In Honor of Tisha B'av

Tisha B'av, for those that don't know, is a jewish holiday which remembers the dectruction of the first and second temple and the many horrible things that have befallen the jewish people; all of which either happened in the month of Av or began in it (see Jewish Calendar).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this Holiday is that seems to fly in the face of belief in G-d. How can G-d allow bad things to happen to good people? How can G-d allow exiles? Pogroms? The Holocaust?

Some have rejected G-d entirely because of such events. I however will offer an alternative philosophy.

History isn't just a timeline; its a set, a story of interconnected events. In other words, there is rarely, if ever, an event in history that just purely a "cause" or just purely an "effect", as many events in history are both causes as well as effects.

For example, lets take an old jewish tale, and apply it to the grand-scale:
There was once a farmer, this particular farmer owned a horse. One day, the horse ran off. The entire village in which he lived in showed up at his doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the horse returned but it returned with a pack of wild horses (it made friends). The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "How wonderful!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the farmer's son was riding one of the wild horses and it bucked, and threw the farmer's son to the ground, breaking his leg. The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" the farmer again replied "maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing." The next day, a war was declared, and all able bodied men in the village were ordered to fight; except for the farmer's son, who was not of able body. The farmer then declared "It was a good thing my horse ran off."

The point of this tale is to highlight that what may be seen as a negative thing, can ultimately be positive (and alternately, visa-versa). One must be patient to see the full scope of events. The tale also highlights that what can be good on the microcosmic scale (the boy being injured prevents him from being drafted) can be bad on the macrocosmic scale (a war being declared). Of course, if one is a mercenary, then war is a good thing; so as always, it's a matter of perspective. So, how could all this apply to the destruction of the most holy site in judaism, Solomon's temple? How could the Holocaust be good?

Well, I don't think the Holocaust was good, in fact it was extremely evil, one of few cases in history where such a word could be applied accurately. However, the consequences of the Holocaust may not be evil. Greater acceptance, unity, and a commitment among nations to not allow such a thing to be forgotten, lest it happen once more. Some inaccurately point to the Holocaust as a point that created the State of Israel. The founding of Israel is actually rooted in the British Mandate of Palestine, approved in 1922 and put into effect in 1923 - nearly a decade before Kristalnacht and the first inklings of the Holocaust.
If we take a further look into history we can see a pattern: The Babylonian exile helped act as a cause for judaism to formalize the contents of the Tanach, and establish a coherent line of rabbinical thought. The destruction of the first temple showed that, in fact, the jewish people could live without it, and also effectively ended the era of direct prophecy from G-d. The time period during the re-building of the second temple, and eventual destruction showed that the jewish people could also live without a "direct-line to G-d" (though, at that time, not without the Temple and the sacrifices), and finally... without sacrifices (which already had strict limitations, and as some historians point out, were already considered "less than" simple prayer). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Some of you may be wondering....but why would G-d have to torture people (or allow torture/exile/death)? Lets look at recent history: 9/11. America pulled together like never before or since. The fact is, tragedy can often breed the best, and worst in people; and there are few things quite as powerful as tragedy.

So...In honor of Tisha B'av, lets be patient.

Future of American Jewry

Does Judaism have a future in America?
Personally, I would like to say so - despite assimilation; and many jews, including myself, wondering if wearing that yarmakle would draw too much attention; or if taking one of the various jewish holidays off would upset management too much - just enough to deny you a promotion.

However, everytime I see a story casting the dark shadow of assimilation, I can't help but think its a tad bit alarmist. Afterall, as americans we do have rights; and an assortment of employment laws protecting us from religious discrimination.

Yet, the primary objections seem to come from intermarriage not the business world. Falling in love with those pretty gentile boys and girls. To oppose intermarriage today means going against the entire modern American ethos by placing group identity over social integration, individualism, and liberal values.

Many an orthodox, and perhaps even conservative jew would object - citing that we'd just be sacrificing ourselves just to fit in. I say, not exactly. It's ridiculous to think that judaism isn't compatiable with liberalism, or concern for individual rights - values which are also american. So why not embrace them?

Part of embracing them is that as Jews, we need to stop feeling so insecure about our own traditions - aka, we don't have a christmas tree, and we're proud. We have a religious tradition much older, and much richer.

So light that shabbat candle, and wear that kippot like a rock-star; basically, be Jewish without apology.
Besides, The Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) had positive effects, like Zionism, and ultimately Einstein; and it had it's roots in a certain gentile enlightenment...we can't as a group remain completely isolated from the rest of the world, that only invites antisemitism.

Source Article:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378383951&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The Good News (sort of)

Surprisingly, we may not all be going to hell in a handbasket; so to speak.

Yes indeedy, America, already the most religious post-industrial nation, according to the Baylor University sociology department, is experiencing an up-swing in religion - dare I say, a minor revival of sorts.

Although the statistics on G-d are a bit skewed toward the Gentiles among us, it's interesting to note the opinions on Big-Guy's personality. Although I'm somewhere between "Benevolent" and "Critical", the majority of my fellow Americans believe in an authoritarian creator.

Interestingly, scholars have been saying for some time that the relevance of denomination is decreasing. But the Baylor survey, which asks about such subjects as God's "personality" and what people pray about, adds to a debate about what that means. It reveals the complex ways Americans describe their religiosity, and the minefield for today's scholars in trying to measure it. Is someone religious if they attend church? If they believe in God? If they identify with a particular religious group? What if they do one but not the others? Which gets more weight?

One has to wonder, however, where this leaves atheists - having known quite a few myself. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers at the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology, found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Indeed, atheists are truely the ultimate outsider. In the course of the past three decades increasing social acceptance - atheists have been left out. One could attribute this to atheism's identification with communism. However, we often see that as society changes and once outcasts are accepted; they are ultimately identified as having some common core. In America, this core is religion-based values. Of which atheists, perhaps unfairly, are identified as lacking this kind-of moral core. Dr. Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project, said that Atheists "play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past" in that we provide "a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."

Researchers also tried to discover any correlations between negative attitudes toward Atheists and similar views of homosexuals and Muslims. "None of these correlations is large," reported the researchers. "We believe this indicates that the boundary being draw vis-a-vis atheists is symbolic, a way of defining cultural membership in American life, and not the result of a simple irrational unwillingness to tolerate small out-groups."