At the Reason Rally last weekend Richard Dawkins plead with those in attendance to rid our world of religion. But it wasn’t enough to preach to the choir (hehe) and reaffirm their atheist beliefs. Dawkins urged the 20,000 in attendance to ridicule religion and show contempt for religion.

This is further than previous calls to action by atheists. It used to be enough to challenge believers to debate, publish books and articles, but now Dawkins wants atheists to verbally attack religious people. Let me get right out and say it, this is really really bad idea.

Now, I do sympathize with many of the ideas that Dawkins teaches. I think that politics and government policy should not be decided by religious beliefs. This is not because I think religious beliefs are inherently bad or wrong, in fact, I am in favor of many religious beliefs. I am a religious person myself. I think religion can and should play a strong an important role in our lives. But I don’t think it is fair or correct for one particular religion to rule our thinking and public policy. Every religion has mutually exclusive beliefs and all religious beliefs are exclusive of atheist beliefs. Our government should not favor one over the other. On this, Dawkins and I somewhat agree.

But now Dawkins is pushing harder. He is no longer simply concerned with eliminating religious beliefs from government, he wants to eliminate religion. Period. Not only does he want to eliminate religion but he wants atheists to be confrontational and to mock religious people.

There are a few problems with this proposal.

First of all, in my experience very little comes from confrontation. Most people reinforce their beliefs when confronted or ridiculed.

Second of all, if the platform of atheist is reason and rationality then mocking others hardly reinforces that notion. Stick to your principles, don’t resort to bully tactics.

Third of all (and most importantly), there is nothing wrong with people holding religious beliefs! People are free to believe as they choose. Several studies and talks discuss the importance of religion in people’s lives even if it would be shown to be false! The issue is not whether people should believe in God or hold religious beliefs. The issue is whether those beliefs should play a prominent role in a melting-pot society. There are excellent arguments to be made on both sides of that issue. Ridicule is not an argument.

Frankly, I am disappointed by this development. Hopefully, atheists and believers can come together to create the best possible society for everyone; a world free of mockery and ridicule.

Link: USA Today

Related posts:

1. Richard Dawkins is Honest
2. The Difference Between the Authority of Science and Religion
3. Where Did Religion Come From?
4. Michigan Protects Bullies and Turns Religion Into a Weapon
5. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times

Let’s assume for sake of this post that Obamacare is constitutional on its face. That is, there is no problem requiring all citizens to have insurance. I don’t think this is necessarily the case, but this issue will be decided in the courts over the next year or so. The more interesting question for people of religion is whether the requirement that employers insure their employees and provide all women with free access to birth control pills is a violation of the first amendment or more provocatively, if is an “attack against religion”.

To start, some math. The government is an insurer. With or without Obamacare. This is because the government provides public health care for many people. The poor, the elderly, and others all get their health care paid for by the government. Insurance costs have risen higher than the inflation rate. One proposed reason for this is because uninsured people weigh down the system. At this point there are three choices. One choice is to continue on this path and provide care to the uninsured without a plan to pay for it. The second choice is to cut off the uninsured and deny them care unless they pay up front. The third choice is to create a comprehensive plan to lower the cost and insure everybody. Obama has chosen choice number three as have many other countries across the world.

Choice three requires that costs be lowered. One useful tool in keeping health care costs down is to provide free birth control. This is a mathematical fact. It sounds crude and unkind. But it is true. Unwanted pregnancies are bound to happen in a free society and even if we all agree that it is amoral to engage in activities that can create an unwanted pregnancy that doesn’t change the fact that they still occur. Providing birth control to everyone helps alleviate this burden.

That is the math. It is not a decision by secularists to force people to stop having religious babies. It is an economic decision.

That being said, we need to analyze whether an unintended result of this policy is offensive or even an attack against religious people.

The Pope declared that using birth control is proscribed by God. In Catholicism, the Pope has this authority. Under the current rules, Catholics do not need to use birth control. They don’t have to pick it up at the pharmacy. They can pretend it doesn’t exist for all anyone care. Although, according to the statistics 98% of Catholic women have used birth control and 78% believe one can be a good Catholic and use birth control.

The next issue is whether a Catholic person or institution can be required to pay for birth control on behalf of others. This is where it gets sticky. Technically speaking, Catholics, like most other religions believe that everyone has to listen to their laws, not just Catholics. Their view, like most religions, is that salvation or nirvana or perfection comes through their laws and lifestyle. Therefore, paying for others to use birth control sort of delays this process. It impedes their progress towards a world of perfection, ie Catholics. Thus, in this manner of speaking, the requirement that employers provide and pay for insurance that covers birth control is a type of violation of the religious beliefs of Catholics.

The problem with this view is that it enters extremely dangerous territory. It is impossible for the government to accommodate all religious views and hopes for world domination. Without getting into specifics, every religion has beliefs that concern some Utopian period where their laws are supreme. It is impossible to reconcile all these laws with government policy.

Religions have and will continue to focus on their adherents and instruct them to follow the laws of their particular religion. But religions must keep their Utopian beliefs between each other and cannot expect the world to cow to beliefs that impose on others or that dictate how others, outside their religion should act. Finally, the government is not to be used as a tool to manipulate the citizens of the country into neatly adhering to a particular religious beliefs. The government should not play any role in assisting religions achieving their goals of religious superiority.

The argument over birth control has become politicized. It is no longer about religious freedom, rather it has become an exercise in controlling birth control.

Finally, I find it odd that orthodox Jewish groups have aligned themselves with those who are against the birth control provision. I already wrote about that on DovBear a couple months ago: OU and Agudah Unite Against Contraceptives

Some links: NY Times, US News

Related posts:

1. Bob Costas and Controlling your own destiny
2. Understanding Decision Making and Self Control
3. Malcolm Gladwell and "Perfection"

Politicians from the Right often cite God or Jesus as a basis for political positions. Some even make the claim that they are running for office upon the advise of God Himself.

Now, it is impossible for God to have told more than one particular person that they are destined to be the next president. So either all but one are lying or they are all lying. You decide.

Either way, the whole concept of appealing to God’s authority in politics is very silly. The reason it is silly is because none of these people have had any specific revelation. Rather, they apply their interpretations of ancient texts, or worse, their personal feelings or emotional stirrings and claim that these are Divine messages. What makes matters even fuzzier is that politicians are usually businessmen or lawyers. They are not theologians or members of the clergy. Their understanding of their own religions is as basic as the average American’s understanding of their religions. Their understanding of other religions is even poorer.

Case in point: President Obama invoked the teachings of Jesus as a basis for taxes. The response has been vicious. Most of the criticism has been because of the seeming transparent pandering to the religious voters. This is a valid criticism. But only to a point. Politicians are professional panderers. We just don’t like it when we can tell.

The more important point, that is being overlooked, is how religious beliefs are able to conform to political positions. It’s too easy to make an argument for almost any predetermined position using religious faith or texts. The stories are obscure, the analogies are tenuous and the bias is overwhelming. It’s to the point that I can’t take any appeal to religion seriously. Further, not everyone wants to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those same teachings were used as a tool for death and destruction for hundreds of years.

Are taxes some form of charity, as Obama suggests? Maybe. But religion is not going to provide the answer to that question.

Political policy should be based on reasoning that is free from religious influence. It should not be guided by love for God or religion nor should it be guided by disbelief in God or hatred for religion.

But I don’t blame politicians. I blame the religious fervor of American citizens that demands that their politicians double as religious leaders. It’s foolish to assume that politicians know enough about religion to have intelligent opinions on theological matters. We should stop demanding it. Along the same lines, we should not turn to one specific version of a religion to solve our problems or as a basis for setting policy. At best, it is silly and at worse it is offensive.

I think the other speaker at the event at which the president spoke had good advice. Eric Metaxas suggested we remove phony religiosity from public discourse. Since it is all phony, I say we remove it all.

Link: NY Times

Related posts:

1. Litchfield Connecticut: A Revolutionary War Town Erupts in a War Over a Religious Center and Synagogue
2. Thoughts on That Basic Religion Test in the New York Times
3. Where Did Religion Come From?
4. A Collection of Thoughts on James Kugel’s Recent Book
5. Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God

GOP Candidate and Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich has made headlines with his recent claim that the Palestinians are an Invented People. The responses from across the idealogical and political spectrum have been as wild and varied as to be expected.

On one extreme, representatives of the Palestinians fired back at Gingrich. In a statement, they called Gingrich racist and said that his was the worst kind of insult that would only help the cycle of violence. On the other extreme are those nodding their heads in agreement at the prospect of a President who agrees with their perspective on the Palestinians.

Incredibly, the fact-checkers have confirmed and debunked Gingrich’s claim. There is evidence that the Palestinians existed as a small subgroup in the land that is currently Israel. However, there is little evidence that they had any sense of national pride or unity as a group before the State of Israel was established.

What strikes me is how silly this whole thing is. Gingrich’s comment could be equally said about a myriad of nations and peoples. It could really be said about anybody! What qualifies a nation as a “non-invented” people? How long do those people need to be where they are to be considered legitimate?

Is the United States of America not invented? Is the United Kingdom not Invented? Is Mexico not invented? Even historically ethnic countries such as Japan or Sweden are practically speaking “invented”. They lived in close proximity for a long time and eventually created a sense of national pride and unity. But they were not magically granted the land in which they live by some objective method of determining land division. Clearly land is not given only to nations who are not invented.

Further, let’s assume for a second that Gingrich is correct. The Palestinians are invented and invented people don’t get land. Now what? What are you going to do about it? Nuke the West Bank? Manufacture a tsunami and drown Gaza? There are millions of these so-called invented people. What now? Point being, invented or not, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. By simply saying they are invented does nothing to resolve that issue. In fact, it probably has the opposite effect. It entrenches both sides and polarizes the parties.

And what about Gingrich himself? He is a Catholic. Is that an invented religion? If it is not, well that means that all other religions are invented. So are they all not granted the right to exist simply because they are invented? Everything is invented. Mazel tov.

Which brings us full circle. Gingrich said that Palestinians are an invented people simply to anger some people and excite others. It was a political statement that carries less meaning than most political statements. It is the kind of broad brushed, meaningless statement for which politics is famous.

I think the voting public would prefer to hear about solutions to a decades long conflict instead of whimsical platitudes. I wonder if Gingrich has any ideas for the conflict or if he can’t be bothered to deal with invented people.

Links: Forward, Israel Matzav

Related posts:

1. Israel & The Jewish People | Connections 4/27/09
2. Some People Are Making Certain That The Typewriter Does Not Die
3. Do People Argue to Discover the Truth?
4. New York Department of Sanitation Complains That Too Many People Are Stealing Garbage
5. Stop Complaining About the "Anti-Semitic" Time Magazine Article

The light bulb. Simple, effective technology. No programming, no complicated installation, no software. Just flick a switch and “behold, there is light”.

Light bulbs are a hot topic these days. Four years ago, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007. One provision in the Act required that all light bulbs meet a certain threshold of efficiency. In effect this excludes the old-fashioned, gets really hot to the touch, don’t shake it lest you break the filament light bulb.

Efficiency requirements are no strangers to Federal law. Your car is subject to specific Federal efficiency requirements as well.

The benefits of the bill were noted in 2007. Namely, the overall cost of energy efficient bulbs will save Americans tons of money and due to their much longer lifetime reduce overall production costs and also reduce the negative affect on the environment.

These benefits come at a cost as well. The energy efficient bulbs are usually CFLs (compact flourescents) that are more toxic if they shatter and are more expensive to produce in the short term.

This has sparked a debate regarding the benefits and harms of the bill.

A bill to overturn the 2007 Act has been proposed by a Republican Representitive from Texas. His contention is not that incandescents are superior to CFLs. His contention is that the government should not (may not) tell its citizens what kind of light bulbs to buy. It is a personal freedom issue.

I tend to agree that the government should not interfere with citizens rights. But I resent what has become of this debate.

First of all, the government already regulates effiiency standards in other industries. Regulating light bulbs is no more an affront to liberty than an emissions test before registering a vehicle.

Second of all, the debate has become partisan and is no longer about what is best for people and the environment. It is about conservatives vs. liberals. This is unfortunate. What has happened is that the talking points for overturning the bill, big government, personal freedom etc., are being used as reasons to go out and buy inefficient bulbs.

In my opinion, this is stupid. Even according to those who oppose the government telling us what kind of light bulbs to buy, if CFLs are more energy and cost efficient then it would wise to buy them. If we are supposed to have faith in the market, and CFLs are better for the market, then the market should buy these bulbs. But since it has become a matter of principle supporters of the new bid to overturn the 2007 bill are fanatically buying the worse bulbs!

For starters, this supports the argument for a nanny state. If people are too dumb to do the right thing then maybe the government should get involved. The best way to support overturning the EISA would be to buy the more efficient bulbs without government interference. It is NOT by creating a grassroots effort to buy the wrong bulbs.

I don’t think the new bill will pass. I also think the new bulbs should be supported by conservatives, liberals and libertarians alike. All the information I have seen indicates that these are a better technology and are, better for the environment and wallet long term.

Link: AP

Related posts:

1. The Arctic Light Video by TSO Photography: Beauty Beyond Words
2. Repost: Yosef and the Light of [Economic] Wisdom and Kindness – Drasha Miketz (Sermon 2008)
3. My Chanukah Message To You: Light Knows No Friend or Foe
4. Yosef and the Light of (Economic) Wisdom and Kindness – Drasha Miketz
5. How Not to Solve the Immigration Problem

Janice Hahn

Without getting to far afield in the nitty gritty of the local politics, there is an election for a seat in Congress representing the 36th Congressional District on Tuesday.

The Democratic candidate is Janice Hahn. She appeared to be a shoo-in for the seat in a fairly moderate to liberal district. One particular issue has turned the tides of the race and created a virtual heat heading into the final weekend.

The issue (this is as “neutral point of view” I can put it) is Hahn’s policies with regard to gang members. In particular she facilitated the placement of criminals as gang interventionists and had them paid via a third party.

It is hard for me to see how this is being portrayed negatively. Or more to the point, why this is being portrayed negatively. The biggest crime issue in Los Angeles is gangs. One of the more effective ways of curbing gang violence is negotiating peace treaties. I met the fellow who negotiated the truce between the Bloods and Crips. It took almost 10 years to form an agreement. (His name is Aquila Sherrils.) Hahn enlisted the help of some senior gang members to negotiate for peace between gangs. These representatives were paid by football legend Jim Brown’s foundation. She also strongly supported programs to help gang members receive recognition for changing their lives. All of this seems very good.

Yet, Fox LA ran a nearly 10 minute segment on Janice Hahn’s “horrifying” involvement with gang members. The bias and slant in this report is embarrassing (for them) and an indictment on the public. If the public does not want to see programs and initiative such as Ms. Hahn’s what do they want? If working from within gangs to promote peace treaties is a bad idea, what is a good idea? If it is seen as a blemish on ones record for thinking creatively and bravely about how to solve the gang problems what would a sparkling record look like?

This report has me so upset at Fox, the public and the organizers of Hahn’s opponent’s campaign who are text messaging the entire district about this horrible report. Note, the report makes no accusations of wrongdoing or impropriety. It is simply the concept that Hahn is helping gang members that is so obscene that it renders her am unqualified conduct. As one website promoting Hahn’s indiscretions put it: Hahn is directing public funds to “support violent, inner-city criminals”.
Disgraceful.

Tell me what you think.

(Sorry, whoever uploaded this video squished everybody…)

Link: Politico

Disclaimer: I do not endorse or support any candidate in this race. This blog post is for information purposes only. I am not saying I agree with Hahn on this issue. I am saying that the way she is being portrayed as a villain for doing good work is very disturbing to me.

Related posts:

1. Cricket in Compton Keeps Ex-Cons On The Straight and Narrow
2. Mad Men Era Lives On in the White House
3. Super Bowl Ad Censorship: A Good Thing
4. Moral Equivalency in the Media: Gilad Shalit and Terrorists
5. There Is No Such Thing as a Kal V’Chomer (a Fortiori) in the NFL

During the Super Bowl I wrote one tweet about the ads. It got a lot of notoriety. (See: The Tweet That Made Me Famous (and what I meant by it)) But there was another tweet I had about the ads which I didn’t publish. Instead I made a real life comment to a fellow human being (my wife). (One of the problems with social media is that sometimes we type what we should be saying and we stunt our human interactions. So I try not to tweet if there is a human who can appreciate my observations…)

Anyway, what I didn’t tweet was an observation about some ads during the Super Bowl for the Marines. As you know, those ads are pretty pricey. About $2 million a pop. So I was surprised when I saw (I think) two ads for the Marines during the Super Bowl. That’s $4 million tax dollars recruiting for the Marines.

I was a little surprised and little disappointed. I was surprised because the ads are so expensive and disappointed because I wasn’t happy to see millions of tax dollars spent on an advertisement when the government is supposed to be cutting spending on social programs. Especially when the ones wh0 want to make the cuts are Republicans and they are also the ones who support spending on the military.

It bothered me. But not enough for a blog post. Then there were some votes in Congress.

In one day (February 18, 2011) the House voted to block Federal Aid for Planned Parenthood because there Planned Parenthood has been linked to [legal] abortions. Planned Parenthood was receiving a lot of aid. They will now receive none. Planned Parenthood is following the law and the Supreme Court has held that legal abortions could receive Federal funding.

It’s tough to see an important social organization lose their funding, but with a budget crisis it seems inevitable that some programs will be cut. Don’t get me wrong, I think Planned Parenthood serves an important Federal interest and should receive funding for all activities that the law permits. But, if there is no money, I understand they are a non-essential organization and could be privately funded so they lose their money.

But then on the same day, the House voted to approve a sponsorship of a Nascar team by the US Army. Now, I’m no fool, I know that the money to Planned Parenthood is much more significant than the money going to Nascar. But how does it look when you’re cutting funding to non-essential organizations like Planned Parenthood and giving it to even less essential places like Nascar!?

Between the Super Bowl ads for the Marines, the Nascar sponsorship and all the other billboards, TV ads and other marketing for the US Defense Forces, there is a lot of money at stake. The Federal government has no problem spending all that money.

Seeing that, I decided it was worth a blog post.

When you’re trimming the fat, you need to trim all the fat. Not just the fat that others are enjoying (remember in this analogy, fat is a “good” thing) while you leave the fat on for yourself…

————

I was less upset about the ads for the car companies that received bailouts from the Federal government. Those ads are part showing the world that the bailouts worked (whether they did or not is not relevant, the Big 3 have a right to try to convince the public that their Federally sponsored product is worth buying).

Related posts:

1. The Psychic Benefit of Owning an NBA Team (or a Yeshiva)
2. Political Discrimination
3. Matisyahu, NBC and The Olympic Winter Games Make A Great Team
4. Simple Justice | The Story of Brown v. Board of Education: The End of Separate But Equal in Schools
5. Sports, Politics, Phil Jackson and The Arizona Immigration Law et al

Things weren’t looking so good for Sarah Palin a couple years ago. What with the lost election, her daughter’s teenage pregnancy and some clothing scandal, it seemed Palin was destined for the waste bin of history. Easy come, easy go.

But Palin took some time off. Then she let the people become dissatisfied with their government and as President Obama did in 2008, Palin capitalized of the country’s yearning for change. Palin endorsed some long-shot candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections and some of them won, while others did not. The election was not a sweep for Palin, it was more like a draw.

But today’s news is a definite win for Palin. Two wins in fact.

Win #1: Sarah Palin’s Alaska is a brand new reality based TV show on TLC. I have not seen the show. I hear it is about Sarah Palin’s outdoor excursions including bear watching, fishing and other activities that are normal for Alaskans and boring for me… Anyway, the show pulled in a 4.96 rating. In English, that means that nearly 5 million people tuned in to see Palin and her TV show. That set a new record for TLC and is being called a whopping success. The show runs for another 7 weeks and we will need to monitor its long range ratings to see if it is really a success or a one hit wonder.

Win #2: Remember when everyone was making fun of Sarah Palin for inadvertently inventing a word in a twitter message (tweet)? Here is the text of the original tweet:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.

Here’s a screengrab of the tweet:

A few hours later the tweet was deleted and the word refudiate was replaced with refute (which is still not proper usage of the word, but at least it’s a word!).

As I type the word refudiate in this blog post, a red dotted line appears beneath it. Know why? Because it’s not a word. But that all changed today. Eventually my computer’s dictionary will get the memo (I hope).

The Oxford Word of the Year is………. Refudiate.

Really.

So, feel free to use refudiate in professional conversation. It’s perfectly legit.

Two big wins for Sarah Palin in one day.

Now I am just waiting for the Democrats to refudiate the Oxford Dictionary for supporting Sarah Palin…

For the full list of words added to the 2010 Oxford Dictionary see the NY Times technology blog: Bits

And for an article on the ratings see the NY Times media blog: Media Decoder

Related posts:

1. Ex-Hasids Get a Reality Show: This is SO not a good idea
2. The Good Wife: Unorthodox, From a Rabbi / Law Student Perspective
3. Reputation Obsession: Taking Tov Shem M’Shemen Tov – A Good Name is Better Than Good Oil – to the Next Level
4. Looking Good | A Guest Post
5. Why Blogging Is Good

Chabad of Litchfield Connecticut (Population ~8500) is trying to build a fancy new center that will house the rabbi, his family, a synagogue and a pool for the Chabad summer camp.

When the proposal reached the Litchfield planning board the center was denied.

The reasons cited by the board were mostly aesthetic. “The doors will be too big”, “The building will be a monstrosity compared to our small quaint homes”, “The Star of David may not comply with the historic district” etc.

Fueling the tensions are claims that the opposition to the center is anti-Semitic.

Without drawing comparisons to Park51 (Ground Zero Mosque vs. Downtown Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center: Video Debate) or the Maghen Abraham Synagogue in Lebanon (Maghen Abraham Synagogue in Beirut Lebanon: A Symbol of Tolerance), the issues raised in the spat are issues that go to the heart of religion in America.

In America, Religion is tolerated. In America, if yours is not the dominant religion, please keep to yourselves and don’t impose on the rest of us. In America, religion is okay so long as it is not “in my face”.

But for the dominant religion? In your face is totally fine. Prayers before sporting events, political policy in the name of “religion” and even laws that are rooted in a very specific Christian understanding of the bible are all part and parcel of the “American Experience”.

My opinion: Less “In Your Face” Religion from everyone would be quite welcome. Christopher Hitchens talks about the modernization of religion. This is vital to living in a world with more than one acceptanle viewpoint and especially when a competing viewpoint is right around the virtual corner. Religion can no longer be bully, it needs to place nice with the global community and respect all traditions and religions, even those who have neither.

I am no fan of blocking a Synagogue. Especially if and when it is fueled by anti-Semitism, but if it were me building the synagogue, I would try to fit into the aesthetic character of the community as best as I possibly could and be as unobtrusive as possible.

So, I choose neither side in this battle…

(link: LA Times)

Related posts:

1. Maghen Abraham Synagogue in Beirut Lebanon: A Symbol of Tolerance
2. My Visit to the Museum of Tolerance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center
3. Controversial Ads Against Cordoba Center Are Ironic
4. When Religious Holidays Lose Their Religion
5. 1001 Inventions Exhibit at the California Science Center

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear: Islamaphobia and Cordoba House

It seems that the Cordoba House in downtown Manhattan has cleared a major hurdle by winning a 9-0 vote of the Landmarks Conservation Commission. (NY Times link)

Conservatives and liberals seem to be at loggerheads on this particular issue. Sarah Palin made headlines with her plea that the center be blocked and fellow right wing pundits have expressed their distaste to the center. They feel it disgraces the deceased by glorifying what they believe to be the religion that caused the tragedy at Ground Zero almost 9 years ago. Liberals, on the other hand, see the center as an olive branch to Islam and think the center glorifies America, not the dangerous form of Islamic Fundamentalism that took down the Twin Towers, 3000 victims and the U.S. economy.

I can’t say whether the center is an affront or not. That’s because it varies with each person. Everyone is free to react as they choose. I can’t say one side is right and one side is wrong.

What I can say is that the center has a bad marketing plan.

The center is not a mosque. It is a massive cultural center. There is a sanctuary planned but it is a minor part of a broader institution. An institution that, according to their website attempts to bring the gap between Islam and the West. An institution that also fights for women’s rights and opportunitities within Islam. In fact, if we are to believe the Cordoba website, it is exactly what Americans (especially Conservatives) should be supporting.

From their website:

Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City.  The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.  Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants – all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

So why call themselves a mosque? Bad marketing.

The center is not “at Ground Zero” either. It is 2 blocks away. If you’ve never been to Manhattan you can’t appreciate how FAR part 2 blocks in NYC are. Two blocks in Manhattan is very far. It is a few minutes walk and more importantly, it is certainly not within the line of sight. They should be saying that their center is a few minutes walk from Ground Zero. Not “at Ground Zero”.

From their website:

So the Mosque at Ground Zero is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. It is an Islamic Center in Downtown Manhattan. Is that still as offensive to those who oppose the center?

The only reasonable explanation for opposition that remains is conspiracy.

In other words, the website is a sham. The REAL purpose of Cordoba House is to spread Fundamental Islam and serve as a springboard for the continued spread of Islam in their quest for world dominance. This is Islamaphobia.

There are people who believe this to be the case. I do not.

If you are asking me, which you aren’t, I say support the Cordoba House and the brand of Islam they espouse and perhaps get involved a see it for yourself if you are not convinced. Working together will go a long way.

Related posts:

1. Ground Zero Mosque vs. Downtown Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center: Video Debate
2. Controversial Ads Against Cordoba Center Are Ironic
3. Fundamentalists and Extremists Are The Exceptions, Not The Rule
4. Parshas Misphatim and The Code of Hammurabi: Problem or Solution?
5. Recess + Litigation = Big Problem

The Zen Master has spoken. (Again. Remember? The Zen Master Speaks on Curses, Karma and Mitzvahs)

When asked about the Arizona Immigration Law – state Senate Bill 1070, by ESPN.com columnist J.A. Adande, Jackson raised a few eyebrow. In fact he raised enough eyebrows that a protest is planned for tonight’s game at Staples Center in Downtown LA.

The LA Times has a full report here: Activists protest Lakers Coach Phil Jackson’s comments on Arizona’s new immigration law

What did Jackson say that set off the protesters?

During their Playoffs Series against the San Antonio Spurs, the Suns wore Jerseys that paid tribute to the Latino community by tweaking the name of the team from Suns to Los Suns. That this is somehow a strong political statement is a stretch in my mind. Some people (including the players) felt that by wearing Los Suns on their jersey it was somehow a protest against the law. I don’t see it that way.

Nevertheless, Adande asked Jackson what he thought about the Suns political statement.

First Jackson, who has showed lefty leanings in the past, indicated he had no problem with the controversial state Senate Bill 1070.

“Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard [the legislature] say ‘we just took the United States immigration law and adapted it to our state,’” Jackson said.

I told him they usurped the federal law.

“It’s not usurping, it’s just copying it is what they said they did, and then they gave it some teeth to be able to enforce it,” Jackson said.

Sometimes I feel exactly like Jackson. Am I crazy?

When the bill was passed the NY Times had this to say:

Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil. (Full article here.) (emphasis added)

The law just enforces a Federal Requirement. Uncle Righteous (that’s Coach Jackson’s other nickname) is just standing up for Uncle Sam.

So Jackson is right. Yet the law has set off a firestorm. Why? I can think of a lot of reasons. But it seems misguided to take out your anger on Phil Jackson, or even the state of Arizona! This a Federal Regulation!

Anyway, I digress. There are two things I want to mention.

First, Adande makes a foolish assumption. He assumes that if a man is a Democrat or a liberal then he falls in line and supports every single policy of fellow Democrats. The money quote:

That was surprising to hear coming from a man who not only supported Bill Bradley for the Democratic presidential nomination, he wore a Bradley campaign pin on his suit during games.

Why is it surprising? Each issue has its merits and demerits. Why must we be pigeonholed once we hold one way in one issue that now in every other issue our opinion is pre-determined!? This bothers me a lot. Jackson has every right to feel one way on one issue and side with “liberals”  and on other issues side with “conservatives”. If not, we cease to think and become party line robots.

Finally, sports and politics don’t mix. To me that means that an athlete or sportswriter or coach can have an opinion but it is not nearly as valuable as their relative expertise on sports. Is Jackson influential in political spheres? Absolutely not. So why protest his statements? Let the guy coach basketball and ignore everything else that he says.

That’s what I do…

Related posts:

1. How Not to Solve the Immigration Problem
2. Obligatory Michael Jackson Post
3. Teamwork: Important in Sports, More Important in Life
4. The Zen Master Speaks on Curses, Karma and Mitzvahs
5. Rabbi Shmuley is More Embarrassing than Pearlperry Reich on the Dr. Phil Show (and analysis)

Related posts:

1. Attorney Nathan Lewin On Anti-Semitism In Rubashkin Case
2. Is The Cartoon of Elena Kagan Anti-Semitic?
3. Hey San Francisco, 1930′s Germany Called – They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!
4. Lessons in Anti-Semitism From Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean
5. How Did We Get Here? Explaining the Unabashed Support for Rubashkin

A very similar post has been cross-posted to DovBear. More discussion there.

Nothing like a Supreme Court of the United States nomination to get me to blog again.

Elena Kagan has been nominated for the SCOTUS. I have no opinion about her. I do have an opinion about some of the people opposing her…

I have been planning a brief series on anti-semitism. This post will be the first of a few that deal with various specifics and nuances of anti-semitism in my opinion.

Have you seen the cries of anti-semitism connected with Kagan? They come from Orthodox Jews who have trouble dealing with their own insecurities. Why?

Most RW Jews are very conservative politically. Kagan is not. Her existence and certainly her appointment the SCOTUS is not viewed favorably in their eyes. Subconsciously, they need a way to protest her appointment and the first thing that pops into their minds is the old “anti-semitism card”.

People point to the caricature of her as anti-semitic. People think that it is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda.

It’s not.

Nazi propaganda was general. It showed Jews as having certain features and overemphasized those features in order to make a separate point. “Jews steal”, “Jews are like vermin”, “Jews run the world”, etc. The caricature was to paint a villain with gross features and then label the villain with gross acts. It works better than painting the villain with gross acts with a face like Clooney or Pitt…

The cartoon of Kagan is just a cartoon. It exaggerates her features because those are HER features. It’s the same way a Leno cartoon has a huge chin and Bush cartoon has a squat head and long ears. It pokes fun at their appearance but is in no way anti-long chin or anti-squat head with long ears. Accentuating Kagan’s features in a cartoon can’t be off limits because she happens to be Jewish.

A second thing about all this anti-semitism talk is very ironic. I have not seen any reports from mainstream media that even mentions that Kagan is Jewish. It is not an issue for most people. Why do we think that it is an issue? It’s like we invent an issue to get upset about. Kagan was chosen because of her credentials and the diversity she brings to the court. Doesn’t that champion minorities like Jews? How is that anti-semitic!?

The last thing I want to address is the complaint lodged by a commenter on DovBear’s post. Mamzer Talmid Chacham said “I’d still like it better if he nominated someone who was actually a judge”. It so happens that one of the greatest SCOTUS justices of all time, Justice Warren, was not a judge. One large criticism of the SCOTUS is the seemingly similar paths all the justices took to get to the court. Choosing Kagan adds another element of much needed diversity to the court.

Related posts:

1. Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic?
2. Hey San Francisco, 1930′s Germany Called – They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!
3. Lessons in Anti-Semitism From Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean
4. Attorney Nathan Lewin On Anti-Semitism In Rubashkin Case
5. Oh How I Yearn For The Anti-Semites of Yore

Has the White House traveled back in time and space to the Mad Men era? To a place in time where women are 2nd class citizens and were refused equal opportunities?

Most people would say, “of course not”. But there are those who disagree.

Just ask Terry O’Neill the president for the National Organizatin of Women (NOW) about it. O’Neill says that this is a real issue.

The brouhaha started with the President’s pickup basketball games. Apparently, only men have been invited to play so far. According to O’Neill, this is an affront to women everywhere.

Yes, she is serious.

It’s hard to believe, as the Obama Administration has been the portrayed as the most inclusive and minority friendly administration to inhabit the White House.

It’s ridiculous because women don’t play NBA basketball. It is not because they are discriminated against, but just because they are not as good as the men. Women don’t have the same physical bodies that men have.

O’Neill takes this to mean that women are 2nd class. That is her problem. She can take it how she wants, but it would be prudent to be rational about it , as opposed to politically charged and driven. Here is her take:

“we need to see the White House leading the way for desegregating the work places all around the country and it is troubling.” (Hat tip ABC News Blog)

The NY Times is reporting that the Obama Administration does not think there is a problem here. But the NY Times digs deeper and sees that there is a sense of of “manliness” in the White House. And somehow that is a big problem as well.

“Still, some high-profile sectors of the White House — economics and national security, for instance — are filled with men and exude an unmistakable male vibe.

So apparantly, not only are women offended by not being invited to play basketball, but women are offended by “manly” men in the White House? Is it a crime for a man to be masculine. That sounds to me like discrimination against men!

Women are not expected to be men and men should not be expected to be like women!

Why can’t we all just be what we are and get along?

We’ve come a long way from the Mad Men era, I think this could be the start of the Mad Women era.

But don’t worry too much. This just in! Obama has invited a female aide to play golf with him. This is a first and not a moment too soon. Who thinks O’Neill will be happy with this?

(Not me)

Related posts:

1. Is White Bias Racist?
2. No White Running Backs Allowed?
3. How is Helping Gang Members Fix Their Lives and Serve as Gang Interventionists a Bad Thing?
4. Metzitza B’Peh Version ∞: A House Divided
5. Our (more) Casual President

Wow, two semi-political posts in a row. For a non-partisan blog that is a lot.

But once again, it would be impossible to ignore this elephant in the room.

Optimistic at best presumptuous at worse, President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize award really pushes the envelope of credibilty.

I am pretty much in 100% agreement with two of my favorite bloggers on this one so I will link to their posts.

DovBear nails it (as nearly always) and is most worried that the Nobel Peace Prize has been transformed into a political stunt.

Conversations in Klal writes about the real (wrong) lesson here, that we can be rewarded for promises with no results.

My thoughts are along the same lines as both.

First, is this prize even worth anything anymore?

Isn’t a mandatory annual award cheapened by the fact that it must be awarded yearly with no regard for it being deserved? Doesn’t sound very meaningful to me.

My proposal is that when someone earns the award, give it to them. But don’t force-feed the public a manufactered awardee purely for the sake of awarding the prize. If no-one wins, no-one gets the prize.

Second, I am really concerned with the lesson being taught. Prizes must be earned. I wrote about this a while back when I wrote about a great cartoon in the New Yorker. It is symptomatic of our generation that we reward prematurely and place people on pedestals before they have climbed atop the pedestal on their own.

We should allow things to progress organically and give projects time to breath and develop.

Patience is a virtue. It is time to put patience back in our society.

Related posts:

1. Which Of These is the Nobel Peace Prize Winner?
2. Our (more) Casual President
3. The President Signs the Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”
4. Ode To The Jews
5. President Reagan’s Message for the Protesters in Egypt

Yesterday, the Jewish world lost a spiritual giant (good article worth reading). Rabbi Zelik Epstein, Rosh Yeshiva of Shaar Hatorah in Queens passed away. He was 97.

R’ Zelik was a relic of the past. He studied Torah in Europe with some the greatest Torah scholars of recent American Jewry, including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Yaakov Kamanetsky.

Perhaps even more significantly, he was above the fray. He did not get involved in politics and instead, studied, taught and advised and preached Torah and its values.

Today the Jewish community mourns a man of integrity, scholarship and clarity.

Today, I mourn a man who taught my grandfather, Sidney Greenwald, over 50 years ago in the fledgling Beis Medrash Elyon. My grandfather was very proud to have learned from R’ Zelik.

Today, students of his across the world, in every imaginable profession and walk of life, mourn the loss of their teacher and spiritual guide.

Case in point: Native New Yorkers who listen to Sports Radio are all familiar with “The Fan” 660 WFAN. Anyone who has listened during the daytime has become familiar with “Davening Dov Kramer”, an orthodox Jew. Davening Dov has worked at WFAN for as long as I can remember. He has been a Kiddush Hashem showing the world a wonderful example of an Observant Jew.

Last night Dov sent me a Tweet, to check out a note he wrote on Facebook. Dov wrote a note on his Facebook Profile mourning the loss of his Rebbe. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety Facebook account required (if you don’t have one, send me an email and I will email the note to you directly). I would like to quote one small section that I found most powerful.

I had gotten into radio to be able to reach people through the medium I always loved, and had wanted to learn the business from the “pros” before going into “Jewish” radio. … I didn’t think leaving radio (at least temporarily) would hinder my original goal of positively influencing people via the radio, so wanted to quit my job, move back to Israel (again, I was single and in my late 20s) to learn full-time. I figured I could get free room and board if I did something like being a dorm counselor at a yeshiva for Americans, so would still have no expenses and be able to focus on my learning. Before doing what I thought was clearly the “frum” thing to do (stop working to learn full-time), I went to speak to Rav Zelik.

I told him my plan, but he said it wasn’t a good idea. He was afraid that making such a radical change was unhealthy, and there was a danger that after a while I would regret having done it. Instead, he told me that I should keep working at WFAN … and learn for semicha at night. I had been doing some volunteer work for a kiruv organization (JEP-LI), and they offered me a job that would allow me to work half a day and learn half a day. I asked Rav Zelig if that was an option worth considering, and he told me that if I thought I could get “sipuk hanefesh,” that I would be satisfied doing kiruv professionally, that I could do it, but otherwise, the less of a change in my life I make while studying for semicha, the better.

I had gotten into radio to be able to reach people through the medium I always loved, and had wanted to learn the business from the “pros” before going into “Jewish” radio. I had worked at a dance station (Hot 103), in the news dept. of a country-music station (WHN) and had worked on live talk shows and ball games for a few years. I didn’t think leaving radio (at least temporarily) would hinder my original goal of positively influencing people via the radio, so wanted to quit my job, move back to Israel (again, I was single and in my late 20s) to learn full-time. I figured I could get free room and board if I did something like being a dorm counselor at a yeshiva for Americans, so would still have no expenses and be able to focus on my learning. Before doing what I thought was clearly the “frum” thing to do (stop working to learn full-time), I went to speak to Rav Zelig.

I told him my plan, but he said it wasn’t a good idea. He was afraid that making such a radical change was unhealthy, and there was a danger that after a while I would regret having done it. Instead, he told me that I should keep working at WFAN (I was working Sundays thru Thursdays from 11am-7pm, with “Mike and the Mad Dog” Mon-Thurs, but because of Shabbos worked Sundays instead of Fridays) and learn for semicha at night. I had been doing some volunteer work for a kiruv organization (JEP-LI), and they offered me a job that would allow me to work half a day and learn half a day. I asked Rav Zelig if that was an option worth considering, and he told me that if I thought I could get “sipuk hanefesh,” that I would be satisfied doing kiruv professionally, that I could do it, but otherwise, the less of a change in my life I make while studying for semicha, the better.

This is a glimpse into the insight of a great man. Many people would have just assumed that more studying was an automatically better option. R’ Zelik knew his student and knew what was truly best for his situation.

This kind of indiviualized, custom tailored Judaism is something a bit lacking in our “one-size-fits-all” society. We need more Rabbis who can lead like R’ Zelik did.

It is in this light that we all mourn the loss of a true individual, a true Gadol, R’ Zelik Epstein.

Related posts:

1. Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel, Of Blessed Memory
2. Rabbi Yosef Tendler, Of Blessed Memory
3. A Post Stained With Tears | Moish Gluck Of Blessed Memory
4. Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg, Of Blessed Memory
5. Rabbi J.H. Hertz’s Epic Introduction to the Talmud (with a little controversy mixed in)

As a Law Student, there are things I find interesting that may not interest “clients” (non-Lawyers, hehe). The following article interests me and will probably interest any lawyer or law student, anyone Jewish, or anyone that has been following the Gates Saga.

I invite you to contribute your opinion in the comments.

The article originally appeared in this week’s Jewish Press as an OP-ED. The writer is Nathan Lewin (read more about him here).

WHAT IF GATES WERE AN UNRENOWNED JEWISH BLACK WOMAN?

Nathan Lewin

Posted Jul 29 2009

Soon after Cambridge police arrested and handcuffed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. on a disorderly conduct charge, they realized the black man they wanted to prosecute was a renowned academic. As a result, he was released and the charges against him were dropped.

The ensuing public debate – in which Cambridge authorities now try to justify arresting a man because he refused to comply in his own home with police directions and deny that race had any influence on how the police reacted – suggests that if an ordinary black homeowner, rather than a Harvard professor, had been arrested under these circumstances, the criminal charges would not have been dropped so readily.

Consider the pending case of Rivka – a black, very dark-skinned, extremely devout Orthodox Jewish woman. Rivka is employed in New York, spends Shabbat in Washington, and her work frequently takes her on extended trips overseas. Being single and in her mid-fifties, she rented a 3-bedroom apartment on the West Side of Manhattan, and advertised on Craigslist for female roommates willing to accept short subleases. All applicants were informed by Rivka that the apartment was strictly kosher. A special page prescribing the kashrut rules was added to the lease that each roommate signed.

The rules were followed by a series of women Rivka accepted as roommates. In July 2007, a white blond-haired girl named Brooke answered Rivka’s ad and signed a five-month lease with the kashrut provisions. Brooke promptly violated the kashrut rules and admitted, in sworn testimony, that she brought nonkosher food into the apartment in knowing violation of her signed agreement. Rivka told Brooke she would have to leave.

Having e-mailed Brooke that she had arranged, at her – Rivka’s – expense, for a hotel room where Brooke could stay while she was looking for other accommodations, and believing that Brooke had agreed to have her belongings transported to the other location, Rivka began moving Brooke’s clothing to the hotel. Brooke arrived at the apartment unexpectedly and called the local precinct, reporting, “My roommate is currently stealing stuff out of my room.”

When Rivka returned after depositing Brooke’s belongings in the reserved hotel room, she found two policemen at the apartment with Brooke. The senior police officer (who is white), testified that Rivka showed them the lease and the e-mail she had sent to Brooke, and explained that she had moved Brooke’s belongings to the nearby hotel because she had an agreement with Brooke to do so. Rivka insisted to the officers that she wanted Brooke out of the apartment. The officers testified that Rivka interrupted her conversation with them to spend ten minutes in prayer.

Rivka then left the officers and retreated to her bedroom and locked her door. The officers demanded that she come out. On her cell phone, Rivka called a friend from the Georgetown Synagogue in Washington who had a law degree but was not in private practice. He told her to ask the officers for a warrant and for their precincts and badge numbers. The white policeman said in his testimony that he “did not recall” whether he gave his precinct and badge number.

When Rivka did not emerge voluntarily from her bedroom, the sergeant called the Emergency Services Unit – the police department’s riot squad. They came in full force, with more than one dozen policemen. They broke down the door to Rivka’s bedroom, dragged her into the hall and up against the wall at gunpoint, handcuffed her, and then took her downstairs to a waiting ambulance.

The ambulance drove to a nearby hospital. One of the officers tried to have her committed to the psychiatric unit. After an examination, the hospital said there was no basis to admit her. The police then took Rivka to the police precinct, where she was permitted one phone call. She called a person she had befriended while regularly attending Shabbat services at the Georgetown Synagogue, but the arresting police officer hung up the telephone in the middle of Rivka’s call.

Rivka was then taken to another hospital, where she was handcuffed to a bed. Next morning, she was returned to the precinct. The rabbi at the New York synagogue she attends on weekdays heard of her plight and brought a kosher meal to the precinct – the first meal Rivka had since her arrest the day before.

Rivka was charged with “Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree” and with “Unlawful Eviction.” The New York D.A.’s office refused to dismiss the charges even after all the facts were presented. The young prosecutor first demanded that Rivka plead guilty and perform community service and ultimately was willing to accept an unconditional “Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal.” Rivka refused to accept any terms other than outright dismissal because she insisted she had done nothing wrong.

The case went to a nonjury trial before a (white) judge who was a former prosecutor. He excluded much defense testimony as irrelevant and hearsay and rejected out of hand Rivka’s right to remain in her own bedroom after her discussion with the police. At the end of the trial, he found Rivka guilty on both counts and fined her $500. Rivka is appealing.

Would the police have broken the bedroom door of a white gentile and charged her with crimes after being called to a dispute between her and a roommate? Is this another instance – as the Gates arrest is said to be – of injustice against blacks, aggravated by Rivka’s Jewish identity?

Rivka is suing New York City, the policemen, and Brooke in federal court. The docket number of her case is 08 Civ. 10065. I am her lawyer.

Nathan Lewin is a Washington attorney who has represented Jewish communities in litigation in federal courts.

Related posts:

1. Melinda Gates Challenges Religious Authority
2. Television Ad for Call of Duty: Black Ops – Controversial or Just Great?
3. Shame on Gizmodo | Shame on Us Too
4. Mesira (The Jewish Informant) in Halacha
5. Esther Petrack: Modern Orthodox Jewish Girl on America's Next Top Model Drops Shabbos on Television

This post has been cross posted to DovBear – great discussion there.

Do Anglo/American Jews care enough about our middle-eastern Jewish brothers and sisters?

Yesterday DovBear posted a really great Op-Ed piece from the NY Times.

In fact. before checking his blog I even emailed the article to him as I assumed he would find it interesting.

Of course, I was too late as it had already been posted!

What occurred subsequent to his posting of the article was even more interesting.

But first let’s go to the NY Times column. An exiled Egyptian Jew recounts the persecution his family experienced in Egypt. His issue is that President Obama took the time to mention the suffering of Palestinians and ignored the suffering of middle-eastern Jews outside of Israel. A worthwhile read.

DovBear posted the article and it got very little attention from the commenters. As opposed to a three day running argument about Mesorah (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) that got hundreds and hundreds of comments.

On Twitter DovBear posted this observation:

Egyptian Jew criticizes Obama in Times oped. TBF [to be fair], when was the last time any Ashkenazi Jew shed a tear for what happened to MidEastJews?

I responded with my experience:

R’ Herman Neuberger dedicated YEARS of his life to save Iranian Jews. TBF – he not only shed tears, but years and saved thousands.

Which DovBear countered with a hilarious (and sad) take:

kol hakovod [kudos] for your yachid [individual]. Average cholent fresser [eater] from flatbush doesn’t know and doesnt care.

It seems to me that DovBear is right. Where is the outrage from Ashkenazic Jews? Why does it seem like we don’t care?

The rest of this post is dedicated to bringing awareness to the plight of middle-eastern Jewry and an invitation for those of you may have first hand information regarding living as a Jew in Iran, Iraq, Egypt or any other middle-eastern country to contribute.

My first step was to contact a grandson of the aforementioned Rabbi Herman Neuberger.

Eli Neuberger relayed the following history of Iranian Jewry that is related to his grandfather’s involvement. (I have edited his comments for brevity, grammar and overall fluidity.)

The traditional Iranian Jewish schools were run by an umbrella organization called Otzar HaTorah.In the mid 70′s the Shah and his government decided to nationalise all religious schools, Jewish and Islam alike in order to curb the radical influence that was gaining traction amongst the Muslims. My Grandfather was approached by a Mr. Sasson from London, to travel to Iran to negotiate with the Government in order to minimize secular influence on religious studies.

While in Iran, my Grandfather visited the community in Shiraz. He thought that if a group of promising Iranians would come to learn at the Ner Israel Rabbinical College (NIRC), where he was the Dean. Then they could return to Iran and become the Klei Kodesh (spiritual leaders) that could lead the community.The first group arrived in 1977.

Meanwhile in 1979 the Shah was overthrown by radical Islamists.The students in NIRC could not expect to return home. At the time, many Iranian Jews were able to leave Iran and when they arrived in Austria, Italy etc. they were granted refugee status and were able to continue on to the US.

The situation became far more dire in 1980 when the Iran-Iraq war started.Boys as young as 12-13 were sent to the front lines to be used as mine sweepers. Many Jews were smuggled to Turkey or Pakistan. These trips were fraught with danger, even after they were able to leave Iran. My grandfather was instrumental in assuring good treatment in Turkey and safe passage to Europe. He made many trips to the corridors of power in DC to speak to Congressman,Senators and Diplomats to be able to insure this continuing clandestine exodus.

Many of the boys that made the harrowing trip came to study Torah in NIRC.

All this good work was done behind the scenes and with very little fanfare.

According to the never accurate Wikipedia, Rabbi Neuberger was instrumental in saving 60,000 Iranian Jews.

I contacted another friend of mine, Natan Davoodi. His family is Iranian (in LA they are called Persian).

He told me that as far as he knows the non-Jews only tolerate the Jews of they can exploited for the benefit of the non-Jew. That doesn’t sound very good.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Roger Cohen. A NY Times columnist, Cohen has a thing for the Iranians. He thinks all is honky-dory in Iran. He writes about it here and here. Absolute disgrace.

I would like to hear from you if you know of any injsutice to Jewish people in middle-eastern countries (outside of Israel). Just telling those stories will get the ball rolling.

We are all brothers and sisters and there is no excuse for ignoring their plight.

Related posts:

1. Madoff's alleged misdeeds spark feelings of betrayal, outrage in L.A.'s Jewish community – Los Angeles Times
2. You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: Iran Sees Zion in London 2012 Olympics Logo
3. Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Common and the Selective Outrage Machine
4. What Is The Appropriate Reaction?
5. Is The Cartoon of Elena Kagan Anti-Semitic?

I have had my critiques of David Brooks from the NY Times.

But today,  I think he got it right. Really right. Like, 100% right.

He was asked about the “Big Three”. No, not GM, Ford, Chrysler. No, not Harvard, Yale, Princeton. Not, Clemenceau, Wilson, George either.

The new Big Three is Guns, Gays and Abortion.

Brooks was asked his opinion of why the trend in the country is towards Gay rights, the trend is to ignore Gun rights and the trend is against Abortion after the first trimester. In the “asker’s” opinion, there seems to be tension pulling these issues from opposite sides. One is trending “left”, one is trending “right”, and one is not trending at all.

What she really wants to know is why isn’t the left or right winning on all these issues? How come they are trending in three different directions.

Brooks answers very profoundly and eloquently. His basic premise is that Americans seek to maintain the social fabric of their existence.

Most Americans have gay friends, co-workers, relatives, neighbors etc. and therefore it preserves the social fabric of the American’s existence to provide rights for their gay acquaintances.

Guns is a rural vs. urban issue so it depends on where you live that you seek to preserve your social environment. Thus, there is little movement on this issue.

Finally, on abortion, he proclaims most Americans are torn by the issue. We are uncomfortable imposing any opinion on our fellow Americans because it is such a sensitive issue. Thus, most people fall in the middle and trend slightly to the left or the right but are not vocal about it. Therefore, change is not likely on the abortion issue.

Wow. Brooks really did a great job explaining how our country works. Really, he has explained how humans work. How our world works. We care about our social environments and we try to preserve them.

Truthfully, humans are social beings. This is what really separates man from beast. We interact in a more complex way than any other being in our world.

We consider any hominid existence prior to the establishment of a social environment such as cities as prehistoric. History begins when we begin to socialize our existence.

We continue socializing in our lives to this very day.

When we meet new people we are socializing.

When we have guests join us for a meal we are socializing.

When we use social networking tools like Twitter, Facebook and blogs we are socializing.

I believe that the synagogue is a social place. Certainly, our Shul on the Beach is a social place. Yes, we worship in shul, but that could technically be done solo.

We are mandated by Halacha to create and foster houses of worship and to attend them as a group to appeal to the social needs of man.

So come join us!

Related posts:

1. The Non-Virtual Social Network
2. Andrew Sullivan Sticks it to Gladwell and Rich on Social Media (and I absolutely agree)
3. Social Issues Raised by the Recent Tragedy
4. Learning to be Human | A Guest Post
5. Onymous Blogging

Green.

It used to be an innocent color. Now, it means so much more.

Previously, I talked about the Torah approach to Earth Day. Today, I am going to take a brief dip into Green Politics. Normally, I steer clear of politics. One exception was when I wrote about Political Discrimination. Now that technology gives us the ability to figure out who believes in what politics, it is possible to discriminate against people whom you never knew, because of their politics.

My general opinion in politics is that red / blue, left / right, new / old, liberal / conservative are terms too broad for today’s sophisticated world. I can agree and disagree with policies based on my understanding, not based on party. I really have no political agenda, I don’t care which “party” is in control. I care about issues.

Parties were needed when the public wasn’t educated on the issues. But now with 24/7 news cycles, Twitter, Facebook, blogs and more information produced than ever before, folks are capable of thinking on their own.

After seeing this post on DovBear.Blogspot.com a thought occured to me. A bit of a disturbing trend has evolved. When idiots on the right say dumb things or make bad decisions, the other side attacks them. However, the attacks are getting less and less sophisticated and more and more ridiculous.

John Stewart is never going to be taken really seriously because he is seen on Comedy Central. However, another, more disturbing attack is more serious.

A video called “The Story of Stuff” has been circulated the web and been introduced into the middle school classrooms of many schools. The broader message of the video is great. We need to be careful about our consumption and waste is bad.

Even better is the criticism of our need for replacing what we have and our disposable culture. The video critiques our values as we place spending above all else. These are great lessons. So what is wrong with the video?

Watch the video (or at least watch the intro).

Did you notice anything  strange?

Portraying our government as an army tank?

Corporations as big, ballooning, fat, men?

Calling our products “toxic and contaminated”?

The point is that the message could be delivered without all the harsh, hyperbolic name-calling. The way of conservation and care for our planet and its resources is such simple and beautiful concept. Why are they fouling it up with strong symbolism and propaganda?

The answer is because of the political parties in our country. One can’t agree with an issue, one needs to choose a side. And when you are choosing sides it is war. And in war we pull our all the stops.

This is not good for America, nor is it good for the good causes on each side of the political spectrum. For all the talk of “Bipartisan-ism” have we seen any results other than one senator turning on his constituents to switch parties. Which is the opposite of Bipartisan-ism!

To paraphrase Rodney King, “can we all get along?”

Yeah, I know this is never gonna happen, but we can dream right? (and point out the flaws in the terrible system we have now).

Please, regardless of your politics, conserve, don’t use plastics unnecessarily, don’t waste what you have, use what have, appreciate what you have, help our society escape its never ending cycle of consumption and make sure the world is as beautiful when we leave as it was when we got here.

It’s not a hotel room, no-one is coming to clean up our mess after we check out.

Related posts:

1. Green Gone Wild
2. The Story of Bottled Water Review: Important Video, Way Over the Top
3. 200th Post: Something To Bring a Smile To Your Face
4. NASA Spending Millions To Find Water On The Moon
5. How is Helping Gang Members Fix Their Lives and Serve as Gang Interventionists a Bad Thing?

Yesterday I wrote about tolerance. Democracy is built on tolerance. We are each entitled to our opinions and are not subject to discrimination based on our political beliefs.

We all love democracy. It sure beats the alternatives.

One major benefit to democracy is the right to voice your opinion anonymously in a vote. That is how we choose our law and policy makers in the USA. This is great because one cannot be persecuted or discriminated against based upon your political choices if you choose to keep your choices a secret.

Right now that is being put to the test. More and more people are being discriminated against for their political views.

It seems that we have a new problem in our Democratic country. The NY Times is reporting that there is a website which makes this really easy to do. I have seen this myself in Los Angeles. Protesters picketed a very popular local restaurant. There was even a little bit of violence! Using a website it is possible to see who donated to Prop 8 and correspondingly figure out who doesn’t support Gay marriage. It’s really irrelevant what you believe, what is relevant is the secret ballot is the worst kept secret ever. Technology is great but sometimes progress leads to a regress. This type of website is a regression.

Now anyone who wants to discriminate based upon political views can do so quite easily. All political donations are public information and if someone wants to know how you feel on an issue they can find out pretty easily if you’ve ever made a political donation.

This has a negative effect in two ways. One, you may think twice before making that donation. That can’t be good. Two, if you’re opinion is not popular, you may be suffering the consequences quickly. That’s definitely not good.

Democracy is great but we need to figure out how to curb this problem before it eradicates the democratic roots of our country!

Related posts:

1. Let’s Get a Little Political: Should the Federal Government Be Sponsoring a Nascar Team?
2. Reverse Discrimination and Oversensitivity
3. Green Post
4. Litchfield Connecticut: A Revolutionary War Town Erupts in a War Over a Religious Center and Synagogue
5. On Invented People