Anti-gay violence is despicable and those who encourage it are to be deplored. The murder of an openly gay candidate for mayor in a Mississippi town has provoked some discussion about the source of such violence. That is a topic that deserves serious discussion. But there is a difference between sober soul-searching about instances of violence in our society and jumping to conclusions whose only possible purpose is to provoke a different sort of prejudice.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Rabbi Brad Hirschfield has done in the latest edition of his On Faith blog for the Washington Post. Hirschfeld, whose day job is serving as president of the non-denominational Jewish group CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, leads an on-line discussion that he begins by admitting he doesn’t know why Marco McMillian was killed or who or what could have incited the brutal crime or if, indeed, anyone one or any group had any role in doing so. But that doesn’t deter him from beginning his piece with the provocative title “What role does Christianity play in the murder of the openly gay mayoral candidate in Mississippi?” According to Hirschfeld, Christians are clearly guilty until proven innocent.
One doesn’t have to condone the awful crime of anti-gay violence or even oppose gay marriage to understand that the assumption that an entire faith—or any faith that does not approve of homosexuality—is somehow responsible for what happened to McMillian is itself prejudicial. Of course, Hirschfeld doesn’t come right out and say that himself. But by posing that question and steering the discussion in a way that puts Christianity on trial in this manner, what he has done is to incite bias against traditional beliefs that are in no way connected to violence against gays.
Hirschfield does try and have it both ways in his blog by claiming that he is not so much pushing the case for blaming Christians as just trying to sort out “the biggest and ugliest public issues.” But these are mere weasel words to evade his personal responsibility by skewing the discussion to put those who are not in favor of gay marriage on the defensive.
But he isn’t shy about saying that he has no problem with saying that he considers the concept of collective guilt “a VERY valuable way to think about things” since it forces groups to ponder their own role in crimes that are committed by members of their group or faith.
There are instances when groups, faiths or even whole peoples have good reason to ponder collective guilt. When their faith or national leadership preaches hate in the name of the entire group then those who are implicated in this matter have a duty to speak out or act against those who have made such pronouncements or committed such crimes. Examples of this sort of behavior aren’t hard to think of. Under Nazi leadership, Germans killed Jews in the name of the German people. Iran’s religious leaders and many others in positions of influence throughout the Arab and Muslim world preach hatred of Jews in the name of all Muslims. Not all Germans killed Jews and not all Muslims believe their faith should be interpreted to condone violence. But all have an obligation to disassociate themselves and their nationality and faith from hate. The same rule would apply to Jews if most rabbis promoted hate in that same manner.
But except in the case of small outlier extremist sects, there is no plausible case to be made that any mainstream branch of Christianity does preach hatred of gays, let alone violence against them. There is, after all, a big difference between not approving of something and endorsing violence against anyone who is associated with it. While in response to one reader’s damning of “the church” Hirschfeld calls into question collective guilt against all Christians or churches, what he has done here is to set up an argument in which the premise of the discussion is one in which normative Biblically-based faiths are put on trial for the act of someone who may know little or nothing of their doctrines or practices.
The gradual demise of anti-gay prejudices in American society is a positive trend that should be applauded. But equality for gays or even approval of gay marriage ought not to come at the price of encouraging prejudice against faiths—Christian and non-Christian alike—that do not approve of homosexuality. And that is the direction that Hirschfield seems to be encouraging here.
What is so offensive about the column is not just his role in legitimizing bashing Christianity. The sheer dishonesty of his pose of objectivity and openness to all views is equally repulsive.
Hirschfeld can’t have it both ways. He can’t structure a public discussion about Christian guilt for a crime and endorse collective guilt while also claiming that he is nonjudgmental about faiths that won’t endorse gay marriage.
In other periods of history various branches of Christianity condoned and practiced discrimination and even violence against those who differed from their beliefs. But in popular American culture it seems that Christians are the one group that can be denigrated or labeled prejudicially with complete impunity. It is nothing less than a disgrace that the head of a group that has tried to speak in the name of Jewish unity and interfaith comity should play a role in this disgusting trend.
Well, after all, Islam supports gay marriage.
The arrested suspect is an African-American. Does this mean we need to consider "the role being an African-American played in the murder" or, who knows, just going out on a limb here, "the role of being a miffed ex?" n nAs in "the investigation began when McMillan's SUV slammed head-on into another vehicle…. n nReed was driving the car, but MicMillan was not in it, authorities say. McMillain's body was found the next day…." n nTo recap, a soul brother rams the dead man's car into another vehicle, with the victim, whose body is discovered the day after, mysteriously absent, said mystery cleared up when the corpse is found. n nThe cops arrest the obvious suspect.. n nBut to yet another pretentious, preening, self-congratulatory Jewish lib-lab bubblehead the obvious suspect is off-limits if it isn't PC. Instead, he makes a beeline for the PC Ususal Suspects: (white) Christians. n nAnd people wonder why Ortthodox don't accept the conversion of liberal rabbis.
Funny, I always hear despicable leftists pondering the role of Judaism in unethical banking. I wonder if the good rabbi will write a column about it.
Liberal Jews are notoriously prejudiced against evangelical Christians despite the fact that most have never had a single conversation with one. On the other hand, any slur coming from a black "leader" is excused as justifiable. I am in a quandary about Reform Judaism. On one hand, it helps keep many of of our young still engaged by keeping much of the customs and rituals of the religion alive. On the other, it is more interested in turning these young into little Democrats and often makes Republicans like me feel unwelcome.
I don't even understand reformed Judaism. I have a number of people in my family who are reformed Jews. They eat bacon and lobster and make fun of Christians and Republicans. This seems to be the main focus of their "religion".
"On one hand, it helps keep many of of our young still engaged by keeping much of the customs and rituals of the religion alive." This they can do by attending Orthodox synagogues, especially those run by Chabad which have many youthful non-Chasidic congregants.The "Reform" movement is nothing but the Democ-rat Party with a religious veneer. for political was well as religious conservatives, and especially for those who are both, there need by no "quandary"!
Rabbi Brad is more progressive than rabbi n nI bet he is reform n nnahr……………..lol n naccording to wiki he is baal tchuva and self identifies as an Orthodox Rabbi n nany Rabbi who does not acknowledge which Rabbi gave him smicha is suspect
"self identifies as an Orthodox Rabbi " but then again, so does Michael Lerner. nAs the old punch line goes, "Son, by me you're a captain; by your mama, you're a captain" . . .
Baal t'shuva and self-styled Orthodox? This only makes it a bigger chillul HaShem! __Really, is this braying ass of a "rabbi" just trying to cover his own behind because of the fact that the original, the exclusive, the starting-point condemnation of homosexual copulation comes from the Torah and THAT'S where the Christians get it from?! If he then turns around and claims to hate the sin and not the sinner, well, that should work for Christians as well. (Heck, it works for me and no doubt others here.)
from Wiki ordained at: n nThe Union for Traditional Judaism is an ostensibly non-denominational Jewish educational, outreach and communal service organization. The UTJ, as it is known, sees itself as trans-denominational, and works to encourage traditional observance among all Jews. Though officially non-denominational, the UTJ is understood to have many components typically associated with a religious denomination, i.e. a seminary, an association of clergy, and a committee which has authority over religious issues. The UTJ is often viewed [2] as representing a denomination or inhabiting an ideologic space nestled between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism. n n—- n nso self-labeled conservadox–but the topic and trans fat trans denominational touchyfeely vibe are all prog
UTJ began, as I recall, as a splinter group within Conservative judaism in response to that movement's increasing abandonment of halacha. Its founding members were all Conservative rabbis, and tended to be older than some of their peers. Apparently it has now broken with JTS and United Synagogue of Whatever They Are Calling Themselves This Decade, fka United Synagogue of America.
Why are supposedly Orthodox rabbis embracing same-sex pseudomarriage?
UTJ is about as Orthodox as Tikkun magazine.
appears to have been some drift there for the UTJ. I see there's a United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ) and a United Synagogue of America (USA). One of those two organizations might need to arrange a pulpit for my (actually) conservadox nephew when he graduates with lord knows how many joint degrees from JTS this spring. In my chats with him over the years Rabbi Brad's so deeply heartfelt concerns have yet to come up. Rabbi Brad seems to be yet another member in proud standing of the United Synagogue of the New York Times Editorial Page
One wonders how Rabbi Hirschfeld would react if a Christian Pastor held up Jews as a group responsible for – let's say – Dutch Jew's involvement in the slave trade. An extreme example certainly, but no less offensive then holding Evangelical Christians responsible as a group for the murder of a gay man in Mississippi. The Rabbi should star in a re-make of "Dumb and Dumber".
but white xtians or "Chrisitanity" had nothing to do this this at all!–that's the big larf–all this abstract categorizing is an epic disconnect from the actual killing which was a (very) personal falling out between two Black drinking partners as to if and under what circumstances they were going to proceed from sharing a beer to rocking the boat.
Point is well made; this unfortunate murder had nothing to do with Christianity or Evangelicals.
When it comes to those for whom "Jew" is identity but "liberal" is religion, the answer to the question is a resounding yes, in my experience. For in the eyes of those who conflate Judaism with liberalism, opposition to their ideological fixations is inherently anti-semitic.
To a certain extent, Christians are the new Jews — their persecutors, be they Islamists, Communists or illiberal 'Progressives' know that the vast majority of Christians won't fight back with violence. It is easy to bully the kids who won't raise his hands in self-defense. Fascinating how these same bullies won't even look askew at Islamists, for example. The militant Moslems have made it quite clear that any insult or perceived disrespect will end in death for the one making the insult.
Leviticus 18:22 condemns homosexual acts, it does not condemn someone who has homosexual predilections; or at least that is the way it appears to me. n nI admit that I have no idea what the massive Talmud has to say about this. However, all of the permissiveness of the Liberal community — Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic — reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek remark by a Jesuit I heard many years ago, which brought up-to-date goes like this: n n“It’s 2013 for Pete’s sake. Do you really think God still considers adultery a sin?” n
nvkma, you are correct in your reading. Someone who has those predilections is expected to control himself the same way that someone with a desire to commit any other transgression. n nIn the case of most transgressions, one is permitted to transgress if faced with a choice between transgressing and being killed. This is one of the few where a Jew is required to accept martyrdom rather than transgress.
Well, when one "makes up" what God should be like according to one's imagination or according to prevailing cultural influences (or even more "advanced" development: One considers himself to be a mixture of molecules that by chance came about and now thinks, has feelings etc.) then no wonder that so called "Christians" of Catholic persuasion arrive at the conclusion that God might have changed His mind about homosexuality in the meantime.
Why should Christianity immediately spring to mind? I thought it was the Old Testament that contained all, or the greater number, certainly the earliest, denunciations of homosexuality. Isn't it that other religion that is most associated with the OT?
“UTJ is about as Orthodox as Tikkun magazine.”r nTrue that!r nThe mag is just another mouthpiece for this administration.
How could a gay man (or a liberal supporter) favor collective guilt? Quite a few attacks on gay men, especially earlier in the AIDS crisis, have been based on the attacker blaming a gay man for the actions of gay men in collectively spreading AIDS. So if collective guilt is on the table, gays should oppose it, for their connection to blood guilt is no more tenuous than is that of the typical Christian.
Would you have written the same column about religious folks who opposed interracial marriage? Equal rights regardless of sexual orientation – including gay marriage – is the civil rights issue of this decade. Either you are for civil rights or you are against them; either you believe in constitutional equal protection under the law or you don't. In America you can believe whatever religious doctrine you wish, but your actions cannot run afoul of another person's civil rights.
Not approving of homosexuality for religious reason is also part of a civil right, the right of religious freedom. And YES, there is a big difference between not approving of someone's actions/behavior and attacking him/her for that. That's what it seems to me the article tries to show.
Wrong, IowaJonBoy. Interracial marriage is just that – a marriage between people of different races. Same sex ‘marriage’ is a radical redefinition of marriage for the self-esteem of those who demand that society not only tolerate but celebrate their sexually immoral behavior, even at the cost of radically redefining a social institution that long predates the state, but also by using the power of the state to stigmatize those who still believe in traditional morality or in the traditional definition of marriage as a union between two people of different sex.
Your observations on reliqious freedom would have been news to the authors of the bill of rights, who would have considered same sex ‘marriage’ to be a joke at best. You are turning the concept of religious freedom on its head by seeking to use the force of law to anyone who actually takes their religion seriously enough to do more than pay it lip service.
And to bring the power of the state against anyone who dares to say "That's not marriage."