Sam Woll - A Charismatic, Passionate Pursuer of Peace and Justice

“Rabbi, our Hillel needs to stop buying Coke products.”

This was the first thing Samantha Woll said to me when I started my new job at the University of Michigan Hillel Foundation in 2004. It was odd hearing Sam call me “Rabbi.” First, I had only very recently been ordained so I still wasn’t used to the title. And, second, I had known Sam since she was in elementary school – a classmate and friend of my younger brother – so the formality felt unnecessary and perhaps dramatic. But Sam was being respectful.

Ban Coke at Hillel? I thought the request seemed odd. I grew up in a home that never had Pepsi because that company adhered to a boycott of Israel when I was a kid. I seem to recall my mom telling me that Jews drink Coke and non-Jews drink Pepsi. Looking back it seems like she was getting her information less from Middle East politics and more from Lenny Bruce.

Understanding Jews for Jesus After the Mike Pence Rally

When a member of the Jews for Jesus messianic movement who refers to himself as a "rabbi" was asked to give a prayer in memory of the eleven Jews who were murdered at Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, there were a lot of questions about this group and why this was offensive to the Jewish community. The event was a rally for Republican candidates in Michigan and featured Vice President Mike Pence. A Jewish woman running for Congress, Lena Epstein, claimed responsibility for inviting the Messianic "Rabbi" to the event in the name of unity and claimed that if people are critical of her invitation, then they are religiously intolerant.

Loren Jacobs, a Messianic Christian, delivers a prayer at a rally in Michigan with VP Mike Pence

After I heard the Messianic "Rabbi" speaking at the event on C-Span, I tweeted that it was pathetic that a mainstream rabbi wasn't asked to offer a blessing (NY Times, USA Today, AP). The issue wasn't that a non-Jew offered a prayer for the Jewish men and women who were murdered, but that a Christian was being referred to as a rabbi. It would have been more acceptable had there been several faith leaders including a rabbi.

The Detroit Jewish News asked me to explain to its readers why there was such an uproar over a Messianic “Rabbi” delivering a prayer at a political rally. What follows is what I wrote in the Detroit Jewish News:


Trying to Make Sense of Messianic “Judaism”

With the recent controversy of Loren Jacobs, a leader of a Bloomfield Hills church who calls himself a “rabbi,” delivering a politically-charged invocation at a Republican party rally featuring Vice President Mike Pence, there has been a lot of questions regarding the messianic “Judaism” movement.

The first time I had ever heard of messianic Jews or the group called “Jews for Jesus” was as a high school student. Preparing us for the college campus, teachers at my synagogue’s Hebrew High School informed us that there are proselytizing Christians who claim to be Jewish and seek to convert Jewish students to Christianity. Some of these “Jews for Jesus” adherents, we were taught, were in fact apostate Jews who had left our faith and believe Jesus is the messiah.

While I don’t recall any direct encounters with any proselytizing Christians during my four years at Michigan State University, I did have an unusual experience in a course called “The Foundations of Judaism.” The course was part of the Religious Studies Department and the teacher, Mark Kinzer, did a wonderful job teaching a wealth of material in the course. At that time, I was already planning to apply to rabbinical school and the lectures and reading material helped prepare me. My eight years at Hillel Day School were good for a foundational understanding, but Prof. Kinzer went much deeper into the history of Judaism. I presumed the instructor was Jewish, but I was not certain. On the final day of class, I asked him which denomination of Judaism he affiliated, and he simply stated, “it’s complicated.” I didn’t pry.

Several years later, after I had become a rabbi, I was working at the University of Michigan Hillel Foundation. I encountered Prof. Kinzer at a meeting for campus religious leaders. It was there that he explained he was a Messianic “rabbi.” I felt duped and confused at that moment. (He never alluded to his own theology during the class and never mentioned Christian messianism.) He explained that he was not part of the “Jews for Jesus” group and didn’t seek to convert anyone. While I appreciated Prof. Kinzer’s academic integrity and I learned from him, had he been introduced as a rabbi at an event, I would feel just as insulted as I felt after watching Loren Jacobs’ prayer.

So, how do we understand messianic “Judaism” and Jews for Jesus? And, why has the Jewish community been so upset that a so-called messianic “rabbi” offered a prayer at a recent political rally in Michigan?

Throughout the centuries, Jewish people were subject to intense missionary activity by the Catholic Church and various Protestant groups. Many Jews left Judaism and converted to Christianity, either by force or voluntarily. In early twentieth century America, attempts to convert Jews to Christianity were common, but often unsuccessful. In the 1970's, a new organization sponsored by Protestants was formed called “Jews for Jesus.” Other smaller groups, calling themselves “Messianic Jews,” followed.

Members of “Jews for Jesus” are encouraged to consider themselves to be “Completed Jews.” Some members are born Jews who accepted Jesus as their Lord, while others were not born Jewish, but consider themselves to now be Jewish. Essentially, this group’s mission is to convert Jews to Christianity.

Historically, Jews who converted to Christianity were often interested in staying far away from being identified with Judaism. However, “Messianic Jews” stress their Jewishness and demand to be recognized as Jews by the Jewish community. The members of “Jews for Jesus” or any other messianic “Jewish” group who were legitimately Jewish at first would now be considered apostate Jews, the term used for one who has taken the definitive step of professing and joining another religion.

An apostate is the term the Jewish community would apply to Loren Jacobs, the individual who delivered the prayer at the rally featuring Vice President Mike Pence (it was originally an invocation and then he was called back on stage to offer a memorial prayer for the victims of the synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh). Some have questioned why the Jewish community was so offended by Jacobs being asked to offer a prayer. Some in the Christian community were confused as to why the Jewish community couldn’t treat Jacobs’ words in an ecumenical fashion.

The issue for many in the Jewish community is that Jacobs self-identifies as a Jewish rabbi, which is offensive to Jews because he has chosen to become an apostate, recognizing Jesus as his Lord and savior. The fact that Loren Jacobs was introduced as a rabbi and Jewish leader was an affront to the Jewish community. It was unacceptable and insensitive. Had a non-Jewish faith leader been asked to deliver a memorial prayer for the Jewish victims who were murdered while in prayer, that would be have acceptable. Although, the ideal situation would have been to have a rabbi deliver the prayer or a variety of faith leaders offer prayer as has been the case in many of the memorial vigils around the world.

When You’re Unfriended in Real Life

The schools of the great sages of the Jewish people, Hillel and Shammai, were known to debate each other on just about every topic. The students of these two schools rarely agreed on anything; each strongly and passionately arguing the opposite position of the other, albeit always with respect for the other’s opinion.

In Judaism, we believe that each human is created in the divine image and, thus, we have the responsibility to treat one another with respect. However, many of us humans don’t act with godliness when participating in Facebook discussions involving political viewpoints.

The 2012 election was bad when it came to a lack of civility on Facebook, but the 2016 election a year ago was many times worse. I’m scared to think of what 2020 will bring us. Many close friends unfriended each other on the social network, relatives blocked relatives and, even worse, long-term relationships in real life were severed because of hurt feelings during political arguments. While the election might have been over on November 8, 2016, the heated arguments on Facebook have continued. In the past year, with a President known to send out many divisive tweets before most people have had their first cup of coffee, the Facebook battlefield has only intensified.

If you have a Facebook account, you likely witnessed at least one unfortunate interaction in the past couple of years. It has been impossible to post anything about either presidential candidate without a couple of trolls coming in to paste the latest talking points from the most extremist online blogs they could find to bolster their position or refute everyone else’s opinion.

This has been true on both sides, from the extreme left and the extreme right. On social networks, especially Facebook, people have learned to hide behind their screens when they say these hateful things, but it affects all their relationships and not only their virtual relationships. In the run-up to the 2016 election, most political opinions on either candidate would be met with attacks in the comment section of that post. Many of the comments were not fact checked and some were outright myths that had already been debunked by Snopes.com, the fact-checking web site. In the past year, tempers have flared even more with friends attacking friends on Facebook over everything from the NFL's national anthem controversy and the Second Amendment to the Russian interference in the election and Trump's policies. No topic is off limits when it comes to firing shots in the comment section of Facebook and real friendships become the collateral damage.

I was recently tutoring a young woman for her bat mitzvah and we were studying the Tower of Babel story within her Torah portion. I explained that God was so angered that humans would try to build a tower to the sky that God punished them by confounding their languages so they couldn’t communicate with one another. Immediately, this wise 13-year-old girl said, “In my bat mitzvah speech, I want to talk about how we communicate with each other.” And she immediately hit the nail on the head by explaining the negative effects that occur from the way teens talk to each other in the 21st century. Rather than speaking face-to-face, today’s teens send coded text messages, Snapchat messages that disappear after several seconds, and comments under the photos they post on Instagram. The language they use is different from what any prior generation would recognize as English. One misinterpreted emoji or abbreviation can mean the end of a friendship.

On Facebook, it’s not only the teens who resort to insults and abusive language when someone offends them with their strongly held opinion. Earlier generations wouldn’t understand how your crazy liberal uncle can get into a heated debate with some girl you went to summer camp with a few decades ago.

When adults begin threatening to “unfollow” or “unfriend,” we quickly find ourselves feeling trapped and annoyed in a fourth-grade-esque insult circus. Cutting off contact with someone with opposing ideology will never further discussion, debate and democracy. Sadly, a lot of people on Facebook are close-minded, unwilling to listen to opposing opinions.

Free Speech vs. Respecting the National Anthem

The following is the sermon I delivered on Yom Kippur:

A story: In a synagogue somewhere (it doesn’t matter where), the rabbi instructs the congregation, “Please rise for the Torah processional as the ark is opened and the Torah is taken out.” The rabbi notices one of the synagogue regulars has remained in his seat. He thinks this is odd and makes a mental note to ask Mark during the kiddush following services why he didn’t stand. After the Torah reading the rabbi again directs the congregation to stand and, once again, there’s Mark sitting in his seat.

At Kiddush, the rabbi approaches Mark and greets him with a “Shabbat Shalom.” The rabbi asks Mark if everything is OK and he says it is. The rabbi says that he noticed he did not stand when the Torah came out of the Ark or when it was put back during the recessional. The rabbi peppered him with more questions. “Is there a handicap that prevented you from standing? Do you have a bad back? Do you now get dizzy if you stand?”

Mark then looked at the rabbi and explained, “Because I’m a gay man. I cannot agree with what the Torah says about me or my friends in the gay community. I’m silently protesting the verse in Leviticus that deals with homosexuals. You want me to stand out of respect for a document that, in essence, calls me morally reprehensible – an abomination.

Well, the rabbi thought, on the one hand, it is our synagogue custom that everyone who is physically able to, stands when the Torah is carried around the congregation. But, on the other hand, we subscribe to the democratic ideals of free speech in our country. So, Mark is violating our synagogue policy, our minhag hamakom (our community’s custom), but I also respect him for taking a stand.

Now, I must tell you that I made up this story. But it does serve as an appropriate analogy for the ongoing debate about NFL football players “taking a knee” and refusing to stand during the National Anthem before football games as a form of a protest. I’m not going to get into the reasons WHY these professional football players are choosing to protest… some say it’s because of police brutality, others because of our President’s choice words in condemnation of their protest, and others because of the lyrics in our nation’s anthem. What I do want to discuss today is how we ascribe holiness and meaning to objects, and what happens when our embrace of freedom of speech gets in the way of how we feel about these objects of meaning.

First, take a moment to think about how you would respond to my made-up character of Mark. If you were the rabbi – or a fellow congregant in Mark’s congregation, what would be your response to his decision to not stand for the Torah processional and recessional because he’s at odds over what the Torah says? It’s a plausible act of conscientious objection. What if a group of women in the congregation refused to stand because they didn’t agree with the Torah’s views of women? What if all the non-Kohanim in a congregation objected to the privileges ascribed to the Kohens and refused to stand when the Torah was paraded? That would be a lot of people sitting down in protest!

From just one congregant refusing to stand, it could catch on and then there’d be large-scale protests in congregations around the country – maybe the world. Would we commend the protesters for holding their ground, or would be feel they were disrespecting our Holy Torah?

Remember, ultimately, it was humans who ascribed such holiness to the Torah. And it was humans who ascribed meaning to a poem by Francis Scott Key. Is it not each individual’s right to determine if they should stand or sit for the Torah? For the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner? What if someone chooses to sit for the singing of Israel’s national anthem – Hatikvah? Are they wrong? Are they inconsiderate? Or, are they merely expressing their beliefs and making a statement?

It’s a challenging situation and it’s certainly more complicated than simply saying everyone who is of able body MUST stand for the National Anthem. Looks look at how this controversy began in the NFL.

On August 14, 2016, quarterback Colin Kaepernick chooses to sit for the National Anthem and no one noticed. Mostly because the TV cameras never used to broadcast during the National Anthem unless it was a big playoff game or the Super Bowl. A week later, again Kaepernick sits during the anthem, and again, no one noticed. The following week, he sits and this time he is met with a level of vitriol unseen against an athlete. Even the future President of the United States took shots at him while on the campaign trail. Kaepernick went on to explain his protest had NOTHING to with the military, but he felt it was difficult to stand for a flag that didn't treat people of color fairly.

Then on August 30, 2016, Nate Boyer, a former Army Green Beret turned NFL long snapper, penned an open letter to Colin Kaepernick in the Army Times. In it he expressed how Kaepernick's sitting affected him. Then a strange thing happened. Kaepernick was able to do what most Americans to date have not... He listened.

The Trump Inauguration and the Boycott Question

Does it make sense to boycott musicians? There are, after all, many forms of boycotts. When I was young I really enjoyed the music of Phil Collins. I really loved listening to his songs, which were played often on my favorite radio stations. One day, however, my mother declared that we would no longer listen to any Phil Collins music because he was an ardent supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and was a virulently anti-Israel. I remember feeling confused as I respected my mother for taking a stand, but I also didn't see the harm in listening to a Genesis song on the radio. It wasn't like I was supporting him by buying his cassette tape (it was the early 1980s) or buying his concert tickets. Nevertheless, for many years thereafter I refrained from listening to Phil Collins music even if such a boycott didn't make sense.

These days, there is still a lot of discussion when it comes to boycotting certain musicians. The most common example is Roger Waters of Pink Floyd. Waters has taken a very hard line, one-sided approach to criticism of Israel. While I still enjoy listening to Pink Floyd music, I confess that Waters' anti-Zionist views and determination to convince other artists to refuse to perform in Israel has led me to listen to his music differently. I still enjoy listening to Pink Floyd, but I can't help but think about his politics when doing so. Like Phil Collins, I don't boycott an artist's viewpoint by not listening to the music (on the radio, the Deezer app or an Amazon Alexa for example), but I also might not support them financially by purchasing their music or buying tickets to a concert.

Donald Trump meets with Kanye West [SETH WENIG/AP/REX/SHUTTERSTOCK]

The Day After the Election: A Postmortem

To blog or not to blog today, that was the question. As this unusual election became more divisive and, well, bizarre, I found myself blogging less. I didn't want to write about politics and everything else that I typically blog about just seemed inconsequential. Last night, the unimaginable happened. Okay, to be fair, like many I did consider the unlikely political earthquake that would happen if Donald Trump won.

Today, the day after the 2016 presidential election happens to be the anniversary of Kristallnacht. Upon seeing the posts of friends and colleagues on Facebook and Twitter making stark comparisons between this horrific night in 1938 in Berlin and modern day America, I felt this was completely inappropriate. However, last night there were anti-Semitic incidents in celebration of Donald Trump's victory (see the graffiti below in Philadelphia). Certainly, this was not a Kristallnacht -- not even close -- but, we should all be concerned about the hateful cadre among Trump's supporters.

This past Rosh Hashanah I wanted to speak out about the dangerous rhetoric of this election season. I knew that I had to do this without endorsing one candidate over the other. My goal was to express my outrage at the pomposity of Donald Trump, but also encourage all of us to be more tolerant of others and to listen to those who felt their voices had not historically been heard. I think that if we were to point to one reason so many of us were surprised by the outcome of the 2016 election it would be that we live in a bubble. The Facebook feed of the liberal elite is an echo chamber. As I recognized as the results came in last night, 99% of my Facebook connections were in the Hillary Clinton camp and so the sentiments I heard for the better part of the past two years were fully in sync with my own. I warned of this Facebook echo chamber in my Rosh Hashanah sermon and I too fell victim to it.

What follows is a selection of my 2016 Rosh Hashanah sermon from the first day of the holiday:

Michigan Public Radio: You Can't Wish Israel a Happy Birthday

On Thursday, the modern State of Israel turns 68 years old. To mark this milestone, Lisa Lis, a local friend of mine, chose to wish Israel a happy birthday when it's her day to sponsor a day's broadcast on the Michigan Public Radio Network. Since Lisa and her husband Hannan, a native Israeli, have donated at least $365 to Michigan's public radio station this year, they were informed that they could have a personalized message read on the air six times during their sponsored day.

While many donors to the University of Michigan operated radio station opt to wish a happy birthday to an individual or a happy anniversary to a couple, Lisa felt it would be appropriate to congratulate Israel on 68 years of independence. According to a few Facebook posts by Hannan, however, MPRN nixed Lisa's idea because it would be an act of advocacy. I immediately recognized the problems with this public radio station blocking a donor's desire to offer birthday greetings to a democratic nation.

Lisa and Hannan Lis

First, the name "Israel" could belong to an individual since it's a popular name for men. After all, the State of Israel was named for the biblical character Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Thus, Lisa could simply be wishing a friend named "Israel" a happy birthday.

Second, Michigan Public Radio took issue with Lisa's choice of words. She was going to include the term "blessing" in her greeting. That, the public radio station deemed too religious. I find that interesting since it's a public radio station and there are a lot of public entities that do not shy away from religion or blessings. Our national and local governments are opened with prayer each day, our courts ask witnesses to invoke God's name when taking an oath, and our public squares have Christmas displays each winter. Does Michigan Public Radio never mention the word "blessing" in their broadcasts? Do they ever have religious matters discussed on their radio station?

Pope Francis Wrong to Criticize Trump's Faith

A few years ago I was a first-time guest on a news radio show on Detroit's National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate. Following the show, the host asked me if I'd like to be invited back for other topics that might concern me. I told him I enjoyed the discussion and would be interested. Not long after that, I received a call to return as a guest. When I asked what the program would be about, I was surprised that I had been invited. The topic for the full hour of the radio broadcast would be a review of the year in religion, but the focus would be on the new pope. Uh oh, I thought to myself, I better go read up on Catholicism in general and Pope Francis in particular.

It turned out that the host of the NPR show, Craig Fahle, was intrigued by the wide praise the new pope was getting from all faith traditions and wanted to hear from various local religious leaders what we thought of Pope Francis during his first year. Like the other faith leaders sitting to either side of me, I explained how Pope Francis seemed wonderful and charismatic. I talked about refreshing it was to see a pope break from tradition and put human rights ahead of doctrine. We discussed the pope's views on homosexuality and abortion, in addition to his close relationship with Rabbi Abraham Skorka and his embrace of interfaith relations. When the discussion turned to the question of Papal Infallibility, a dogma of the Catholic Church, I explained that as a Jew I cannot say that any human being is free from error. No one is infallible because we all make mistakes.

That point was made last week when Pope Francis misspoke about Donald Trump's faith. While in Mexico, the pope was asked his views on presidential candidate Donald Trump. He said, "A person, who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian." My ears perked up when I heard the pope saying this on television. It didn't sound much different than ultra-Orthodox rabbis saying that liberal Jews aren't really Jewish.

I don't have a problem with Pope Francis making political statements, although he claimed his comments weren't intended to give any indication of how he thought American Catholics should vote in the upcoming election. My issue was that a religious leader saying that a man's views nullify him from considering himself part of a faith tradition are problematic. The pope can say he disagrees with Trump's stated immigration policies, but to say he's not Christian is a slippery slope. I remain impressed by Pope Francis and applaud his efforts in the realm of human rights and interfaith relations, but saying Donald Trump is not Christian warrants a papal apology.

Cross-posted to Rabbis Without Borders blog at MyJewishLearning.com

Justice Antonin Scalia and the Jewish People

Much is being written about the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice who passed away over the weekend. Much of the "talk" is of a political nature as a debate has ensued in Washington as to whether President Obama should appoint a replacement or wait for the next President to do so. Of course, it's the President's job to appoint justices to the highest court in the land, regardless of whether there is less than a year left in his term.

Some liberals immediately took to social media to gloat about Scalia's passing, knowing that an Obama replacement would shake up the court and lean it toward liberal decisions. I saw a couple of posts humorously playing on the Hebrew phrase we say when someone dies, "Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet" (blessed is the true judge). Scalia was generally not liked by Jewish people as his very conservative rulings often came into conflict with the Jewish community's feelings with regard to freedom of religious expression. In a 2009 article in the Jewish Daily Forward, J.J. Goldberg wrote that Scalia is bad for the Jews and laments his legal opinion about an eight-foot metal cross erected as a war memorial.

Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin, writing on the Religion News Service website, did a wonderful job criticizing those who gloated over this news. Salkin writes, "To all of my fellow liberals: I know that you didn’t like Antonin Scalia’s rulings. We get it. Frankly, I don’t blame you. I found Scalia’s positions on church-state relations, sexuality, guns, abortion, death penalty, and pretty much everything else to be very problematic... Because, based on what I am seeing on social media, there has been a lot of inappropriate snark about his sudden passing." Salkin goes on to demonstrate how Jewish tradition informs us about how to handle the death of a person we don’t like.

Conservative Rabbi Asks Hillary Clinton "What's in Your Pocket?"

In last night's Democratic Town Hall in New Hampshire, hosted by CNN, Rabbi Jonathan Spira-Savett of the Conservative synagogue Temple Beth Abraham in Nashua made headlines with his question to Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Rabbi Jonathan Spira-Savett (Salon.com)

Rabbi Spira-Savett, a Harvard graduate who was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary, beautifully phrased his question about humility to Mrs. Clinton:

Another rabbi, Rabbi Simcha Bunem taught that every person has to have two pockets and in each pocket they have to carry a different note. And the note in one pocket says the universe was created for me. And in the other pocket the note says I am just dust and ashes. And I want you to take a moment and think about what you would tell us about your two pockets. How do you cultivate the ego, the ego that we all know you must have, a person must have to be the leader of the free world, and also the humility to recognize that we know that you can't be expected to be wise about all the things that the president has to be responsible for?

How This Jewish Teen Invited Bernie Sanders to BBYO International Convention

Sometimes if you just look like you are supposed to be somewhere, no one will ask any questions. That was the case for me earlier this month when I heard Kevin Spacey speak at the AT&T Developer Summit at the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas. About a half hour after the conclusion of his speech I casually walked to a service elevator behind the stage and found myself riding a few floors in an elevator with Kevin Spacey after he had made an elevator metaphor in his speech. I suppose it's fair to say this will be the only time in my life I'll share an elevator ride with a sitting American president!

House of Cards actor Kevin Spacey delivers the keynote address at the 2016 AT&T Developer Summit

I thought of my Kevin Spacey experience the other day when I read about seventeen-year-old Louis Shenker. The Jewish teen from Massachusetts managed to sneak into the Democratic debate Charleston, South Carolina. Not only did Shenker sit in Bill Clinton's assigned seat at the debate and get on live television shmoozing with Hillary Clinton, but he also invited Bernie Sanders to come to the upcoming BBYO International Convention and serve as a keynote speaker.

In an interview with attn.com, Shenker acknowledged that he wasn't "qualified to [invite the candidate to speak at the convention], but I figured if they said 'yes' I would bring it to the attention of someone who was."

In a blog post, Shenker explained how he not only got past the entrance of the presidential debate without a ticket and gained VIP access into the debate. He writes, "One particular staffer asked if I was Martin O’Malley’s son and I said yes. He went and told some of the other staff that I was the former Governor’s son and I gained recognition based on my [unique and very loud] jacket."

Louis Shenker, a Jewish teen from Massachusetts, at the Democratic presidential debate

"I then continued to Hillary Clinton and introduced myself. I told her that she debated very well and that I wished her the best of luck and shook her hand. She said that it was a pleasure meeting me and commented that she thought I was dressed very sharp. It was at this point that the debate came back from commercial and there I was front and center on national television shaking hands with Hillary."

Of course Shenker didn't even realize he achieved his 15 seconds of fame until his cellphone began ringing with friends and family watching him live on television. His ability to sneak into the debate and then gain access backstage certainly means the Secret Service missed something, but it also goes to show that sometimes if you just look like you are supposed to be somewhere, no one will ask any questions. Whether Bernie Sanders actually shows up at BBYO Internation Convention in Baltimore in a couple weeks remains to be seen. If he does, I think Shenker will become the most popular Jewish teen in BBYO.

The Syrian Refugee Debate Takes to Social Media: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

In the era of Facebook, controversial topics play out in various ways on the social networking site and it's often not pretty. Such has been the case with the ongoing debate over whether the United States should accept Syrian refugees in the wake of the tragic terrorism acts in Paris.

While Syrian refugees have been seeking safe harbor in several countries over the past few years, the debate here in America has escalated in recent weeks and turned into divisive political arguments. A majority of U.S. governors have publicly voiced their opposition to providing asylum to the Syrian migrants even though immigration remains a federal issue. The debate has also become a litmus test for the presidential candidates and their views on domestic security.


FITS OF FURY ON FACEBOOK

Facebook, with its free accounts and ability to weigh in on anything in a public forum, has provided bully pulpits to anyone with an internet connection at home, at the office or on their smartphone. Now, as soon as someone offers their opinion in the form of a Facebook post as to whether the U.S. should welcome Syrian refugees, that post quickly becomes an explosive back-and-forth among commentators from every demographic and political affiliation.

After Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder, reversed his earlier position in support of Michigan welcoming Syrian refugees, debates on the social network started by local residents turned into tempestuous back-and-forth arguments with each side posting links to articles in support of their opinion on the matter. Analogies to the U.S. closing its doors to Jewish refugees in the 1930's were quickly rebuffed by those arguing that allowing the Syrian migrants into our country would lead to domestic terrorism. Others cited statistics showing the majority of terrorist attacks were caused by those affiliated with Islam. These posts garnered hundreds of comments with both sides vehemently concerned about the issues they prioritize, whether the security of our country and the refugee screening process or the ethical considerations of turning away hopeless women and young children in need of shelter.

The Jewish community, with its strong values, remains divided on these issues as evidenced by the outpouring of strongly held viewpoints on Facebook. Some descendents of those who were turned back to Europe in the 1930s took the position that the U.S. must use its moral compass and not transgress as it did before the Holocaust. Others called such a comparison preposterous as the Jewish immigrants from Europe eighty years ago posed no threat to American citizens. On such a contentious issue, strong disagreements are bound to occur online. Several such Facebook debates over the Syrian refugee topic led to Facebook users blocking each other, even those who are friends in real life.

In many instances, the Facebook discussion space has proven to be detrimental to open and honest dialogue with regard to the Syrian refugee crisis, but surely there are some positive outcomes from Facebook in this matter.

The Iran Nuclear Deal Divided Our Jewish Community: A Tochecha for our Discourse

The following is the sermon I delivered on the first day of Rosh Hashanah 2015/5776 at Congregation B'nai Israel in Toledo, Ohio.

A new rabbi comes to a well-established congregation. Each week on Shabbat, a fight erupts during the service. When it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands and the other half sits. The half that stands say, "Of course we stand for the Shema. It’s the credo of Judaism.

Throughout history, thousands of Jews have died with the words of the Shema on their lips." The half that remains seated say, "No. According to the Shulchan Aruch, the code of Jewish law, if you are seated when you get to the Shema you remain seated."

The people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, "Stand up!" while the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing, "Sit down!" It’s destroying the whole decorum of the service and it’s driving the new rabbi crazy. Finally, it’s brought to the rabbi’s attention that at a nearby home for the aged is a 98-year-old man who was a founding member of the congregation. So, in accordance with Talmudic tradition, the rabbi appoints a delegation of three, one who stands for the Shema, one who sits, and the rabbi himself, to go interview the man. They enter his room, and the man who stands for the Shema rushes over to the old man and says, "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to stand for the Shema?"

"No," the old man answers in a weak voice. "That wasn’t the tradition."

The other man jumps in excitedly. "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to sit for the Shema?"
"No," the old man says. "That wasn’t the tradition."

At this point, the rabbi cannot control himself. He cuts in angrily. "I don’t care what the tradition was! Just tell them one or the other. Do you know what goes on in services every week — the people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing."

"That was the tradition," the old man says.

This is a joke, of course, but, these days, I can commiserate with the rabbi. In 2015, it's sadly become the tradition that half of the Jewish community is arguing with the other half; they’re talking past each other, and this heated debate has got me as frustrated as the rabbi in the story.

This past summer, the discourse in the American Jewish community over the Iran Nuclear deal has been horribly gut-wrenching. I have found myself cringing at the battles that have been waged -- Jew vs. Jew. The rhetoric has been cruel, venomous and downright dangerous to the future vitality of our Jewish community.

The NY Times reported that the attacks on Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat of New York, since he announced his support for the nuclear accord with Iran have been so vicious that the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Anti-Defamation League both felt compelled this week to publicly condemn Jewish voices of hate.

On the other side, three Jewish Democrats in the House who oppose the deal released a joint statement denouncing “ad hominem attacks and threats” against not only supporters like Mr. Nadler but also Jewish opponents, who have been accused of “dual loyalties” and treason.

Greg Rosenbaum, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said, “We are on the verge of fratricide in the Jewish community, and it has to stop. He noted that there are Jews avoiding organizational meetings, and even religious services, simply to avoid discussing Iran.

Why Netanyahu Should Address Congress Next Month

When it comes to politics, I've always thought that it's fair game for rabbis to weigh in. After all, I have a pulpit and a blog and I'm not afraid to use them. However, the caveat I have always made is that I am not a political pundit. I have no more expertise in U.S. foreign policy than the next guy who reads the Wall Street Journal every day and gets weekly email briefings from AIPAC, my undergrad degree in International Relations notwithstanding.

So, when the whole brouhaha broke about Rep. John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress without the blessings of the Obama Administration, I kept my opinion to myself. It certainly didn't seem like a controversy. Boehner's the Speaker of the House and is entitled to invite foreign dignitaries to speak there as he sees fit. I certainly wouldn't want the invitation to Netanyahu to compromise the unique relationship (or as AIPAC calls it, "The Friendship") between the United States and Israel to be tarnished, but that shouldn't happen I reasoned. Not to mention, Netanyahu is an intelligent and charismatic speaker who could certainly enlighten members of Congress about the situation with Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (WikiCommons)

The day after the news broke that President Obama was not happy about Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu, I had the privilege of hearing WSJ columnist Bret Stephens speak at Adat Shalom Synagogue at a Michigan AIPAC event. When asked about the Boehner-Netanyahu-Obama turbulence, Stephens reminded everyone in attendance about what we learned back in 5th grade about the U.S. structure of governance. The system of checks and balances is such that Congress doesn't have to ask permission from the Executive Branch before inviting a foreign head of state to speak to its members. That makes sense.

Haredi Newspapers Again Scrub Women From Iconic Photos

The Haredi newspapers are at it again.  Back in 2011 I wrote several blog posts (here on this blog, in the Huffington Post, and in The Jewish Week) about how a couple of Haredi Jewish newspapers had used Photoshop to remove women from iconic photos. Back then it was the Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish newspaper Der Tzitung removing Hillary Clinton from the famous photo of when Osama Bin Laden had been captured. My article in The Jewish Week was even shown on The Colbert Report when Stephen Colbert discussed the topic.

Now, the Haredi Israeli newspaper HaMevaser has digitally altered the now iconic photo of the 44 world leaders who marched in Paris on Sunday to express solidarity with France. The paper removed German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and EU foreign affairs and security chief Frederica Mogherini. Another female leader, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, was cropped out of the photo (one of her hands remains visible in the photo). The Israeli news site Walla.com first noticed the Photoshop job.

The iconic photo of world leaders at the march in Paris after being altered to remove the women.

The iconic photo of world leaders at the march in Paris before being altered.

Michigan's Religious Freedom Act is Dangerous

Imagine a Jewish man speeding his car at dangerous speeds down a residential street. The police officer pulls him over for reckless driving, but the man explains that he was breaking the civil law because his religion demanded he get home before the Jewish Sabbath begins. He cites the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act as his defense and demands the officer let him be on his way. Of course, such a case would be ridiculous, but that is the slippery slope that we could face in my home state should this bill pass the State Senate and then be signed into law by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

While I am a rabbi and an observant Jewish person, I am opposed to this bill, known as Michigan HB 5958. Opponents of this legislation recognize that such a law would give people the ability to discriminate and use their religious tenets as a legal defense. Our country shouldn't let people use their religion as an excuse to break the law or discriminate against others. And that is precisely what this bill has the potential to do as I wrote in an op-ed published today on TIME.com:

Freedom of Religion Shouldn’t Be Unconditional

Have you ever heard of a rabbi who was against religious freedom? I certainly hadn’t until last week when I became one. Well, I’m not really against religious freedom per se, but I am against the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act” (RFRA). That bill, known as HB 5958, was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives on December 4 and could soon be passed by Michigan’s Senate and then signed into law by the Governor. I am concerned.

It would seem that any congressional bill that advocated for religious freedom would be a good thing. After all, I believe that one of the most cherished benefits of living in a democracy like the United States is that we all have the right to practice our own faith. However, this bill, if signed into law, would have many negative consequences. (A similar bill was ultimately vetoed by the Governor in Arizona.)

HB 5958 seeks to “limit governmental action that substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,” which includes “an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.” This language would allow individuals to choose not to service other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Imagine if a bakery owner was asked to produce a wedding cake for two homosexual men who were getting married. Claiming that his deeply held religious beliefs forbid homosexuality and therefore gay marriage, the bakery owner would be able to legally refuse to sell this couple a cake. In other words, his bigotry would be upheld by state law.

Another example would be a Jewish pharmacist who refuses to fill a medicine prescription for a fellow Jew with gelatin capsules on the basis that selling non-kosher pills to another Jew violates a religious law he follows. Perhaps a Catholic pharmacist would refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills or an abortion pill. How about a Muslim shopkeeper who could, under HB 5958, refuse to sell a bottle of wine to a fellow Muslim, citing his own Islamic beliefs.

A few years ago I debated this topic while leading a seminar for second-year medical students. The question posed to the group was whether it was ethical for a Jehovah’s Witness health care worker to refuse to perform blood transfusions based on religious belief. Could they simply request that another health care worker perform such a procedure, or might this lead to a situation in which each medical employee of a hospital would have the ability to refuse certain procedures based on their own religious affiliation, causing chaos and confusion, not to mention risking the patients’ health?

The intent of HB 5958 is to protect the religious rights of Michigan’s citizens. But it would actually allow for religious tenets to be used for discrimination against individuals. [...]

CONTINUE READING AT TIME.COM

Israel Can't Be the Third Rail

Rabbi Brant Rosen, a Reconstructionist rabbi in Evanston, Illinois, took me to task in January 2013 for writing a blog post supporting SodaStream, the Israeli company that produces home water carbonation machines. This was a week before the 2013 Super Bowl in which SodaStream created a lot of buzz with their expensive "Set the Bubbles Free" commercial during the game (this was a year before SodaStream's big hype Scarlett Johansson Super Bowl commercial). Rosen closed his blog post stating that "those concerned with human rights should know that freedom for real, living breathing human beings is what is truly at stake here."

Well, if Rabbi Rosen understood my argument correctly he would have understood that SodaStream employs over 500 West Bank Palestinians in addition to about the same number of Arabs from eastern Jerusalem and paying them a fair wage. Rosen's call to boycott SodaStream would actually end up hurting the very goal of Palestinian rights that he's trying to achieve.

Why am I bringing up Rabbi Brant Rosen and his misinformed blog post almost two years later? It is because Rosen recently resigned his position at his pulpit after his anti-Israel views caused too much dissent within his congregation. His very public resignation (he says he was not forced out by the board) has led to much discussion among rabbis (of all denominations) as to whether voicing opinions on Israel has become the third rail of the North American rabbinate.

Ohio University's Anti-Israel Student President Does Blood Bucket Challenge Calling for BDS

The president of the student body at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio was challenged in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge by Dr. Roderick J. McDavis, the president of the university. However, rather than dumping a bucket of ice water on her head (like millions of others have already done this summer), Megan Marzec dumped a bucket of fake blood over her head in protest of Israel and then encourages an academic boycott of Israel on behalf of Ohio University. Marzec has since deactivated her Facebook account and made the video password protected on her Vimeo account.

Before dumping a bucket of fake blood over her head, Marzec (wearing a pink shirt stating "Ohio U Divest From Israel") says in the video, "I'm sending a message of student concern of the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine by the Israeli state. I'm urging you, and OU, to divest and cut all ties with academic and other Israeli businesses and institutions," she said during in video. "This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians atrocities which OU is directly complacent in your cultural and economic support of the Israeli state." The video closes with red text stating "FREE PALESTINE" and "For more information on bringing BDS to Ohio University contact Megan Marzec," with her email address provided (mm590410@ohio.edu), follows that, and then the video ends.

The White House Passover Seder Tradition (As Told By Eric Lesser)

I led a Birthright Israel trip in December 2004 with half of the college student participants on our bus from the University of Michigan and the other half from Harvard. Before the trip I was a little concerned as to how the two groups of students would get along on the ten day experience.

However, not only did the Harvard and Michigan undergrads get along great in Israel, but there were some lifelong friendships that were formed. I had a wonderful time co-leading the trip with Gabi Soble, a kindhearted, talented staff member from Harvard Hillel. I also got to know some really impressive young people from Harvard including Eric Lesser. It was clear to me that Eric would go on to do big things in his career and the former President Obama aide is currently on leave from Harvard Law School to run for State Senate in Massachusetts. Of course, he has my full endorsement.

On a Birthright Israel trip with Eric Lesser packing food for the homeless in Israel

Jon Stewart and Other Activist Jews in the Egyptian Uprising

As we Americans celebrated our nation's 237th year of independence and freedom yesterday on the 4th of July, we also kept a close eye on the precarious situation in Egypt. As the final hours of Mohammed Morsi's presidency wound down, we continued to monitor the volatile situation there, constantly thinking of how the tense events in Egypt would affect Israel, its close neighbor to the North.

Although many were concerned that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty would be broken under Morsi's regime, that didn't happen. However, now that the military is in charge of the country the peace treaty seems at risk and there could be a lapse in the protection of the Sinai from terror cells.

Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait a while longer to get a good sense of how the Egyptian uprising and protests will affect Israel and her relations with neighboring Egypt. One interesting story that I've been following during the continued unrest in Egypt has been the role of Jewish people in the situation.