If Gays OK then expect earthquakes, fire and brimstone over Broadway

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but expect to hear fundamentalist rhetoric -- including the fundamentalist weather forecast -- in response to the decision today by the Conservative movement to permit the ordination of gays. The Talmud says that earthquakes are a result of homosexuality.

The move in that direction is essential and inevitable to the movement. The opposition to this decision is equally essential and inevitable within Orthodoxy.

The big losers should the approval be passed, will be the Reconstructionist and Reform seminaries who will have to compete with a substantial powerhouse seminary.

Meanwhile, gay bloggers are waiting on "shpilkes" to hear the news.

JTA UPDATE:

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 4:00 PM ET

The Conservative movement’s highest legal body moved to allow commitment ceremonies for gays and the ordination of gay rabbis.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards endorsed three opinions Wednesday on homosexuality.

Two opinions upheld earlier prohibitions on homosexual activity, but the third endorsed commitment ceremonies and the ordination of gay rabbis, while retaining the biblical ban on male sodomy.

Two other opinions that were under consideration, which would have removed all restrictions on gay activity, were declared takanot, or substantial breaks from tradition that would require an absolute majority of the committee members for adoption.

They were defeated.

Frum Mull El Al Boycott and Ban

Frum Jews are reacting to two recent actions by El Al: they flew on Shabbat and they served non-kosher food. Haaretz reports that Israeli rabbis are deciding whether to decree a ban against the airline.

We must compliment the great negotiation skills on both sides of this issue. Keep up the comity and understanding.

Haaretz:

...it is doubtful that these events will give rise to an organized ultra-Orthodox boycott of El Al. The rabbinic committee on matters pertaining to Shabbat, a forum that includes all central streams of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, met again, Monday, to consider its response to El Al's actions.

Some time this week, they are expected to formulate an announcement to be signed by rabbis of all ultra-Orthodox sectors.

Ultra-Orthodox powerbrokers, who met Monday with Israir representatives, said that the domestic carrier is prepared to cease flying on the Sabbath if the community makes increased use of its services.

In regard to negotiations with Israir, Shabbat committee chairman Rabbi Yitzhak Goldknopf, told Haaretz, "We were in contact with them in the past, but we didn't take it seriously because we were committed to El Al. After El Al breached our trust, we consider ourselves free of any obligation."

The non-organized boycott began to expand even before leading rabbis came out with statements against the airline. The committee announced it was preparing to announce "harsh steps." An official boycott could deal a fatal blow to El Al as it would obligate not only ultra-Orthodox travelers from Israel, but also tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox travelers from abroad. The rabbis of the national religious stream would also be expected to join the decision.

El Al CEO Haim Romano called the committee of rabbis for a meeting but was rebuffed Monday night.

Romano told Haaretz Monday he did not believe a decision to boycott El Al would pass. "El Al is sensitive to the needs of the ultra-Orthodox public and will, therefore, avoid changing its policy by flying on Shabbat, except in extraordinary cases, like those which took place last weekend. We are convinced that the entire public understands the circumstances and respects El Al's loyalty to its clientele."

El Al CEO Haim Romano however said Monday that he does not rule out the option of conducting flights on the Sabbath under specific circumstances. "One must remember that the airport operates seven days a week," he said, "and I expect the religious community to accommodate us as we have accommodated them over the years."

Ultra-Orthodox passengers represent 20-30 percent of the clientele on El Al flights.

Our two top Jewish music video posts

To all the people who love these videos -
thanks for visiting our blog.

#1. Yalla Ya Nasrallah - A Rhythmic Serenade from Israel

#2. Aaron Kotler's Music Video - Lazy Shabbos

We love them too. Email the links to all your friends.

Prager off the deep end - Jews should swear on the New Testament

Aside from the affront that Dennis Prager has inflicted on the Muslim community - saying the Keith Ellison of MN should be sworn into congress on a bible not a koran - he also insulted me - saying that I should be sworn in on a bible containing the New Testament - because it is the bible of America. (Not that there is any chance I'd be elected to congress.)

"Prager also said that he would like to see Jews swear their oaths of office on the Christian Bible — the Jewish Bible does not include the New Testament that is central to Christian beliefs."

There is no way on G-d's green earth that I'd swear on a New Testament.

Dennis, you have lost your mind!

George Bush swearing in Sen. Lieberman in 1989 on a Tanakh? Looks like the Christian Bible is below it on the table.

Rabbi Riskin: Aliyah? Just Talk About It

"Israel National Radio’s Aliyah Revolution program interviewed Rabbi Shlomo Riskin Thursday, asking the American-Israeli rabbi what he sees as the key to mass Jewish immigration from North America. "

You can read the interview or listen to it.

But to save some time: the rabbi says that the key to mass Jewish immigration is talking about the A word -- Aliyah.

Yup, that ought to do it. And after you get to Israel, make sure to pat yourself on the back frequently.

Rabbi Riskin: I think educators, teachers, rabbis, have to once against establish Aliyah as a priority. You know Rabbi Yisrael Salanter said that there are two ways of reforming Judaism. One is by declaring the specific mitzvah no longer necessary to do, G-d forbid. The other is simply by not talking about a mitzvah. And the “A-word” – Aliyah - is generally not spoken about. Not in our yeshivot and not from our pulpits…And that is tragic. I think that once again Aliyah must become a priority and people will respond.

Israel = Nazis: French Woman Candidate OKs Hezbollah Analogy

Leave it to the French to insult everybody.

The leading French Woman Candidate for President first appeared to approve of the Hezbollah Analogy of Israel to the Nazis. Then, when told it was a bad idea, she insisted that her translator left out that part of the Hez hate speech.

I'm taking bets that this "mistake" helps her candidacy.

Royal stumbles in row over attack on Israel as 'Nazi'
Adam Sage, Paris

Ségolène Royal, the French presidential candidate, was embroiled in a damaging row on a visit to the Middle East yesterday after appearing to condone a Hezbollah MP who denounced US “insanity” and compared Israel to the Nazis.

Ms Royal, the first woman with a realistic chance of winning the French presidency, was struggling to extricate herself from the controversy sparked by a meeting in Beirut with MPs, including Ali Ammar of Hezbollah.

In a 20-minute tirade Mr Ammar attacked “unlimited American insanity” for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. He then said that Israeli “Nazism” was no better than Hitler’s Third Reich.

Ms Royal, who is on her first overseas trip since winning the Socialist Party primary, replied: “Thank you for being so frank. I agree with a lot of the things you have said, notably your analysis of the US.”

Her remark provoked a furore in France, where Philippe Douste-Blazy, the Foreign Minister, said that she had a simplistic vision of the Middle East. François Goulard, the Research Minister, said: “Ségolène Royal obviously doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

Ms Royal was trying to limit the damage last night. She said that her interpreter had failed to translate Mr Ammar’s comparison between Israel and the Nazis. If he had, she would have walked out, she said.

Ms Royal went on to claim that she had not meant to attack Americans in general for insanity but only the Bush Administration over the war in Iraq.

Thank God for the Atheists

Without the challenges of the atheists, religion would have more of a free pass than it already has.

If you truly believe in a religion, then you do not try to suppress criticism, you try to answer it. If you truly believe in your scriptures, then you show others how right they are, how beautiful their teachings can be. You don't try to insult and bully all your opponents. You try to win them over.

Without the challenges and questions of atheists, there's no doubt in my mind that religious fanaticism would be more fanatical, mysticism would be more esoteric, triumphalism would be more militant.

Religion is power. Good people use religion to do powerfully good things. Bad people use religion to exploit and mislead.

So I read Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) and Harris (“Letter to a Christian Nation”) and I say Bravo. Stand up for your beliefs. Their books are not really that good. But they have the right and the obligation to preach their atheism.

In today's New York Times, Kristoff criticizes these folks for being too "fundamentalist" in their attacks on religion. He is right, that these are vocal critics who are getting some attention. And clever.

Kristoff says, "If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can’t help wondering why she doesn’t pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins. Or, at least, crash the Web site of http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/. That’s a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention."

Snarky is slang meaning, "describes a witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude."

Spokesmen for religion and atheism on both sides of this debate could be "mistaken for snotty or arrogant." But indeed the web site in question and the atheists in question -- cannot be dismissed. If God is reponsible for all things, then is he indeed the most egregious abortionist? Kristoff quotes Harris:

Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: “20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.”

Kristoff calls his essay, "A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion." He cites all the good religion does in the world, building hospitals, helping the weak and unfortunate. True enough, but not the point.

I disagree with Kristoff's proposal. This is not a war -- so there is no call for a truce.

We need more criticism of religion, not less. We need more challenges to theologians, not fewer.

Many of the theologians that I know are lazy and complacent. Others have become bullies rather than teachers.

A good challenge is healthy. It is at the heart of the American way to encourage the free expression of all ideas. It is at the core of academic freedom to subject all assertions to critical scrutiny.

Really now Mr. Kristoff. You are calling for a truce between an obscure web site and two best-selling critics of religion on the one side and three billion proponents of religion on the other.

Come back to the planet earth.

ADL: Ellison is OK; Koran is OK; Prager is ridiculous, intolerant and ugly

I gotta go with the ADL on this one. Prager should be asked politely to resign from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and to read a book, any book, to get some deoderant and to lose a few pounds.

New York, NY, December 1, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued the following statement in response to Dennis Prager’s November 28 online column, “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” where he said that the first Muslim elected to Congress should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran:

Dennis Prager’s argument that Representative-Elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be permitted to take his oath of office on a Koran is, intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American.

Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellison’s use of a Koran would be “damaging to the fabric of American civilization.” To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion.

Prager’s patriotic prattling is misinformed on the facts, too. No Member of Congress is officially sworn in with a Bible. Under House rules, the official swearing-in ceremony is done in the House chambers, with the Speaker of the House administering the oath of office en masse. No Bibles or other holy books are used at all. Members may, if they choose, also have a private ceremony with family and friends. At these unofficial ceremonies, Members frequently solemnize the event by taking an oath while holding a personal family Bible.

Prager ridiculously asserts that permitting Rep. Ellison to take the oath of office would “be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.” What he fails to understand is that what truly unifies all Americans is a value system built on religious freedom and pluralism, not dogmatism and coercion.

Prager presents intolerant, ugly views. His comparison of Ellison’s desire to “choose his favorite book” to that of the right of a racist elected to public office to use Hitler’s Mein Kampf is outrageous. If Prager were merely a blogger and radio talk-show host trying to be relevant and provocative, these views might not merit a response. But as a newly-appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Prager and his views must be held to a higher standard.

That Prager -- he is worse than ....

But wait: "If Prager were merely a blogger... " What do you mean by that?

MN Congressman to Swear on Qur'an

I saw Prager on TV talking about this issue yesterday. He makes no sense at all. He seems to think that swearing on a bible is an affirmation of our values as Americans. NO.

Swearing on a bible is a means of insuring that the swearer is telling the truth, that he is serious about his oath. Forcing someone to swear on a book he does not believe in is a way to start out crooked and dishonest. Wait, perhaps that is entirely appropriate for a new congressman!

Oath on Qur'an: Provocation or act of faith?

The choice by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the U.S. House, to take his oath of office on his faith's holy book, has stirred a debate.
Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune

WASHINGTON - Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.
The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.

"Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his online column this week. He said that American Jews routinely have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they don't believe in the New Testament, and that if Ellison refuses to do so, "don't serve in Congress."

But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.

"Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" he wrote for National Review Online.

Video: CBS busts NYC siren rabbi

Sometimes the news people just run out of ideas. This week CBS ran an "expose" of a rabbi/diamond dealer who drives around NYC in a black crown vic limo with lights flashing and sirens blasting. He apparently has all kinds of official parking permits and he is not at all shy about moving traffic cones and driving on the wrong side of the street.

The end of the report - he apologizes. Now, after driving in NYC traffic for many years, I'm not sure if this rabbi is a disgrace or a role model.

Video: CBS busts NYC siren rabbi