This week's Torah portion dealing with judges and the administration of justice contains the famous words "tzedek, tzedek tirdof- Justice, Justice shall you pursue."
Unfortunately, in today's world, that maxim just doesn't seem to apply anymore.
Let me give you two recent examples.
First, you may have seen or read that the only man convicted in the Lockerbee bombing over Scotland in 1988 was freed from prison the other day and returned home to Libya where he received a hero's welcome.
Yes, a man sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing an airplane and causing the deaths of 270 people was freed because the Scottish Justice Minister had compassion for him because he is dying.
That's justice, right?
Second, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published a story claiming that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs.
For those of you who don't know what this is about, this is the old anti-Semitic charge of blood libel. And it must be true. After all here is what the editor of Aftonbladet said about the story:
"The publication "stands behind the demand for an international inquiry regarding Israel's alleged body-snatching. We had many discussions on whether to publish the article or not, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no facts there that are incorrect."
No facts that are incorrect? Of course not. After all, the author of the article claims that he interviewed a "Palestinian witness," but "whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue."
Right again. Why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Semitic story!
The freeing of a convicted terrorist.
A blood libel in Sweden.
A human rights group raising money in Saudi Arabia by criticizing Israel.
And Galid Shalit, who celebrated his twenty third birthday this week in his third year of captivity, without anyone being allowed to see or speak to him? Where is the expression of humanity and compassion for him?
Oh wait, he's just another Israeli, another Jew. And who cares about another Jew?
Certainly not Human Rights Watch. Certainly not Aftonbladet. Certainly not the Scottish Justice Minister.
But this is the world we live in. A world where the definition of justice is turned on its head.
And I'll leave you with this postscript (courtesy of David Bernstein). It turns out that the Swedish foreign ministry office in Israel also publically denounced the article.
But then the Swedish foreign ministry then criticized its staff in Israel for denouncing the article...... on the grounds that Sweden believes in free speech.
Of course that same Swedish foreign ministry has had a very different definition of free speech when it comes to denouncing articles and pictures that offend Muslims.
But that's understandable, isn't it? It's all in the pursuit of justice.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Update
Quick update - I've been on vacation and will return here Monday or Tuesday. Hope you can handle it till then
Friday, August 7, 2009
Who Defines Kosher? Not The State
Over at Religion Clause, Professor Friedman posted a story on a lawsuit filed by a Conservative rabbi challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's Kosher Food Labeling Act. What is the basis of this challenge? That the law provides food can only bear a kosher label if it meets "Orthodox Hebrew religious rules and requirements."
In other words the State of Georgia has chosen to use an "Orthodox" definition of kashrut. This poses a significant Establishment Clause problem. Why is the State taking a particular religious definition of kashrut? Forget Orthodox vis a vis Conservative for a minute. What about various strains of Orthodoxy? Is Hebrew National not kosher because it has a Triangle K and not an OU?
While the idea of the government protecting the kosher consumer from fraud is commendable, over the years a number of similar laws in New York, Maryland and New Jersey have been struck down by the courts for this very reason. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said, requiring businesses to comply with a particular Jewish religious standard "inextricably" entangled Jewish law with secular law. Think about it. When challenged, the state has no choice but to determine what the true definition of kashrut is. It must choose between Rabbi A's definition and Rabbi B's definition. And that is something the state should never be put in a position of doing.
The solution, in my opinion?
Kosher food laws should not be based on any one particular religious standard to determine whether it's kosher or not, especially because there is no standard universally agreed upon within the Jewish community. Instead, kosher fraud laws should rely on full disclosure made by the seller. A kosher fraud law should state that anyone selling kosher food is required to disclose the basis upon which that claim is made. In other words, if Butcher Z says I am selling kosher meat then he must produce some documentation from Rabbi A attesting to its kashrut. If a consumer trusts Rabbi A then he will buy from Butcher Z. If not, armed with all the facts and with full disclosure, he can go across the street to Butcher X who discloses that his products are under the supervision of Rabbi B.
In this case the state's only involvement would be to see if the food sold is in compliance with that disclosure statement, not whether it is in compliance with "Orthodox Hebrew law." This solution still allows the state to fulfill its goal of protecting consumers from fraud while not entangling it in religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause in the process.
In other words the State of Georgia has chosen to use an "Orthodox" definition of kashrut. This poses a significant Establishment Clause problem. Why is the State taking a particular religious definition of kashrut? Forget Orthodox vis a vis Conservative for a minute. What about various strains of Orthodoxy? Is Hebrew National not kosher because it has a Triangle K and not an OU?
While the idea of the government protecting the kosher consumer from fraud is commendable, over the years a number of similar laws in New York, Maryland and New Jersey have been struck down by the courts for this very reason. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said, requiring businesses to comply with a particular Jewish religious standard "inextricably" entangled Jewish law with secular law. Think about it. When challenged, the state has no choice but to determine what the true definition of kashrut is. It must choose between Rabbi A's definition and Rabbi B's definition. And that is something the state should never be put in a position of doing.
The solution, in my opinion?
Kosher food laws should not be based on any one particular religious standard to determine whether it's kosher or not, especially because there is no standard universally agreed upon within the Jewish community. Instead, kosher fraud laws should rely on full disclosure made by the seller. A kosher fraud law should state that anyone selling kosher food is required to disclose the basis upon which that claim is made. In other words, if Butcher Z says I am selling kosher meat then he must produce some documentation from Rabbi A attesting to its kashrut. If a consumer trusts Rabbi A then he will buy from Butcher Z. If not, armed with all the facts and with full disclosure, he can go across the street to Butcher X who discloses that his products are under the supervision of Rabbi B.
In this case the state's only involvement would be to see if the food sold is in compliance with that disclosure statement, not whether it is in compliance with "Orthodox Hebrew law." This solution still allows the state to fulfill its goal of protecting consumers from fraud while not entangling it in religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause in the process.
Torah Voices
Here's an excerpt from my sermon this week. If you'd like to receive the full sermon please e-mail me. (RabbiMichaelSimon@gmail.com)
Did you ever think about how you can read and study the Torah and still have it speak to you in a modern voice? I believe the best way is with an eye and an ear firmly planted in the present time. It means letting the Torah speak to us in a voice that we can understand and appreciate and that makes sense to our own eyes and ears as we read and hear it.
Here's the thing. I'm not just making this up. I got this idea from Moses, who realized, at the end of his life, that he had to explain and teach the Torah in a way that his audience would hear and understand.
That is why, in recounting the Ten Commandments, he changed the original word zachor to shamor. Because for this new generation of Israelites, who had not known slavery, a different message was needed. For the generation that experienced slavery and the subsequent Exodus, they needed no reminder. They only needed to remember - to zachor - that God created the world. But to this new generation, the generation that had not known slavery, they are told to observe - shamor.
The most important part of this farewell address, the most important part of this message, is that Moses is speaking words that his current audience can relate to. He is not speaking the same words that he spoke in Exodus to that audience. As the audience changed so must the message. And that is why the Torah stresses for us time and time again that the covenant between God and the Jewish people is eternal. That covenant was not only made with the generation who had left Egypt. It exists for the next generation and for all subsequent generations as well. It is a covenant that was made with every single one of us. Those who were standing at Sinai and those who are living in 2009.
Moses' words clearly focus on the present, on the present generation. It means that for each generation of Jews, the Torah, and Judaism, must retain its significance. It must retain its meaning. It must be something that is observed. God’s rules and laws as well as God himself must remain both visible and viable.
The generation that left Egypt heard the Torah in one voice. The generation that was about to enter the Promised Land heard it in another. And every generation since has studied and applied that same Torah with a different voice appropriate for that particular time and place.
As we say after the Kohen is called for the first aliyah, “v’atem hadvekim b’adonai eloheichem chayim kulchem hayom," all of you who have held fast to the Lord are with us and alive today.
That is the ultimate message. To cling to the Torah and to keep it alive, with whatever words and in whatever voice we choose to hear it in.
Did you ever think about how you can read and study the Torah and still have it speak to you in a modern voice? I believe the best way is with an eye and an ear firmly planted in the present time. It means letting the Torah speak to us in a voice that we can understand and appreciate and that makes sense to our own eyes and ears as we read and hear it.
Here's the thing. I'm not just making this up. I got this idea from Moses, who realized, at the end of his life, that he had to explain and teach the Torah in a way that his audience would hear and understand.
That is why, in recounting the Ten Commandments, he changed the original word zachor to shamor. Because for this new generation of Israelites, who had not known slavery, a different message was needed. For the generation that experienced slavery and the subsequent Exodus, they needed no reminder. They only needed to remember - to zachor - that God created the world. But to this new generation, the generation that had not known slavery, they are told to observe - shamor.
The most important part of this farewell address, the most important part of this message, is that Moses is speaking words that his current audience can relate to. He is not speaking the same words that he spoke in Exodus to that audience. As the audience changed so must the message. And that is why the Torah stresses for us time and time again that the covenant between God and the Jewish people is eternal. That covenant was not only made with the generation who had left Egypt. It exists for the next generation and for all subsequent generations as well. It is a covenant that was made with every single one of us. Those who were standing at Sinai and those who are living in 2009.
Moses' words clearly focus on the present, on the present generation. It means that for each generation of Jews, the Torah, and Judaism, must retain its significance. It must retain its meaning. It must be something that is observed. God’s rules and laws as well as God himself must remain both visible and viable.
The generation that left Egypt heard the Torah in one voice. The generation that was about to enter the Promised Land heard it in another. And every generation since has studied and applied that same Torah with a different voice appropriate for that particular time and place.
As we say after the Kohen is called for the first aliyah, “v’atem hadvekim b’adonai eloheichem chayim kulchem hayom," all of you who have held fast to the Lord are with us and alive today.
That is the ultimate message. To cling to the Torah and to keep it alive, with whatever words and in whatever voice we choose to hear it in.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
HRW Follow-Up
Prof David Bernstein (a fellow Flatbush alum I might add) has written another excellent follow-up on HRW's anti-Israel bias, this time focusing on the past pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activities of Sarah Leah Whitson, it's Middle East Director.
You can read the complete post at http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1247622550.shtml (scroll to the bottom for August 4) but here it is in a nutshell:
"What the official bio doesn't tell you is that Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. She had served on the Steering Committee (source: ADC Times, Apr 30, 2002). When HRW hired her, she was serving a two-year term on the new Board of Directors, which replaced the Steering Committee (Source: ADC Times, Jan. 31, 2004).
The Jan. 31, 2004 ADC Times, which noted Whitson's election to the Board of Trustees, reported that the New York chapter "continued our Palestine activism over the summer."
So when HRW hired Ms. Whitson to be its Middle East director, it was hiring someone that was in the middle of serving what amounted to a second term on the Board of Directors of an organization that was firmly and openly on the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And she had personally engaged in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activism while serving in that position.
In short, Human Rights Watch, while purporting to be a neutral arbiter of human rights issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, hired as its Middle East director a person who at the time was intimately involved in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel political action, and who, not surprisingly, appears to have rather strongly held, far left-wing views on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
As I wrote last week, it's a shame that this story is not more widely reported but kudos to Professor Bernstein for not letting it die and for digging out the truth.
You can read the complete post at http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1247622550.shtml (scroll to the bottom for August 4) but here it is in a nutshell:
"What the official bio doesn't tell you is that Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee. She had served on the Steering Committee (source: ADC Times, Apr 30, 2002). When HRW hired her, she was serving a two-year term on the new Board of Directors, which replaced the Steering Committee (Source: ADC Times, Jan. 31, 2004).
The Jan. 31, 2004 ADC Times, which noted Whitson's election to the Board of Trustees, reported that the New York chapter "continued our Palestine activism over the summer."
So when HRW hired Ms. Whitson to be its Middle East director, it was hiring someone that was in the middle of serving what amounted to a second term on the Board of Directors of an organization that was firmly and openly on the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And she had personally engaged in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activism while serving in that position.
In short, Human Rights Watch, while purporting to be a neutral arbiter of human rights issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, hired as its Middle East director a person who at the time was intimately involved in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel political action, and who, not surprisingly, appears to have rather strongly held, far left-wing views on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
As I wrote last week, it's a shame that this story is not more widely reported but kudos to Professor Bernstein for not letting it die and for digging out the truth.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Z Street
I just came across a new organization called Z Street.
Here is a bit from their charter:
Z STREET is an organization of Zionists who join together at this time of great danger to the Jewish State of Israel and, increasingly, to world Jewry.
I. Z STREET proudly asserts the right of the Jewish people to a state.
II. Z STREET proudly reclaims the words “Zionist” and “Jewish State” as ones to wear with pride, and completely rejects their recent branding as shameful or impolite terms.
III. Z STREET maintains that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the world, including, and especially, within greater Israel.
This seems like an organization that is deserving of support
You can find them at http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/
Here is a bit from their charter:
Z STREET is an organization of Zionists who join together at this time of great danger to the Jewish State of Israel and, increasingly, to world Jewry.
I. Z STREET proudly asserts the right of the Jewish people to a state.
II. Z STREET proudly reclaims the words “Zionist” and “Jewish State” as ones to wear with pride, and completely rejects their recent branding as shameful or impolite terms.
III. Z STREET maintains that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the world, including, and especially, within greater Israel.
This seems like an organization that is deserving of support
You can find them at http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
