"Who Am I To Judge?"

Here's an interesting take on Pope Francis's words "Who am I to judge," as editorially analyzed in a recent edition of the Jewish Daily Forward.  The entire comment, not often fully cited, is as follows:

                  "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to
                    judge."

The editorial goes on to cite Francis's words as being "conditional."  Judgement was limited to persons of good will and those who believe in "the Lord."  Personal judgement is suspended only on the condition that certain behavior is followed.

Do we ever actually have the right to judge?  Is judgement of human behavior something that should be  reserved for a deity?   Of course we have the right to judge.  "Who are we to judge?"   We are  human beings to whom society gives the right to judge.  It is only through such judgement that societal mores and ethics develop.  When we judge others, however, we should always remain aware of how those being judged may judge us, given a reverse of circumstance.

The issue is not whether or not humans have the right to judge, but that they (we) make judgements honestly, without prejudice, without vested interests, and with the objective to better the welfare of society.

Whether or not there is a "final judgement," made by God, is a question best left for believers.  Perhaps that is the judgement that Pope Francis was referring to.

Thoughts on the Martin-Zimmerman Case

Of course there are profiling issues and racial issues in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman incident.  There almost always are when a non-black individual representing law enforcement or something like a neighborhood watch team has an encounter with a black man whom he regarded as "suspicious."  But these issues are socio-political issues.  They are NOT legal issues.  It is a mistake to conflate the one with the other.

Though profiling may be "wrong," most, if not all of us, engage in it.  We may profile by ethnicity, we may profile by dress and appearance, we may profile by behavior, etc.  It's one of those human foibles that just seems to define who we are as human beings.  Profiling may be a fault and may be unethical or  even immoral, but it is not illegal.  The use of racial epithets may be unethical or immoral, but it is not illegal.  One may "profile" George Zimmerman as being over-attentive and over-zealous in his trailing of Trayvon Martin, but this was not illegal and can play no part in decisions regarding the facts.

A court must be the place where a jury knows to apply the law narrowly and "to the letter."  It is not a forum for discussion of, or judgements on, issues such as racism, profiling, and the like.  Any one of us who may stand accused of a felony would wish to be judged only by the facts - not any mitigating circumstances that may becloud them. Whether whites are more apt to kill blacks, or Hispanics are more apt to kill Asians has absolutely no bearing on an individual case.  It is just plain wrong to consider race or ethnicity, or any other "profile" when adjudicating a specific altercation.

Social issues must be addressed by legislatures - not by juries in courtrooms.  

IsThere a Limit on the Reach of Neuroscience?

David Brooks, in his recent op-ed piece Beyond the Brain (NY Times June 18),  discusses the marvels of neuroscience, but concludes that neuroscience has its limits.  Neuroscience will never be able to explain "the passions aroused by Macbeth," or the difference between lovers and friends.  The "brain is not the mind."

I find it difficult to understand why Brooks and others of the same mind (no pun intended) choose to place limits on the reach of neuroscience.  Why does he feel that "it is probably impossible to look at a map of brain activity and predict or even understand the emotions, reactions, hopes and desires of the mind." Is it unreasonable to believe that at some future time such emotions and passions will be mapped, will be understood, or will be predicted?

There is no reason to imagine that what cannot be interpreted today, will remain uninterpretable forever.  And, let's eliminate the idea that being able to "map" a thought or an emotion makes the thought or emotion any less extraordinary.  Understanding that water is, in fact, a combination of hydrogen and oxygen doesn't render water less extraordinary.   Understanding the sun - its composition, its size, its origins, its chemistry - doesn't make it less extraordinary.

If one doesn't believe that all functions of the mind and brain may be ascertained and understood at some future occasion, I would urge a hard retrograde look at what was once thought to be not understandable, and now is.  Let's not be short-sighted.  Tomorrow's knowledge has probably not even been contemplated yet today.

Let's Hear it For Tracking in Education

Guess what.  The New York Times reports that "Grouping Students by Ability Regains Favor in Classroom." (June 10)

It seems that some school systems and teachers are realizing that the "old-school" technique of assigning children to classes based on their proficiencies actually works - if education's target is to actually educate to one's fullest potential.  If, on the other hand, the primary aim of the school is not education, but the promotion of self-esteem and equality - grouping, or tracking, may clearly be anathema to that concept.

Goals have to be prioritized.  If we, as a nation, believe that egalitarianism in education is primary, then perhaps educational resources should not be directed towards the natural separation that would result from grouping or tracking policies.  If, on the other hand, actual education rather than egalitarian education is our priority we should be doing the utmost to customize it according to level of ability.

It is quite obvious that we are not "created equal" in every respect. We should not delude ourselves into believing that promoting equality of ability - whether it's scientific or investigational, artistic, mathematical, creative, athletic, or whatever - will be constructive.  We should not deceive ourselves with thoughts that "we can be whatever we want to be."  It may be the politically correct "belief," but the facts say otherwise.

Being "gifted and talented" is not a curse.  It should be cherished, nurtured, and promoted - whatever the gift or the talent.

Membership in Reform Synagogues - Necessary -- or Not?

Reform Judaism, a publication of the Union for Reform Judaism, contains an interview the editors had with Allison Fine, president of Temple Beth Abraham in Tarrytown, NY.  Reinventing the Synagogue deals, yet again, with the apparently never-ending problem of the "alarming rate" of attrition among memberships of Reform congregations in North America.

Here is what Ms. Fine feels synagogues should do to stem the tide:

1.  Rethink the top-down hierarchy of synagogues

2.  Stop treating members like a "cog."  Be sure members are aware that each of them "matter."

3.  Move to a networked model to create a more authentic and fulfilling engagement between leaders    

     and congregants.

4.  Increase transparency - do not strategize behind closed doors.  Use social media to bring 

     congregants into conversation.

5.  Leaders should talk more openly about money - synagogues always ask for money but are very

     reluctant to share "where it goes."  Create a financial narrative.

6.  Leaders should be better listeners, especially to the young.

Sound familiar?  Think any of this will really perform miracles in ending the "alarming rate" of attrition.  If so, I think I know of a bridge that you can buy very cheaply.

If a member of a synagogue feels that he is not properly regarded or treated, or that the service, clergy, or sermonizing is not to his liking, he will, in a fitting and proper manner, resign from that synagogue -- and join another!!  Surely there is one in this vast metropolitan area that he will find suitable.  A family departing one synagogue and joining another is not attrition - just a switch.  Not bad for Judaism - just bad for the losing synagogue.  Synagogues may lose when members depart, but if the unhappy members join other synagogues, total membership is unaffected. Synagogues worried about their own membership rather than synagogue membership as a whole, may well benefit from altering their modes of operation, as per Ms. Fine.

The "alarming rate of attrition," however, probably has nothing to do with synagogue behavior.  It may  likely be related to the absence of the notion for a need to be a member of a synagogue at all.  In a country such as ours, particularly in our metropolitan area - an area so comfortable for Jews - identifying or affiliating with "your people" may rank very low on the scale of personal and social satisfaction.  

By the way the "alarming rate of attrition" doesn't even approach the number of Jews who already have  elected not to affiliate with a synagogue - and who form the vast majority of American Jewry.  

I don't know why Jews don't care to join synagogues - and neither, I believe, does anyone else.  I can only guess.   I am not aware of any properly designed study to answer this question.  If the Reform movement wants to "market" Judaism, or "market" synagogue membership, it must not deal in solutions a priori.  Before deciding how to sell your product, see if a market actually exists!  And if, indeed, the market does exist, question the consumers (the non-affiliated, or never-affiliated) and determine what has to be done to create and sell the right product.

Want to sustain synagogue membership in this country?  Want to increase synagogue membership in this country?  Changes in style won't work -  understanding substance is the only true road to success.  Those of us who see the importance of the synagogue in American Jewish life must try to sell the general non-affiliated Jewish population on the need for this connection, using proper tools we have yet to discover.

If you can sell it, the rest will follow.  

If you can't, don't expect changes in synagogue management or programs to solve this huge issue.

The Recollections of Holocaust Survivors

A recent article in a Jewish publication described the sensitive story of an elderly woman's recent return to the German village of her childhood.  The story, though compelling, raises some issues.  Ms. B, a 90-year-old woman, discusses life in her little village, including memories of laws restricting Jewish participation in certain professions and government positions. She described how it felt to be "forced from her home." Ms. B emigrated to the United States in 1934.  At the time she was only 10 years old.  I would have to question the recollections of a 90-year-old about the effects of laws on Jewish life in her village during her very early childhood, especially in those initial days of the Third Reich.

Though it is true that restrictive participation of Jews in various professions and activities, and some "unlawful" acts of vandalism did exist to some degree prior to Ms. B.'s emigration in 1934, the very repressive Nuremberg laws, actually banning Jews from certain aspects of public and professional life (1935), and the restriction of schools that Jewish children could attend, did not come into force until after her departure.  Anti-Jewish riots and physical brutality first became a major issue with the events of Kristallnacht in 1938.  I am not aware of any national policy in Germany to forcibly remove Jews from their homes in 1933-1934.

As the Holocaust recedes into history, eye-witness recollections understandably become more vague.  Present-day survivors, now in their late 80's and 90's were very young in 1933-1934.  Jews who emigrated out of Germany as early as 1934-1935 were, indeed, very fortunate.

Religion Is Part of Our History - by Ordinance!

We are all familiar with the Constitution's "Establishment Clause," as outlined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights - passed by Congress in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1791.  This amendment is cited as the basis for our present policy of total separation of church and state -  basically prohibiting religion from having any place at all in the public schools.  However, the Constitution's wording is clear  only in prohibiting the federal government from passing laws establishing some form of religion - nothing more, really.   The prohibition of inclusion of religion in a public school's curriculum or  public school's activities is the result of the Supreme Court's interpretation of that amendment.

I was surprised to discover that there is actually a federal ordinance that encourages religion as necessary for "good government." I thought my readers, like me, may not have been aware of this document.  The document cited is the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1787, the same year as the Constitution, and intended to apply to the territories being settled in what was then considered "The Northwest."

As a supporter of the "wall of separation" between religious and civic activities, I must concede that it seems the "founding fathers" had considered religion an important as well as a necessary building block for "good government" and "happiness."

Here are the pertinent citings:

Amendment 1 of the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.