg. For SHAME.”

60 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2009 | 4:17 am

Trial to begin of 27 connected to murder of French Jew

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Ilan Halimi

Three years ago, Ilan Halimi was found unconscious near railroad tracks in Paris. Halimi was naked, gagged and handcuffed; his body showed tremendous signs of torture. The New Yorker later reported:

The police traced the crime to a group that became known as “the gang of Barbarians” allegedly led by Youssouf Fofana, the twenty-five-year-old son of African immigrants, and determined that Halimi had been abducted because he was Jewish. Eighteen people were arrested in France, and after a manhunt that led to the Ivory Coast, Fofana was taken into custody. Fofana denied killing Halimi, and that his actions were motivated by race, but other detainees told the police that “Jews have money,” and that they believed that Halimi’s parents, a working-class couple, or:the rabb” would pay half a million dollars for Halimi’s release.

The case is fraught with religious overtones and socioeconomic undertones. And this week, the long-awaited trial of Fofana and 26 others implicated in Halimi’s murder will begin. Most of the men and women face lesser charges than Fofana, who is accused of murder and conspiracy.

The trial will be closed to the public, but its outcome, regarding a case that rocked France and Jews around the world, will be closely followed.

7 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2009 | 2:45 am

Catching up with atheist evangelists

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Wired: The three wise men

“More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops.”

That was the headline from a New York Times article Sunday that covered familiar ground: The number of Americans not belonging to a religion has grown dramatically in recent years and atheist evangelists are attracting attention by proclaiming their godlessness.

An excerpt:

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.

Local and national atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration’s embrace of the religious right. A spate of best-selling books on atheism also popularized the notion that nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause, like environmentalism or muscular dystrophy.

Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.

A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year.

Despite all the hype, and the success of atheist authors, I’ve yet to see the fruit of these labors. Americans remain suspicious of atheist values and polls regularly show Americans would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is female, African American, Latino, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Mormon than for an atheist.

Not sure how Thomas Jefferson snuck in, but that was a different era. In fact, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark remains the only modern member of Congress to be an “out-atheist.” 

I’ve blogged quite a bit about the New Atheists and their mission, and back in 2006 I wrote a lengthy feature for the LA Daily News about atheists “coming out of the closet” and engaging the political process just like religious folks have done for decades.

My entire article, “Got God? No Way,” appears after the jump:

Read more of this post

6 Comments — Leave your comment