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.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
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
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Speech Against anti LGBT State Amendment
On 9/12/11 (one day after 9/11), I spoke at a rally against the proposed amendment against Gay Marriage. The NC House had passed the amendment on that day and the NC Senate did so on 9/13. The proposed amendment will be voted on in an election in NC in 5/12.
You can see the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR6ZLdN6zPc
Thoughts on September 11, 2011
The Baal Shem Tov once taught “Forgetfulness leads to Exile. Remembrance is the secret to Redemption.” We have gathered here this morning to not only to remember, but also to work towards redemption. We do so in a world that has yet to learn the lessons of the tragedy from ten years ago. Conflict, strife, an earth which is being scorched by our own misdeeds, a Middle East which seems to become more radical and less oriented towards peace, a dysfunctional Congress, joblessness, economic problems, bias, bigotry and racism; all of these are still unfortunately too much a part of our world.
Recently in our congregations, we read that we are to “blot out the memory of Amalek.” (Deuteronomy 25:19). Amalek was the evil king who attacked us at the rear as we were crossing the desert. The people in the rear were the weakest and most vulnerable of our community. Based upon the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, it seems to me that the ultimate way to blot out the name of Amalek, to blot out as it were the memories of the nineteen hijackers who murdered almost three thousand of our brothers and sisters is to being about the Geulah, the redemption though our deeds of repair and transformation.
The problems are great. Maybe we cannot solve all of the world’s problems, and yet perhaps, just perhaps if we can repair our community; perhaps, just perhaps if we can repair our relationships with each other, with our families and friends; perhaps, just perhaps if we can dedicated ourselves to the task of bringing more of the Presence of God into our world; perhaps, just perhaps if we can truly see the other person for what he or she really is, a totally unique manifestation of the Divine, a person who truly is in the image of God; then, perhaps, just perhaps the redemption will come!
Historically, most wars have been fought over economic resources. This war however was not a war over resources, but a war over ideas. Al Qaeda’s main idea is the hatred of the West, western values and our way of thinking. By contrast, historically the greatness of the United States has been our openness to others and their ideas. We have been a county of immigrants and in our best days, we have been a country which welcomes immigrants and the new ideas that they bring with them.
Al Qaeda has not defeated us and yet the ultimate victor for Al Qaeda would be if we became xenophobic as a response. The ultimate victory would be if we responded to their close mindedness and their hatred, with hatred. September 11, 2001 should remind us of the terrible evil which can happen when a group of people feel that they are the only people who have the truth or that their way of perceiving the world is the only way
In Judaism and Christianity, we are often reminded that the two greatest commandments are to “Love God” and to “Love one’s neighbor.” Yet by sheer volume, the most frequently mentioned commandment in the five books of Moses is the commandment to be kind to the stranger. Thirty nine times we are told to treat with kindness those who we perceive to be different; those who in our world are “the other.” So let us not forget today that among those murdered included people of almost all races and faiths from more than ninety nations.
Two weeks ago, I was at the World Trade Center site. There is so much building going on there. I am sure that the buildings will be magnificent and that the memorial will be both dignified and beautiful. Yes, it occurred to me during my visit that the main lesson of September 11 is not merely about rebuilding with concrete and steel, but rebuilding hearts and minds of people. In the process of rebuilding, hatred will need to be replaced by love, brutality by compassion and evil by goodness.
And God said, “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1:3)
September 11, 2001 was a day in which the enemies of freedom and human dignity attempted to thrust this world into great darkness. Redemption seems far off but perhaps, just perhaps were our response to the tragedy of 9/11 to be to become more “Godly” by bringing more light into our darkened world, could redemption be far behind?
Recently in our congregations, we read that we are to “blot out the memory of Amalek.” (Deuteronomy 25:19). Amalek was the evil king who attacked us at the rear as we were crossing the desert. The people in the rear were the weakest and most vulnerable of our community. Based upon the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, it seems to me that the ultimate way to blot out the name of Amalek, to blot out as it were the memories of the nineteen hijackers who murdered almost three thousand of our brothers and sisters is to being about the Geulah, the redemption though our deeds of repair and transformation.
The problems are great. Maybe we cannot solve all of the world’s problems, and yet perhaps, just perhaps if we can repair our community; perhaps, just perhaps if we can repair our relationships with each other, with our families and friends; perhaps, just perhaps if we can dedicated ourselves to the task of bringing more of the Presence of God into our world; perhaps, just perhaps if we can truly see the other person for what he or she really is, a totally unique manifestation of the Divine, a person who truly is in the image of God; then, perhaps, just perhaps the redemption will come!
Historically, most wars have been fought over economic resources. This war however was not a war over resources, but a war over ideas. Al Qaeda’s main idea is the hatred of the West, western values and our way of thinking. By contrast, historically the greatness of the United States has been our openness to others and their ideas. We have been a county of immigrants and in our best days, we have been a country which welcomes immigrants and the new ideas that they bring with them.
Al Qaeda has not defeated us and yet the ultimate victor for Al Qaeda would be if we became xenophobic as a response. The ultimate victory would be if we responded to their close mindedness and their hatred, with hatred. September 11, 2001 should remind us of the terrible evil which can happen when a group of people feel that they are the only people who have the truth or that their way of perceiving the world is the only way
In Judaism and Christianity, we are often reminded that the two greatest commandments are to “Love God” and to “Love one’s neighbor.” Yet by sheer volume, the most frequently mentioned commandment in the five books of Moses is the commandment to be kind to the stranger. Thirty nine times we are told to treat with kindness those who we perceive to be different; those who in our world are “the other.” So let us not forget today that among those murdered included people of almost all races and faiths from more than ninety nations.
Two weeks ago, I was at the World Trade Center site. There is so much building going on there. I am sure that the buildings will be magnificent and that the memorial will be both dignified and beautiful. Yes, it occurred to me during my visit that the main lesson of September 11 is not merely about rebuilding with concrete and steel, but rebuilding hearts and minds of people. In the process of rebuilding, hatred will need to be replaced by love, brutality by compassion and evil by goodness.
And God said, “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1:3)
September 11, 2001 was a day in which the enemies of freedom and human dignity attempted to thrust this world into great darkness. Redemption seems far off but perhaps, just perhaps were our response to the tragedy of 9/11 to be to become more “Godly” by bringing more light into our darkened world, could redemption be far behind?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Thoughts on US involvement in Afghanistan
In the Torah, there is a famous story about Jacob wrestling with an angel. After wrestling with an angel all night, Jacob receives the new name of Israel. The word “Israel” literally means the man who “wrestles with an angel.”
I have always felt that one of the most unique things about being Jewish is the fact that we are not afraid to ask and to “wrestle with” very difficult questions. The question that I want to ask at this time is whether or not the United States should still be committing forces to Afghanistan.
Back when we wrestled with the Vietnam War, this felt deeply personal for I had a low draft number. American Jews were quite vocal in their opposition to that war. Now without a draft and fewer Jewish young men in the armed forces, it seems to me that our voices are conspicuously silent.
First a little background.
Our congregation has had several members who have served in Afghanistan. Two of them have been previously deployed in Iraq. I heard from one recently who told me that in addition to being hot and having lousy living conditions, the security situation there was much worse than in Iraq and that the level of personal danger to U.S. soldiers was quite high. He also expressed some reservation that the current government would ever be able to control the country.
During the Bush presidency, the Union for Reform Judaism made a controversial resolution concerning Iraq and calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Should we not also consider some sort of resolution concerning Afghanistan?
A year ago after General Stanley McChrystal made statements which eventually led to his being relieved of command, it became clearer to me that President Obama had listened to the voices of the military who had called for an ill-thought-out escalation. I was against the escalation at the time and actually drafted a URJ resolution calling for the President and Congress to bring home swiftly and safely all U.S. troops and military, CIA, and similar contract personnel from Afghanistan. The resolution was not considered by the movement. Yet, one year later, we find both Republican and Democrat voices asking for a reconsideration of American involvement in Afghanistan.
This past month, thirty-one American soldiers died in Afghanistan. At our services, we read the names of all thirty-one of these men and women. I feel so much for their families and I truly appreciate their loyalty and service to our county. To me, they are heroes! Each one of them represented a world unto himself or herself.
Nearly ten years have passed since the war in Afghanistan began. This is the longest running war in U.S. history. Moreover, the cost of this war is estimated at being ten billion dollars per month. Now that Bin Laden has been killed, many American politicians on both sides of the aisle are asking whether or not it is worthwhile for America to still have troops in Afghanistan. This is especially true at this time of economic hardship when cuts to both healthcare services and education are being made throughout the country on both the federal and state levels.
In addition, it seems to me that the U.S. war in Afghanistan has paralyzed and distorted U.S. foreign policy in two far more crucial areas of the world.
First, over the last decade, the coalition of forces led by the United States has been preoccupied first with Iraq and now with Afghanistan. While this has occurred, the present Iranian government has pursued the development of nuclear technology. Despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly asserted that this is aimed at civilian nuclear energy, most observers have found much evidence to suggest that Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapon. We will never know for sure, but I feel that without the foreign policy preoccupation with Iraq and Afghanistan, our efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear development could have been different and possibly more effective.
Second, it seems to me that the U.S. war in Iraq and Afghanistan created a lack of focus on our part towards a robust effort at civil society building within in the Arab world over the past decade. The recent events of the so called “Arab Spring” in Egypt and elsewhere illustrate how very important such an effort could have been. As dictators have fallen, the absence of the structures of civil society left a tremendous vacuum. This vacuum presents an opportunity to radical and anti-Western Islamic factions to exploit for the purpose of creating radical Islamic governments.
So here is my point.
Why are we being so silent about this war?
At a time of economic pressures unprecedented in 70 years, cannot the $120 billion we are spending yearly in Afghanistan be used much more wisely both at home and in pursuing our foreign policy agenda across the globe? Do we really support continued American involvement in Afghanistan? Is it really fair to the men and women in our armed forces, some of whom have served more than three tours of duty, to ask them to continue such service?
I think we owe it to the men and women in our armed services and to ourselves to “wrestle” with these most serious questions. I think we owe it to our country to consider whether or not now is the time to expeditiously bring our troops home.
Finally, in any war which our leaders become engaged, there should be a reasonable expectation of success. However, there is in Jewish law a principle which maintains that a non-biblical rule which is not working, or is not accepted, or is not successful in meeting its goal, should be changed. Is now the time for such a change?
The above opinion is mine and mine alone. It does not represent that of the congregation or of the Union for Reform Judaism.
I would really like to hear your opinion on this. I value your opinion and would invite dialogue on this issue. Please let me know if you think that our movement should take a position on this issue. Please post your comments on the blog.
I have always felt that one of the most unique things about being Jewish is the fact that we are not afraid to ask and to “wrestle with” very difficult questions. The question that I want to ask at this time is whether or not the United States should still be committing forces to Afghanistan.
Back when we wrestled with the Vietnam War, this felt deeply personal for I had a low draft number. American Jews were quite vocal in their opposition to that war. Now without a draft and fewer Jewish young men in the armed forces, it seems to me that our voices are conspicuously silent.
First a little background.
Our congregation has had several members who have served in Afghanistan. Two of them have been previously deployed in Iraq. I heard from one recently who told me that in addition to being hot and having lousy living conditions, the security situation there was much worse than in Iraq and that the level of personal danger to U.S. soldiers was quite high. He also expressed some reservation that the current government would ever be able to control the country.
During the Bush presidency, the Union for Reform Judaism made a controversial resolution concerning Iraq and calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Should we not also consider some sort of resolution concerning Afghanistan?
A year ago after General Stanley McChrystal made statements which eventually led to his being relieved of command, it became clearer to me that President Obama had listened to the voices of the military who had called for an ill-thought-out escalation. I was against the escalation at the time and actually drafted a URJ resolution calling for the President and Congress to bring home swiftly and safely all U.S. troops and military, CIA, and similar contract personnel from Afghanistan. The resolution was not considered by the movement. Yet, one year later, we find both Republican and Democrat voices asking for a reconsideration of American involvement in Afghanistan.
This past month, thirty-one American soldiers died in Afghanistan. At our services, we read the names of all thirty-one of these men and women. I feel so much for their families and I truly appreciate their loyalty and service to our county. To me, they are heroes! Each one of them represented a world unto himself or herself.
Nearly ten years have passed since the war in Afghanistan began. This is the longest running war in U.S. history. Moreover, the cost of this war is estimated at being ten billion dollars per month. Now that Bin Laden has been killed, many American politicians on both sides of the aisle are asking whether or not it is worthwhile for America to still have troops in Afghanistan. This is especially true at this time of economic hardship when cuts to both healthcare services and education are being made throughout the country on both the federal and state levels.
In addition, it seems to me that the U.S. war in Afghanistan has paralyzed and distorted U.S. foreign policy in two far more crucial areas of the world.
First, over the last decade, the coalition of forces led by the United States has been preoccupied first with Iraq and now with Afghanistan. While this has occurred, the present Iranian government has pursued the development of nuclear technology. Despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly asserted that this is aimed at civilian nuclear energy, most observers have found much evidence to suggest that Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapon. We will never know for sure, but I feel that without the foreign policy preoccupation with Iraq and Afghanistan, our efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear development could have been different and possibly more effective.
Second, it seems to me that the U.S. war in Iraq and Afghanistan created a lack of focus on our part towards a robust effort at civil society building within in the Arab world over the past decade. The recent events of the so called “Arab Spring” in Egypt and elsewhere illustrate how very important such an effort could have been. As dictators have fallen, the absence of the structures of civil society left a tremendous vacuum. This vacuum presents an opportunity to radical and anti-Western Islamic factions to exploit for the purpose of creating radical Islamic governments.
So here is my point.
Why are we being so silent about this war?
At a time of economic pressures unprecedented in 70 years, cannot the $120 billion we are spending yearly in Afghanistan be used much more wisely both at home and in pursuing our foreign policy agenda across the globe? Do we really support continued American involvement in Afghanistan? Is it really fair to the men and women in our armed forces, some of whom have served more than three tours of duty, to ask them to continue such service?
I think we owe it to the men and women in our armed services and to ourselves to “wrestle” with these most serious questions. I think we owe it to our country to consider whether or not now is the time to expeditiously bring our troops home.
Finally, in any war which our leaders become engaged, there should be a reasonable expectation of success. However, there is in Jewish law a principle which maintains that a non-biblical rule which is not working, or is not accepted, or is not successful in meeting its goal, should be changed. Is now the time for such a change?
The above opinion is mine and mine alone. It does not represent that of the congregation or of the Union for Reform Judaism.
I would really like to hear your opinion on this. I value your opinion and would invite dialogue on this issue. Please let me know if you think that our movement should take a position on this issue. Please post your comments on the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)