Category: Politics

Are Charlie Sheen, Glenn Beck, John Galliano and Julian Assange Anti-Semites?

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date March 2, 2011

How does one know when someone’s comment is anti-Semitic? I suppose it’s the same as how United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained pornography in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio: “I know it when I see it.”

There have been several high profile examples of anti-Semitic outbursts recently. And like famous anti-Semitic rants in the past, there has been much debate as to whether these recent cases should be classified as anti-Semitic. In all of these instances, one could argue that “I know it when I see it.”

There are times when a celebrity makes a poor choice, but is likely not being intentionally anti-Semitic. Examples are when Roseanne Barr dressed as Adolf Hitler and posed for a magazine and when Prince Harry went to a costume party in a Nazi uniform. However, when Mel Gibson repeatedly espoused his anti-Jewish feelings, there was no question about his motivation or true feelings.

In recent days, we’ve heard questionable comments by Charlie Sheen and Glenn Beck. We’ve seen video footage of Dior designer John Galliano expressing his love for Hitler and berating innocent people with anti-Semitic slurs. And a recent report said that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange suggested that British journalists, including the editor of The Guardian, were engaged in a Jewish-led conspiracy to smear his organization.

Charlie Sheen, who continues to prove that his “Wild Thing” character in the movie “Major League” was pretty close to his real persona, referred to the executive producer of “Two and a Half Men” by his Hebrew name. Rather than calling him Chuck Lorre, Sheen referred to him as “Chaim Levine” and raised red flags throughout the media and in Jewish organizations. Not only has Sheen denied that there was any anti-Semitic undertone in his rant, he is now requesting that the Anti-Defamation League and its director Abe Foxman apologize to him for condemning his remarks.

It’s pretty obvious that Sheen’s not getting very good PR counsel these days (if any at all) because he expressed his admiration for Mel Gibson in an interview with Howard Stern. I don’t think Mel Gibson is the guy you want to bring into your corner when you’ve been accused of an anti-Semitic rant.

Glenn Beck recently apologized for his insult to Reform Jews. The Fox News talking head said Reform rabbis are “almost like radicalized Islam.” He was responding to a letter condemning his virulent attack on George Soros. I was one of several non-Reform rabbis who signed the letter urging Fox News to fire Beck. While I don’t agree with Soros’ politics and certainly find his views on Israel to be troubling, I understood Beck’s comments about Soros (comparing him to the Nazis) to be anti-Semitic in nature. While Beck will likely never apologize for his Soros tirade, it is telling that he apologized to the angered Reform (not “Reformed” as Beck called them) rabbis.

The anti-Semitic comments by Christian Dior designer John Galliano in a shocking videotape (see below) were quite obviously anti-Semitic. Dior has fired him for his hateful comments and he was arrested by French police over allegations that he abused a couple in an angry, drunken, anti-Semitic diatribe. Oscar winner Natalie Portman who represents Dior in perfume ads said she was disgusted with John Galliano over his anti-Semitic rants. In a written statement, Portman said, “In light of this video, and as an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr Galliano in any way.”

Finally, Julian Assange’s comments seemed to be more paranoia than anti-Semitism. He suggested that British journalists were conspiring to smear his organization. The NY Times reports that Assange “was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.”

While Assange’s accusation does sound like the age-old charge that the Jews own and run the media, it might not be anti-Semitic. Rather, Assange is probably feeling like everyone is out to get him after the recent WikiLeaks dumps of classified information.

Are anti-Semitic comments on the rise? I don’t think so. Rather, there has been a trend of high-profile individuals making anti-Semitic statements. It’s entirely possible that these hate-filled tirades reveal the true sentiments of these celebrities. Hopefully, they will apologize for their outbursts and be more dignified and sane in the future.

Humor International Relations Jon Stewart News Politics satire

Joe Lieberman Tapped for Egyptian Government Post

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date February 4, 2011

While I’m no Jon Stewart or Andy Borowitz when it comes to political satire, I have had the following funny situation playing in my head ever since the riots in Egypt began:

PRESS CONFERENCE IN CAIRO, EGYPT

Joe Lieberman: Thank you for joining me here today in Cairo. I know it’s only been a few weeks since my press conference where I announced I’ll retire from the Senate and not seek re-election. However, I have a major announcement to make yet again. Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt, has appointed me Foreign Minister over this country.

CNN Reporter: Mr. Lieberman, when will you begin?

Joe Lieberman: The appointment is effective today… it’s immediate in light of the chaos that currently plagues Egypt. I will be the second in command. And no Jewish man has ever held such a position of power in Egypt.

Fox Reporter: Uh, that’s not actually true sir, have you read the Jewish Bible?

Joe Lieberman: Right, good point. Well, I am the first man named Joseph to…

Fox Reporter: No, that’s not quite right either Mr. Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman: Well, anyway, there’s a lot of work to be done. I’d like to thank the Pharoah, er, I mean the President for his faith in me. You know when he called me on the phone to ask me to come down here, he said he never dreamed that the political situation could get so bad. But I told him that he had in fact dreamed that it would get this bad. I keep telling him that.

AP Reporter: What will be your first order of business to calm the masses who are rioting in the street?

Joe Lieberman: I came up with this great idea to stockpile food because you just never know. I’ve been in pits before and I think that in time we can get these people to start building. Thank you very much for your time today and God Bless Egypt!

Al Jazeera Reporter: Have a good Shabbos Vizier Lieberman!

American Jews Conservative Judaism Jewish Jewish Law Orthodox Judaism Politics Reform Judaism Terrorism

Gabby Giffords and Patrilineal Descent When It’s Desirable

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date January 12, 2011

As a Conservative rabbi and a member of the Rabbinical Assembly, I cannot officially consider Jewish descent to be determined patrilineally (from the father). In fact, in its “Code of Professional Conduct,” the section detailing the responsibilities for membership in the Rabbinical Assembly lists four current standards of religious practice. The first is: “Matrilineality determines Jewish status.”

And yet, like many Jews who regard Jewish status to require a Jewish mother or proper conversion, I admit to feeling pride when a Jewish athlete or celebrity is successful, even if their “Jewishness” isn’t technically defined by halachic standards. After all, when major league baseball player Ryan Braun won the National League Rookie of the Year award in 2007, should the Jewish community have refused to claim the “Hebrew Hammer” as one of our own since only his father is a “Member of the Tribe?” Braun considers himself to be Jewish and his Israeli-born father lost most of his family in the Holocaust.

The 1983 decision by the Reform Movement to recognize Jewish status by either the mother or the father continues to raise questions for the other streams of Judaism. The debate over “Who is a Jew” is back in the headlines following the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. For Giffords, the daughter of a mother who is a Christian Scientist and a father who is Jewish and the grandson of a rabbi, there is no question of her Jewishness. She is a proud Jew who is an active member of her Reform congregation. She was married under a chuppah (wedding canopy) by a rabbi, albeit to a non-Jewish man.

This week, as Giffords lay in a hospital recovering from being shot in an assassination attempt by a domestic terrorist, her Hebrew name has circulated the world to be used in the traditional Mi Sheberach prayer for healing. Some rabbis have even questioned whether her non-Jewish mother’s name should be part of her Hebrew nomenclature for the prayer, while others have referred to her as Jewish but added the caveat “not halachically speaking.” Giffords co-chaired the Jewish Outreach Institute’s 2007 conference and is active in her congregation. Yesterday, President Barack Obama called Rabbi Stephanie Aaron, Giffords’ rabbi at Congregation Chaverim, to offer his prayers for a speedy recovery for the congresswoman.

Since Saturday’s shooting, we’ve learned quite a bit about Gabrielle Giffords and her Jewish pride. Her paternal grandfather, the son of a Lithuanian rabbi, changed his name to Giff Giffords for anti-Semitic reasons. On her campaign website, Giffords wrote, “Growing up, my family’s Jewish roots and tradition played an important role in shaping my values. The women in my family served as strong role models for me as a girl. In my family, if you want to get something done, you take it to the women relatives! Like my grandmother, I am a lifetime member of Hadassah and now a member of Congregation Chaverim. When I served in the State Senate in Arizona, I had the opportunity to visit Jerusalem. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I will always be a strong supporter of Israel. As the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a vital strategic ally of the United States. As a woman and as a Jew, I will always work to insure that the United States stands with Israel to jointly ensure our mutual safety, security, and prosperity.”

The Jerusalem Post was the first publication to state emphatically that Giffords’ Jewishness shouldn’t be questioned. In fact, in their editorial “Learning Judaism From Giffords,” they wrote, “With all our desire for a universally accepted definition of ‘Who is a Jew?’ that would unify the Jewish people, we cannot ignore the complicated reality that many ‘non-Jews’ are much more Jewish than their ‘Jewish’ fellows. Congresswoman Giffords is one of them.”

In her “In the Mix” blog at The Jewish Week, Julie Wiener wrote of how Giffords’ Jewishness is shining a spotlight on the “who is a Jew” debate. In her article, “Plight of the Patrilineals,” Weiner cited blogger “Kung Fu Jew,” who posted his angry rant on the JewSchool blog about how Giffords is “Jewish enough for the Jewish community to own a side-show of the media circus. Jewish enough to be our martyr, it seems, but not Jewish enough to be treated equally in life.” He has a point here. I’m sure many synagogues will offer prayers of healing for Rep. Giffords this Shabbat and recognize her as a Jewish member of Congress, yet they would be violating their own religious policy if they ever called her to the Torah for an aliyah honor.

I really wish we had a consensus on what determines Jewish status through lineage, even if only in the non-Orthodox Jewish community. Certainly, we cannot continue to make an exception for athletes, celebrities, and politicians of Jewish patrilineal descent. I’m in agreement with the Jerusalem Post on this matter. If Rep. Gabrielle Giffords considers herself Jewish because her father is Jewish and she lives a Jewish life, then she’s Jewish.

May Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Gavriela bat Gloria v’Spencer) be granted a speedy and complete recovery.

Israel Judaism and Technology Money Philanthropy Politics Technology

Razoo Corrects Its Israel Problem

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date January 12, 2011

Here’s my recent post on the Jewish Techs blog for The Jewish Week

If you didn’t receive numerous email solicitations from non-profit organizations during the final week of 2010, then your email server was likely down.

Many of these charitable organizations that sent year end pleas for your contributions have begun using Razoo.com, which claims to have raised more than $42 million for thousands of worthy causes. Razoo’s LinkedIn profile describes the company as “a new way to give and raise money online. We offer visually engaging and inspiring content along with easy-to-use, free tools for individuals and nonprofit organizations to raise awareness, raise funds, connect, and share.” The company is led by CEO Sebastian Traeger, based in Washington D.C.

When I received an email solicitation from eJewishPhilanthropy, I clicked the link and was introduced to the Razoo website. Within minutes, I set up a fundraising account for my congregation. I’ve since noticed that many Jewish non-profits are using Razoo for online donations. I’ve been very pleased with the website thus far.

Yesterday, eJewishPhilanthropy’s founder Dan Brown wrote an op-ed on the eJP website asking “Does Razoo Have an Israel Problem?” He wrote:

Two weeks ago, during the peak week for online donations, we had several people who live in Israel contact us to indicate they could not donate through Razoo’s platform as Israel was not an option listed on their country list (see above). We contacted Razoo, who responded:

“Due to high rates of fraud, we do not accept donations from cardholders in the following countries: Israel, Ukraine, Indonesia, Serbia, Lithuania, Egypt, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria and Ghana. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this causes for you and the work you are doing. Our chief goal is to protect the integrity of the giving process for all parties involved: non-profits, donors, fundraisers, and Razoo. At first glance, one would think, ok Israel is not being singled out; we’re one of several. But a little checking around told us that you could not only use a credit card with an Israel billing address on the likes of Amazon and eBay, but also on nonprofit giving platforms including Blackbaud, Convio and even Global Giving. In terms of online payments, these are pretty large global organizations so one expects they’re current on credit card fraud problems around the world.”

Today, Dan Brown sent out an update that alerted readers of eJewishPhilanthropy that Razoo was changing its policy on accepting Israeli credit cards. He sent a “shout-out to both the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and J-Town Productions who were also proactive in pushing this issue.” The company released the following statement:

Razoo respects its donors and nonprofits without discrimination, and aims to to provide a safe and trusted online environment for donors to contribute to the 501(c)(3)s they care about. Razoo’s intent was not in any way to make political statements towards any country’s legitimacy. After evaluating our fraud policies, we have taken steps to address the situation to allow donations from Israel and appreciate valuable feedback from organizations like yours. We are planning to launch the new functionality on Wednesday, January 12th or on Thursday, January 13th.

Kudos for Razoo and Sebastian Traeger for acting so quickly in correcting this oversight.

Jewish Law Michigan Politics Women

Rep. Dave Camp Should Force Staffer to Grant Ex-Wife a Jewish Divorce

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date January 4, 2011

On the final day of the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, thousands of conference attendees descend on Capitol Hill to lobby members of Congress on issues important to the State of Israel. A few years ago I joined other pro-Israel Michiganders and lobbied Representative Dave Camp. The congressman wasn’t available to meet with us and left an ill-prepared staffer to answer our questions and try to assure us of his boss’s support of the Jewish State. Since Dave Camp represents the 4th Congressional District of Michigan (an area pretty far north of where I live), I didn’t think I’d find myself lobbying him on any other issues in the future. And I surely never thought I’d lobby him on the issue of an agunah — the case of a Jewish woman whose ex-husband refuses to grant her a get (a Jewish bill of divorce).

Rep. Dave Camp becomes the chairman of House Ways and Means Committee tomorrow taking over from Rep. Sandy Levin, and The New York Times reports that there is already controversy surrounding his office. Aharon Friedman, a 34-year-old tax counsel for the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee is an Orthodox Jew who is refusing to give his wife, Tamar Epstein, 27, a get.

The NY Times says that Friedman “finds himself scrutinized in the Jewish press, condemned by important rabbis, and attacked in a YouTube video showing about 200 people protesting outside his Silver Spring, Md., apartment on Dec. 19…The Friedman case has become emblematic of a torturous issue in which only a husband can ‘give’ a get. While Jewish communities have historically pressured obstinate husbands to give gets, this was a very rare case of seeking to shame the husband in the secular world.”

One rabbi wrote to the House Ways and Means Committee asking that he lean on Aharon Friedman to grant the Jewish divorce. The couple has been civilly divorced since April and share custody of their daughter, but they are still married according to Jewish law. Without the get neither one of them is permitted to remarry within the faith. Tamar Friedman is considered an agunah, or chained woman until Aharon presents her with a get.

I implore Representative Dave Camp to compel Aharon Friedman, his staff member, to do the ethical thing and grant his wife a Jewish bill of divorce. I’m sure that Rep. Camp wants everyone who works with him to be of moral character. On his first day as the chairman of this important committee tomorrow, I hope Dave Camp will take Aharon Goldstein aside and tell him what he needs to do to “right this wrong.” This matter has nothing to do with the Committee on Ways and Means or the 4th District of Michigan, but it has a lot to do with character and hopefully the leadership of the 112th Congress will make that a top priority.

As Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld told The New York Times, “I don’t think the Messiah can come, as long as there is one agunah in the world.”

Ethics Jewish Law Politics Values

Is the Death Penalty an Ethical Option According to Jewish Values?

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date December 30, 2010

In the past couple weeks there have been a couple of high profile death penalty decisions in our country. These rulings were not handed down by a judge or jury, but by a former presidential candidate and a cable news talking head.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was caught on video at a book signing in California earlier this month saying that the person that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks should be executed. “Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason,” Huckabee said. “I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Newt Gingrich even suggested that WikiLeak’s founder Julian Assange deserves to be hunted and executed Sunday by calling him an “enemy combatant.”

Political commentator Tucker Carlson, filling in for Fox News host Sean Hannity this past Tuesday, told a news panel that he believes football player Michael Vick, who was given a second chance after being convicted on dog fighting charges, deserves to die for his crimes. The panel had been discussing President Barack Obama’s praise of the Philadelphia Eagles for giving Vick a second chance to start at quarterback. Apparently, Tucker Carlson disagrees with Obama because not only does he disagree with giving Vick a second chance, he believes he deserves the death penalty. He said, “Michael Vick killed dogs… And I think, personally, he should’ve been executed for that.”

Admittedly, for many years I never gave much thought to the death penalty. Yes, it is a very serious and divisive topic, but it was not one of the hot button issues of most concern to me. The first time I researched the topic was in 2003 when I took a group of Jewish teens to Washington D.C. for the Panim program and I had to prepare them to debate the moral issues of capital punishment.

I had a cursory understanding of the basic ethical issues and knew the textual sources from the Torah about capital punishment, but it was not a core issue for me. In 2007, I led a family mission to Israel and the abolishment of capital punishment was the bailiwick of one of the adult participants. Before we left for Israel, someone told me that Abe Bonowitz was an abolishionist. I thought, “He’s against slavery? Aren’t we all?” But it turns out that there is a vast and strong death penalty abolishionist movement in this country. And as you can imagine, they weren’t very fond of President George W. Bush’s views on capital punishment.

The more I listened to Bonowitz’s views on capital punishment, the more I was convinced that it cannot possibly be an ethical option for punishment in the 21st century. I’m not sure if Huckabee or Carlson were really serious about executing the Wikileaks source or Michael Vick or if they were speaking in hyperbole like most politicians and political commentators do today. However, it piqued my interest in the ethical issues of capital punishment and my teacher’s thoughtful commentary on the subject came at the perfect time.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of Clal published “The Jewish Precedent for a Moral Death Penalty” on his Beliefnet blog and on The Huffington Post. He wrote,

The rabbis teach that a unanimous court cannot impose the death penalty. Contrary to the law in Illinois and the safety we seek in unanimity, Jewish tradition teaches that the only court absolutely prohibited from carrying out a death sentence is the one most of us assume should — i.e., one in which all judges agree that it’s the right thing to do.

The rabbis accept that there may be times when it has to happen, but they cannot accept that any decision so momentous and complex should be seen the same way by everybody. If that happens, the rabbis tell us, we must be missing something and therefore cannot execute the offender.

Some of that thinking is what created the lengthy and hugely expensive process demanded by a system which still entertains the death penalty even if it rarely imposes it. That system would end with passage of SB 3539, making the world a better place by redirecting funds earmarked for death penalty litigation to murder victims’ families and enhanced law enforcement.

Ultimately, Jewish tradition values the idea of the death penalty as a moral statement, but hates its imposition on ethical grounds. Interestingly, that is where it seems many Americans stand when it comes to the issue as well. Perhaps now is the time to go back to the future when it comes to thinking about the death penalty.

The past president of my synagogue, Harold Gurewitz, is an experienced and well respected criminal defense attorney here in Michigan. This summer in a highly publicized federal death penalty case he successfully kept his client, Timothy O’Reilly, from being executed (Michigan banned capital punishment in the 1800s, but a death sentence is still possible for certain federal crimes.). Gurewitz spoke to our congregation about his experiences in the months-long trial. He explained that capital punishment in Jewish law requires the prosecutors to advocate for the taking of another life. The evidence offered to support the penalty – as distinguished from the decision of guilt– proved lingering or residual doubts about the defendant’s personal role in the specific acts causing death. It required the judge and/or jury to engage in a very personal decision-making process and to individually agree that another human being should be put to death.

When considering capital punishment in the Torah, it must be viewed in its historical context, Gurewitz explained. There are fundamental values in Jewish sources, the Bible and commentaries that provide meaningful references for how we should view capital punishment today.

While the Torah lists numerous transgressions for which the death penalty is prescribed, Hirschfield points out that there is only actually “one instance in the Five Books of Moses in which someone is executed by the court. In fact, later rabbinic tradition teaches that if the death penalty is imposed once in 70 years, the court which imposes it is called a terrorist court. While having the death penalty on the books has merit as a moral statement, actually imposing it seems to be quite to the contrary.”

Stoning, pushing the convict off a ledge to a stone floor, burning, strangulation, and decapitation are all forms of capital punishment in the Torah and Talmud. However, these were intended to represent an advancement over the cruelty and lack of restraint in earlier times and by other cultures. Gurewitz said that, “According to an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States by a prominent lawyer, Nathan Lewin, supporting an argument against the use of electrocution as capital punishment in Florida should be banned as a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, these practices exemplified respect for ‘human dignity’ in the means by which the penalty was to be carried out and restraint in its use.”

Judge Jack B. Weinstein, a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York, spoke at Temple Emanuel of Great Neck in New York. He noted that “Conditions change. Our view of what is required of a humane and caring people should change with the times. What was required and permitted in biblical times is not necessarily what decent people should approve of today. The argument that “ the Torah says it, therefore its is right for us: is no excuse for unnecessary cruelty and inhumanity. We can and should reject capital punishment.”

Gurewitz quoted Judge Weinstein, but explained that what the judge did not explicitly mention was that when we focus on the “values” that obviously informed the “humane practices” of capital punishment, they support the view that it should not be practiced at all.

In Israel, capital punishment is only used for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people and treason in wartime. The only execution in Israel has been Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann by hanging.

Capital punishment is as nuanced and complex as an ethical issue can be. Perhaps that is why Mike Huckabee’s and Tucker Carlson’s rhetoric calling for execution makes headlines. There might have been a time generations ago when capital punishment was accepted, however, in today’s world it is clearly not an ethical option for punishment.

Antisemitism Blogs Israel Politics Rabbi Jason Miller Rabbis Web

Rabbi Forbids Participating in Talkbacks and Website Comments Sections

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date December 23, 2010

Cross-posted to the Jewish Techs blog at The Jewish Week

The more I blog, the thicker my skin gets. Overtime, I’ve learned to prepare myself before reading the comment section at the bottom of my posts. With great inventions, we have to take the bad with the good. It’s been wonderful that newspapers and magazines make their articles available to us on the Web, but it also means that individuals can post outrageous, defaming, and insulting comments underneath each article — opinions that would never be published in a print edition. And blogs are great, but with them comes a countless number of off-subject comments that only express hate and ignorance.

No matter what I publish on the Huffington Post website, I know that the atheists are going to be commenting in full force. Their comments often won’t have anything to do with the subject I wrote about, rather they will be self-serving statements about their viewpoint. I recently wrote on the Huffington Post about the importance of giving equal significance to the celebration of the birth of a baby girl in Judaism and the discussion in the comments section turned into a polemic against ritual circumcision. And of course any blog or article on the Web that even mentions Israel will soon have the page littered with hundreds of inflammatory anti-Israel and anti-Semitic diatribes accusing Israel of the occupation of Palestinian land.

Earlier this year, Ron Kampeas quoted the American Jewish Committee’s David Harris in an article on the JTA.org website about the nature of Web commenting. Harris, an avid blogger for Huffington Post, said, “To read some of the reactions to anything I write about Israel is sometimes to require a very strong stomach — it can be nasty, over the top, vitriolic and dripping.” Nevertheless, Harris believes that it’s important to continue blogging and responding to his critics, whether on Huffington Post or the Jerusalem Post, which has a notoriously controversial talkback section. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League feels differently. He said, “It’s a magnet for conspiracy theorists and for haters. I look at it and sometimes wonder why am I bothering.”

Now, an Orthodox rabbi has ruled that his students are forbidden from responding to articles on websites and blogs as it may lead to religious and moral transgressions. yNetnews.com interviewed Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of Religious Zionism’s leading rabbis, who “stressed that this isn’t a halachic decree or a comprehensive ban from a higher rabbinic authority, it is a ruling he gave to his students after receiving a question via text message which asked: ‘After reading a ‘kosher’ article is it all right to take a look at the talkbacks?'”

Rabbi Aviner’s responded “No” to his questioner on the grounds that it would lead to lashon hara (gossip), humiliation and valueless time consumption. In Aviner’s opinion, the ability to respond to articles and publications and to hold debates should have promoted “clarification and reformation of ideas and opinions” which is why “it could have been a wonderful thing”, but instead it is used for diatribes and gossip under assumed identities which the Torah sees as “cursed be he that smiteth his neighbor secretly.”

Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week, issued a call for greater civility in discourse before Rosh Hashanah this year. He wrote, “Name a contentious issue, and the two sides line up to spew their vitriol, each convinced the other’s policies would bring disaster. There is a great deal of anger, fear and contempt expressed. But no real dialogue, little if any appreciation for the other side, and less and less willingness to hear another point of view in the hopes of reaching common ground. One practical concern is the missed opportunity for meaningful discussion in… the comments area on our website.”

As we enter the new year of 2011, my hope and prayer is that there is increased civility on the Web. Cyberspace is a big place and anyone with an internet connection can post their opinion, no matter how extreme or offensive it may be. But perhaps everyone can exercise some restraint and make the comments sections a more enjoyable place to engage, learn, and share ideas.

America American Jews Homosexuality Politics

Saying Kaddish Over "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell"

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date December 20, 2010

During the presidential race of 2000, an email was being sent around that showed a photo of Al Gore and his running mate Joe Lieberman. In large letters under their photo was the name “Gore.” And next to that photo was a photo of their opponent George W. Bush above the Yiddish word “Gornisht” (loosely translated as good for nothing).

Much has changed since that dramatic election and many in the Jewish community would now label Lieberman as gornisht. For some, however, Lieberman’s energetic lead in championing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell might catapult him back into the good graces of politically liberal Jews. Many news organizations noted that Lieberman, a Sabbath observant Jew, made some exceptions in order to help pass this legislation. JTA wrote, “A number of gay activists noted in blogs that Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, thought the measure important enough to devote the Sabbath to shepherding it through.” And according to an article on the Daily Beast website, Andrew Sullivan, the gay Atlantic blogger who has championed repeal of DADT, dubbed Lieberman a “civil rights hero.”

Rabbi Steve Gutow, the president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, was quoted in a JTA.org article. He said, “With today’s vote, Americans may serve without being forced to choose between their commitment to our country and their integrity.”

A couple months ago, I was asked to respond to a question about DADT on the Jewish Values Online website. A Reform and Orthodox rabbi had already given their response and I was asked for my opinion as a Conservative rabbi. My answer was quoted on several websites including The Jewish Week. Now that DADT will be repealed it will be interesting to see how the Jewish community’s general feeling toward Joe Lieberman will shift.

Here is the Jewish Values Online question and my response:

QUESTION: What is the Jewish view on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and gays serving openly in the U.S. military?

RESPONSE: The U.S. military’s policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” might have actually been the best policy at the time. However, the level of public inclusion for the GLBT community in our country has changed since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was instituted under President Clinton. Like other groups that have been treated unfairly in our country (Blacks, women, the handicapped, etc.), over time the public has changed its treatment and its laws.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a “safe” way for the military to acknowledge that there were gays and lesbians in its ranks, but not to make too much “noise” about the situation. Today, in 2010, our nation is much more accepting of the GLBT community and I believe the military will follow suit.

From a Jewish perspective as well, GLBT inclusion has taken great strides in the past two decades. As a value, it is imperative that the military update its policy to allow gays and lesbians to be as honest with their comrades as they are with themselves.

Policies change over time. Our society, like our religion, is not stagnate — it is ever evolving. When I studied at the Conservative Movement’s academic institution, the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians were not allowed to matriculate there. If a student came out as gay, they were asked to leave the school. I guess you could say that JTS operated like the U.S. military — Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. However, a ruling in December 2006 changed the Seminary’s position and granted admission to avowed gays and lesbians.

The times change. Our values change. Rules change.

Globalization Jewish Politics Rabbis Uganda

My Ugandan National Parliament Endorsement

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date December 7, 2010

As a rabbi, I’m hesitant to publicly endorse any political candidates. First, I try to keep my politics private; and second, I don’t want to jeopardize the tax-exempt status of any non-profit organizations which I represent. However, I’m going to go out on a limb here and endorse my friend and rabbinic colleague for Uganda’s National Parliament.

Rabbi Gershom Sizomu, who was recently ordained at the American Jewish University, is running for National Parliament of Uganda. When Gershom is elected, he’ll be the first Jew ever elected to any national office in Uganda. What’s more is that he will be the first rabbi to be seated in nationally elected government outside of Israel. Very impressive!

The Be’chol Lashon website quotes Gershom explaining that his political mission is directly connected to his religious vision. He says, “It is important that local and national government officials be tolerant and foster a climate of understanding between religious groups.” Rabbi Ruth Abusch-Magder, of Be’chol Lashon, explains that “his vision of religious tolerance runs counter to the discrimination he experienced growing up during the rule of Idi Amin Dada. Under Amin, Judaism was banned and the native Jewish community, called the Abayudaya, was persecuted.”

I first met Gershom Sizomu when he came with J.J. Keki on a speaking tour to the U.S. I found him to be a mensch who is only concerned with the best interests of his people. I hope that the Ugandan people will vote for Rabbi Gershom Sizoum in the February 18, 2011 National Parliament elections.

Antisemitism Israel Jewish Media Politics

Helen Thomas Strikes Again; Wayne State University Ends Award

Post author By Rabbi Jason Miller
Post date December 6, 2010

When I watched the HBO documentary about Helen Thomas, “Thank You Mr. President,” I remember being impressed about what a long, successful career this woman had. But that entire career was soured this past summer when her true colors were displayed. David Nesenoff, a Conservative rabbi, filmed Helen Thomas outside the White House saying that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine.” The 90-year-old Lebanese news correspondent was promptly fired by Hearst Communications.

Last week, at a speech to an Arab-American group in Dearborn, Michigan, Helen Thomas uttered more anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements. She said, “Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is… We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

While Detroit’s Wayne State University, from where Thomas graduated in 1942, chose to maintain its Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in the Media Award following her outrageous remarks this summer, her most recent comments forced the university to act. Wayne State announced on December 3rd that it would no longer present the award. In a statement, the university said, that it “strongly condemns the anti-Semitic remarks made by Helen Thomas.”

The Anti-Defamation League issued a short statement saying Thomas “clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite.”

Robert Cohen, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit was quoted in today’s Detroit Free Press. He said, “When she said … that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists, Ms. Thomas repeated the anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been used for more than a century to incite hatred of Jews. Her comments should be condemned by all people who oppose bigotry in any form.”

In an interview, Helen Thomas said that she stands by the comments she made to Rabbi Nesenoff outside the White House during a Jewish Heritage Month event. She also criticized U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan during an interview this past Thursday in Dearborn. She said the Iraq war “was built on all lies.” She continued, “Thousands are dead, with no reason explained yet. There has been no truthful reason for going into Iraq.” Asked what she thought was the reason for U.S. policies, Thomas replied: “Because they own the ink. They also own the airwaves,” adding that she was referring to “Zionists.”

Detroit Free Press religion editor Niraj Warikoo interviewed Helen Thomas yesterday and asked her about Wayne State University ending the annual diversity award in her name. She told him that “the leaders of Wayne State University have made a mockery of the First Amendment and disgraced their understanding of its inherent freedom of speech and the press.”