Pope Francis’s unprecedented accessibility is admirable, but I wouldn’t call it brave.

In an effort to be more accessible to the people, Pope Francis has forgone much of the security that the Vatican recommends and that his predecessors used with regularity, including bullet proof vehicles and large numbers of highly visible security personal.

image

This has resulted in some tense moments for church officials, including last week’s papal visit to South America:

When Pope Francis’s motorcade took a wrong turn on his inaugural drive through Rio de Janeiro earlier this week, crowds rushed the car to get a glimpse of the popular pontiff. Francis seemed unfazed, rolling down his back-seat window and even reaching out for babies to kiss through his open car window.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi brushed off the incident. “His secretary was afraid, but the pope wasn’t,” he told reporters at a briefing after the pope’s car was rushed. “We have full confidence in the authorities. Today was the first experience, a learning experience, and we will see what happens in the next few days.”

While I find the pope’s desire to be more accessible to the people admirable, I’m less inclined to attribute his willingness to tempt fate to any amount of courage of his part, as has been suggested by various media outlets.

After all, he’s the pope.

If anyone is certain that Heaven exists, it’s the pope.

If anyone is convinced that he is going to Heaven, it’s the pope.

If anyone is absolutely sure that Heaven represents a state of eternal and total bliss, it’s the pope.

It would be a tragedy if the pope was killed as a result of this newfound accessibility, but in his mind, the consequence of an assassin’s bullet is Heaven.

Guaranteed.

Death still stinks, but it’s a pretty good consolation. 

On the other hand, it only makes sense that the pope’s secretary was afraid when the pope’s car was rushed by crowds last week. The secretary has not been deemed by a conclave of the highest of holy men as the closest human being to God.

He’s just a guy. Full of uncertainty, doubt and sin.

In short, he’s not the pope.

While I’m sure that the pope isn’t anxious to die anytime soon, there can’t be any doubt of eternal salvation from someone in his position. In his mind, he’s already punched his ticket to Heaven. The possibility of nonexistence and the threat of eternal damnation have been all but eliminated.

He’s the pope. If he doesn’t believe in Heaven, the Catholic Church is in some serious trouble.

The man’s passage through the Pearly Gates has been all but assured. It sort of diminishes the opportunity for bravery a bit.

Unless of course he follows in the steps of such predecessors as Pope Stephen VI.

Pope Stephen VI hated his predecessor, Pope Formosus, so much he had his rotting nine-month-old corpse dug up, redressed in his papal vestments and seated on the throne to be tried.

The man put a corpse on trial.

Not surprising, the rotting remains of Pope Formosus were found guilty. As punishment,, Pope Stephen VI ordered that the three fingers Pope Formosus used to give blessings be cut off. He was then stripped of his sacred vestments, dressed as a layman, dragged through the streets by horses and dumped in the Tiber River.

Pope Stephen VI probably had some legitimate concerns regarding the possibility of his eternal salvation, even with the protection of his papal title.

But Pope Francis? Probably not.

“Dinosaurs lived with people” violates the basic human right of not being stupid.

This is an actual science test given to fourth graders in South Carolina. I consider it a human rights violation. science quiz

Every nine-year-old child has the right to not be stupid. I believe that the  teachers administering this test are violating this basic human right.

The fact that children are being taught like this is a national tragedy, and I believe it goes a long way in explaining why one in five Americans are now non-believers.

You simply cannot hang your religion’s principles on faulty and ludicrous science and expect rationale people to continue believing. You may indoctrinate the lowest common denominator, but the thoughtful, intelligent and (worst of all) curious people will see something like this and run away as quickly as possible.

Bigot? Hypocrite? Ignorant? All three?

ESPN commentator Chris Broussard does not consider NBA player Jason Collins to be a Christian because he is gay. He declares that Collins is living in “open rebellion” to God and Jesus Christ.

I’m sure that Collins is devastated by Broussard’s declaration. 

The problem is that I’m not sure what to think about Broussard.

A bigot? Probably.

But wait.

Perhaps hypocrite would be a better descriptor? Once you start quoting The Bible as the primary source of your attacks on homosexuality (as Broussard does), you’d better stop wearing clothing woven from two kinds of fiber, eating bacon, or working on Sunday, because all of these sins are identified in The Bible, in the same chapter as the homosexuality reference, as on par with homosexuality.

You can’t only adhere to the laws that support your bigotry and ignore those that inconvenience you. Once you start cherry picking Scripture in order to support your bigotry, I can’t help but label you as a hypocrite, because that is what a hypocrite is. 

Unless Broussard is ignorant. Maybe he hasn’t actually read The Bible and is merely echoing the words of other ignorant or deliberately misleading people. I’m not calling him stupid, mind you (though that is also a possibility). Just ignorant. 

Or perhaps Broussard is all three. It’s possible. Listening to Broussard, I’m inclined to think yes.

Regardless of the designation, I am relatively certain, even as a non-religious person, that Jesus would happily take the side of a gay basketball player over a television commenter who believes that he is qualified to determine who is Christian and who is not.

How dare the Pope act so kindly or equitably

According to the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and leading Catholic authorities, Pope Francis’s recent decision to wash the feet of two girls, including a Muslim, during a traditional Holy Thursday ritual has been viewed as an attack on Church law by conservative elements of the Catholic Church, of which there are many.

image

The traditional foot-washing ceremony reenacts the way in which Jesus washed the feet of his twelve apostles during the Last Supper. The Catholic Church has long said women can’t participate because the apostles were all men.

A lesson for the Catholic Church:

There are moments in your life when you think or believe something but know better than to express your opinion out loud lest you sound like a jackass.

If your grandmother has baked a birthday cake that tastes like cardboard, you know to keep your mouth shut even after Grandma has gone home because complaining about an elderly woman’s cooking prowess is sure to make you look downright despicable.

If you think that all babies are fairly annoying, ugly and stupid, you wouldn’t announce this to the world lest people think you are a heartless jerk.

If you believe that men are more naturally gifted at mathematics than women, you keep this opinion to yourself unless you are certain that your audience is made up entirely of morons like yourself.

Even most racists know better than to express their mindless hatred out loud. They may avoid friendship with people outside their race or even cross the street in order to avoid crossing paths with a person who does not look like them, but only the most stupid of racists announce their prejudice to the world.  

I suggest that the Catholic Church adopt a similar strategy.

Be angry with the Pope for washing the feet of a young girl or a Muslim.

Go right ahead and believe that only human beings equipped with penises are entitled to this honor.

Feel free to fear that the Pope’s decision to wash the feet of penis-less people might signal an eventual change in Church doctrine that would establish equality between the sexes.

These are all terrible things to think, but you are certainly entitled to think them.   

But don’t say any of them aloud.

When you express outrage over the Pope’s decision to wash the feet of a girl or a Muslim, you come across as a bigoted, sexist jackass. You make your Church seem less palatable and inviting. You do harm to your religion as a whole.

When your criticism borders on insanity, it’s best to keep your stupid mouth shut.

I abandoned the Catholic Church at the age of seven. Credit my Catholic mother.

Paul Elie, a senior fellow in the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown, suggests in the New York Times this week that Catholics (of which he is one) give up their faith as a form of protest against the recent practices of their church.

Resignation: that’s what American Catholics are feeling about our faith. We are resigned to the fact that so much in the Roman Catholic Church is broken and won’t be fixed anytime soon.

So if the pope can resign, we can, too. We should give up Catholicism en masse, if only for a time.

He goes on to explain his rationale:

For the Catholic Church, it has been “all bad news, all the time” since Benedict took office in 2005: a papal insult to Muslims; a papal embrace of a Holocaust denier; molesting by priests and cover-ups by their superiors. When the Scottish cardinal Keith O’Brien resigned on Monday amid reports of “inappropriate” conduct toward priests in the 1980s, the routine was wearingly familiar. It’s enough to make any Catholic yearn to leave the whole mess for someone else to clean up.

In response to these crimes, scandals and missteps, Elie goes on to list a variety of churches that he will be attending in the near future, none  of which are Catholic.  

As much as you can be born into a religion (a phrase which really means that your parents chose to indoctrinate you into their belief system regardless of what might be in your heart), I was born into Catholicism. While my mother wasn’t an overly observant Catholic, the church services that we occasionally attended were Catholic and the church that we identified as our own was the same. I never liked going to church, but it never occurred to me at the time that there might be another, more appropriate religion for me.

That’s how indoctrination works.

Our secret sauce is right. Everyone else’s secret sauce is wrong. Don’t even bother tasting it.  

Then my mother sent me to my first CCD class when I was about seven years-old. It was a two-hour affair conducted in the middle school adjacent to our church.

When I returned home from CCD two hours later, I told my mother that I was not going back. Also, I was no longer a Catholic.

My objections to Catholicism centered on my resistance to hierarchy and authority. Even at the tender age of seven, I was a difficult person who did not like being told what to do. While I was able to stomach the tenets of Catholicism for an occasional Sunday service, CCD made it clear to me that the church was a top-down, authoritative institution where the  questioning of religious doctrine and practice was not permitted.

I also couldn’t stand the thought of more school on Thursday afternoons.

To my mother’s credit, she allowed me to abandon Catholicism with the agreement that I would choose a new church. “You don’t have to be Catholic,” she said. “But you have to be something.”

Over the course of the next few weeks, my mother brought me to a variety of churches, and I ultimately settled on a Protestant Congregationalist Church in town. It was a simple, white church on a hill that served Wonder Bread and grape juice for communion and allowed children to ring the bell signaling that church was about to begin. Best of all, in the middle of Sunday service, the minister would call the children down to the front of the church and sit on the dusty floor with us, telling us a story while ignoring the adults.

image

That sealed the deal for me.

I have openly questioned many of the decisions that my parents made throughout my childhood, but this was one of the best decisions my mother ever made. Remarkably selfless, too. How many parents do you know who would be willing to release their children from their own belief system in favor of one that better accommodates their own personal style or beliefs?

I don’t know if I know any.  

When it comes to religion, parents tend to exceptionally selfish and illogical, thinking of religion as a winter coat. 

“Put it on. It’s cold outside. You need it.”

But religion is not something that can be put upon your child without a blend of indoctrination, deception and coercion. Expecting your child to willingly accept your belief system is ridiculous.

My mother knew this. She honored me as an individual. She respected by personal belief system.

Admittedly, religion didn’t stick with me, but I suspect that it wasn’t going to stick regardless of what my mother did. 

My mother probably knew this, too.

I am a reluctant atheist today. I would desperately like to believe in the existence of God (though not the cruel, inhumane God from the Old Testament) and an afterlife , but I simply haven’t found myself able to do so. 

I suspect that I’m a little too logical, a little too oppositional and too much of a nonconformist to accept the dogma of any organized religion, regardless of what I may want to believe. 

But I cherish those days spent in that Congregational church in Blackstone, Massachusetts. I didn’t come away with a belief in God or church doctrine, but I read the Bible from cover to cover at least twice while sitting in those wooden pews (probably the source of my disbelief), and think the church taught me a great deal about right and wrong. I suspect that I probably learned quite a bit about teaching and storytelling from a minister who knew how to entertain and educate a handful of kids ages 5-15 every week without exception.  

That was real miracle.

Owning a Canadian would be awesome.

A reader sent this to me, expecting that I would like it. I did. It’s not exactly original in its conceit, but it’s well done and quite amusing , so I thought I’d pass it along.

I’ve also listened to Laura Schlesinger and found her to be condescending and unpalatable.

_____________________________

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US citizen and posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

The Golden Rule: Complete and total nonsense

I recently made the assertion that the Golden Rule, the Biblical admonition to do onto others as you would have done onto you, is an ineffective and nonsensical means by which a person should live his or her life. I was in a conversation with a group of educational leaders at the time, and I am relatively certain that their reactions to this statement fell along one of three distinct lines:

  1. Matt is an idiot.
  2. Matt likes to say things to make people angry.
  3. Matt is an idiot who likes to say things that make people angry.

Suffice it to say that whatever their reaction was, no one initially agreed with me.

golden_rule

Yes, I may be an idiot who likes to make people angry at times, but my assertion in regards to The Golden Rule is correct. “The foundation of Christianity and most major religions” (as one person described the Golden Rule to me) possesses a flaw that makes it utterly useless.

The flaw is this:

In reality, we do not treat people as we would want to be treated, nor should we. We treat people as we perceive they want to be treated, and this is is often entirely different than the way we actually want to be treated.

For example, I know that when my wife has a problem, she would like me to listen intently and empathize with her plight. She is like most women in this respect. She wants to be heard. She wants to know that I am on her side. She wants to believe that I understand how she feels.

She may ultimately want me to help her solve the problem, but I know that any proposed solution is secondary and possibly not required at all. Sometimes a problem has no solution, yet she will still want to talk about it with me. As long as she knows that I am listening and I care, she is content with my response.

My response to a problem is entirely different. If I have chosen to discuss a problem with my wife or one of my friends, it is because I have reached the point where I need help in finding a solution. If a problem has no solution, I am unlikely to ever mention it to anyone.

Many men handle problems similarly. If a male friend calls me to discuss a problem, I know that he is not looking to be heard. He is not seeking empathy. He is calling me with the expectation that I will offer an immediate array of possible solutions. In most cases, I do not need to empathize or even care about my friend’s problem. I need not think that the problem is worthy of discussion, just as long as I have a solution to offer.

If I were to apply The Golden Rule to the way in which I discuss my wife’s problems with her, my response would not be well received. In this case, I cannot treat my wife as I would want to be treated, because our needs, like the needs of most men and women, are entirely divergent.

Situations like this happen all the time. In fact, if The Golden Rule was actually a valid moral code, human beings would be required to treat every person in their lives in only one way:

The way they would want to be treated.

Allowances would no longer need to be made for differences in personality, sensitivity, sex, age or personal background. In a world in which we treat people in a way that we would want to be treated, everyone would be equal in our eyes in every respect.

Everyone would be us.

Admittedly, it would make for a significantly simpler world. The need for nuance, grace and  sensitivity would be gone. Every decision would be based solely upon our own personal preference. You would simply ask yourself what you might want in a given situation and make that your modus operandi, regardless of who you were dealing with or the context of the situation.

For example, I like to be spoken to in a direct and honest manner. My closest friends know this and are able to say things to me that might hurt the feelings of others. But this is how I prefer to be treated. I find this method most effective for me.

In a world that demanded adherence to The Golden Rule, I would be required to speak to people similarly, even if I knew that doing so would  hurt some people’s feelings and cause them to feel uncomfortable around me.

I am quite certain of this because there was a time in my life when I practiced The Golden Rule in this regard, and it resulted in a great deal of animosity toward me. I was stupid and arrogant and lacking in nuance, and the results were not good.

The Golden Rule caused me a lot of trouble in my youth.

The actual Golden Rule should read like this:

Treat others in a way that they would want to be treated.

Thankfully, this is how most of us actually live our lives, even as we espouse our belief in this flawed, archaic rule.

Jesus Christ and these capital letters do not belong

This card has become the source of amusement for many because of Rick Santorum’s decision to quote Jesus Christ and the New Testament on a Hanukkah message designed for Jews. Then again, only about 0.3 percent of the South Carolinian population is Jewish, so maybe he was hoping that no one would notice.

image

Yes, this was a strange and fairly stupid decision.

And yes, I acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that Santorum played a hands-on role in the design of the actual card. But gaffs like this serve as an indication as to the quality of the organization that the candidate has built and is leading.

But I think an even more egregious error exists in the message at the bottom of the card:

May Your Hanukkah be bright. Peace to you this Holiday Season

Nothing annoys me more than random and improper capitalization.

While the words May, Hanukkah and Peace should be capitalized for obvious reasons, there is no reason to capitalize You, Holiday and Season. These words are seemingly capitalized at random, with no identifiable reason or purpose.

Furthermore, the first sentence ends with a period but the second does not.

More inconsistency.

Yes, it’s true that the use of a quote by Jesus Christ on a card directed to Jews makes no sense and is especially stupid in light of the Christian tone that Santorum strikes in his campaign, but the absence of basic copyediting demonstrates, at least to me, a lack of attention to detail that I find even more disturbing.

Then again, I am an author and not very religious, so perhaps I am sensitive in ways different than most.

Suggested revisions to religious services (and an offer to lead your congregation to happiness)

My wife and I brought our daughter to a blessedly brief children’s service a couple weeks ago during Rosh Hashanah. Granted I don’t have a lot of experience with these kinds of things (not being Jewish and all), but in regards to Jewish religious services, this children’s service was just my speed.

Some spirited music (in English), a short play based upon a children’s book, a thoughtful yet short reading, and some apples and honey on the way out.

Short, memorable, entertaining and engaging.

I wish that every rabbi, priest, minister, reverend and other religious whatnot would keep these four words in mind when planning their religious service, because in my experience, almost no one does.

And it’s annoying.

Why not attempt to make these services as entertaining, engaging and brief as possible?

Seriously.

If your service is more than 45 minutes and has failed to generate a single laugh, you’ve probably failed to keep the attention and interest of your congregation.

Why not actually try to engage the audience? Speak in a way that both delivers information and provides a modicum of entertainment. It’s probably not going to make a believer out of me, but I’d be a hell of a lot more likely to accompany my wife to some of these services if there was an attempt to make them palatable and memorable.

Hell, I‘d even be willing to help out. As long as the congregants didn’t mind my lack of faith, I’d be happy to put together a Sunday morning service for a local church.

A couple catchy tunes, a short, humorous yet meaningful sermon, a one-act play performed by a handful of adorable children designed to illustrate point, and a cookie on the way out.

I really think I’d be a hit. And I would not rely on the fear of God, the expectations of family and community, the inevitability of death or a lifetime of religious indoctrination to keep my audience coming back for more.

Oh, and I’d cancel all religious services if the weather is especially beautiful.  There’s nothing more silly than the thought that God would want you stuck inside listening to me (or anyone else for that matter) on a splendid autumn day.

Only one thing upset me about the Rosh Hashanah service that I attended with my wife and Clara.

At one point, the rabbi explained that this is the time of year when we should begin reflecting upon our lives and finding ways to live the life we have always wanted. He encouraged his congregation to be introspective, identifying those areas where improvement is needed, so that we can ultimately become the people we truly want to be.

When he finished, I turned to my wife and whispered, “I am the person I want to be, damn it. Who is he to assume otherwise?”

I really was annoyed. I wanted to tell him that when I was a little boy, I wanted to be a writer and a teacher, and damn it, that’s what I am today.

I wanted to tell him that I’ve also added DJ, life coach and minister to my list of current jobs, and if I could just find someone to hire me as a professional best man, all of my current career aspirations would be fulfilled.

I wanted to tell him that I am married to the best person I have ever known and have the best daughter I could ever imagine.

I wanted to tell him that I set 21 goals for myself back in January and am on pace to complete 16-18 of them, which is pretty damn good, all things considered.

I wanted to tell him that I have the best friends that I have ever had in my entire life.

I wanted to tell him that his assumptions suck.

I know. I’m probably taking a very well meant sentiment a little too personally, but in thinking about the type of religious officiate I might be (thus far I have only officiated weddings and baby naming ceremonies), I can’t imagine standing before a congregation and asking them to try harder to become the people they truly want to be.

While I am certain that this message might apply to some, it certainly doesn’t apply to all.

And it comes across a little holier-than-thou, which might seem appropriate for a temple or church but never is.

The complications of marrying a Jewish woman

I was listening to comedian Mark Maron speak to writer and comedian Carol Leifer on Maron’s popular podcast WTF. He was asking about what it was like to come out of the closet to her parents after years of being married to a man and living a heterosexual lifestyle.

Leifer described her parents as surprisingly supportive and happy that their daughter had found a woman to love.

“So you’re not disappointed in me?” she asked.

“We were disappointed in you when you married that Gentile,” Leifer’s father said. “Not now.”

Leifer went on to explain that the fact that her girlfriend was Jewish actually made the situation more palatable to her parents. It turns out that as long as she was marrying a Jew, it didn’t matter if it was a woman or a man.

Maron, also Jewish, laughed, and when I’ve mentioned this exchange to others since then, they have laughed as well.

I did not think it was funny.

Being married to a Jewish woman and not being Jewish myself, I did not find any amusement in this story.

It’s a story I live with constantly, and it never gets funny.

A few weeks ago, Elysha, Clara and were visiting a local Jewish Community Center with a friend to let the kids play on the indoor playscape. I sat down on a bench beside two older men waiting to play racquetball. One of the men was talking about how annoyed he has been with his daughter for marrying outside the faith. The other man said, “My daughter did the same thing. Eventually you accept it. You never love it, but it won’t always bother you as much as it does today.”

Later on, I met a woman responsible for arranging cultural events for the community center. We began talking, and the fact that I am an author came up. She mentioned that she might like to have me speak to the community center’s members sometime.

“Are you a member of the JCC or thinking of joining?”

Another woman said, “Oh, Matt isn’t Jewish. His wife is.”

“Oh,” the first woman said, and the conversation fizzled out.

Later my wife asked what I thought of the JCC and wondered if I would ever want to become a member. I told her that while I thought the place was great, I didn’t think that I could ever feel completely comfortable there and explained why.

To her credit, she understood completely.

It’s a difficult space in which to live, married to a Jewish woman but not being Jewish myself, and the difficulty exists only because of the Jewish demand to marry within the faith. It creates a situation in which I often feel not only like the outsider but also the interloper, and it leaves me wondering where I stand in people’s minds.

Take my wife’s family for example. Elysha’s parents, sister, aunts and uncles, cousins and grandmother have embraced me like one of their own, and I’m so grateful to them for their love and generosity. Her immediate family in particular have made me feel at home in a way that no other family ever has.

I love them all dearly.

And yet in the back of my mind lingers this thought:

Certain members of Elysha’s family, like many Jews, would never have considered marrying outside the faith, and therefore none of them would have ever considered me marriage material for themselves or their children.

Had it not been for Elysha, my membership in their family would have been unthinkable for some.

Had they or their children been looking for a suitable spouse I would have never been considered.

Here’s a good way to think about it:

It’s socially acceptable, culturally expected and commonplace for Jewish parents to impose the expectation that their children will marry within the Jewish faith. It is a belief that is publicly articulated, and to do otherwise in some families can damage the family beyond repair.  Some Jewish parents have gone so far as to disown their children and mourn them as if they had died.

It’s something that Mark Maron and Carol Leifer can laugh about despite the unfortunate truth behind this belief.

But what if we replace the word Jewish with black or Hispanic?

What if Leifer’s parents had said that they were disappointed in her for marrying a black man?

Would she have been so willing to tell that story on the podcast?

Would it have been as amusing?

I don’t think so.

What if the man outside the racquetball court had been upset because his daughter had married a Puerto Rican?

Would he have been so willing to share this disappointment with a stranger sitting next to him?

I suspect not.

And what if Elysha called her family tomorrow and said that after much deliberation and conversation with me, she has decided to forgo Judaism in favor or another religion or no religion at all?

While Elysha’s family is one of the most understanding and accepting of Jewish families, I suspect that this news would not go over well with all parties.

At least at first.

I suspect it could be a source of disappointment and even anger for some.

But what if Elysha called her family tomorrow and told them that I had decided to convert to Judaism.

I suspect this news would go over quite well.

This dichotomy never entirely leaves me.

When I hear people like Maron and Leifer joking about these issues on a podcast or a man openly expressing these beliefs while sitting beside me in a community center, it makes me feel like an interloper again.

While other religions place similar expectations on their children, the Jewish expectation to marry within the faith is especially strong. When we were engaged to be married, Elysha would come home at least once every couple weeks and tell me about the code that Jews use to determine if I was Jewish.

“What’s his last name?”

Sadly, had my last name been Dickstein instead of Dicks, our pending nuptials would have been received with considerably greater joy by some.

It’s the difference between tolerance and acceptance. 

This feels like 99% acceptance.

“You can marry Elysha, but someone of similar beliefs could never marry one of my children.”

“You don’t have to be Jewish, but your wife and children had better be stay Jewish.”

As unfortunate as the sentiment is, it makes me feel lucky, because Elysha’s parents and family are outliers when it comes to their acceptance of me. Elysha’s parents embraced me immediately, without question or reservation.

I know Jewish parents who would make their child’s life hell of he or she chose to marry outside the faith, which I find amazing. 

Imagine the audacity and selfishness required for parents to believe that they have the right to screen out potential spousal candidates based upon religious beliefs.

In today’s world of interracial and homosexual marriages, it’s almost medieval.  

My hope is that with time, the Jewish community at large will become more accepting of interfaith marriages and make us less-Chosen people feel more genuinely welcome.

Making me good enough for Elysha but never for their own daughter is an unfortunate quality that the world could do without. 

The Wikipedia entry on "receptionist" is fascinating. Little did I know that it would lead me to the body of Christ.

I find it amusing when someone says that they work “in reception.” As if reception is a department akin to accounting or marketing or IT. In truth, I’ve only had one person ever say this directly to me, but the phrase came up in conversation last week, and I’ve heard it referenced before. I find this seeming deliberate avoidance of the word receptionist slightly offensive to receptionists everywhere.

When I managed a McDonald’s restaurant, I didn’t tell people that I worked in food service management or that I worked for a Fortune 500 company.

I said, “I manage a McDonald’s restaurant.”

You’re a receptionist.  There’s nothing wrong with that.

If you think there is, get another job.

In the process of writing what I thought would be a short post, I searched the phrase in reception online and returned thousands of hits.

Most interesting among them was a Wikipedia entry on receptionists that sounds like it was specifically written by a receptionist who loves his or her job a little too much.

It’s not your typical, passionless Wikipedia article. It reads like a sixth grade term paper. In terms of irony, obtuseness, and sheer entertainment value, it’s worth a read.

I’m equally fascinated by the photos of the two receptionists used for the entry.

image image

Does this man (working at the Hampton Inn Suites based upon the data contained within the photo) and these two women know that their images have been used to help illustrate the meaning of the word receptionist?

Even more compelling:

Is the partially concealed woman in the second photo annoyed that her colleague has received front billing?  Has she always been jealous of her prettier desk mate?  Did this photograph sadly reinforced these feelings of inadequacy and self doubt?

Even better, are any of these people (I strongly suspect Mr. Hampton Inn Suites) the author of the Wikipedia entry?

I think it’s entirely possible.

Paragraphs like this would seem to support this theory:

At times, the job may be stressful due to interaction with many different people with different types of personalities, and being expected to perform multiple tasks quickly.

Sounds like someone complaining about his job to me. Perhaps a desk clerk at a busy Hampton Inn Suites in New York?

Or how about this paragraph?

A receptionist position… could be perceived as having a certain veneer of glamour with opportunities for networking in order to advance to other positions within a specific field. Some people may use this type of job as a way to familiarize themselves with office work, or to learn of other functions or positions within a corporation. Some people use receptionist work as a way to earn money while pursuing further educational opportunities or other career interests such as in the performing arts or as writers.

See that? Pursuing other career interests such as writers?

The writer of Wikipedia entries, perhaps?

And a veneer of glamour? C’mon!

This paragraph reads like a guy trying to explain to his parents why their son, a graduate from Hofstra with a degree in philosophy, is working the front desk at a Hampton Inn Suites.

“It’s just temporary, Mom. It’s paying the bills while I work on my career. I’m up for a small part in an off-off-off Broadway production of a modern day adaptation of The Tempest, and Billy and I are writing a screenplay about two slackers living in a Volkswagen. This is how people get started in the business.”

In fact, the whole entry on receptionists reads like the first draft for a pamphlet designed to elevate the esteem of the position of receptionist to prospective high school student everywhere.

It really is an amusing read.

And I’m not done.

The following two sentences appear along the top of the entry:

This article is about an employee. For those who believes in the doctrine of receptionism, see Receptionism.

There is so much to be said about these two sentences.

First, “This article is about an employee.” One specific employee? Perhaps Mr. Hampton Inn Suites? An odd choice of words, to say the least. And it sure as hell sounds like something the guy in the photograph would say based upon the nothing I actually know about him.

Then there is the grammar problem in the second sentence (“For those who believes”), but even more interesting is the implication that only those who believe in the doctrine of receptionism are permitted read about it.

For those who believes in the doctrine receptionism, see Receptionism?   

If I don’t believe in receptionism, I can’t click?

Naturally, I clicked, dragging me further into the wormhole that is Wikipedia.

Receptionism, it turns out, is a Christian theological doctrine which states that in a Eucharist service, the bread and the wine do not transform into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ until they enter a person’s mouth.

Apparently this has caused quite a bit of hullabaloo in various religious circles for reasons I don’t quite understand.  Read for yourself and see if you can make any sense of it.

I’m left thinking this:

If you truly believe that bread and wine are magically transformed into the actual blood and body of a man who died more than 2,000 years ago, arguing over when this magic takes place amounts to little more than the splitting of hairs.

Thus ends my journey through Wikipedia for another day.

Disappointed that billions haven’t died?

More fallout from the failed Rapture:

Expert Rapture predictor Harold Camping's public relations manager moved his family from California to Ohio a month before the supposed Rapture in order to wait for the end of days. 

Last week he announced that he is headed back to California next week:

"You can imagine we're pretty disappointed, but the word of God is still true," he told The Los Angeles Times. "We obviously went too far, and that's something we need to learn from."

I’m not sure if you want your public relations manager telling the world that you were disappointed that the world was not ravaged by massive earthquakes and raging fires, killing every living thing on the planet.

Perhaps just a “Yeah, we were surprised since Harry’s only gotten this Rapture thing wrong once before” would have been more appropriate.

The Rapture. Part II.

Oh good.  Just when I thought I would have to wait years for another Rapture prediction comes word that the next one is just around the corner. 

Harold Camping, the minister responsible for last weekend’s prediction, announced that the Rapture began on May 21, just in a “spiritual” and not “physical” way.

“But it won’t be spiritual on October 21,” Camping said.

Almost sounds the like the tagline to a movie trailer.  Doesn’t it?

So when October 12 comes and goes and the world has not been consumed by a fireball, what will Camping’s next excuse be?

“The Rapture continues, just not in a spiritual way anymore.  Now it’s emotional.  Or financial.  Or technical. Or transcendental. Or metaphorical. Or cosmological. Or nutritional.”

It could be decades before he runs out of excuses.

Let’s just hope that no one is stupid enough to rid themselves of their worldly possessions and quit their jobs again.

Fool me once, I’m an idiot.  At least when it comes to Rapture predictions.  Fool me twice, shame on me.   

Either way, it’s good news for me, as I will have a second chance at the prank that I forgot about last weekend.        

When it comes to the Rapture, I have always believed that more is more.

Is this version any less likely?

My niece, Lexi, told my sister about the story of Noah's Ark today: "It's the big ship with all the animals that Uncle Sam flew and it came down and crushed the Earth."

noahsark

Not quite the version that appears in the Bible, but is it really any less likely than every species of animal voluntarily making its way to the Middle East (including penguins and polar bears, and depending upon your level of fanaticism, dinosaurs), climbing aboard a boat in just before a worldwide flood, and somehow repopulating the planet one the flood water dissipated despite the lack of genetic diversity?

I kind of like Lexi’s version better.

Bringing the May 21 rapture to life!

An brilliant idea from the mind of author Wendy Clinch:

“Rapture prank: On Saturday, take some of your unwanted clothes and shoes and leave sets of them arranged on sidewalks and lawns around town.”

Pretty ingenious.  Huh?

And considering that my wife informed me that I have no nice clothes and that the best shirt she could find in my closet for me to wear for a recent television interview was “inoffensive”, I probably have some items that I can spare.

Hillary Clinton is sexually suggestive?

You’ve seen the now-iconic photo of US officials being updated on the Bin Laden raid. Right?

But have you seen this version of the photograph, published in Di Tzeitung, the ultra Orthodox Hasidic Jewish newspaper.

Failed Messiah / Critical Minyan

Notice the absence of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counter Terrorism Director Audrey Tomason?

They were removed from the picture.

It is Di Tzeitung’s policy to never publish pictures of women in their newspaper, because these images could be considered sexually suggestive.

My wife is Jewish, but when it comes to Judaism, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews are similar to her in name only. In fact, most, if not all Hasidic Jews would not even consider my wife’s reform brand of Judaism to be Judaism at all, and I contend that she should in turn do the same.

You simply cannot affiliate yourself in any way with a group of people who would:

A.  Erase the images of female US officials from photographs as important and historic as this one.

B.  Believe that a fully-clothed, black-and-white image of Hillary Clinton might be so sexually suggestive as to warrant removal from their newspaper.

Nothing against Hillary, but she isn’t exactly eye candy.

And if this is the case, what else might they do?

Would the editors of Di Tzeitung have removed the image of Jackie Kennedy from the JFK assassination photos?

Does the newspaper routinely remove the Statue of Liberty from its images of New York harbor?

And most important, what would this ass-backward newspaper do if America ever elected a female President?

And did they refuse to show an image of Margaret Thatcher during her term in office?

Or the Queen of England?

And how the hell would they handle the images of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir if she were in office today?

Would they refuse to print a photograph of the Prime Minister of Israel?

Of course, these photographic restrictions are just the tip of their sexist iceberg. Orthodox and Hasidic Jews don’t even allow men and women to sit together in temple, providing men with preferential and segregated seating.

You cannot use the perils of sexual suggestiveness as an excuse for doctoring a photograph of our Secretary of State while simultaneously treating your house of worship like an Alabama schoolhouse in 1963.

Be little again: The best prayer

I am not religious (though I am a minister), which makes this a little odd. And it comes from the film that was considered the most violent film by the Guinness Book of Records and The National Coalition on Television Violence, with a rate of 134 acts of violence per hour, or 2.23 per minute, which makes it odder still.

But regardless of my personal belief and it’s violent context, I love this prayer from the film Red Dawn:

These were good friends. Take them away from here... someplace safe... where this world's war never happened. And as we remember... please let them forget, O Lord... so they can be little again.

Take away the reference to World War III (unless it’s unfortunately relevant) and it is almost perfect.

red_dawn

A few random quandaries

1. How  did oak tag get its name? 2.  Why is it a travesty to chop down a two hundred year old tree, but you can hack down a ten year old tree without batting an eye? Why is an old tree any more precious than a young one?

200-year-old-tree

 

 

 

3. Why is Jesus rarely portrayed as Middle Eastern? At best he appears well-tanned. Like a hippy from Boca Raton.

He was Middle Eastern. Right?

Not sure how to feel about this.

I felt utterly torn when I first watched this banned Super Bowl commercial that pits Jesus against President Obama.

My initial reaction:

I’m glad they banned this commercial from the Super Bowl. Ultra-conservative craziness has no place at a football game. Especially the biggest football game of the year.

But then I thought:

Actually, isn’t it anti-capitalistic to ban a commercial like this? Why not let the moron make a buck off his Jesus Hates Obama tee-shirts, as long as he is willing to pay the million dollar price tag for the ad?

Then I thought:

Can a tee-shirt company really afford a Super Bowl ad? Or is this just a clever publicity stunt by the tee shirt manufacturer?

Then I thought:

Obama’s favorable numbers are well over 50 now and still rising.  From a political perspective, a commercial like this might further galvanize his liberal base and may swing moderates in his direction by illustrating the lunacy of the far right wing. This commercial might actually help our President in ways that no one has anticipated.

Then I thought:

I feel bad for my Republican and religious friends. Ideas like the ones being espoused by this commercial cast my friends’ political parties and religious institutions in a bad light.

Then I thought:

It really is hard to be a Republican.

Then I thought:

Why do I even care if this commercial pits Jesus versus Obama? As an atheist, the Jesus versus Obama fight is nothing more than placing an enlightened  philosopher from 2,000 years ago in opposition to a modern day political leader. The idea is not blasphemous. It’s just silly and stupid. But it would be no different than pitting a Thomas Aquinas or a Aristotle bobble head doll against an Obama bobble head doll.

Then I thought:

Actually, whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or merely an enlightened man, I am fairly certain that he would not approve of the message in this commercial or emblazoned on the tee shirts. How many times have we seen so-called believers defend of their God in ways that their God would fervently condemn?

Then I thought:

I have to admit that the commercial is funny.

Then I thought:

Wow. Stupid people can be funny.

Then I thought:

No they can’t. A clever advertising agency took the stupid people's money and made the funny commercial for them.

Then I thought:

I should find a way of separating stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

I should find a LEGAL way of separating stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

Maybe the guy making these tee shirts is a smart guy who has found a way to separate stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

I wish I had thought of this idea first.

Then I thought:

But I still kind of hate it.

See what I mean? Utterly torn.