Maimon, The Outcast

I'm continuing to learn as I make my way through books about Maimonides.  As I said, he can't win.  He was too smart, too unique, too out of step with the Jews, too definite and without compromise.  He threatened too many people; and the traditional Kabbalistic/Ashkenazic/Gaonic ways of life were against him.  He wanted for the Jews, what the Jews didn't want. His intentions were the best--for the glory of Hashem (God), and "all Israel."  However, "all Israel" wasn't on the bandwagon with him.

One of his fundamental goals was to organize and settle the totality of age-old Talmudic dissension, controversy, and dispute, henceforth and forever more; essentially, he wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff, deleting argument from Jewish law (halacha); he wanted the Jewish world to be able to cleanly and easily grasp the crux of the law without having to stumble and meander through all the arguments preceding it.  The Jews, however, problematic and divisive to the core, had to argue with someone, so they disputed Maimon instead of Talmud--exactly what he was trying to eradicate!!!

The Jews needed to stick with what they knew--Talmud the old-fashioned way; a "mishmash" of debate. Interestingly, the Jews accepted Judah ha Nasi and his Mishneh; they accepted Joseph Karo and the Shulchan Aruch (Set Table--rules of behavior).  But when Maimon came along in between the two, isolated there in the southern Sephardic/assimilated Graeco-Roman-Moslem world, it was a "Thanks but no thanks."  Maimon was perceived as being too radical.

I love Maimonides.  I understand why he wasn't accepted.  I respect that.  He wasn't wrong; he was different.  He was writing for "the Bunch," and at the same time, he wasn't one of them.  Remember about community--how one has to fall in line.  How community keeps one in line if one falls out, or ultimately rejects him, altogether.  Snius, snius--(Modesty, modesty: Humility). 

That's the answer.  Right there.  Maimon didn't fit the mold.  It wasn't that he was arrogant, or mean, or anything that was a negative.  He was just different, and too bright to know or reckon with how deeply his work and persona impacted others.  He was aware of others' disdain regarding him, and their arguments concerning his dedication to rational discourse. Yet, he hoped that in time--the future--Jewish perspective no longer would be personally directed at him, and objectively would swing toward his way of thinking, instead. It did not.

His was THE greatest mind during all of the Middle Ages (not just amidst the Jews, but everyone)--on a par with Einstein, easily; albeit much better rounded than an Einstein.  Maimonides was a freak, an outcast; too brilliant for the masses--even the educated masses--to grasp. Astounding man.

The truth is, the Jews didn't want him because his expediency, clarity, and organization of thought threatened their established, dithering ways. Maimon, in his zeal for codification and rationalism, was about more than just regimenting the Talmud and Jewish law.  Ironically, and Jewishly, he was about unraveling the "Jewish mind" without realizing it.  He wanted a kind of linear thinking, in a Jewish world that was ponderously circular in ideology and thought. Essentially, he wanted the Jews to think like the Greeks: they were not able, as they were Jews.  There is a fundamental difference between the two cultures in terms of mindset.  This is one element that Maimonides was unable to grasp, in my opinion; quite possibly because he was Jewish, himself.

Perhaps, one could say the Greek mind was about, "either this or that." The Jew is about, "Well, maybe a little this and maybe a little that; but then again, maybe not..."   For the Greek, everything has to add up mathematically; for the Jew, there are always two possibilities; unless there is need for one more.

Alas, Aristotle and Maimon, of the crisp and decisive Greek mentality, must have had fits regarding such willy nilly back and forth discussions and debates.

Thus, Maimon became read and studied as a Jewish philosopher, and a commentator on Jewish law.  His effort to re-write and define the Talmud, was acknowledged, but not rendered authoritative. A first-rate second-stringer at best, others were studied long before him--if he is studied at all. He ran rings around every single Jewish scholar who ever lived.  Even now. But it didn't matter.  He wasn't part of the Bunch.  And that, in Judaism as with all tribes, is the bottom line.

I read about him with tears in my eyes.  It is so hard to be different.  It really is very lonely at the top...

Maimonides by Moshe Halbertal

My review written for Amazon: Try it; you'll like it. 
I suppose it begins with the book jacket, which is elegant, no-nonsense, and straightforward. The content of the book only gets better from there. Mr. Maimon (as I refer to him), happens to be one of my heroes. This volume, which is thorough, laced with appositives and careful elucidating explanations, clearly defines why I feel the way I do.

The author is succinct, logical, exceedingly well organized--no doubt Maimonidean himself--and the book, in my opinion, is exquisitely sensitive to Maimon the man, as well as to the philosopher/logician/astronomer/physician. The book covers his entire life in the initial biographical chapter that is about one quarter of the book. The rest of the book is devoted to Maimonides' most significant works--his "Commentary on the Mishneh," "The Commandments," "The Mishneh Torah" and "The Guide for the Perplexed." Halbertal refers to additional compositions; however, the focus of the book is primarily reflective of these--the best, most influential, and most powerful of Maimonides' writings.

Maimonides, himself, in addition to his incredible mind, was funny, sarcastic, brash, impatient, rude; in short, he was straightforward to a fault, and had no positive sentiment for the "stupid" or the "foolish," as he referred to them. It is important to note that he was as caring and feeling about those whom he loved, as he was passionate about those whose ire he raised. The author covers all aspects of this extraordinarily gifted gentleman; not infrequently exasperating in his insistence that his way was the right and only way: At one moment, Halbertal actually refers to Maimon's behavior as that of a "harebrained amateur!" (This, to add depth of thought, and chuckles, too, regarding the most profound of all medieval thinkers).

I think one has to be a little bit peculiar to relish such a book as this--printed by Princeton, that seems to do a wonderful job of choosing its authors--because Maimonides in today's world, by many would be deemed as somewhat esoteric; even among Jews, themselves. Mr. Maimon took no prisoners when he wrote, slammed head-on into the established Jewish scholars of his day; and those with whom he took issue, all the way back to the time of the "other" Moses. Had he been burned at the stake or excommunicated, it would have been fitting, albeit so hideously wrong. However for me, being an eccentric, I fairly swoon over his principles: Provincially Jewish to the core; but grounded, developed, and enhanced by the classical thinkers of Greece, Rome, and the golden age of Islam.

I say this book "rocks."

It is at once an introduction to the magnificence of Maimonides, and it is a summation, too; depending upon the reader. For the novice such as myself, who craves information about Mr. Maimon, Halbertal's volume is superb. I would imagine that for the knowledgeable reader, "Maimonides: Life and Thought" would be a sublime refresher, synthesizer, and assistant with insightful information.

It's tough going on the one hand; I find myself wanting the primary sources. On the other, it's deliciously rich, beautifully written, not without witty similes and metaphors. It's terrific! What can I say? As for the translator (the book was originally published in 2009, in Hebrew), the 2014 (yes) English edition's eloquence is clean, fluid, and filled with fun vocabulary to delight: Three cheers for Joel Linsider!

So for me, I think "Maimonides: Life and Thought," by Moshe Halbertal, is a million times better than any Harry Potter tome; and between us, many times more spellbinding... Enjoy.

"Hypers, Nancy!" George ejaculated. Response: Political Incorrectness In Nancy Drew Books

[ The followimg post is a response to an article : Was Nancy Drew Politically Incorrect? ]

In every single thing I do, I am a detective.  Some people call that "doing one's homework."  From the moment I arise until I drop, I am a grade-A busybody; whether it is about medicine, law, education, business, or just trying to survive in today's world.

Nancy Drew's, some in first editions (yes, really), have a place of honor on my bookshelves.  I have them printed on cheaper paper for the sake of saving money to support the Second World War; I have them with R.H. Tandy's marvelous illustrations both in glossy black and whites printed from 1929 through the '30's, in pen and ink's from the late '30's and '40's, in their colored covers.  I also have the later illustrators who cheapened and simplified Nancy's style and persona.  It was R.H. Tandy who gave her her beauty.  Not to mention that of chums, Helen Corning, Bess Marvin, and George Fayne; with loyal housekeeper, Hannah Gruen, and Dad--Carson Drew. Remember???

The books, complete with running boards on automobiles that required blankets for "motoring" as there were yet to be car heaters; a whopping speed limit of 20 miles per hour; rumble seats in roadsters; or "electrical ice-boxes" as the term "refrigerator' was brand new; were also very real. That is to say, the books reflected the times in which they were written, as the author states.

There neither was nor is absolutely nothing wrong with them.  Nothing.

As several of the folks commented below, it wasn't about "racism" or "anti-Semitism'" in those days.  It was about reality: The way things were.  That's called "HISTORY."   The books, with the nom de plume of Carolyn Keene, were well written--for third and fourth graders--full of fun vocabulary, settings, adventures, and new things for young girls who wanted to be grown-up's.  In those days, when a girl like Nancy was 16, she was already running a household and solving mysteries.  As the books progressed, and our society was ever more protective of its children, Nancy's age upped to 18.  She had to be more mature to do all of those things; it wasn't so much about time passing, as it was about our society becoming less mature.

The bigotry and prejudice, if one wants to look for it, is there--"good and plenty."  But you know, it's how things were.  As the author writes, rather than hide reality from children, talk with them about it.  Learn from it.  Be glad that Nancy offers so much in so many dimensions--historically, politically, socially, culturally--in addition to the simple plots that were ever so adventuresome!  I still "blush to the fingertips" when something exciting is upon me. Don't you??

If one wants to address the 'Drew books, rather than frown upon the culture of the times, one might also take a look at Nancy as a top-drawer feminist--in fact, as are all of the women in these books.  Take Mr. Drew's sister: Eloise Drew, unmarried, a career woman, and living quite successfully in New York.  I believe Aunt Lou was a practicing attorney, and helped Nancy on more than one case...  See, it wasn't about deliberate attacks on this group or that; again, it was about society, commentary, the culture; and authors who used--yes--the ideal Girl Scout, as the epitome of the role model for Nancy's character.

This author did a very good job of discussing the slants in Nancy's world.  I have little doubt that those same slants were in far more books and series--e.g.: Mark Twain--than just Nancy Drew.  Hide the truth of the times, and they will re-live themselves.  Expose them for what they were, and they're valuable  lessons.

Nancy Drew is one of The Best aspects of my life.  She is alive and well, and with me every single day.  I am so glad that the author was as generous as she was, and wise.  Sometimes, people aren't so kind.  I have no patience with the politically correct: It's one thing to be courteous, polite, and civil. It's quite another to hide the truth, and live in a world that isn't or wasn't, or will never be: That is not Nancy Drew; it is the Emperor's New Clothes.

Moses ben Maimon: Cool Dude

"I got a crush on you, Sweetie Pie.  All the day and night-time, hear me sigh..."

Mr. Maimon as I call him, whose name was Moses, son of Maimon (also a distinguished rabbi) additionally is referred to as RaMBam (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon), or Maimonides.  He lived around the Mediterranean--Spain, Morocco, Palestine, Egypt--from 1135 or 1138, until his death, in 1204.  He was a fox.

He was beyond brilliant, and he was a Renaissance man before there was a Renaissance.  He belonged with the likes of Leonardo, Copernicus, Galileo, and as many greats of the future as one can recall.  St. Thomas Aquinas was inspired by Maimonides and used his work to better understand nature, science, and the realm of God in Christianity. Maimon was without question, the greatest thinker of the Middle Ages. Even today, it's difficult to find an equal who would match the genius and this remarkable and truly worldly philosopher.

Mr. Maimon, in addition to writing extensive commentary on the Mishnah--part of the Hebrew Talmud or books of law based on the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah--and organizing virtually all of said Jewish law until that time--was actually a physician, a scientist, an astronomer, a nutritionist, and a worldly philosopher.  He practiced medicine, was court physician to Al Qadi al Fadil, whose father was the incomparable Saladin--magnificent medieval ruler.

Word has it, dates aside, that King Richard the Lion Heart, in the midst of his travels during the Crusades, wanted Maimonides in his own court; but that for the times, Maimon felt his safety was in better hands with the Muslims.  Remember, this was the time of the Crusades, and expulsions/executions of Jews throughout the European civilized world. Strange bedfellows, eh?

As a physician, Maimonides was dedicated to medication, cures for multiple diseases and conditions, and pharmacological study as well as its organization.  The Maimonidean Oath for doctors, is practiced today. His methodology was a precursor for pharmaceutical practice.  He was a health nut, and was firm about diet and exercise.  The famous portrait of him that most see, is a contrivance no doubt, and has been duplicated multiple times.

However, Maimon could not have been heavy-set, or beefy in construct, as it wasn't who he was, nutritionally.  Rather than looking like Chef Boyardee, Moses Maimonides had to have been slender. He walked back and forth to his offices from his home, on a daily basis, saw patients, saw the Vizier in his palace, wrote voluminously, corresponded, spoke publicly and traveled to do so, and led a very active and full life with little time for food or rest.  It's difficult to imagine that Mr. Maimon would be anything but slim.

He was a student of Greece, Rome, and Islam, living in that geographical area.  He was not familiar with northern European thought or influence to any great extent.

His hero was Aristotle: pure and simple. There were others such as Averroes.  But the Greeks were his mentors.  He had virtually no contemporaries with whom he consulted; and virtually no Jews.   Reason was always his guide; nature was his companion.  Maimon wasn't just a Jewish philosopher who sat in a room and contemplated.  He was out and about with the people, working for a living.  He was involved with what he wrote, he practiced what he thought.  His ideas were based not only on his readings, but on his experiences in the real world.

In all of Judaism, I cannot think of a better role model for myself.  Mr. Maimon tried to re-construct Judaism in order to make the spiritual, rational.  He tried to justify God's role in a scientific world.  He did not have the backing of the kind of power or money to be able to do that; but what he left Judaism and the rest of those who were familiar with him--the western medieval world as a whole, and centuries beyond--was a dedication to a God of rational--again, rather than spiritual--existence and rationale that made such a universe possible.

He appeared to some to be arrogant and self-centered.  Instead, it's more likely that he was just himself, and so far above others' ability to comprehend him, that the appearance of superiority was really just honesty. As they say, "It isn't bragging if it's the truth..."

He was quick-tempered, had no patience for idiocy or foolishness; he was not interested in people who couldn't "connect the dots." He did his best to withhold unkindnesses toward others in personal meetings; however, he was candid in his writings or when he confided with certain contemporaries, re: what he felt to be blatant stupidity.  He was schooled in multiple languages, and was at home in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, just for openers.

He had to have had an eidetic/photographic memory.  He was funny, witty, had fine senses of humor, sarcasm, and wit; he was very kind, patient with those who were ingenuous and mattered; he was dedicated, responsible, and wise.  In short, he was simply "the best of the best."

When he died, Mr. Maimon's books were burned by many, despite the honor and homage that he received when he was alive.  The fierce discipline to maintain a rational point of view toward God, rather than a simpler unquestioning other-worldly spiritual one, was simply too difficult and too abstract for most to manage.  People wanted a personal god who attended them.  Maimon's in actuality, did not.

Maimon understood that God could not be all of the anthropomorphic components that the Hebrew Scriptures espoused; and he also understood that God, out of respect for humanity, could not intervene in lives; thus, he felt that prayer was really for he who prayed, and not for God, at all.  There was nothing God, as Maimon defined Him, could do.  In order for man to have free will, God could not intervene, deus ex machina, in a person's life. Rather God was present as form, rather than matter--the Greeks--the essences of all.  It was a tough road for the average Joe in the marketplace or herding the flocks.

Again, make no mistake: Moses ben Maimon was one of the greatest innovators that the world has ever known.  He did his best to organize Judaism--the origin of Western religion and thus one of the initial elements of Western civilization-- into something intelligent and tangible.  Rather than tons and tons of arguments, dissensions, and loose documents from the past, Jewish law for the first time, became a practical guide that could be followed. He did the same with medicine, science, diet, pharmacology, nature, preventative medicine, and with God.  He cared, he tried, he did his best.  He was an incredibly sensitive man who was highly in tune, whether or not he appeared that way on the surface.  He worked at all things until he died.  He was devoted to improving the world:  His way, certainly; but isn't that the way we all are... I will speak of him again.

I am fortunate enough to have many heroes.  Today, people don't believe in heroes.  Without heroes, there is no society to emulate, no goals, no role models, no understanding of what could be, no direction or a value system; a warning signal that is a presage regarding the end of a culture.  However, Moses ben Maimon, is as real and heroic to my mind, as any individual whoever lived.

A God Story #1

Do you believe in God?  I do.  He keeps popping up on me.  Or, maybe it's His angels--my angels.  Anyway, I don't mean to get mushy on you, or mystical.  It's just that I have empirical God stories.  I'm going to tell you one of them.  It just happened, yesterday.

I have a password book.  Dumb.  Lose the book, and lose my life.  You know how it goes.  In the meantime, I have the book.  Hundreds of passwords.  I've done a lot of re-arranging and moving lately, because I moved my office home.  (We'll talk about that another time.)  

As things began to finalize/be finished up, I began to relax and to get comfortable.  Hundreds of papers, books, new items and doo-dads, everywhere. I'm not used to where everything is yet, because I'm not used to having all this Stuff in my house to know that it's here; let alone where it is!

Time passed. Maybe a couple of weeks.  Very hectic in the meantime, with company, the holidays, getting caught up with the business, my daughter's care, etc. 

Then, last week, I focused on Facebook--figured I'd make my mark there.  It had been months and months, and it was time to catch up. 

I went to look for the password book:  Absent and unaccounted for.  Odd, I thought.  I know it's' here...

I wasn't so worried, because I knew it had to be Somewhere.  Slowly and methodically, I began to look. The days went by.  I looked harder.  At first, it was topical.  Then, beneath and into and under. Oy...  

I was reminded of the little story, Where's Spot?  Is he here? No.  Is he there?  Not there.  Is he over in the other place?  Nope.  Not in the other place, either... 

Uh, oh...

After a week, I recruited my daughter's nurse.  Search, search. search. Under furniture, in drawers, throughout closets; peculiar places that it couldn't be--but might.  I checked, cleaned, and swept the spots in the garage; every where in my three offices.  The trash, the shredded papers.  I called places I thought maybe I took it and left it.  The good news is that it had been about a month, and no one had tried to log in as me: Another reason to think the book was at home.  

Nevertheless, no password book.  

It wasn't just the newspaper or the stock market check-up passwords, you understand.  It was serious: Social Security, insurance, the computers, banks--you know, important things.  It occurred to me to get frantic.  Yet, I still and all, couldn't fathom that I had lost that book.  I kept looking.

On Wednesday, I went for luncheon with a friend.  Delicious belated birthday, at a swell Italian restaurant. Maggiano's. (Ever been there? mmmmmmmm...  The one I like best is downtown, and old in feel--lots of photos of historic Denver.  Leather booths, checkered table cloths...  Black and white parquet floors in the bathrooms.  Dark wood trim and wainscoting with white striated marble walls.  Brass trim.  Perfect.  But I digress.)

My friend and I eat.  It comes time for dessert. The waiter brings it, gratis, for the special occasion, and with the skinniest pink birthday candle I've ever seen.  Twine dipped in wax and straightened.  About 6" tall.  He lights the wick, and I make a wish.

Wishes over birthday cakes, at least for me, don't mean much; I don't take them seriously.  (Just between us.)

This time, however, in all the years of wishing, I figured I really had a good, legitimate wish.  Instead of saving the world, or the environment, or the poor and starving--wishes that couldn't come true in a million years from my or anyone's birthday candle--I had a serious thought.  Not just a wish--a fervent request.  In fact, a prayer.

I'm not one to ask God for things.  I figure He's got a lot on His mind with the weather, wars, and all; and the best I can do is to have Him grant me the strength to help me help myself.  That's my usual petitioning prayer. With a "Thank you" up front.

I think, OK, this is a birthday wish, and By Golly, I'm going to take advantage of the occasion.  I'm desperate. (I hope God doesn't mind the imposition, too much.)  

My wish had become a prayer, and I asked for help to find the password book.  (Of course, you guessed this.)  I say "Thank you" first--up front--as I prayed.  

From the birthday candle fairy, I had transitioned to God:  "Upper Management."

Losing a password book is serious business.  I needed to rely on Someone more powerful than I.

I wish, I pray, I hope and hope and hope.  Omain.

*

Five minutes later, as my friend and I begin to start in with the dessert, Hillary's nurse calls me at the restaurant. No kidding.  No. Kidding.

"Hello!" she says cheerily.  "I have something to tell you."

I smile inwardly.  I know what it is.  "You found the password book," I return, quietly.

"How on earth did you know?!"  She is stupefied.

"Because I asked God to find it just minutes ago, and He did,"  I said.

Our nurse of 29 years, 77 years old, whose husband was pastor of their church, is abashed.  "When did you ask God to help you find it?" she queried.  

"About 5 minutes ago," I said with a smile.

The nurse didn't question for a moment.  She knew this was right.  The book had been stuck in the couch, under the cushions.  I had searched the couch twice.  The nurse had searched the couch herself, a few days ago.  For whatever reason, today, she went back and looked in the couch, again. Bingo.  There was the book.

So you go figure.  But I figure God found it.  I figure He knew right where it was, and when I asked Him, He couldn't refuse.  So He found it for us.  The nurse got the credit.  Albeit, she refused the promised monetary reward. Her reward came from Heaven.  She was humbled to be the servant of the Lord, as they say.  You can just bet that she saw the entire procedure as a testimony to God's existence, which she has known all along.  

She's right.

*

And, there you are.  One of my God stories.  You might say, "Aw, that's just a coincidence."  

My response to that:  Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  

"If I Am Not For Myself, Who Will Be For Me? If I Am Only For Myself, What Am I?" ...Rabbi Hillel (Essay)

The biggest problem facing humanity today:  Its own inhumanity--hubris. 

Before technology began to replace human interaction, science overtook religion to explain unknowns, secularism eradicated the notion of God, the family unit imploded; there was a bottom line--Morality.  For over 4,000 years, Judeo-Christian ethics--(Do unto others as you would have others do unto you) have been the watchwords by which people have treated one another fairly, supervised by a morally supreme being. 

Far from perfect, mankind nevertheless has done its best to live by these moral precepts, with recognition that one's fellow men, and the past/present/future, all have bearing.  

Today, we live only for the present:  What feels good for me, now;  not what I think is best for the greater good, over the long-term.

Our world swirls around us faster than we can comprehend; we are losing our way. Without morality to guide our actions and behaviors, and a moral being more knowledgeable and powerful than we; we cannot survive. We are without responsible leaders, heroes who respect laws or one another; someone to guide us/set standards/or point the way.  The biggest problem facing humanity today:  The naively arrogant belief that we outrank God.

The United States: First Protestant Nation

What many people today don't realize is that the United States was founded on Protestant values--Christian values--that originally evolved from Judaic values.  To ignore the religious origins of America, or not  to accept  the underlying premise of religion in America, is not to comprehend what it means to be an American.

While the founding fathers were firm about freedom of religion, and separation between church and state, it must be acknowledged that the United States was created by people for whom God and the Old and New Testaments givens.  Belief in God and morality as set down in the Bible, were the guiding principles that supported the entire concept of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and much of the focus of the Constitution.   Yes, really.

A wholly secular America cannot sustain itself, nor can an America where morality is considered to be originated by man, thereby becoming relative to time, place, and individual need; thus becoming expendable willy-nilly upon necessity.  The foundation of this nation is based upon enlightened Judeo-Christian morality.  "In God We Trust;" "Epluribus Unum (out of many, one)" are two ubiquitous mottoes which represent this land.  Both reveal an absolute recognition of and necessary belief in God--with a clear reference to the Holy Trinity.  Check your coins and paper money if you doubt this.  Each time we make a cash payment, we validate an understood if not a given, belief in God.

One of the primary reasons that individuals immigrated to the New World  was to escape religious persecution.  By coming to a new land, people felt that for the first time, they would be out from under the autocratic demands of various monarchs with their reliance on this church or that, and they would be free to worship as they chose.  Economics and exploration were also motivating factors that influenced the development of America; however, the notion of freedom of religion--by and large Christianity--was paramount.  To lift a country out of its origins and the reasons for its creation, is not to understand how or why that particular country managed to exist in the first place.  Without purpose or thorough knowledge of origin, nothing can continue to exist.  Change is one thing; abandonment of original intent, definition, or essence of an entity, is about its demise.

Rhode Island with Roger Williams; Pennsylvania with William Penn:  Two of the earliest Colonies/States that insisted upon religious tolerance for everyone.  This was unheard of in Europe, where religious leaders of one kind or another, dictated what its inhabitants could follow.  The Pilgrims and Puritans, the Jews, the Catholics, in light of the Protestant and Counter Reformations, all came to the United States seeking the right to worship as they chose.  The notions of  "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as being "inalienable rights," were synonymous with "God given."

The American Constitution essentially was created by men who were Deists or believers in God without a particular church affiliation; Humanists, who were of a similar bent; and Protestants.  All of these men, however, were infused from birth with the Bible, and with the religious values of Judeo-Christian morality.  Atheism, agnosticism, denominations from the East, were not a measurable part of European society during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.  In one way or another, virtually everyone who emigrated from other countries to the United States, believed in God.  Not to believe was the same as heresy and treason, all at once.

The Protestant Ethic, which is the idea that one should work for a living and gain by the sweat of his own brow, is not far from the basic tenets of Capitalism.  The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the Constitution--are about basic moral freedoms that allow individuals to become and to be: The Ten Commandments, in a similar vein, were taken from Christianity's Old Testament.

(You will find the original organization of the court system in the Old Testament/Holy Scriptures, Book of Exodus, Chapter: 18/Jethro.  There are many such examples in both the Old and New Testaments.)

Manifest Destiny was another concept that dictated the intentions of a forward looking, and successful  United States.  Not without connection to a Higher Power and a heavenly afterlife, the realization of the American Dream was indeed allied with the religious focus of Kingdom Come here on earth--in America.

Particularly in the North, the value system was very Christian and quite definite about following Scripture to  the letter of its laws.  Interestingly, there was no slavery in the North, while at the same time, there were multitudes of cities, towns, and industry--men coming together in intensely populating regions, working for their families and themselves: Observing what the "Good Book" said.  The South, which was less focused on Protestantism, and more on Humanism or Deism, allowed for less stringent rigor when it came to Biblical rules and regulations: It is not a coincidence that slavery flourished there--an essential difference in the commitment to Judeo-Christian morality.

These same values spread throughout the expanding country as people went West, building churches and schools along the way.  While not everyone necessarily worshipped formally in a particular building, or with a definite sect or denomination, to assume that America was ever secular in its primary focus is to not understand the underlying strengths of American society and how/why it was created.  While worship itself may or may not have been a weekly thing for all, the undertones of belief and faith in God, with God's word dictating an Absolute Morality, were understood as a given part of life, and the way things were.  People followed God's laws; God didn't morph to follow man's convenience and comfort.

A secular United States cannot last; the essential base upon which the country was built, will erode and topple.  To say that times have changed, we don't need God any more now that we have science, morality is relative and not absolute, is to misconstrue the essence of Americana, and the presence of God as an underlying cornerstone of this country.  Such is counter to the original American values that made this nation possible.  As Protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church, so did America break away from European monarchies and oligarchies--the belief in God and the dictates of  Biblical Morality, however, were never questioned.

America was never conceived as a land of the inoperative, the helpless, or the incapable.  Rather it was the notion that every man was created in the image of God, was given those certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and by golly, if he wanted such, within the moral and ethical boundaries  that were handed down to our forefathers--both Biblical and national--then he needed to go after them.  Nothing would be served to him for free.  It is no different in the Bible: The original guide book and rules manual for the United States.

The bottom line is not whether one must support the fundamentals of the Scriptures, but rather that there is a necessary understanding that must take place:  Without certain values and ethics such as community, education, family, economic well being, respect for nature and its creatures; without discipline, responsibility, integrity, and a unified commonality of moral outlook and beliefs; without a firm conviction that we as Americans, and our country America, are committed to a unified focus toward a unified Higher Morality, this nation will not be able to survive:  Its very reason for existence, its essence as a viable nation, will have ceased to exist.

Suiting Up For Santa Claus: UniformMarketNews.com

Every year, Santa puts down his pipe, fluffs up his whiskers, and makes sure he has his fabled list that he’s checked twice.  He puts on his Christmas best and gets ready to spread love, good cheer, and goodies to children all over the world. 

It seems that Santa Claus, or Saint Nicholas, evolved with various cultures over time:  The Greeks knew him as Poseidon, god of the sea; the Romans changed his name to Neptune.  Early European Christianity drew on these images of this powerful sea god, the benevolent Christ child, and the notion that children should be good Christians, and called him Hagios Nikolaos (Latin for Saint Nicholas).  There doesn’t seem to be proof that there was an actual person named Nicholas.

Saint Nicholas, protector of sailors and schoolchildren, gradually became a rescuer and benefactor who rewarded children everywhere so long as they were properly behaved, did their studies, and said their catechism. 

The name of Santa Claus came from the Dutch who, when they first came to America and settled in New Amsterdam (New York), pronounced Saint Nicholas “Sinterklass,” aka Santa Claus. 

How did Santa’s appearance evolve?  The answer is an American one:  In 1809, New York writer Washington Irving (“The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”) wrote a series of satirical works referred to as “The Knickerbocker Tales.”  In these “‘Tales,” St. Nicholas is promoted as the patron saint of New York society.  Riding over tops of trees and bringing presents to children, Irving refers to him as small, elfish, with a pipe, and capable of sliding down chimneys.

By 1821, New York printer William Gilley put forth a poem about “Santeclaus” who dressed all in fur and drove a sleigh pulled by one reindeer.   Clement Clark Moore—New York, 1823, wrote the classic poem, “Twas The Night Before Christmas” a defining image for Santa and his swift team of reindeer, now totaling eight. 

According to Snopes.com, Santa remained elfin until about 1841, when J.W. Parkinson of Philadelphia hired a man to dress as Santa for his mercantile, and climb down a chimney outside his shop—the first time Santa is recorded as a full-sized person, and connected with retailing.

In 1863, the cartoons of Thomas Nast were presented in “Harper’s Weekly.”  Santa got a beard, fur from head to foot, and his first red suit; George P. Webster, who wrote copy for Nast’s drawings, gave Saint Nicholas the North Pole as his home. 

By 1885, when Louis Prang of Boston, an illustrator of Christmas cards, chose red over all the other Santa suit colors (green, white, purple, brown, blue), Saint Nicholas took on the style and appearance that he has today. 

There are those who think that Santa Claus, in his famous red suit with white fur, was a figment of Coca Cola’s corporately colored imagination.  Nope.  During the 1930’s, the era of the Great Depression, an illustrator named Haddon Sundblom did a drawing of Santa holding a bottle of Coca Cola as a marketing idea.  It was an instant success, galvanizing the notion of Santa’s already red suit, and also reaping excellent rewards for Coke.  But the colorful image of Santa Claus was cemented long before the 1930’s.

What about the Santa suit today?  For one jolly old soul, this multi-million dollar business sells hundreds of thousands of garments per year.   There are over 25,000 Santa suit purchasing sites online, alone.  It’s mostly seasonal, but with sales occurring year round.  Volume wise, Santa suits are second only to Halloween in the costume/uniform business.

Halco is one of the 2 largest Santa suit manufacturers in the U.S.  “We’ve been in business since 1945,” says principal, Terri Greenberg.  “We produce 52,000 suits per year.  We used to have 72 fulltime stateside sewing operators.  Now, we have ten.”   What used to be an American business is going more and more offshore because American manufacturers can’t compete with the pricing.  Terry, herself, lives in the Far East part time, in order to maintain quality control at her plants both here and abroad. 

Shari McConahay, co-owner of retail SantaSuits.com, purchases from wholesale manufacturers like Terri.  Shari is adamant about buying American and feels strongly that American suits are better made; with offshore garments, quality control is a mixed bag.   Her business has been selling the Santa uniform since the early ’70’s.  Shari dedicates 20% of her company’s 18,000 sq. ft. warehouse space for the Santa suits, alone. 

A Santa suit can be purchased retail anywhere from $27.95, for a one-size-fits-all stretch, to a plush satin-lined fully trimmed out custom garment at $700.00.  With accoutrements, such as padding, beards, eyebrows, glasses, boots, belts, gloves, etc, that’s about $1,000 for the complete suit.  Depending on the vendor, profits can be plus or minus 100% above cost.

The costumes can come in red, burgundy, white, green and even blue.  But red is by far and away the best seller.  There are variations of style and quality with coats, hoods, brocade, and period pieces—in polyester, flannel, felt, vinyl, leather, satin, velvet, velour, or plush fur fabrics. 

“There are those who purchase for parties, office gatherings, and family scenes.  Then, there are the ‘professionals,’ who work the malls, hospitals and charitable organizations, photography displays, parades, and street corners,” according to retailer, Larry Meidberg, at Clicket.com. 

There’s something special about a uniform that commands both kindness and respect.  Like true elves, all three companies are working 15 hour days to get everyone suited up in time for the Christmas season.  “For many Santas it’s like a calling,” said Shari.  “Every year they will spruce up their accessories or their uniforms, so that they are perfect.  Children are the first to tell you if something is wrong.” 

Clergy vs. Individuality: Article for Intermountain Jewish News

There have been recent instances of local upset because our rabbis chose to speak their minds publicly.  Like authors, publishers, actors, politicians, and business owners, rabbis have higher visibility and are able to reach more people at once.  They also have a greater responsibility for their public actions and statements.  However, our unique system of government allows freedom of speech for any U.S. citizen; and it is part of a rabbi’s job description to utilize the pulpit, speaking his/her mind on issues felt to be important to Judaism and/or the Jewish community. 

It is wrong to insult, to make negative ad hominem remarks about members of the clergy for speaking and/or doing as they think best (when couched in a responsible and well documented format) in the interest of individuals, the Jewish community, society at large.  It implies a kind of censorship, and it demotes rabbinical leadership to a level of a “rubber stamp” mentality, whereby a rabbi must have permission from the congregation or the community before committing to a point of view.

Denver has a very unique Jewish population: Our diversity of beliefs and practices demands an extraordinary sense of cooperation and respect from our leaders and lay people.  We all need to support one another’s right to express an opinion—so long as that right does not infringe upon another’s—whether we agree with that opinion or not.

Jewish tradition is steeped in argument and debate; dialogue and contradictions are fundamental to Judaic culture.    Talmud, rabbinical Judaism, is the cornerstone of our belief system.  Within that structure, discussions and disagreements abound.  There are not only dissenting opinions and commentaries, but whole schools of learning that differ with one another. 

If our teachers support Gay rights, then we have an obligation to examine why Jews who are in the minority have a responsibility to support Gays, who are also in the minority: If our teachers support a more aggressive Israeli effort against the Palestinians, then we have an obligation to our fellow Jews in Israel to consider more carefully, both sides of the coin.

But to attempt to admonish our religious leaders with attacks of character, merely because we have a personal disagreement with them, is inappropriate.  Individuals are entitled to disagree with each other.  They are also entitled to thoroughly dislike one another.  They are not, however, entitled to insult and demean, merely because of a difference in viewpoint, when that perspective is one of credible intellectual diversity.

If Moses Were Captain of The Starship Enterprise and Harry Potter Were Jewish

It is a simple question of marketing.  Crude, un-compassionate, cold-blooded as it may seem, it is the truth.  It is not about appropriateness, need, or abundance/dearth thereof; it is about want.  It is about helping people to understand that the product at hand is really the one they want.  Whether it is appropriate or necessary—whether there is too much or not enough of it—that is immaterial: People must want it.  In order to achieve this goal, it becomes a simple question of marketing.

Synagogues today are doing their absolute best to make themselves accessible and palatable.  They provide, in addition to core religious services and activities, every possible avenue for congregants to be a part of Judaism: Dinner-dances, auctions, book clubs, gift shops, speakers, inter and intra-faith collaborations; support groups for everyone from gays to lonely widowers, divorcees to single moms; flea markets, genealogy searches, discounts, memberships to athletic clubs; youth groups, community pre-schools, career fairs; chavarot, cooking classes, business workshops, outreach luncheons with the Rabbi at the workplace, afternoon teas with Talmud.  Hospitals and homeless shelters are a-buzz with Mitzvah Days and ongoing contributions from caring individuals and committees; there are program directors, youth directors, camp directors, cantors and song-leaders, educational directors, head librarians; pastoral counselors, newsletter editors, and building administrators; security guards, custodians, maintenance crews, kitchen staff, and gardeners.  Whew!

With the possible exceptions of ATM machines, and self-service gasoline pumps, it is difficult to imagine what more today’s synagogues could possibly do or provide to entice, encourage, entreat Jews to become more involved with Judaic life and culture.  The rabbis are exhausted, the staffs are stressed, and the budgets are staggering.

Yet, without question, Jews are assimilating into non-Jewish society at a quickening pace.  For the most part, their interests do not include Jewish causes or Jewish focus.  Jewish observance is one of the least of their priorities.  In spite of the crowds which may come to the synagogue for the High Holidays or life-cycle events; despite the numerous edifices erected in recent years with rosters of members proving commitment and caring, Judaism—like most religions—is in a slump.

Transformation 2000 is a current theme for followers of Reform Judaism—an overhaul of religious self-image.  In fact, it was the key topic in the Spring Edition of the magazine, “Reform Judaism.”  Okay.  Good idea.  The only questions are: Transform What?  How?  Why?  If transformation is about more activities, more pressures on individuals, more gimmicks, more time & money commitments, forget it.  People are at the edge, now, and it isn’t working.  “More” will not help.  “Different” might.
                                                           ****
                                                    A Parable

In 1873, Mr.’s Jacob Davis (tailor) & Levi Strauss (store-keeper) were issued the first patent for sturdy industrial strength denim pants with metal rivets (“waist overalls”).  For over 125 years, “Levi’s” were the preferred or only available alternative as tough utilitarian-marketed workpants.  The company made terrific jeans, and millions of dollars.  Levi Strauss & Co. was the best—no question—and for a long time, the only.  While not everyone wore jeans all the time, there was a definite need and place for them; they were purchased in enormous quantities around the world, and Levi Strauss made a “killing.”

Then, in 1999, it became apparent that the company known as the number one privately held clothing manufacturer in the world had lost 98.4% of its profits in one year.  Sales dropped from $102 million to $5.4 million.  What happened?  Times changed; Levi’s had not.

Designer jeans; fashion fabrics; alternative colors; frou-frous, frills, and fancy labels.  Different uses—dress-, casual-, sport-, corporate-wear; appeal to various shapes and sizes, stretch and cling, new styles and lines, older populations, younger populations, women, personal taste and elimination of the industrial look:  Levi’s had competition (which had gradually been encroaching on its sales for years) that appealed to the mass marketplace in an entirely different way.  Finally, the only element that the original waist overalls and its competitors had in common was denim.  The rest was a very different presentation.

Levi Strauss & Co. still makes a terrific product.  Those who appreciate the original content and purpose of its pants, buy its jeans.  But the rest of the public is not so interested in old-fashioned notions like tradition, quality and durability.  Rather, today’s consumers want what is expedient, cheap, sexy and trendy.  Folks want what is fashionable—with their peers, and for the times.  They want what everyone else is wearing.

In truth, does it really matter if one sports a pair of Calvin Klein’s, Wrangler’s, or Lee’s instead of a pair of Levi’s?  Does it matter if jeans today are used for social and business opportunities as well as for farming and industry?  That depends upon one’s point of view.  Most would say, probably not.  But, to the “Levi-ites,” it does matter, because they are dedicated to maintaining the original high quality of the product they have supported, worn, and purchased for over a century.  Levi’s will always be Levi’s.

The challenge, however, is to make sure the corporation stays in business, and that is where smart, innovative and courageous marketing comes into play—additional styles that maintain the excellence of the original product and its use, while attracting new customers who have different fashion priorities, but who will also benefit from those strengths that have made Levi Strauss & Co. number one for so many years.
****
So it is with the transformation of Judaism.  It is not about diluting the original “product,” or heaping enormous tasks upon the shoulders of our synagogue personnel and rabbis; albeit, every effort to reach fellow Jews helps.  What needs to be understood is that the real issues are not about what is going on in the synagogues; they are about what is occurring in the world outside the synagogues, and that is where Judaism (along with so many aspects of our society) has become outmoded.

Times have changed.  Judaism, fundamentally, has not.  That is the good news, and the bad news.  The question Jewish leaders and developers have to ask themselves is where their priorities lie.  If it is about increasing numbers, if it is about being of value in contemporary society, then Judaism must take a hard look at its core.  It needs to change.  If it is about maintaining values and traditions that have lasted for almost 6000 years then change is not so advisable.

Modifications are one thing: Today’s Orthodox are certainly more liberal than those of centuries ago.  Modern Orthodox provides a more liberal variation on the theme.  Conservative, Reform, Recontructionist, and more, provide Jews with almost as many choices as Protestants, when it comes to choosing the movement that best fits one’s lifestyle.

Change is another concept altogether.  Our world today, outside the walls of religious liturgy, rituals, traditions, and belief, has little or nothing to do with the basic mythology and structure of Judaism, as it has existed for so many thousands of years.

Today’s world takes an entirely different direction.  We are in the midst of mind-boggling revolution—technologically, economically, sociologically, and spiritually.  Institutions and belief systems that seemingly have held forever are falling by the way, as we garner new information about our status in the universe, or our interconnected dependence upon economic failure and success with our world partners.  We are dealing with sociological issues and genetic development that overwhelms the mind.  Spiritually, it is impossible for us not to grow, not to find new heights and depths within which we are able to explore and enrich ourselves.

The concept of an all-powerful deity appears to be so useless in conjunction with today’s levels of awareness.  It used to be that a god, the gods, or The God, was the explanation for the origin and power behind everything unknown: Sun & moon; drought or rain; birth & death; anger or sorrow…  We have different, scientific answers now however, rendering the need for an almighty power obsolete:  It recalls the Nietzschean cliché, “God is dead.”

If one is unnerved by our frenetic lifestyle and its overwhelming challenges, it is not prayer he/she seeks nearly so much as a prescription for Prozac or Xanax.  Who needs heaven?  Virtual cemeteries are in the works, and soon, there is little doubt that one will be able to log on to an Internet chat room with folks residing in the afterlife, should there be one.

With everything before us, the entirety of civilization resting within the reach of our fingertips upon our desktops, and proof of empirical facts and data accessible to us, why would one be attracted to the concept of an invisible, non-tangible god?  Why would a religion initially established for an ancient, wandering, agrarian society trapped in constant prejudice, slavery, self-examination, and turmoil expect to attract supporters in this century and beyond?

Judaism is about study, practice, discipline, adherence, exclusion of the non-sacred—in action and belief.  It is about the study of philosophy, law, education, and the good deed.  It is demanding and rigorous.  Why go to all this trouble searching for merit and worth when one can just as easily spend an afternoon in a tanning salon, getting a soothing massage with New Age music and aromatherapy?

Who needs religion when even baseball is out of step?  Cyberspace has become so all encompassing that sports—yes, including “the great American pastime,” baseball—have fallen from favor.  Sporting goods stores’ sales are down in team sports apparel and equipment.  Folks are not as interested in playing; they are working, they are surfing the Web.  There is little time for rest or repast, let alone the study and pursuit of religion.

Judaism is a religion of time, but who has time? There is no time, anymore.  It is all taken up with the present; there is little regard or curiosity about the past, rare concern for the consequences of the future.

Judaism is a very tough, demanding, challenging way of life.  Most people today would just as soon take an easier route, instead of all that thinking, pondering and postulating.  It is much simpler just to meditate inner truths; it is more soothing to accept the unflinching love of Christ, where the single necessary criterion for acceptance and observance is “to believe.”

An overwhelming number of individuals now live outside the traditional family unit.  Judaism is only about the traditional family.  While social action committees in synagogues and community federations are vigorously trying to include and accommodate single, alternative, and/or disabled lifestyles, the bottom line is that Judaism itself—its teachings and its writings—does not support a reality that goes beyond a very narrow definition of who is acceptable within the fold.  It is not that Judaism is so exclusive; it is that Judaism’s values have not been amended since technology began to prolong life, or since individuals adopted other living arrangements than the traditional norm of “grandparents, mom, dad, and the kids.”

Truthfully, there are multiple reasons for Jews to adhere to that particular family mode.  In addition to the psychologically and sociologically obvious, the commitment to Judaism is nigh impossible if left to one individual, only.  There are so many tasks that have to be shared; it is not about sexist roles—the feminists dealt with those issues in short shrift.  It is simply too much work to be alone and be Jewish.  If a single individual or a disabled person genuinely wants to practice observant Judaism, not to mention working fulltime and/or possibly supporting a child, it is exhausting, defeating, discouraging, and depressing.

Frequently, the practice of Judaism, with its focus on family, community, and the joys of sharing with others, serves to further remind the person who lives alone, not of the presence of God but instead, of the absence of one’s friends and family.  The rigors of Jewish practice are so enormously overwhelming for a single adult Jew, that the sheer workload absorbs much of the pleasure and energy.  Even Martha Stewart (today’s maven of organization and nifty ideas for celebrating tradition) would succumb if she became a practicing Jew by herself.  It is just too hard.

All of these juxtapositions against contemporary society take its toll on one’s ability to commit to Judaism.  We live in a world that is entirely goal-oriented.  We forget about the enrichment of the process and we look forward to the completion of the task.  “Easy as can beezy” says an advertisement.  Today is seldom about quality of life—taking time off or time out.  How many people eat lunch at their desks but take time to pray?  How many carry cell phones, pagers, and laptop computers but take one day in seven for a rest?  Where does Judaism as it has been for so many thousands of years, fit in a world where the stock market—not Talmud—determines business practice?

Assimilation.  The subject has been beaten to death.  Who needs to hear more?  Why should a Jew be ostracized when he/she knows the value of acceptance, having denied ownership of this invisible minority?  Certainly, there is a greater awareness of Jewish culture today and at many levels, greater acceptance.  But make no mistake: It is still a lot easier to be non-Jewish than it is to be Jewish.

Finally, the mythology itself is just plain outmoded.  It is a heck of a stretch to figure out why Moses wandered around in the desert for forty years when he simply could have used his cell phone to call AAA for help.  People today—children especially (which is when identification with a culture starts to take effect)—are too sophisticated for story telling that has virtually nothing in common with everyday reality other than obscure allegorical lessons in morality.  What is the difference between the archaic legends of Odysseus battling the Cyclops, and Joshua blowing trumpets to down the walls of Jericho?  Jewish mythology in contemporary context does not work.  It is unbelievable to the point of being laughable.

The tragedy is, a civilization without a mythology—without representative heroes it can idealize and emulate—will not and cannot survive.  This, more than any other factor, will determine the future of Judaism.  There must be a believable mythology from which values can be learned, incorporated into the psyche of the self; this mythology must have something in common with, and be able to enhance the civilization it represents.

We enter the 21st century with a kind of nihilism towards those ideas and practices about which we felt certain—ways that we knew would never change, but have.  Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Mother Goose are ancient archetypes to many of today’s children.

Instead, it’s Pokemon, Nintendo, and Sega.  Even the Walt Disney Co.’s stock is down—their stores and clubs are closing.  Old Disney mythology is not working as well.  Sleeping Beauty has narcolepsy; Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are struggling on the fast track; Snow White is a hooker who sleeps with seven vertically challenged men.

Religion, like all the rest of the claptrap that gave charm and meaning to a simpler, more naïve and trusting way of life, is going the way of the clothesline, the washboard, rumble seats, and the dial telephone.  For those who desire to worship, but seek a religion with a god who does not demand questions or answers (which is precisely what Judaism is all about), there is always the soothingly passive commitment to Christianity.  Judaism is not for the feint of heart, mind, body or spirit.

So what is one to do?  It is easy enough to point out all the foibles and failings.  The tough part is finding workable solutions.

Judaism has survived so far because its basic core is strong.  Its foundation is based upon morally and ethically correct assumptions.  Like so many aspects of our contemporary world, however, Judaism is struggling with its outer appearance—its persona or presentation.  One might say, “It is not Judaism that is out of step, it is the rest of the world.”  From one point of view, that is absolutely true.  But true or not, times change.  Reminisce we shall—the “good old days—“but nostalgia, regret, and reminiscence do not return the past; they only cloud and impede what must be accomplished for the future.

Bluntly put, the packaging is wrong.  Jewish ritual is wondrous, passionate; if one takes the time and effort to study, practice, and appreciate, it is truly meaningful and enriching.  Alas, it has so little to do with what makes sense in our lives today, e.g.:  One can eat meat or milk foods interchangeably on the same glass dish because glass is deemed to be non-porous by Jewish law. Therefore, the meat or milk will not be absorbed into the “pores” of the plate, mixing with the next meal placed upon it; however, one cannot eat both of these food groups on the same plate if it is made of china, plastic, or pottery, no matter how highly glazed or fired, because of the potentially porous nature of these raw materials.

Despite all safety inspections by the FDA and the Commerce Departments, and the highly developed technology of manufacturing dinnerware, a kosher home must have 2 sets of dishes if they are to be made from any materials other than glass.  Once, this issue of porosity was of appropriate concern.  Now, it is tradition, only, and makes no sense practically or scientifically.  A kosher home, once mandated by rabbinic laws based Scriptural law—as well as hygienic necessity—is for most of today’s practicing Jews, merely a quaint resonance of the past.

It used to be that Jews were forcibly isolated from the rest of society.  While physically they may have lived amongst others, they were sociologically, psychologically, and spiritually segregated from them.  In truth, one purpose of many Judaic rituals is to heighten the separation between the sacred and the profane, the Jew and the non-Jew.

Today however, as with everything else, to be Jewish or not is a choice.  One may live with his/her people or without them, practice the rituals or not, learn from the Torah or avoid it, culturally identify with or assimilate into the sea of alternative masses.  Choice is probably the toughest part about being a human being in contemporary society.  There are so many, and the consequences are not always clear or happening soon enough to be recognized in the immediate decision making process.

Jews have choices about their heritage, too.  If they choose to leave it intact, then they must realize that their numbers will be smaller; some observances may become challenged or even abandoned.  Jews must take the responsibility for preserving a kind of other-worldliness that belongs within the privacy of the home, the parochial school, the seminary, and the synagogue, while simultaneously practicing Jewish values in the world at large.  The teachings of Judaism are timeless and life-long in their messages and worth.  But the task of extrapolating these messages from antiquated texts, teachings, and a mythology that is virtually useless in these most de-humanized, technologically zooming, and narcissistic times, is no easy challenge.

The task of Jewish preservation is not for the well intentioned but worldly, volunteer religious-school teacher; nor is it for the rabbi who is steeped in Talmud, but knows little about reality beyond the seminary.  There is a huge gap between the presentation of Judaism in today’s world, and today’s world, itself.  Thus far, there are very few bridges, and the culture is drowning in its own inability to transpose and reinvent itself.  For Judaism to survive, its instructors must be able to transpose from the religious to the mundane and back again, granting both worlds clear, inter-related, and equally significant meaning.

One can choose, of course, to avoid a Jewish attempt to relate to the outside world.  This is what the Orthodox have done.  Orthodox Judaism, with few changes, is preserved in time.  Truthfully, it is for the most part, functioning quite well.  For those who decide to make religion the primary focus of their lives, Orthodoxy is the way to go.  It is safe, it is a closed system, choices are limited, and the ancient liturgy and mythology are as fresh and vibrant in the Orthodox world as they ever were.  There is a beauty to the past that cannot be denied.  Partially, this is because the Orthodox world has allowed so many of the advantages, as well as so many of the disadvantages of time to pass it by.  It is a series of Moritz Oppenheim illustrations, with exquisite portrayals of nineteenth century traditional Judaism.

Or, if one prefers, he can choose to take a firm hold of Judaism, as it were, squeeze it tight until all the outmoded trappings fall off, then see what is left.  This is the marrow, and must be preserved.  The rest of it must renew itself: Practices, rituals, prayer, mythology, law.   Shulchan Aruch is out.  Talmud is out.  If it does not work, skim off the teachings, re-create them into a new and more presentable form, and leave the rest to the archivists and historians.  Sacrilege or renovation—it depends upon one’s point of view.

Moses gets a backpack to hold the Ten Commandments for his treks up and down Sinai; he uses railings provided for the elderly and disabled, and rest stops along the way.  He wears sunscreen, applies insect repellent, and wears outfits that look more like Indiana Jones than an old man in a dress.  The finger of God is a laser, and with it He writes the Tablets.

Midrash—the wonderful more contemporary tall tales and explanations that enlighten us about the even taller tales in the ‘Scriptures—wax more valuable than the ‘Scriptures, themselves.  It is through Midrash that we can begin to make meaningful sense out of non-sense and old-fashioned legends from too long ago.  The whole set of Judaic beliefs and teachings gets a facelift and a classy, updated makeover.  What was once a stale leftover from bygone times becomes an accessible, workable presentation for young and old in the twenty-first century.

Or not.

This is ultimately what Transformation 2000 needs to be about.  It is not about having a swimming pool next to the synagogue sanctuary, or congregationally written services and prayers.  It is not about the rabbi being a shrewd businessman as well as a Judaic scholar.  It is not about glitzy Torah covers or the import of hand-painted talit for women as well as men.  Before individuals and families take advantage of all the perks available as a part of synagogue life, there has to be a desire to be practicing Jews, in the first place.

What Transformation 2000 is about is making a deliberate choice:  One, withdraw from this century and live in the cloistered, protected, eternally preserved old-world Jewish culture; another, accept the separation of Judaism, its practices, traditions, and beliefs from non-Judaic society (This is with the understanding that this very separation limits the population who will either seek it, and/or who will want to continue to identify with Judaism in accordance with his/her birthright.   It no longer becomes a matter of re-packaging, re-inventing, and marketing, but of accepting the basic strengths and weaknesses of Judaism as they are.); or third, take the core of Jewish beliefs and re-present them in an updated fashion, so that Jews will no longer look for an easier path outside of Judaism, but will find contemporary meaning within their own cultural teachings, instead.  They will thrive upon a way of life that was the old but has become the new.

These are the choices for Transformation 2000: Judaism may isolate from the world; separately co-exist with the world; or, embrace the world.  There can be blending, modifications, combinations of all three.  But these are essentially the three distinct paths from which Jews must choose to travel if we intend to preserve our heritage.  One is about spirituality, ritual, and tradition.  Another is about a kind of dual world belief where two views of reality coexist side-by-side, complementing, but not necessarily infringing upon one other.  (This path is the toughest, because it demands highly disciplined, educated minds which, for the sake of preserving tradition, may alienate those who are less than determined to handle such responsibility.)  The third choice is about success—the continued success of a religion and culture that has made it across the chasm of antiquity and time by meeting the needs of its people.  All are right, none is wrong.  It will be interesting to see which way the pendulum will swing.

Postscript

Levi Strauss & Co., by the way, had profits that were up $45 million, second quarter this year.  There are still difficulties to overcome, but it is hopefully on its way again.  What did it do?  It restructured.  It still makes the same fine product it always did, but in smaller numbers.  Instead, there are fashionable new lines and high-tech marketing—the company’s focus is now on the future instead of the past.