A Response to Homosexual Orthodox Rabbis

Miss Shona just posted a comment on my piece on homosexuals in the Orthodox community. I think it is instructive so I am posting it here.

I recently found out (via Facebook...of all means) that one of my study partners at Aish HaTorah is a lesbian. She is also FFB...and (from my perspective) seems to have no huge issues reconciling the fact (ok...so she is a FFB who opts to daven with the Aish HaTorah center minyan...I do not see that as an issue...although I am sure some could or do). I honestly wish I could say I can understand where she is coming from...but I do not. And while she is happy with her status...I am actually pretty saddened by it.

The Torah offers us a guidebook to a more spiritually fulfilling life. Do we always understand the mitzvot? No way. I mean how exactly will eating chicken alfredo affect my quality of life (outside of the thousands of calories per serving)? Nonetheless, it all comes together to not only preserve Am Yisrael, but to gently direct the operation of all creation of HKBH. A frum Jew should understand that. No matter how tempting it may be to sleep with your sister's husband or anything else of the sort.(In all fairness, I realize that being a lesbian is somehow "not as bad" as being a gay man. But I do not know the official posek on this...other than lesbianism is also highly frowned upon.)

I am a human being, so my understanding of the world is surely limited...but I do not believe that the vast majority (like 90%) of homosexuals are "born that way". I have no "scientific" information on which to base my theory...but from what I have seen...knowing about 15+ gay individuals personally...they almost all have had some exposure or experience with abuse or dysfunction in their home life. Believe me, I do not believe that gay people need to be lectured to or anything like that; but I feel that it is similar to other indulgences such as overeating, or alcoholism or even bigotry. Yes, certain personality traits can lead you to be more prone to such behavior...but you can overcome it.It is hard to not marginalize people and also not condone whatever unacceptable activities they involve themselves in. I am just rambling really...

I have no answers. Heterosexual individuals have their battles with sexual deviance as well; including very religious heterosexuals. There are most certainly "frum" guys who are "players" at heart...but (hopefully) they don't give into it...because they hold a level of accountability to the community...if not their wives...at least. …

Bella’s Wedding, Bedding and Surprise: A Review of Breaking Dawn (Part I)

A while back I came up with a theory as to what Stephenie Meyer would do with the Twilight series. Eclipse left us with Bella agreeing to marry the vampire love of her life, Edward, having survived three books still alive, human and, remarkably enough, still a virgin. I thought of Breaking Dawn as offering a checklist of getting Bella wedded and bedded and undead. My thinking was that instead of going with the obvious ending of having Bella being turned into a vampire, Meyer would go through with the wedding and the bedding, but then have Bella get pregnant, with a human child. (The books never said that vampires could not have children.) Since Edward and Bella are a unique couple, it is perfectly reasonable that the vampires would be unaware that such a thing could be possible. Having a child would change Bella’s priorities. Now she would be determined, one, to protect her child and keep it human and, two, to stay human for her child's sake. The child, once it is born, would be some sort of special genius capable of tipping the balance of power in the supernatural world, taking the series into serious Orson Scott Card territory. The Volturi, the vampire mafia, would come after Bella, her child, and the Cullens. They would be interested in the child and the fact that Bella would now have violated the terms of Alice’s agreement with them (Back in New Moon, Alice explained Bella’s presence with them by saying that the Cullens were planning on turning her.) would give them the perfect excuse. This would lead to the Cullens having to fight the Volturi. To do this they would have to form an alliance with the werewolves and various other friends such as the Danali and Jasper’s old comrades Peter and Charlotte. This would climax in a cataclysmic battle, which would take place, somewhere right outside Forks. I think it is important that an author has the spine to kill off major characters. Hopefully, Meyer would allow for some heavy casualties and kill off a few of the Cullens, Carlisle being a likely target. Meyer might even take out Edward or Bella.

I figured this storyline would take three books to tell. The first book would have Bella getting wedded, bedded and pregnant. It would also establish the Volturi as something far worse then what they seemed until now, some old friends of Carlisle, who went after humans but kept the vampire world under some form of control; a minor evil which stops an even greater evil. The second book would deal with Bella’s pregnancy, the birth of her child and would have the opening rounds with the Volturi, leading to some great crises. Killing off Carlisle, much as J. K. Rowling killed off Albus Dumbledore, would fit nicely. Finally, in the third book, we can wrap everything up with a grand royal rumble of supernatural creatures, with Bella ever in the center and commenting on it all in her unflappable straightforward fashion, which is what makes these books tick.

I nixed this idea for two reasons. The first being that I checked one of the established Twilight websites and it specifically stated in its FAQs that vampires could not have children. I assumed that someone had posed this theory to Meyer and she downed it. The second thing was that I found out that Breaking Dawn was going to be the final Twilight book, so Meyer clearly planned to wrap everything up here and not open up a whole new storyline. While not to give too much away, as it turns out my theory, while not completely accurate, was quite close; so much for that website. As for this being a three-book storyline, Meyer took it and crammed it into one 754 page book. Curiously enough, unlike the previous books, Breaking Dawn is divided into three books, which follow the basic plot structure I outlined. Because of this, I intend to deal with Breaking Dawn as three separate books.


(To be continued …)

McCain Attack Ads

There has been a fair amount of controversy over a recent McCain ad which knocked Barack Obama as a celebrity. (See here.) What was controversial about the ad was that it linked Obama to celebrities such as Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. To be fair to the McCain team, the ad, if you watch it, is not nearly as crude as it has been described. Yes, shots of Spears and Hilton make a passing appearance, but that is all. I still think this was a horrible advertisement. It was boring and, even worse, came across as the whining of a sore loser. Being popular is not a bad thing. McCain can only wish he were as popular as Obama. A far better McCain ad is the recently aired, The One. (See here.) This ad lambasts Obama for his messianic sense of self worth. It features a series of clips of Obama speaking in his savior mode. Obama’s style of speaking works very well in context, as sound bites it can look quite ludicrous. The ad ends with Charlton Heston’s Moses splitting the Red Sea.

The One works as an ad because it is actually funny, it makes Obama look stupid and it raises a legitimate issue. Obama is where he is now, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, because he is black. Take this away from Obama and all that remains is a bright, articulate Harvard graduate in his forties, with no real political experience. Granted even this would be an improvement over the past eight years of having an inarticulate and mediocre former Governor of Texas for president. There are plenty of bright, articulate graduates from Harvard, who are white, whom no one ever thought to run for political office, let alone the presidency. The other thing that Obama has is that the far left has anointed him their savior. My impression of Obama, from reading Audacity of Hope, is that he is not a radical and, if elected, would govern from the center. Be that as it may, it is the far left that has pushed Obama to his current celebrity status, which poisons it. If Obama is a messianic savior here to change America then he must be the savior of the far left here to remake America over in its image. As this ad shows, McCain can turn Obama’s celebrity status against him by using it to question Obama’s ability and to connect him to the far left.

Fighting the Whig Narrative in the Classroom: A Modest Proposal

When we last talked about the Whig narrative, I said that attacking the Whig narrative could be useful as a way to fight secularism. I offer, here, a possible way to go about this.

Since the Whig narrative is a historical issue, the first and most obvious place to go after it is within the confines of history and how it is taught to the public, particularly in classrooms. Judging from my experience of talking to non-historians, the fact that historians as a whole have rejected the Whig narrative is not something most people are aware of. On the contrary, they take it as a given that the history that constitutes the Whig narrative is a fact. The blame for this must be placed on the doorstep of grade school history teachers and textbooks, the source of most people’s knowledge of history. When I was in school my teachers taught what essentially amounted to the Whig narrative and I went to religious schools. I remember one teacher in high school, and this was an otherwise excellent history teacher, openly connecting what she was teaching to her being a deist. I take it as an operational assumption that the situation in public schools is if anything worse; particularly considering the demand to teach multiculturalism and tolerance for which the Whig narrative and its whole line of reasoning are quite suitable.

This situation is analogous to that of evolution. Despite the fact that evolution is an accepted fact by the scientific community, including those scientists who are theists, evolution is not accepted by the general public to the same degree. One can still reject evolution in polite company without having one's sanity questioned. This situation was made manifest in the recent courtroom battle over Intelligent Design. The scientific community has made an effort to reach out and make its case to the public. I suggest that historians and those interested in history make a similar effort.

Secularists, joined by many people of faith, rightfully and successfully challenged the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design as a means of selling a religious ideology. I suggest that all people of faith follow this example and challenge the direct or indirect use of the Whig narrative in the teaching of history. The Whig narrative amounts to nothing more than the teaching of secular ideology and passing it off as history.

To give an example: when I was in fifth grade my teacher opened up her discussion of the Middle Ages by telling us: during the Middle Ages people decided that the Greeks had discovered everything that there was to know about the world and that no further study was needed; people, during the Middle Ages, were therefore content to simply study the works of the Greeks. At age eleven I was quite well-read in history and knew enough to realize that this teacher was not particularly qualified to teach history. I did not yet know enough, though, to challenge her on this particular issue.

As a parent, you could call such a teacher and, in a polite and friendly manner, ask her to explain how she could say such a thing in light of all the various attempts by the Church to crack down on Greek thought. What about the 1210 ban on various teachings of Aristotle, or Pope Gregory IX’s attempt to curtail the Aristotelian curriculum taught at the University of Paris? How about Bishop Etienne Tempier, who, in 1277, issued a condemnation of 219 Aristotelian theses? (We will deal with this in greater detail later.) You could then offer the teacher a way out by giving her the chance to correct herself in front of her students. Hopefully, you could leave this conversation on friendly terms. The teacher could acknowledge that she is ill-equipped to teach history. You could tell her that you do not hold it against her, considering all the other subjects she has to teach as well, and recommend a decent medievalist for her to read; maybe someone like Norman Cantor, whose work is quite accessible for a lay audience.

If the teacher chooses to be obstinate then the fun begins and we drag this teacher in front of a board and if that fails a courtroom, to have her fired. Contact a professional medieval historian; you should have no trouble finding someone willing and able to explain to a lay audience why this teacher is incompetent to teach history. Gather a large collection of statements by the teacher that are Whig in nature and historically incorrect. Hopefully, you will also manage to catch her pontificating to her students about her secular beliefs, which would allow you to place them side by side with her Whig statements. The most obvious way to do this would be to have your child take good notes and record her classes.

If, and this is quite likely, she was teaching based on a specific curriculum then we go after the curriculum. This is, of course, the real goal of such an exercise. While going after individual teachers may be fun, it is inefficient. The goal must be to change how history is taught right at the source, the curriculum. The Whig narrative can stand only through bureaucratic inertia. The moment the Whig narrative is hauled out to stand on its own merits it falls apart like rotten timber and not even the most ardent secularist can defend it.

Of Prostitutes and Jewish Usurers: A Case of Medieval Christian Tolerance

Analogies were often drawn between the toleration of Jewish lending and the toleration of prostitution, which, by confining sin within limits and subjecting it to public control, helped to guarantee good order by preventing the seduction of innocent and respectable women at the hands of lecherous men. As Saint Augustine had written in his early treatise, De ordine, of the late fourth century, “ What can be called more filthy, more worthless, more wicked and dishonorable than whores, pimps and other such baneful creatures? But take away harlots from human affairs and you will trouble everything with unbridled lust and passion.” Sisto Medici seized on the parallel and concluded, after elaboration on Augustine and on the principle of the lesser evil, that “the wickedness of usury should therefore be permitted, no less than the brothels of harlots. … However, infidel women cannot be so generally or properly licensed to commit such fornication lest by their beauty the captivated souls of the faithful be seduced into infidelity, a danger which does not occur where usury is concerned.” (Brian Pullan, Jewish Banks and Monti di Pieta” pg. 71. The Jews of Early Modern Venice. Ed. Robert Davis and Benjamin Ravid.)

You have to give the medieval Church credit. They were very rational and logical in their own pragmatic way. The Church in Italy was remarkably tolerant of prostitution. The reason for this was that they believed that, if they banned prostitutes, men would be more likely to satisfy their lusts with other men. Better to tolerate prostitution than to tolerate homosexuality. As for the argument that if men went to non-Christian prostitutes they would be led to heresy; the rabbis in Spain thought along similar lines and argued that it was better to have Jewish prostitutes than have Jewish men going to non-Jewish prostitutes. (See David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence pg. 135-36)

This is also a very good example of a situation where hatred and tolerance could co-exist. Just because you hate someone does not mean that you are going to severally persecute them and you can like someone and still persecute them. The important thing is whether it is in your self-interest to tolerate someone or not. When trying to understand why Jews were tolerated in some places and persecuted in others the important issue is not whether certain places or rulers were “open-minded,” “enlightened” or “tolerant.” What really mattered was whether or not someone thought it was in their interest, or in the interest of society at large, to have a Jewish presence. If having Jews around served a constructive purpose then just as one tolerated the existence of other undesirables, such as prostitutes, one also tolerated Jews.

As an interesting side note, there is a connection here that Pullan does not mention. It was Augustine, who Pullan brings down as arguing for the toleration of prostitution, who formulated the famous “witness doctrine,” which became the basis for the toleration of Jews in medieval Christian thought. (We will be discussing this in detail in later posts. Stay tuned!)

The Whig Narrative of History: Secular Creationism (Part III)

(This is the continuation of a series of posts. See here and here.)

If all that was at stake with the Whig narrative was how one understood the Middle Ages and the rise of the modern world then the Whig narrative could be pushed off as just an esoteric issue for historians to discuss with no relevance to the world as we live in it. While I, as with most historians, am not a believer in the notion that history can give us direct answers to modern day problems, the Whig narrative has direct implications for how we live today. It forms the cornerstone for the secular narrative for today’s world. The modern day secularist sees himself as walking in the footsteps of the likes of Galileo, Isaac Newton, Voltaire and Benjamin Franklin. He fights on the side of reason, tolerance and freedom against the intolerant religious fundamentalist, who is the heir to the medieval Church. At stake is the very future of humanity. Either we will march on to a new, even greater, age of Enlightenment or we shall sink into a new dark age.

While narratives are not logical arguments, they create an overarching structure that link specific issues together and lend them a moral force that otherwise would not exist. For example there are many specific fronts in the religious versus secular culture conflict such as abortion, prayer in public schools, evolution and sex education. These are all very specific issues with many technical elements and which there are many possible positions that intelligent people of good will might take. In addition each side has its underlying narrative. For religious conservatives that narrative is that they are the defenders of traditional values and of a religious tradition now under assault by a secular atheist materialist culture. For those on the secular side the narrative is, as I pointed out, that they are fighting for reason against oppression.

These narratives have little to do with the particular issues in questions and therefore to refute the narrative of one side or the other would hardly mean the end of our culture war. It would, though, undermine the overarching moral structure that lends authority to a given side. What I say should not be taken as support for the conservative narrative, though for now my focus is on the secular narrative. As I see it, a major weakness of the secular position, one that people of faith have yet to properly exploit, is that the secular narrative is dependent on the Whig narrative of history. Remove the Whig narrative and the secular narrative collapses.

What we have is an entire secular establishment dependent upon a narrative of history that has been rejected by the historical community for the better part of a century. I believe that this is something that is important and that it offers an opportunity to change the dynamics of the religious versus secular conflict. In future posts I hope to offer some practical suggestions as to how to successfully use this issue within the public sphere. As part of this effort I also intend to go into some depth to explain, as a historian, what is so problematic about the Whig narrative; why someone who holds it cannot be viewed as a legitimate historian, but most be viewed as either ignorant or as an ideologue trying to push his views under the veneer of history. Finally, as it is my particular field of study, at some point down the line I intend to explore the Whig narrative in terms of how it has affected the study of Jewish history.

And Now For Something Completely Different: An Asperger with a British Sense of Humor

I co-chair a book club geared to those with Asperger Syndrome or otherwise on the high end of the autism spectrum. We meet every Thursday night at eight P.M at the Barnes and Noble on the Ohio State campus. This past week we finished Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. I had read Good Omens once before, but, like most books by either Gaiman or Pratchett, it was worth reading a second time. Good Omens is a hilarious romp through the apocalypse featuring an angel and a demon who conspire together to save humanity from the forces of both Heaven and Hell. This is top of the line British humor, my favorite kind. British humor, though, is not something that can be appreciated by everyone. The reactions of the group were mixed. As I see it, British humor reflects on different elements of the Asperger mindset and, depending on the person and circumstance, can either work very well for those with Asperger Syndrome or can utterly fail.

British humor, as exemplified by Monty Python, Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, entails manic insanity mixed with running gag references that span the cultural gambit and is usually quite dark. (For example Douglas Adams has the Earth blown to bits by aliens, building an interstellar freeway, in the first few chapters of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.) Good Omens deals with the world coming to an end next Saturday afternoon. Heaven and Hell are preparing for a final showdown in which, no matter who wins, humanity will lose. Unfortunately, due to an error on the part of a satanic nun, the anti-Christ has gone missing. Out to save the day are the unlikely pair of Aziraphale and Crowly; an angel and a demon who are in fact good friends and who rather like the Earth as it is. To those of you who are befuddled by this, not to worry; things only get more absurd as the book moves along. What keeps this all afloat is the fact that Good Omens is a satire on Paradise Lost and Revelations. It also makes fun of the Screwtape Letters, Star Wars, Doctor Who, televangelists, seventeenth century prophecies, witch-hunts, and James Bond just to name a few things.

British humor inundates the audience with strings of information, but revels in absolute absurdity. People with Asperger Syndrome are particularly suited to handling strings of information but are ill equipped to handle things that make no sense. British humor can be effective for such people if they have the necessary background to understand the references and if they can get past the fact that nothing makes any sense. One can then revel in how a given piece of British humor spits out information and how it follows its own innate logic off a cliff into perfectly “logical” absurdity. If the person with Asperger Syndrome does not pick up on the references, though, everything will backfire. All that would be left is a something that is all over the place and utterly overwhelming; in other words the sort of thing that those with Asperger Syndrome are woefully ill equipped to deal with.

The traditional assumption is that people with Asperger Syndrome have, in general, a difficult time dealing with humor. Humor is not logical and requires a certain flexibility in how one understands things. While this is particularly true in regards to British humor, British humor, because of how it uses strings of information, can, under the right circumstances, work very well for those with Asperger Syndrome.

Our next book is going to be Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. This book also fits into the model of British humor. We shall see how the group deals with this one.

Escape from Satmar

New York Magazine has an article, Escape From the Holy Shtetl, about a woman who abandoned the Satmar community of Kiryas Joel. It is an interesting counter-kiruv story; Gitty Grunwald grew up in Kiryas Joel, the daughter of a baalas teshuva, who rejected the lifestyle of her secular parents. Gitty, in turn, turned her back on her mother and now embraces the secular values of her grandparents, thus completing the circle.

I find myself in difficult position in regards to this article. This was an excellent piece of journalism and it is not as if I disagree with the essential points that it was trying to make. I oppose Satmar and its insular vision of Judaism. I agree with Rabbi Moshe Tendler that they are not in fact Jews, but members of their own religion. This article is an exhibition on why closing people off from the world does not work and can backfire and should be required reading for all Haredi parents and educators. With all this being said, I still found the article problematic in that the author, Mark Jacobson, failed to handle his source material in a critical manner.

To Jacobson’s credit, he did not write a polemic against Satmar, Haredim or Orthodox Jewry; he could have written a much more polemical piece. That being said, he is too willing to go along with Gitty’s narrative and fails to ask the sort of tough questions that a journalist should. For example, a major focus of the article is on Gitty’s struggle to gain custodial rights over her daughter, who remains in Kiryas Joel with Gitty’s ex-husband. Early in the article we are told how Gitty’s daughter was snatched from her by masked men soon after she left Kiryas Joel. Toward the end of the article, though, it is mentioned in passing that Gitty failed a drug test and because of this failed, in a secular court, to win back her daughter. This fact is pushed aside as part of the husband’s “plan” to keep control over his daughter.

For some strange reason, Jacobson remains on Gitty’s side despite the fact that she is a confirmed drug user. Her history of drug use should have brought down the very foundation of her case. No one “robbed” her of her daughter. Religious or non-religious, since her ex-husband is not a known drug user he should have custody over his daughter. For that matter those who snatched the daughter, in the first place, were justified; they were taking a girl away from a mother who used drugs. They did a good thing, which benefited both the girl and society.

That Gitty has used drugs is not allowed to interfere with the important storyline here, that Gitty is a brave soul, who freed herself from an oppressive society that demanded total obedience to a group of bearded old men and did not allow her to think for herself. The article is a bit vague on what Gitty has actually accomplished with her new found intellectual freedom. She now wears jeans and knows that Billie Holiday was a woman.

To be fair to Jacobson, the problems we are dealing with here are inherent in the very nature of human interest stories. He wrote about Gitty and her point of view and, for what it is worth, he has given us an insightful portrayal into the mindset of someone leaving Haredi Judaism. It would be nice, though, if he could, as a balancing act, do a story on Gitty’s baalas teshuva mother and why she joined Satmar. It might be beneficial to New York’s readership to get the other side of the story.

The Whig Narrative of History: Secular Creationism (Part II)

(This is the continuation of an earlier post. See here.)

This thousand year period of church darkness came to an end in the fifteenth century with the dawn of the Renaissance. In truth, even to use the word "Renaissance" bespeaks of a Whig bias. The word Renaissance means rebirth. In particular, this is supposed to refer to the rebirth of classical culture, which had lain dormant for a thousand years. The person most responsible for the popular understanding of the Renaissance was the nineteenth-century Swiss historian, Jacob Burckhardt. According to Burckhardt:

In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness – that which was turned within as that which was turned without – lay dreaming or half awake beneath a common veil. The veil was woven of faith, illusion and childish prepossession, through which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues. Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family or corporation – only through some general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all the things of this world became possible. (The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Part II chapter 1.)

For Burckhardt the Renaissance meant a rediscovery of the individual. Man became conscious of himself, and by extension the state, as works of art; which could be fashioned to suit the will of the individual. At a cultural level this led to the rise of Renaissance art with its increased emphasis on the human form, but it also, at a scholarly level, led to the rise of Humanism. Humanist scholars recovered many classical texts, which were unknown in the western world, hence widening the canon of texts. More importantly, Humanism, in defiance of the medieval Church, placed man at the center of the world.

The Church came under attack as new horizons, both literal and figurative, were opened. The invention of the printing press brought literacy to the masses. This opened up new horizons as people came to be able to read, and think for themselves. No longer were people enslaved to the Church and its interpretation of the Bible; now they could interpret the Bible for themselves. This led to the Reformation, in which Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church. Luther believed in the rights of the common man to read the Bible for himself. For that purpose he translated the Bible into German, overthrowing the Latin Vulgate.

Christopher Columbus literally opened up a new horizon with his discovery of the New World in 1492. The voyages of Columbus and those who followed in his wake demonstrated that the world was round and not flat as most Europeans had believed. Thus people’s eyes were opened to the fact that the Church and Aristotle were not infallible and that courageous individuals, unshackled by medieval dogma, could accomplish things that would have been unthinkable to earlier generations.

The Renaissance’s emphasis on man as an individual and its willingness to challenge Church dogma bore its ultimate fruit with the Scientific Revolution. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo overturned the Ptolemaic view of the solar system, which placed the earth at the center of the universe, with the heliocentric view. Overturning Ptolemy meant a lot more than just a change in man’s view of the solar system; it also was the overthrow of Aristotelian thought and of the Church which had supported it. No longer would man live at the center of his tiny solar system, in which angels and even God lived right above the earth just out of reach. No longer could man view himself as the central character of a divine drama. Mankind now awakened to the fact that the Earth was just a tiny, and not particularly important, part of a much larger cosmos. Christianity’s man-centered narrative must now give way to the forces of science.

While the Church tried to hold back this tide of new knowledge by persecuting scientists such as Galileo and putting books they disagreed with on the Index and forbidding people to read them, ultimately they failed. With the coming age of the Enlightenment, the Church found itself more and more under attack as philosophes such as Voltaire not only challenged specific doctrines of Christianity but also came to openly reject it. This overthrow of Christianity also brought with it the overthrow of the medieval aristocracy. With the Church no longer powerful enough to protect it, the whole edifice of the medieval hierarchy came tumbling down in the wake of democratic revolutions, first in America and in France then across Europe. These democratic revolutions overthrew both the Church and the aristocracy and in its place established freedom of religion and the equality of all mankind.

(To be continued …)

Homosexual Orthodox Rabbis: A Medieval Perspective on a Modern Problem

Recently I had a conversation with an old friend of mine, Yekutiel Ish-Tob, whom I had not spoken to in a while. Ish-Tob is a poster child for Modern Orthodox Judaism; he is a deeply religious person, who is studying full time to become a rabbi, but who is also worldly and open-minded. I always thought of Ish-Tob as a fairly liberal person, so maybe this should not have come as a surprise, but I was still caught off guard when he told me that he supported the ordination of openly homosexual rabbis, even, in theory, those who were not celibate. I like to think of myself as a liberal as well when it comes to gay rights. I oppose anti-sodomy laws and all forms of legalized discrimination against homosexuals. I even support government sanctioned gay marriage, albeit not as a constitutional right. Nevertheless, I still view homosexual sex as a serious sin. Therefore I do not support the toleration of homosexual activity within the confines of the Orthodox community and would not condone allowing those who openly engage in such behavior to assume positions of leadership. I believe that those openly engaged in homosexual activity should be treated like those who openly engage in other sins, such as eating non-kosher food and violating the Sabbath. I admit, though, that there is an important difference when dealing with homosexuality, and in this sense Ish-Tob has a valid point, that, in this day and age, sexuality, unlike eating pork or driving on Saturday, is viewed as a basic right; therefore to deny people any form of sexual expression is to take away an essential part of their humanity.

I find myself in a funny situation, mainly because I spend so much time immersed in the world of medieval Christianity. My encounter with medieval Christianity makes me both less sympathetic and more sympathetic to Ish-Tob’s perspective. This medieval Christian world, that I live in, is full celibate priests and monks. (Yes I know that in practice many of them were not celibate.) This may sound funny coming from an Orthodox Jew, but I must admit that there is something attractive about monasticism and that the stereotypical Jewish polemical attacks are ineffective. Since I am willing to grant that celibacy is a legitimate lifestyle option, and possibly even one to be praised, I have a hard time understanding why one cannot simply tell people with homosexual orientations to either be celibate or leave the community. On the other hand, I find myself very open to medieval Christian notions of sin. Particularly the notion that we are all hapless sinners and that there are certain sins that someone might be incapable of avoiding simply through an act of will. Since it is not the person’s fault, we can do nothing but offer God’s absolution. The logical conclusion from this is that, if a person acknowledges that, as a practicing homosexual, he is a sinner, we should still embrace him as part of our faith community and not expel him. We should even allow such a person to take on leadership roles, such as the rabbinate. Since we are a community of sinners we should not think it beneath ourselves to be lead by a sinner.

Whether or not the Orthodox community ordains homosexuals as rabbis, one must admit that we ignore homosexuals at our own peril. Approximately five to ten percent of any given population, including ours, is going to be oriented toward homosexuality. We cannot afford to simply write off such a percentage of our population. In this, I fully agree with Ish-Tob.

An Ode to Villainy and Joss Whedon

I have, in the past, made mention of Joss Whedon and his show Firefly. Firefly was probably the greatest television show to be canceled after only eleven episodes. Whedon also did Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, which I have a certain respect for and which were far greater commercial successes. What all of these shows have in common is Whedon’s ability to take B movie concepts and turn them into something special. With Buffy and Angel it was through satire; these were cheesy horror shows that spoofed cheesy horror shows, themselves included. Firefly was a sci-fi western that spoofed both science fiction and westerns aplenty, but managed to be so much more. It is a show that one cannot watch without getting attached and, upon getting to the end and realizing there is no more, finding oneself shaking ones fists at the universe demanding more. There is a reason why, despite the fact that the show failed, a movie version was made; the fans would not give up on it.

Whedon has established himself as one of the great outside the box thinkers in Hollywood, a talent on display in a short film, made for the internet, titled Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. Dr. Horrible is a musical send up to cheesy science fiction villains. The main character, Dr. Horrible, played to perfection by Neil Patrick Harris, is a lovable but hapless science geek, who yearns to become a great villain. He is in the process of trying to invent a freeze ray to aid him in his villainy and win the heart of the girl of his dreams. Standing in the way of this noble dream is Dr. Horrible’s tendency toward mishaps and his arch-nemesis, Captain Hammer, played by Nathan Fillion of Firefly fame.

Those familiar with my sense of humor will understand why I feel such a strong kinship with Dr. Horrible. I have a thing for high villainy and world domination. Add in some heartwarming melodies and it makes me want to rub my hands together in a Montgomery Burns sort of way. Excellent!

Act I of Dr. Horrible has already been posted and acts II and III will be coming up in the next few days. The film will be available to watch for free until July 20.

How I Won a Five Hundred Dollar Challenge and Helped Project YES

Jewish Philosopher is a Haredi blog which operates according to the apologetical methodology of the late Rabbi Avigdor Miller. This methodology is built around the following premises; firstly that the truth of Judaism is so patently obvious that no one but someone who is foolish, insane or wicked would ever deny it. Secondly that there is a war against “God, his Torah and his people” being waged by the majority of the world, who are foolish, insane or just plain wicked. The most prominent example of this is the modern scientific establishment, which seeks to advance an atheistic agenda under the cover of scientific objectivity. This is has mainly been conducted through the advocation of such patiently false claims as the theory of evolution. The obvious conclusion arising from these two premises is that Orthodox Jews, particular Haredi Jews, are morally superior to everyone else.

In this spirit, Jewish Philosopher, recently put up a post, Who is like your people Israel, a unique nation on Earth; it was a YouTube clip of a person talking about being sexually abused by his father. Jewish Philosopher challenged his readers: “Can anyone familiar with us imagine a father in the Orthodox Jewish community treating his sons the way the father described in this video clip (5:38 point) treated his sons?” To which a number of readers responded with: yes they could imagine Orthodox Jews abusing their children. In response, Jewish Philosopher put out a challenge: “give [him] the name of one American Orthodox Jew ever convicted of murder, forcible rape or armed robbery and you win $500.”

This seemed to me to be a pretty foolish challenge and I assumed that he was just talking hot air, but I thought it would be fun to call him on it. I just happen to be close to the Isaacs, an Orthodox couple in Columbus, who both work for the Ohio Department of Corrections. So I asked them if they could name someone. They came up with the name of an Orthodox Jew from Cleveland, who served time from 1985 – 2003 for “accidentally” shooting his father-in-law seven times in “self defense.” I presented this to Jewish Philosopher. At first he was skeptical that this person was an Orthodox Jew at the time that he committed his crime so he contacted the Isaacs and then he even got in touch with the person.


To my surprise, not only did Jewish Philosopher concede that I had successfully fulfilled the requirements of his challenge, but he also offered to pay up the $500 he had wagered. Instead of taking the money, I suggested that he donate it to Project YES, an organization that works with at-risk teens in the Orthodox community. The head of this organization, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, has been a leader in discussing problems within the Orthodox community, particularly abuse. He is the sort of person that if Jewish Philosopher had bothered to read he might not have made the sort of outlandish claims that got him into this situation in the first place.


Jewish Philosopher made the donation and even posted the reply from the website.I must say, though, that I was really impressed that Jewish Philosopher actually kept his word and paid, not many people would. Of course not many people would have gotten themselves into such trouble in the first place by making the sort of claims that he did. In a sense Jewish Philosopher is a very good representative of the Haredi world. He is personally honest even if he is intellectually very dishonest. He may live in a fantasy-land, but he seems to be a good person.

Guillermo del Toro and Lord of the Rings

I just got back from Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Once you get past the ridiculous plot, it is an excellent film. The actors do a remarkable job creating characters that seem real, even if the story does not, and which you can actually care about. The star of the film, though, is, without question, Guillermo del Toro and his film work and special effects. Del Toro channels the work that he did in Pan’s Labyrinth into Hellboy II, many of the creatures that he uses are quite similar, creating visual effects that are not just spectacular, but stand on their own as works of art.

In certain respects, del Toro exceeds even Peter Jackson in his ability to use special effects in such a way as to add life and personality to film instead of taking it away. So it is befitting that del Toro is now working with Peter Jackson on a film version of The Hobbit, the prequel to Lord of the Rings. Watching Hellboy II, I was struck by how del Toro, even in this film, tipped his hand toward the Lord of the Rings as if he were already preparing for it. In the opening scene of the film, there is a flashback to a battle from “mythological” times between men and elves. This battle sequence, artfully rendered by del Toro with stick figures, closely mimics the opening battle sequence in Lord of the Rings. The plot of Hellboy II, or the nonsensical dribble that takes its place, is very similar to Lord of the Rings. It involves elves and a dark object of power, in this case, a gold crown that can be used to summon and control an indestructible golden army of robots. This golden army is a force of such destruction, that the elves that had it made in order to fight humanity, shrank back from it and hide it away. The villain, Prince Nuada, an elf sporting some wicked blades and Matrix-like moves, wishes to gain control of the crown and take revenge on behalf of his people against the entire human race and it is the task of Hellboy and company to stop him. Luke Gross, who plays Prince Nuada, to his credit, manages to actually give some nuances to his character; he is probably among the most decent screen villains, out to destroy the world, that you will ever meet.

Lord of the Rings fans take heart; The Hobbit is in good hands and, if you are in need of a Lord of the Rings fix, I heartily recommend getting over to see Hellboy II.