We Float Like Two Lovers In A Painting By Chagall

The time is 9:39 AM, and I am nauseous. Seems like fascist comments are the new black. So, fashionista that I am, I think I will wear my liberal fascist rant about conservatism and the gays on my sleeve - right on top of my trendy black Boyfriend sweater.

Honestly, I am three seconds from a throw down, and I have not even had my morning cup of tea. For those of you living under a rock, a gay pride parade was supposed to take place in Jerusalem today, but, because the Charedim have nothing better to do than take up arms against the GLBTQ community (well - not so much the Qs; I suppose the Charedim think there is still hope for them . . . as long as they don't go and do anything stupid, like have gay sex), there will be no parade. Instead, the parade organizers, in the face of serious death threats, decided to morph what would have been an incredibly large and public parade into a relatively private rally in a large stadium. What the hell, mate? I do not think I have the energy to even try to understand or touch upon the flawed logic, soullessness, unimaginable intolerance, and downright stupidity of the ultra-Orthodox in terms of their thoughts on homosexuality, so, instead, I think I will turn my attention to the slightly less extremist, right-wing religious.

In reading several progressive Jewish blog entries about the parade and the comments attached to these posts, I seem to have stumbled upon a recurrent theme: "I mean, if they wanna be gay, that's gross, but I guess it'd be fine if they did it in private, but, I mean, why they gotta get all up in my business in the streets? What an abomination!" OK. REALLY!? The argument here seems to be that the problem with the parade is that it takes place in public, forcing the religious to come face to face with the sin of lying with another man. Let me get this straight. If a woman wants to kiss her same-sex lover in public, if a man wants to hold hands with his same-sex partner in public, she or he would really be better suited to share his or her love in private, but, if you want to be bigoted, you should be able to do so in public? Don't want to watch the lasciviousness (since when is showing affection lascivious!)? GO INSIDE! Why should anyone have to love in private so that someone else can feel more comfortable? Since when does showing affection and asking for basic human rights desecrate a Holy City? Know what actually desecrates a Holy City? When people are treated as second-class citizens. When people are told not to love whomever they love. When people are denied the right to even ask for rights. A little nudity and a lot of pushing for equal inclusion in society do not desecrate a city. Unjust killing in the name of the Lord, blind hatred, and ignorance desecrate a Holy City.

Last night, as I walked to dinner on Third Avenue, a horde of ultra-Orthos came running my way. "Where are they going?" my friend, Emily, asked. "They’re walking to Jerusalem," I quipped. Now, normally, I would have been overjoyed to see my Jewish brethren, and I would have saved my snotty remarks for people who push strollers on Third Avenue at 9 am, but the callousness with which I was met by these men caused my venomous wrath to flow their way. Here I am, politely walking to dinner, taking up approximately two square inches of the Manhattan side way - I am two feet tall, afterall - and I seriously thought I was going to lose an arm as they all trampled over me. With tunnel vision towards their yellow school buses, it was as if the rest of us did not exist. Why care about who's sleeping with whom, if you do not care enough about your fellow man not to step on his toes and punch him in the side in your effort to get where you're going? Is such self-absorption and self-preservation sanctioned by the Holy Texts you study? Because I study those same texts, and my reading sure did not teach me that it was okay to show complete disregard for my fellow man in an effort to meet my own needs.

This morning I logged onto the nytimes.com to find an article about Massachusetts' latest legislation on same-sex marriage. It seems our Northeastern friends wisely put an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage to rest. My buddy Mitt Romney refers to the ending of discussion on the amendment (i.e., essentially, killing the amendment) a "triumph of arrogance over democracy." Mitt, I was not aware that "arrogant" had come to replace "good common sense" in the dictionary. However, Mitt's comments point to the fact that this is a far-reaching epidemic, this fascist hatred and intolerance.

Everybody Loves A Ref. Jew

This Shabbat was magnificent. I started looking forward to this Shabbat by the time Tuesday rolled around, and it was no disappointment. On Friday afternoon, I traveled from my place of employment with the Ref. Jews to Blockheads, where BImmerman and I shared a drink before heading to Brooklyn for Kol Zimrah Brooklyn, a non-denominational, macroscopically traditional, microscopically flexible, egalitarian minyan. I enjoyed delightful davening and Shabbos dinner at KZB, after which I headed to my friends' apartment for some catching up and reminiscing. Shabbos morning found me at Hadar, a macroscopically and microscopically traditional minyan that says it is egalitarian (and I believe it is so when it comes to gender; more on what I think about other manifestations of egalitarianism later). From there, I joined several friends for a relaxed Shabbos lunch at our fabulous friend's, the Ref. rabbinical student's, apartment. From there, I walked (sans telephone or purse) to another friend's apartment for conversation, a nap, and, eventually, a spirited havdallah. And so it was.

What was it, though? It was a terrifically Reform, terrifically un-label-driven Shabbat. One could look at my Shabbat and say, "But that’s not Ref." I would counter: yes, yes it is. I enjoyed a Shabbat filled with ruach, with Torah, with prayer, with a commitment to Klal Yisrael. All of these things are things I choose to enjoy as a Ref. Jew, and they are things to which the Ref. Movement (hence forth "RM") tells me I should be committed.

Amongst other conversations that were had, the idea of labeling Ref. Judaism "Ref." versus "Progressive" came up. The preponderance of Ref. Jews (I am talking about seriously Movement-oriented Ref. Jews) beginning to call themselves Progressive, and the desire to rename an already-existent Movement to reflect this name change, has had my feathers in a ruffle lately. What is in a name? A couple of years ago, the Ref. movement changed its name. This was a name change I support, as I do think the new name is more reflective of what the organization actually does and who it serves. I would argue the benefits of the name change from a purely descriptive point of view, which I am happy to argue in person, as I do not want to specifics of that name change, which are easily Google-able, to make my blog easily Google-able. So, what would the difference be if we changed our name to the North American Movement for Progressive Judaism? Nothing! We are the RM. Are there things that frustrate me about the Movement? Sure! That is because Movement-based Judaism is a human-made creation, and human systems will always have flaws, as humans are eternally flawed. I am able to move past those flaws to see the beauty, the applicability, and the usefulness of the institutions of my Movement, and, so, I accept that there will always be flaws, and I commit myself to enriching the strengths and managing the weaknesses of those institutions.

Why would one want to call the [redacted name of the RM] the NAMPJ? Perhaps one is an observant Ref. Jew who finds it difficult to find a comfortable place in the RM. Perhaps one is frustrated when some look at him/her as the "Jewy, Jewy Jew Jew." Perhaps one cannot find a meaningful "Ref. space" (whatever that means) in which to daven. Perhaps one feels like there are not enough people committed to education and there are too many people making choices out of complacency or lack of information. One would probably be right or, at the least, justified in feeling or believing all of those things. But what would a name change do? Unless we commit ourselves to living a certain set of values, enacting those values as loudly and frequently as possible as an example to others, and then helping others gain the tools to live those values themselves, a name change is useless. We can call ourselves whatever we want here, but the problem is not in the semantics, at the moment.

What we need is to stop being so self-conscious and defensive about our observances. There are more than two observant Ref. Jews, which means there is a place for us within the Movement. Furthermore, I am starting to believe that, when we feel that there is no place for us or that people do not want us, it is our own insecurity that prevents us from being members of the greater community. Sure, there are instances of nasty comments or misunderstandings, but I believe, whole-heartedly, that these situations arise more out of fear and confusion than out of a genuine disdain for the observant. Sometimes, when we engage in observances that the greater community does not share, we forget to explain what we are doing. When we forget to explain, we appear as insular and mystifying as the Haredim may appear to us sometimes. It is up to us to take a step to meet everyone three fourths of the way. Before we sing a niggun, we need to explain the tradition of Shabbat zemirot and pull up a few empty chairs to the table. Before we push for inclusion of a more full liturgy in our tefilah, we need to explain the merits of doing so. Before we decide to be shomer Shabbos in a family that is not, we need to explain how and why this enriches our observance and be respectful that it might not [yet? ever?] enrich our family's observances, and they have a right to observe differently. Is this MO perfect? Do I envision and long for a world in which we can just be, sans explanation? Sure. But we are not there yet, and we would be naive to think we are.

So, for now, let us work on practicing our Judaism as we want, backing up that practice with study, and arming ourselves with the tools to explain ourselves and the openness of heart to share our knowledge and decisions with others so that they may see another option. When we stop judging ourselves, stop being uncomfortable in our own skin, others will stop judging us and we will stop making others uncomfortable. There is a place for us; we just have to be ready to step into it. And, if we inhabit that space loudly, joyously, and without being self-conscious, others will join us; I have seen it happen. We all came to this place from somewhere else.

Also, let us challenge ourselves one step further - let us be grateful and thankful for the institutions that shape the Movement of which we are a part. Let us see their tremendous strength above a couple of relatively (emphasis on relatively) unimportant flaws. Let us be thankful for the amazing infrastructure and support system they provide. Let us remember those magnificent days in Utica, Mississippi or Warwick, New York and not downplay the role they had in shaping us OR the fact that they were a direct result of the existence of our Movement. Sometimes the best way to be critical is to be constructively critical. Focus on strengths and do not play into weaknesses. By focusing on and making more numerous the strengths, we tend to fix that which we do not like.

Exhausted yet? Wondering what you will get out of the struggle? Frustrated because you perceive that you get nothing in return for all of your pushing? Think again. Think about the thoughtful person you have become. Think about your ability to engage in a struggle. Think about your ability to engage in debate. Think about your ability to be unhappy and push for change. These things came from your pushing. Thank G-d for this opportunity to participate in this sacred struggle. Not everything has a tangible return. At some point, we become that which we are pushing, and so no one other than ourselves owes us anything. As it is true of every relationship, no one can make you happy but you. And no one should. Anyone or anything that does is just icing on the cake.

Set the table. Use all of the forks; use all of the other implements. Likely, someone seated next to you will not know that the outside fork is the salad fork. But that does not mean you have to get up and reset the table or reset another table entirely. It does not mean you have to scream at him and explain which fork is which. It means that you should just keep using that outside fork to eat your salad and that spoon up top to eat your dessert. Do so with glee, do so humbly, and all will follow. Perhaps slowly. Perhaps not in your lifetime. But that is OK. Good things come to those who wait.