Rabbi Gunther Plaut zt”l, one of the greatest and most scholarly rabbis of the twentieth century, died today. He was ninety nine years old. Among other things, Gunther will be remembered for his incredible commentary on the Torah, a commentary which is still used to this day by many liberal Jews.
I think that it was in 2003 that Gunther Plaut posted on Ravkav that he was aggravated that he had aged out of being asked his opinion about anything. I could really feel his pain. Here you had one of the most brilliant rabbis of his generation who had already outlived most of his peers and who felt he was being ignored!
So I wrote him an email. I told him that I was really short on money, but that our congregation would really like to learn from him. I made a proposal that he should come here. He would preach on Friday night, teach Torah study on Saturday morning and do a study session on Saturday afternoon. I mentioned to him that I would like for him to share his early biography with us and his service to our country in World War II. I offered him an absurd amount as an honorarium. I think it was only around $500 plus expenses. I was not trying to exploit him. We really did not have the money!
To my shock and delight, he accepted and asked me to call him. I called him. He sounded completely normal, but he asked me if it was acceptable that he be accompanied by a “lady companion.” Actually, I thought that it was cute. Gunther was forty years older than me. He was at that time over ninety years old.
I guess he told his son Jonathan about our deal. Shortly thereafter, I got a call from Jonathan. Jonathan asked me if I knew that his dad was suffering from the onset of dementia. I said that I did not and asked Jonathan if this was a good idea. Jonathan said that it was a good idea as long as I knew what we were getting into. I asked him for advice and he said that some of the time, his dad needs to be verbally nudged by a comment or a question. He felt that Gunther’s ability to do a straight lecture was not good.
Understanding these limitations, I accepted.
Gunther’s lady friend was none other than Janice (or Janine?) Rothschild who had been married to Jacob Mortimer Rothschild (1022-1973), the esteemed rabbi of The Temple in Atlanta. He had been a passionate advocate for Civil Rights and had been the rabbi at The Temple when it was bombed in 1958.
Janice took great care of Gunther and did so in a most loving way. It was clear to all that he absolutely adored her and loved being with her.
Gunther read something at services on Friday night and did fine.
On Saturday morning at Torah study, I immediately understood what Jonathan was trying to tell me. Gunther really could not teach this class. However, if I asked him a question or to interpret a particular verse, out from someplace in the depths of his mind came incredible pearls of wisdom! I became a “Barbara Walters” character, interviewing Gunther about the Torah portion.
The reaction of the lay students was wonderful. The Torah study session was a smashing success!
All of them came back in the afternoon for the Seudah Shelishit and Havdalah. I continued the interview style and we quickly began to learn all about his early life and his war experiences.
In April of 1945, he was part of the group which liberated Nordhausen. According to Gunther, he found numerous bodies which were in need of a Jewish burial. He went to his commanding officer and asked for permission to force the people of the town to bury the dead. The commanding officer said to Gunther that he had the full force of the US Army behind him in this task.
Later that afternoon according to Gunther, he went to the mayor of the town and told him what needed to be done. The mayor replied that such a task was “inhumane,” by which he meant “gross and disgusting” for the people who would be doing the burials. Many of these bodies were badly decayed and the stench was horrible.
Gunther then said to us something amazing. He told us that he pulled a pistol on the mayor, held it to his head and told him that if every able bodied man from the town was not at the town square at 8 am the next day, he (Gunther) would hunt him down like he dog that he (the mayor) was and he (Gunther) would put a bullet in his head.
People’s mouth dropped in shock! I remember feeling so much love and respect for him at that moment. I had never spent any time with him before that weekend and this could very well been the last time he was a visiting scholar. I am not sure.
Gunther went on to tell us of the incredible thirst that the survivors had for Jewish religious items. In his opinion, they seemed to want these items more than they wanted food!
Our congregation loved that weekend with Gunther. He brought to us even at his advanced age and slightly limited mental capacity a sense not of only of his brilliance, but also of his humanity. I realized that I could never be as brilliant as Gunther, but I hoped that in some way, I could strive to be as dedicated to the Jewish people as Gunther was. He was at that moment both an inspiration and a role model for me!
That seems like a long time ago. I once learned that when a soul leaves a body in which it has been severely limited, it recreates emotionally the joy that the Jewish people felt upon our liberation from Egypt. Gunther’s holy neshamah has now experienced its liberation!
This week at the end of Torah study, we will say Kaddish for Gunther. Many in that group still remember our time with him.
May his memory continue to be an inspiration and a blessing. Zecher Tzaddik levracha!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
THE WORLD’S HYPOCRISY
My friend Mickey Boyden wrote yesterday from Israel “Have you noticed the deafening silence of the human rights organizations and NGO's concerning what is happening in Syria today? Where is the BDS Movement? How is it that there hasn't been, at least to my knowledge, a single major demonstration in the West against the massacre of innocent civilians? Why is it that the Palestinians and Egyptians are not taking to the streets in massive demonstrations against what is being done to their "brothers and sisters?” And if we're asking questions, why is it that the UN Human Rights Council hasn't called for an equivalent of the Goldstone Commission to examine precisely what is happening in Syria today?
Now I know Israel isn't perfect - I live there. But human rights should be indivisible.” (I think he should has said “inviolable?” I think that in London there was a demonstration by Syrians living there. No matter – His points still stand FG)
Now I know Israel isn't perfect - I live there. But human rights should be indivisible.” (I think he should has said “inviolable?” I think that in London there was a demonstration by Syrians living there. No matter – His points still stand FG)
Friday, February 3, 2012
Is There a Jewish Angle to the Komen - Planned Parenthood Controversy?
Is there a Jewish angle to the Komen - Planned Parenthood Controversy? Unless you have been out of touch, you probably know that this past week, bowing to political pressure from anti-choice advocates, the Susan B Komen Foundation chose to defund Planned Parenthood. Last year the Komen Foundation, which is this nation’s largest breast cancer charity, gave $680,000 dollars to Planned Parenthood for breast exams. Planned Parenthood has estimated that, over the past five years, the Komen Foundation funds have paid for 170,000 breast examinations at Planned Parenthood.
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation was founded by Nancy Brinker some thirty years ago in memory of her sister Susan Komen who died of breast cancer. To date, the Foundation has raised some $1.9 billion dollars.
The Komen Foundation said that the cut off came because its policy is not to grant money to organizations that are under investigation. Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Investigative Subcommittee, an anti-choice advocate, has instigated an investigation into whether or not Planned Parenthood has used federal money to fund abortions.
This is where the two sides differ. Komen says it was forced to make the move by a new policy that prevents it from giving grant money to groups that are under investigation, bit it seems as though this policy was applied only to Planned Parenthood. Other than Representative Stern’s investigation, there is no other investigation of Planned Parenthood within the government nor the legal system. Ironically, if Komen was to adhere to this policy completely, it would not have agreed to grant $7,500,000 to Penn State University which is under civil and criminal investigation because of sexual abuse in its football program.
Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization. I used to be on its Board of Trustees locally during the time when our congregant Sally Cone, Alan’s wife, was the local chair. It was founded ninety years ago and has more than eight hundred centers, including the facility in Greensboro.
A look at how Planned Parenthood spends its money is quite revealing. 35% of its patient care goes to the treatment and testing of sexually transmitted diseases. 16% is for cancer screening and prevention, 10% is for other woman’s health services. 35% is for contraception and only 3% of is patient care goes for abortions. Almost all of its care goes to people who are poor and uninsured.
There are several Jewish angles to this.
First of all, Susan Komen was, and Nancy Brinker, her sister, is Jewish. I happen to know that several rabbis contacted Ms Brinker.
Second, on December 15, 2011 at the Biennial convention, the Union for Reform Judaism presented the most prestigious Maurice N. Eisendrath “Bearer of Light Award” for Service to the World Community to the Foundation which was accepted by Nancy Brinker. Had the URJ known then that the Susan B. Komen for the Cure Foundation was even considering defunding Planned Parenthood, it is highly unlikely that Komen would have been given the award.
In a letter this week to Nancy Brinker, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Marla Feldman, Executive Director of the Women of Reform Judaism, wrote: “Halting Komen grant money to PPFA is contrary to your organization's mission and interests, directly and unfairly threatening the health and safety of women.
“Upon accepting the Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award, you told the story of two women, one Palestinian and one Israeli, marching together to combat breast cancer in the first Race for the Cure in Israel. You explained with admiration that, in the course of the walk, they were able to forget the political climate that divided them and they bonded instead over the common cause of women's health. We now urge Komen to follow their example by rejecting efforts to sow division among women's health advocates and providers and refusing to sacrifice the lives of women on the altar of political ideology.”
The letter continues: “We understand that this funding decision comes from a new standard employed by Komen for the Cure that defunds organizations under government investigation. While we understand the desire to have an objective policy in place, this particular standard is misguided, threatening more than just grants to Planned Parenthood (PPFA). We believe there are less partisan ways to accomplish your goals. For example, a standard that is linked to investigations carried out by law enforcement is more likely to be free of partisanship. The standard that Komen has established allows Komen's funding decisions to be dictated by the political whims, partisanship and pet issues of individual members of Congress, who persuade their committees to launch an investigation. This new standard may appear to extricate Komen from politicization, yet in reality it leaves the group open to even greater politicization.”
A third Jewish angle is that there is a doctrine in Judaism called Pikuach Nefesh. Pikuach Nefesh is the belief that the saving of human life is the highest moral obligation in Judaism and is to be done in all cases [except that one cannot justify the saving of save one’s own life by the murder of another innocent person (Sanhedrin 74a asks “Whose blood is redder?")].
It was our hope and prayer that the leadership of the Susan B Komen Foundation would reverse this decision. We were overjoyed and grateful when they reversed the defunding and refunded Planned Parenthood.
In its statement the Foundation said: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities. “
There is little doubt that the intense public outcry led to this decision by the Susan B. Komen Foundation to reverse itself.
The English playwright William Congreve in his play from 1697 entitled “The Mourning Bride” wrote: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
What a fitting quotation in this case. It was clear that the trust and respect of so many for the Susan B Komen Foundation overnight turned to distrust and scorn. Many American women felt devalued by another overt politicization of their health issues, especially when the lives of many, especially poor women, were at stake.
I salute the Komen Foundation for changing its mind, but I urge it to examine well how it got into this mess in the first place. Those within the organization who advocated for this misguided policy should be held accountable. In my opinion, the rage over this was so very real that had the Foundation not changed course, it jeopardized its future viability.
That being said, I want you to know that I have made an online donation to Planned Parenthood and urge you to do likewise.
In addition to Planned Parenthood, I would also recommend an organization called Friends for an Earlier Breast Cancer Test which is important because according to their website: “Most breast cancer is in the body five to eight years before it can be detected through current methods. Earlier detection may prevent invasive surgery, minimize treatment and dramatically increase survival chances.” This charity’s medical director is Dr. Ken Karb at Moses Cone Health System here is Greensboro. It was founded by Martha Kaley and several women in our congregation are active in it. Its expense ratio is very low and it grants money to various universities and research institutes working in this area.
Finally, I am going to present to the Ritual Committee next week that we consider holy a Sabbath service next year devoted to breast cancer awareness and women’s health.
Tonight, we conclude by praying for the health of the one in eight women who will be afflicted with breast cancer in their lifetime. May they be blessed with an early detection of their cancer. We ask God’s blessing upon all people are violated by breast cancer. We ask God’s mitigation of its anguish and pain. Bless and strengthen women and men who suffer from breast cancer with a refuah shelama, a complete recovery. May they be instilled with patience and fortitude, with sensitivity and understanding, and with courage and hope.
May others reach out to them with tenderness and lovingkindness and may they receive the blessings offered by our community and tradition.
Help them all to know how much we love them and how deeply we are devoted to their recovery.
Give them a long, full, peaceful, and happy life marked by a complete healing, a healing of spirit, and a healing of body.
Bless with continued health those who have overcome this disease.
Bless and strengthen the health care professionals and caregivers who seek to heal those who are suffering. Imbue them with courage, confidence, understanding, and compassion so they may join You in the work of healing.
May none of us, be we researchers, patients or caregivers, ever surrender to despair, uncertainty, or fatigue, but may we all engage in Your work with strength, wholeheartedness and devotion.
Help us all to sense Your presence in good times as well as difficult ones.
Grant us patience when the hours are heavy;
In hurt or disappointment give us courage.
Keep us trustful in Your love.
Give us strength for today, and hope for tomorrow.
To your loving hands we commit our spirits when asleep and when awake. You are with us and we shall not fear. Amen
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation was founded by Nancy Brinker some thirty years ago in memory of her sister Susan Komen who died of breast cancer. To date, the Foundation has raised some $1.9 billion dollars.
The Komen Foundation said that the cut off came because its policy is not to grant money to organizations that are under investigation. Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Investigative Subcommittee, an anti-choice advocate, has instigated an investigation into whether or not Planned Parenthood has used federal money to fund abortions.
This is where the two sides differ. Komen says it was forced to make the move by a new policy that prevents it from giving grant money to groups that are under investigation, bit it seems as though this policy was applied only to Planned Parenthood. Other than Representative Stern’s investigation, there is no other investigation of Planned Parenthood within the government nor the legal system. Ironically, if Komen was to adhere to this policy completely, it would not have agreed to grant $7,500,000 to Penn State University which is under civil and criminal investigation because of sexual abuse in its football program.
Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization. I used to be on its Board of Trustees locally during the time when our congregant Sally Cone, Alan’s wife, was the local chair. It was founded ninety years ago and has more than eight hundred centers, including the facility in Greensboro.
A look at how Planned Parenthood spends its money is quite revealing. 35% of its patient care goes to the treatment and testing of sexually transmitted diseases. 16% is for cancer screening and prevention, 10% is for other woman’s health services. 35% is for contraception and only 3% of is patient care goes for abortions. Almost all of its care goes to people who are poor and uninsured.
There are several Jewish angles to this.
First of all, Susan Komen was, and Nancy Brinker, her sister, is Jewish. I happen to know that several rabbis contacted Ms Brinker.
Second, on December 15, 2011 at the Biennial convention, the Union for Reform Judaism presented the most prestigious Maurice N. Eisendrath “Bearer of Light Award” for Service to the World Community to the Foundation which was accepted by Nancy Brinker. Had the URJ known then that the Susan B. Komen for the Cure Foundation was even considering defunding Planned Parenthood, it is highly unlikely that Komen would have been given the award.
In a letter this week to Nancy Brinker, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Marla Feldman, Executive Director of the Women of Reform Judaism, wrote: “Halting Komen grant money to PPFA is contrary to your organization's mission and interests, directly and unfairly threatening the health and safety of women.
“Upon accepting the Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award, you told the story of two women, one Palestinian and one Israeli, marching together to combat breast cancer in the first Race for the Cure in Israel. You explained with admiration that, in the course of the walk, they were able to forget the political climate that divided them and they bonded instead over the common cause of women's health. We now urge Komen to follow their example by rejecting efforts to sow division among women's health advocates and providers and refusing to sacrifice the lives of women on the altar of political ideology.”
The letter continues: “We understand that this funding decision comes from a new standard employed by Komen for the Cure that defunds organizations under government investigation. While we understand the desire to have an objective policy in place, this particular standard is misguided, threatening more than just grants to Planned Parenthood (PPFA). We believe there are less partisan ways to accomplish your goals. For example, a standard that is linked to investigations carried out by law enforcement is more likely to be free of partisanship. The standard that Komen has established allows Komen's funding decisions to be dictated by the political whims, partisanship and pet issues of individual members of Congress, who persuade their committees to launch an investigation. This new standard may appear to extricate Komen from politicization, yet in reality it leaves the group open to even greater politicization.”
A third Jewish angle is that there is a doctrine in Judaism called Pikuach Nefesh. Pikuach Nefesh is the belief that the saving of human life is the highest moral obligation in Judaism and is to be done in all cases [except that one cannot justify the saving of save one’s own life by the murder of another innocent person (Sanhedrin 74a asks “Whose blood is redder?")].
It was our hope and prayer that the leadership of the Susan B Komen Foundation would reverse this decision. We were overjoyed and grateful when they reversed the defunding and refunded Planned Parenthood.
In its statement the Foundation said: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities. “
There is little doubt that the intense public outcry led to this decision by the Susan B. Komen Foundation to reverse itself.
The English playwright William Congreve in his play from 1697 entitled “The Mourning Bride” wrote: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
What a fitting quotation in this case. It was clear that the trust and respect of so many for the Susan B Komen Foundation overnight turned to distrust and scorn. Many American women felt devalued by another overt politicization of their health issues, especially when the lives of many, especially poor women, were at stake.
I salute the Komen Foundation for changing its mind, but I urge it to examine well how it got into this mess in the first place. Those within the organization who advocated for this misguided policy should be held accountable. In my opinion, the rage over this was so very real that had the Foundation not changed course, it jeopardized its future viability.
That being said, I want you to know that I have made an online donation to Planned Parenthood and urge you to do likewise.
In addition to Planned Parenthood, I would also recommend an organization called Friends for an Earlier Breast Cancer Test which is important because according to their website: “Most breast cancer is in the body five to eight years before it can be detected through current methods. Earlier detection may prevent invasive surgery, minimize treatment and dramatically increase survival chances.” This charity’s medical director is Dr. Ken Karb at Moses Cone Health System here is Greensboro. It was founded by Martha Kaley and several women in our congregation are active in it. Its expense ratio is very low and it grants money to various universities and research institutes working in this area.
Finally, I am going to present to the Ritual Committee next week that we consider holy a Sabbath service next year devoted to breast cancer awareness and women’s health.
Tonight, we conclude by praying for the health of the one in eight women who will be afflicted with breast cancer in their lifetime. May they be blessed with an early detection of their cancer. We ask God’s blessing upon all people are violated by breast cancer. We ask God’s mitigation of its anguish and pain. Bless and strengthen women and men who suffer from breast cancer with a refuah shelama, a complete recovery. May they be instilled with patience and fortitude, with sensitivity and understanding, and with courage and hope.
May others reach out to them with tenderness and lovingkindness and may they receive the blessings offered by our community and tradition.
Help them all to know how much we love them and how deeply we are devoted to their recovery.
Give them a long, full, peaceful, and happy life marked by a complete healing, a healing of spirit, and a healing of body.
Bless with continued health those who have overcome this disease.
Bless and strengthen the health care professionals and caregivers who seek to heal those who are suffering. Imbue them with courage, confidence, understanding, and compassion so they may join You in the work of healing.
May none of us, be we researchers, patients or caregivers, ever surrender to despair, uncertainty, or fatigue, but may we all engage in Your work with strength, wholeheartedness and devotion.
Help us all to sense Your presence in good times as well as difficult ones.
Grant us patience when the hours are heavy;
In hurt or disappointment give us courage.
Keep us trustful in Your love.
Give us strength for today, and hope for tomorrow.
To your loving hands we commit our spirits when asleep and when awake. You are with us and we shall not fear. Amen
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Arab Spring or Arab Winter?
This week marks the anniversary of the beginning of the Arab Spring in Tunisia. Sorry but I do not share the optimism of others concerning the so called Arab Spring. It seems to me that at least as far as peace with Israel and the rest of the Western world is concerned; the Arab Spring is closer to an Arab Winter.
This is especially true in Egypt wherein estimates are that the Muslim Brotherhood will control 50% of the lower house of Egypt’s parliament and the Salafis will control 25%. That is 75 % for the Islamic parties.
While for a variety of reasons, I do not see Egypt revoking the peace treaty with Israel, I do believe that the treaty will have little of the content or meaning that it did when it was signed by Sadat in 1979. There will be little if any contact between Egypt and Israeli diplomats. Trade will be kept to a minimum. The natural gas pipeline will not function. Tourism will be minimal.
Worst of all, Egypt will arm Hamas in Gaza to the teeth and be quite content to encourage Hamas to undertake terrorist activities against Israel.
The protestors in Tahrir square might have had the best of intentions to create a liberal democracy, but after years of anti Israel and anti Jewish propaganda, the voice of the Egyptian people is being heard in favor of Islamic rule which has little desire to promote peace and cooperation with Israel.
Egypt is not America. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and join the bandwagon of those who think that the Arab Spring is a step forward for progress, understanding and peace. Rather, the Arab Spring has been a useful tool for the Islamists to take over and once they are in power, the values of liberal democracy, cooperation with the West and peace have little meaning.
This is especially true in Egypt wherein estimates are that the Muslim Brotherhood will control 50% of the lower house of Egypt’s parliament and the Salafis will control 25%. That is 75 % for the Islamic parties.
While for a variety of reasons, I do not see Egypt revoking the peace treaty with Israel, I do believe that the treaty will have little of the content or meaning that it did when it was signed by Sadat in 1979. There will be little if any contact between Egypt and Israeli diplomats. Trade will be kept to a minimum. The natural gas pipeline will not function. Tourism will be minimal.
Worst of all, Egypt will arm Hamas in Gaza to the teeth and be quite content to encourage Hamas to undertake terrorist activities against Israel.
The protestors in Tahrir square might have had the best of intentions to create a liberal democracy, but after years of anti Israel and anti Jewish propaganda, the voice of the Egyptian people is being heard in favor of Islamic rule which has little desire to promote peace and cooperation with Israel.
Egypt is not America. Let us not stick our heads in the sand and join the bandwagon of those who think that the Arab Spring is a step forward for progress, understanding and peace. Rather, the Arab Spring has been a useful tool for the Islamists to take over and once they are in power, the values of liberal democracy, cooperation with the West and peace have little meaning.
Monday, January 16, 2012
MLK and Anti LGBT Amendments
There remains so much to do in order to bring more of the dream of Dr King to fruition. I am sure that Dr King would have so much to teach us about the issues of the day. His voice would ring out loudly and he would have so much to say at this time, especially concerning the issues facing the State of North Carolina. He would encourage the North Carolina legislature to turn its attention to living wages; protections for maximum voter turnout; workers’ rights; equal access to good health care; and providing sound basic education for every child.
He would call upon all of us to respect our religious differences concerning family life and personal status. I do not think that Dr King would favor religiously sanctioned gay marriages in his church. I do think that he would have recognized that this is a very difficult and sensitive issue and that good people will have differing opinions concerning this issue.
That being said, I feel that Dr King would have been appalled at any attempt to write into the constitution of this state under the guise of protecting heterosexual marriage an amendment which seeks to restrict the rights of a certain group of people based upon their sexual identity. While King of course headed the SCLC , he deeply respected the NAACP. I mention this because since its founding 102 years ago, the mission of the NAACP has been to “ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons.” I think that Dr King would have been proud of the fact that the North Carolina NAACP has taken a stand against this ill-thought-out amendment.
As Jews, we would respond to his call in this area. We would recall that in 1935, the Nuremberg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Germans or people of kindred blood. Based upon the history of the murder of six million Jews, laws prohibiting marriages might represent a slippery slope towards greater discrimination.
When this country was founded over two hundred years ago, “we the people” included only white males. Since that time, equal protection has been extended to all of our citizens, except for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Laws prohibiting marriages between white people and Negroes were enacted as early as 1872. Such laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967. In South Africa, similar laws were enacted in 1949 and repealed in 1985.
Friends. This amendment will not strengthen the institution of heterosexual marriages in our state or for that matter in our country. Passing this amendment will not make Kim Kardashian's marriage last longer than seventy-two days!
Let us separate the religious issue from the issue of discrimination and civil rights.
When we do that, we will quickly realize that the issue of civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transsexual’s or LGBT’s is not a liberal or conservative issue.
In 2000, David Boies represented Al Gore and Ted Olson who had been the solicitor General for the first President Bush and was the lawyer who represented the second President Bush in the Bush v Gore case. This case was argued all the way to the Supreme Court and eventually determined that President Bush the son had won the election. In 2009, these two men, once opponents, one very liberal and one very conservative, came together to argue that Proposition 8, the amendment which restricted LGBT marriage in California was unconstitutional. Having won in Federal Court, Boies and Olson will likely take this case, this time being on the same side, all the way to the Supreme Court. For their work in this area, Boies and Olsen last month were awarded the Reform movement’s highest honor – the Maurice N. Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award – at the recent Union for Reform Judaism Biennial in Washington, DC.
Last January in an article entitled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage – Why same-sex marriage is an American value” Olsen wrote:
“Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I know that there are those who might feel that this service is not the time to raise this issue but I am here before you to make the case as to why Martin Luther King’s legacy commands us to fight against this blatant infringement on civil rights with all our might and with all our soul. I apologize to my friend Rev. Moffett if I have surprised her tonight with these remarks. I realize that there might be some in her congregation who will support this amendment. Nevertheless, I wanted you to hear why in our community there is such a strong consensus against this amendment, even to the point where in the governing Board of this congregation voted unanimously to oppose it.
The position of the National Conference of Community and Justice, the NCCJ, on this issue is that the true test of fairness is to substitute any of the forms of our differences for the term “LGBT” and ask if we would find it fair and just to deny someone of their rights based on that characteristic. I cannot imagine any situation in which the American people would find it acceptable to deny marriage between two Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, African Americans, simply because of that characteristic. Therefore, enshrining in our State’s constitution an automatic denial of marriage between two LGBT individuals is equally offensive.
When I consider the position of the NAACP against this amendment and when I consider the position of a very conservative lawyer such as Ted Olsen against it, I can only conclude that this is an issue concerning decency and American values.
When I consider and learn of the teaching of Dr Martin Luther King, of blessed memory, I can only conclude that as Martin walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge leading thousands of marchers from Selma to Montgomery on March 21, 1965 for equality and voting rights, Martin would once again raise his sonorous and wise voice for equality and equal rights for all of God’s children.
When I consider the history of my people and how we have been subjected to the denial of civil rights and have been the object of discrimination, I can only conclude that as a Jew, bias, bigotry, and racism must be fought whenever and wherever they are present.
The words of Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel motivate us tonight. Wiesel teaches us that “The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
His teaching as well as the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King demand of us that we not be silent or indifferent, but that rather we recreate the coalition of goodness which led to walks across bridges and rides on buses for the freedom and dignity of all who, as human beings, are created in the image of God.
He would call upon all of us to respect our religious differences concerning family life and personal status. I do not think that Dr King would favor religiously sanctioned gay marriages in his church. I do think that he would have recognized that this is a very difficult and sensitive issue and that good people will have differing opinions concerning this issue.
That being said, I feel that Dr King would have been appalled at any attempt to write into the constitution of this state under the guise of protecting heterosexual marriage an amendment which seeks to restrict the rights of a certain group of people based upon their sexual identity. While King of course headed the SCLC , he deeply respected the NAACP. I mention this because since its founding 102 years ago, the mission of the NAACP has been to “ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons.” I think that Dr King would have been proud of the fact that the North Carolina NAACP has taken a stand against this ill-thought-out amendment.
As Jews, we would respond to his call in this area. We would recall that in 1935, the Nuremberg laws prohibited marriage between Jews and Germans or people of kindred blood. Based upon the history of the murder of six million Jews, laws prohibiting marriages might represent a slippery slope towards greater discrimination.
When this country was founded over two hundred years ago, “we the people” included only white males. Since that time, equal protection has been extended to all of our citizens, except for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Laws prohibiting marriages between white people and Negroes were enacted as early as 1872. Such laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967. In South Africa, similar laws were enacted in 1949 and repealed in 1985.
Friends. This amendment will not strengthen the institution of heterosexual marriages in our state or for that matter in our country. Passing this amendment will not make Kim Kardashian's marriage last longer than seventy-two days!
Let us separate the religious issue from the issue of discrimination and civil rights.
When we do that, we will quickly realize that the issue of civil rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transsexual’s or LGBT’s is not a liberal or conservative issue.
In 2000, David Boies represented Al Gore and Ted Olson who had been the solicitor General for the first President Bush and was the lawyer who represented the second President Bush in the Bush v Gore case. This case was argued all the way to the Supreme Court and eventually determined that President Bush the son had won the election. In 2009, these two men, once opponents, one very liberal and one very conservative, came together to argue that Proposition 8, the amendment which restricted LGBT marriage in California was unconstitutional. Having won in Federal Court, Boies and Olson will likely take this case, this time being on the same side, all the way to the Supreme Court. For their work in this area, Boies and Olsen last month were awarded the Reform movement’s highest honor – the Maurice N. Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award – at the recent Union for Reform Judaism Biennial in Washington, DC.
Last January in an article entitled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage – Why same-sex marriage is an American value” Olsen wrote:
“Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I know that there are those who might feel that this service is not the time to raise this issue but I am here before you to make the case as to why Martin Luther King’s legacy commands us to fight against this blatant infringement on civil rights with all our might and with all our soul. I apologize to my friend Rev. Moffett if I have surprised her tonight with these remarks. I realize that there might be some in her congregation who will support this amendment. Nevertheless, I wanted you to hear why in our community there is such a strong consensus against this amendment, even to the point where in the governing Board of this congregation voted unanimously to oppose it.
The position of the National Conference of Community and Justice, the NCCJ, on this issue is that the true test of fairness is to substitute any of the forms of our differences for the term “LGBT” and ask if we would find it fair and just to deny someone of their rights based on that characteristic. I cannot imagine any situation in which the American people would find it acceptable to deny marriage between two Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, African Americans, simply because of that characteristic. Therefore, enshrining in our State’s constitution an automatic denial of marriage between two LGBT individuals is equally offensive.
When I consider the position of the NAACP against this amendment and when I consider the position of a very conservative lawyer such as Ted Olsen against it, I can only conclude that this is an issue concerning decency and American values.
When I consider and learn of the teaching of Dr Martin Luther King, of blessed memory, I can only conclude that as Martin walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge leading thousands of marchers from Selma to Montgomery on March 21, 1965 for equality and voting rights, Martin would once again raise his sonorous and wise voice for equality and equal rights for all of God’s children.
When I consider the history of my people and how we have been subjected to the denial of civil rights and have been the object of discrimination, I can only conclude that as a Jew, bias, bigotry, and racism must be fought whenever and wherever they are present.
The words of Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel motivate us tonight. Wiesel teaches us that “The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
His teaching as well as the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King demand of us that we not be silent or indifferent, but that rather we recreate the coalition of goodness which led to walks across bridges and rides on buses for the freedom and dignity of all who, as human beings, are created in the image of God.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Proposed Anti Gay Constitutional Amendment
The Proposed Anti Gay Constitutional Amendment
One of the lessons that we have learned from 9/11 is the terrible price that is paid when one group thinks that theirs is the only truth and is willing to go to great extents to punish those who do not agree with them. I was reminded of this recently when I heard of the decision by the NC legislature to create a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage. A law against same sex marriage already exists.
No matter how one feels about same sex marriages, from my perspective as a Jew, writing discrimination against anyone into the NC State Constitution is a very bad idea and could set a very bad precedent. We well remember how the Nuremberg laws in the fall of 1935 deprived Jews of civil rights. As a matter of fact, the two nations who in the past 100 years have persecuted homosexuals the most are Iran and Nazi Germany. I really do not wish that our state be like them.
Some are quick to remind us that the bible calls homosexuality an abomination. How quickly they forget that shrimp, catfish, birds of prey, lobster, false scales and lying speech are also abominations in the bible.
We are also told that homosexuality is a “threat” to marriage and that this amendment will actually save marriages. Sadly, the legislature has devoted time to this issue instead of the problem of unemployment which in our state is higher than the national average. Ask any marriage therapist about the stresses on a marriage caused by unemployment. Unemployment often leads to foreclosure, dislocation and a higher rate of divorce. Therefore, the best way to save marriages in our state is to put people back to work!
As Jews, we believe that each person is created in the image of God. Each individual is a holy manifestation of the Divine.
Ten years ago on 9/11, the Solicitor General for George Bush, Ted Olson, lost his wife on one of the planes. Olson was also one of the lawyers who challenged Prop 8 in California. Last January in an article entitled, “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage -Why same-sex marriage is an American value” Olson wrote: “Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights.” It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation. This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I am very happy that the Board of Temple Emanuel has voted unanimously to oppose this amendment. The vote on this proposed amendment will not take place until May of 2012.
Nevertheless, it is time to raise awareness on this issue.
I am also happy that on November 4, we will once again hold a GLBT Shabbat service.
Our special guest speaker will be Joanna Blotner from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, DC. We will also have a special presentation by the “NoteWorthy” chorale of the Triad Pride Men’s Chorus. Please bring your friends, including those in the non-Jewish community to what promises to be an inspiring evening!
One of the lessons that we have learned from 9/11 is the terrible price that is paid when one group thinks that theirs is the only truth and is willing to go to great extents to punish those who do not agree with them. I was reminded of this recently when I heard of the decision by the NC legislature to create a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage. A law against same sex marriage already exists.
No matter how one feels about same sex marriages, from my perspective as a Jew, writing discrimination against anyone into the NC State Constitution is a very bad idea and could set a very bad precedent. We well remember how the Nuremberg laws in the fall of 1935 deprived Jews of civil rights. As a matter of fact, the two nations who in the past 100 years have persecuted homosexuals the most are Iran and Nazi Germany. I really do not wish that our state be like them.
Some are quick to remind us that the bible calls homosexuality an abomination. How quickly they forget that shrimp, catfish, birds of prey, lobster, false scales and lying speech are also abominations in the bible.
We are also told that homosexuality is a “threat” to marriage and that this amendment will actually save marriages. Sadly, the legislature has devoted time to this issue instead of the problem of unemployment which in our state is higher than the national average. Ask any marriage therapist about the stresses on a marriage caused by unemployment. Unemployment often leads to foreclosure, dislocation and a higher rate of divorce. Therefore, the best way to save marriages in our state is to put people back to work!
As Jews, we believe that each person is created in the image of God. Each individual is a holy manifestation of the Divine.
Ten years ago on 9/11, the Solicitor General for George Bush, Ted Olson, lost his wife on one of the planes. Olson was also one of the lawyers who challenged Prop 8 in California. Last January in an article entitled, “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage -Why same-sex marriage is an American value” Olson wrote: “Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights.” It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation. This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I am very happy that the Board of Temple Emanuel has voted unanimously to oppose this amendment. The vote on this proposed amendment will not take place until May of 2012.
Nevertheless, it is time to raise awareness on this issue.
I am also happy that on November 4, we will once again hold a GLBT Shabbat service.
Our special guest speaker will be Joanna Blotner from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, DC. We will also have a special presentation by the “NoteWorthy” chorale of the Triad Pride Men’s Chorus. Please bring your friends, including those in the non-Jewish community to what promises to be an inspiring evening!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Time to Reconsider Capital Punishment
Below is an article that I wrote with a Catholic Priest in 2002. Before reading it, consider the following. Troy Davis was convicted in 1989. Can you imagine how much money in legal fees the state of Georgia has spent trying to kill this man? Guilty or not, it would have been far cheaper to lock him up for the rest of his life and throw the key away. To all my conservative friends. This would be a good way to reduce government spending!
Fred
Time to Reconsider Capital Punishment
Rabbi Fred Guttman & Father Jim O’Neill
As a Jewish rabbi and a Catholic priest, we applaud the decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to impose a statewide moratorium on the death penalty and to appoint a commission to study the frequency with which inmates sentenced to death have later been found innocent.
In theory, Jewish tradition allows for capital punishment. Nevertheless, the rabbis during the Roman period some 2,000 years ago regulated the Jewish legal system in this area as to make capital punishment virtually non-existent. They even taught that a Sanhedrin (court) which puts to death even one person in 70 years is considered to have blood on its hands. They realized that it was virtually impossible to guarantee that a human legal system would never make a mistake in a capital case. When the stakes are this high - with human life hanging in the balance – we must be doubly certain before imposing a death sentence. In Jewish tradition, to be ‘doubly certain’ requires two unrelated eyewitnesses who separately provide identical accounts of the crime.
As Roman Catholics, we believe that all people are created in the image and likeness of God; we believe that all life is God’s precious gift to be celebrated from the moment of conception until natural death. Therefore, any threat to human life must be clearly and consistently opposed. On the other hand preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged, as well founded and right, the duty of legitimate authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
However, there has been an evolution in this teaching and American bishops seriously have questioned the morality of the death penalty. The church wishes to present a consistent pro-life stance and the bishops key argument is that the death penalty leads to an erosion of respect for life in our society. In addition, American bishops also oppose capital punishment because of the discriminatory way it is applied in America with respect to the poor, members of social minorities and the socially impoverished and disadvantaged individuals. Finally, they seriously question whether capital punishment actually deters crime, one of the major arguments advanced by those who support it.
Consequently, in 1974 the National Conference of Bishops went on record against capital punishment. Recently, our present Pontiff, John Paul II, has spoken out against capital punishment and has personally intervened for several persons sentenced to die. Given all of the above, a Roman Catholic who seriously searches for the truth is called to be opposed to capital punishment.
The truth is that, especially with the recent use of DNA evidence, there have been a disturbing number of death row inmates who were convicted and sentenced to death only to be later exonerated. In Governor Ryan's state of Illinois, more inmates have been found innocent after being sentenced to death than have actually been executed. Illinois has learned of these mistaken convictions through the diligence and hard work of a well-funded public defender's office and through the tenacity of a highly publicized university journalism class.
To the best of our knowledge, the state of North Carolina lacks such mechanisms. How many more people would be cleared if our state possessed such mechanisms? How many inmates in North Carolinas currently go to the death chamber for crimes they did not commit?
In December 1999, a resolution co-sponsored by the National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops call for the end of the death penalty. This resolution stated: “We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.' We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life…. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.”
The prophet Zechariah enjoins us: "See that justice is done." It is our solemn obligation not just to promote justice, but also to stand up and decry injustice when we witness it. We are, to be sure, opposed to the imposition of the death penalty. We also believe that the system for administering capital punishment works all too often to the disadvantage, of poor and minority defendants who are unable to mount a defense that would result either in acquittal or in the imposition of a lesser sentence.
The death penalty as it is currently practiced in North Carolina is not just. We lack a sufficient level of certainty in every decision of our state's justice system that would justify the continued usage of the death penalty. Here, one mistake is too many. We encourage Governor Hunt to follow Governor Ryan's lead and impose a moratorium on the death penalty in North Carolina.
Rabbi Fred Guttman Father Jim O’Neill
Temple Emanuel St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church
Fred
Time to Reconsider Capital Punishment
Rabbi Fred Guttman & Father Jim O’Neill
As a Jewish rabbi and a Catholic priest, we applaud the decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to impose a statewide moratorium on the death penalty and to appoint a commission to study the frequency with which inmates sentenced to death have later been found innocent.
In theory, Jewish tradition allows for capital punishment. Nevertheless, the rabbis during the Roman period some 2,000 years ago regulated the Jewish legal system in this area as to make capital punishment virtually non-existent. They even taught that a Sanhedrin (court) which puts to death even one person in 70 years is considered to have blood on its hands. They realized that it was virtually impossible to guarantee that a human legal system would never make a mistake in a capital case. When the stakes are this high - with human life hanging in the balance – we must be doubly certain before imposing a death sentence. In Jewish tradition, to be ‘doubly certain’ requires two unrelated eyewitnesses who separately provide identical accounts of the crime.
As Roman Catholics, we believe that all people are created in the image and likeness of God; we believe that all life is God’s precious gift to be celebrated from the moment of conception until natural death. Therefore, any threat to human life must be clearly and consistently opposed. On the other hand preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged, as well founded and right, the duty of legitimate authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
However, there has been an evolution in this teaching and American bishops seriously have questioned the morality of the death penalty. The church wishes to present a consistent pro-life stance and the bishops key argument is that the death penalty leads to an erosion of respect for life in our society. In addition, American bishops also oppose capital punishment because of the discriminatory way it is applied in America with respect to the poor, members of social minorities and the socially impoverished and disadvantaged individuals. Finally, they seriously question whether capital punishment actually deters crime, one of the major arguments advanced by those who support it.
Consequently, in 1974 the National Conference of Bishops went on record against capital punishment. Recently, our present Pontiff, John Paul II, has spoken out against capital punishment and has personally intervened for several persons sentenced to die. Given all of the above, a Roman Catholic who seriously searches for the truth is called to be opposed to capital punishment.
The truth is that, especially with the recent use of DNA evidence, there have been a disturbing number of death row inmates who were convicted and sentenced to death only to be later exonerated. In Governor Ryan's state of Illinois, more inmates have been found innocent after being sentenced to death than have actually been executed. Illinois has learned of these mistaken convictions through the diligence and hard work of a well-funded public defender's office and through the tenacity of a highly publicized university journalism class.
To the best of our knowledge, the state of North Carolina lacks such mechanisms. How many more people would be cleared if our state possessed such mechanisms? How many inmates in North Carolinas currently go to the death chamber for crimes they did not commit?
In December 1999, a resolution co-sponsored by the National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops call for the end of the death penalty. This resolution stated: “We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.' We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life…. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.”
The prophet Zechariah enjoins us: "See that justice is done." It is our solemn obligation not just to promote justice, but also to stand up and decry injustice when we witness it. We are, to be sure, opposed to the imposition of the death penalty. We also believe that the system for administering capital punishment works all too often to the disadvantage, of poor and minority defendants who are unable to mount a defense that would result either in acquittal or in the imposition of a lesser sentence.
The death penalty as it is currently practiced in North Carolina is not just. We lack a sufficient level of certainty in every decision of our state's justice system that would justify the continued usage of the death penalty. Here, one mistake is too many. We encourage Governor Hunt to follow Governor Ryan's lead and impose a moratorium on the death penalty in North Carolina.
Rabbi Fred Guttman Father Jim O’Neill
Temple Emanuel St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)