Politics, Religion, Sex & Gender

Synagogue 3000 and Rick Warren: Strange Bedfellows

I just received the following press release from my favorite Jewish feminist underground collective, Jewish Women Watching. What’s up with Synagogue 3000?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JWW FINDS STRANGE BEDFELLOW IN SYNAGOGUE 3000
Jewish community embraces fundamentalist Pastor Rick Warren, known homophobe and anti-choice advocate
July 17, 2006: Following in the footsteps of its 2002 Strange Bedfellows campaign, the anonymous feminist group Jewish Women Watching (JWW) is once again warning the Jewish community against hopping into bed with right-wing Christian fundamentalists.
Last month, Synagogue 3000, a group whose mission is “to make synagogues compelling moral and spiritual centers,” invited Pastor Rick Warren, author of the bestselling “Purpose Driven Life” and founder of a California megachurch, to speak publicly about building spiritual community. Warren is a known homophobe and anti-choice advocate. JWW thinks it’s a “shanda” (an embarrassment) that Synagogue 3000 is holding Warren up as a moral leader worthy of emulation.
Warren has called gays “unnatural” and part of a “hierarchy of evil.” During the last Presidential election, he urged his congregants to vote against a woman’s right to choose. He advises that gays and lesbians, as well as women who have had abortions should seek forgiveness.
“If in fact the American Jewish community still supports the separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose, and tolerance and equality,” said Adah Isaacs Menken of JWW, “it sounds like abstinence remains the only safeguard against strange bedfellows.”
In its original Strange Bedfellows campaign, JWW disseminated condoms to protect individuals against the partnerships of Jewish communal organizations and the likes of Christian fundamentalists Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Ralph Reed. These men have all slandered women, gays and lesbians, and Jews, and yet all have been embraced and rewarded by the Jewish community. Now we can add Rick Warren to the list.
# # #
ABOUT JEWISH WOMEN WATCHING (JWW)
Jewish Women Watching is an anonymous activist collective that aims to rouse the public to challenge and change the sexist and other discriminatory practices in the American Jewish community. Since 1999, JWW has been criticizing the Jewish community’s narrow-minded priorities in online, print, and street actions. For more information, and to view the Strange Bedfellow campaign, visit JWW’s web site at www.jewishwomenwatching.com

50 thoughts on “Synagogue 3000 and Rick Warren: Strange Bedfellows

  1. Let us also not forget that he is funding that aweful videogame which involves killing secular liberals and jews in NYC who refuse to convert to his form of christianity.

  2. Uhhhh, the goal of Synagogue 3000 is to revitalize the communal experience – and Warren and the evangelicals have had great success in that area.
    And that’s what he’s speaking about – “building spiritual community”.
    This is like saying “I won’t use that plumber because they’re a Wiccan”.
    I really, REAAAAAAALLLLY doubt that the folks at the lecture are going to ask Warren for theological guidance. Just one of those wild guesses of mine….

  3. The article is a bit vague. It talks about anti-choice without defining the context. What kind of “choice” does he object to? What is this choice thingy that has everyone worked up?

  4. Nicholas, what video game? Is that serious? (Do you have a link?) Thanks.
    formermuslim, perhaps you are not from the US… or just woke up from a 30-year coma or something…”choice” is about the right to have an abortion. (The “choice” to terminate your pregnancy — it’s nicer than saying I’m “pro-abortion” because nobody is “pro” abortion, it’s always a tragedy, but an unwanted child is perhaps more of a tragedy depending on where you stand on the issue, so people say “I’m pro-choice.”)
    Ben-David, I agree with you — that clearly was the reason he spoke. But I also think JWW makes a valid point; surely there’s someone else who could have spoken to that issue — we should be vigilant about who we give legitimacy to. I think it also speaks to the larger issue of partnering with christian fundamentalists, who we know only support Zionism until all the Jews go there, Jesus comes back, and we either convert or die.

  5. This article is full of lies. I am Jewish by birth and family but have “converted” to an evangelical theology. You slander evangelicals by ascribing phobias to them simply because they do not adopt radical homosexual and feminist political agendas. Oh did I mention that my brother is a “homosexual” and that nothing could ever extinguish my love for him? This article reveals that the anonymous spewers do not know the first thing about Rick Warren, Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed. Before ripping into a anyone’s character decency requires the purveyor to reasonably educate herself on the subject. Unfortunately this decency was not observed by JWW in this case and is generally lacking in the liberal Jewish community from which I originate. G-d bless.

  6. While I am sympathetic to the point JWW is making, I take issue with anyone who makes a public, blanket statement about what “the American Jewish community” supports. Sorry, Adah, but while your friends may all be radical leftists who believe your way is the only legitimate way, there are many of us who recognize that “the American Jewish community” is actually quite diverse in its political and moral positions. And even if I agree with you some of the time, nobody elected you to represent me or the community at large.
    Please, in the future, continue to issue press releases when you have something to say. But speak for yourself and your organization, not “the American Jewish community.”

  7. Well, given that most American Jews do support gay rights and are pro-choice, it seems that the earlier psoters are in the minority. I am sick and tired of people making excuses for homophobia. Radical homosexual agenda? Um, paying my bills, loving my life partner and wanting protection for that relationship is not that radical…and what is with the quotations around the word homosexual?
    Thank G-d that most Jews realize that we are Jews as well and deserve civil and human rights.

  8. cincylitigator,
    How is this article “full of lies”? Has Warren made those comments, or has he not? These quotes sound like pretty standard fare within conservative evangelical circles. Because Rooftopper Rav disagrees with Warren, theologically and ideologically, and disapproves (I infer) of his appearance at Synagogue 3000 – the article is “full of lies”?
    Rick Warren believes that everyone who fails to adopt his theological position (including, naturally, all of us “liberal Jews”) will go to hell for all of eternity. He has no place at a progressive Jewish function. I am as outraged by this as I was a couple of months ago, when Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the URJ, gave an address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. It’s completely inappropriate.
    Cincylitigator, you claim to love your brother. You claim also to be an evangelical. I assume that your evangelicalism is of the conservative variety, as you are opposed to “radical homosexual and feminist political agendas”. Do you believe that your brother will go to hell? Will you still “love” him then, as well as the God who put him there? How sublime will your eternity in heaven be then?

  9. Chaim,
    I assume that the quotes around the word “homosexual” indicate the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist belief that there is no such thing as a “homosexual”, only people who choose to engage in homoerotic behavior. In other words – it’s a choice, not an inherent orientation. You could all be cured, if you weren’t so obstinate – and if you’d only turn to JESUS!
    (Just to be clear – I’m being sarcastic.)

  10. I suspect most folks here are not fans of the radical homoxexual agenda, but only of the moderate homosexual agenda.
    For example, I am firmly opposed to active persuasion campaigns designed to give straight people gay sexual experiences, tearing down any and all gender distinctions in society, and promoting visibility for our fetish communities in the classroom. I’m also not a fan of NAMBLA.
    On the other hand, I’m all for gay marraige (why should only straights go through hell…) and full civil equality.
    heh.
    BTW, Warren is a kick ass organizer, whose lessons in congregational and spiritual leadership are worth learning. JWW are usually on the money, but not in this case….

  11. …active persuasion campaigns designed to give straight people gay sexual experiences, tearing down any and all gender distinctions in society, and promoting visibility for our fetish communities in the classroom. I’m also not a fan of NAMBLA.
    Other than NAMBLA, which represents a perversion that is beyond the pale of what is being discussed here, I don’t even understand any of that is referring to.
    And when a conservative evangelical Christian uses a phrase like “radical homosuxual agenda”, he means same-sex unions, among other things.

  12. That may be what conservative evangelical Christians mean- in fact, I’m sure it is. The thing is, they are wrong. There is such a thing as a radical homosexual agenda, and I have respect for some parts of it. My dear radical homosexual friends are always complaining about the moderate, or mainstream homosexual agenda, which renders them invisible. So many glbt folks actively resent the whole gay marraege meme, as it posits monogomy as desirable and preferred for all. This is an instance where under the guise of gay liberation even straight choices get narrowed in the bedroom town square.
    I refuse to submit to conservative naming practices – remember don’t think like an elephant? The radical gay agenda deserves respectful consideration, and should not be lumped together with the straight acting DINKs cutting checks to the HRC and attending Clinton fundraisers. Once upon a time gay liberation meant drowning ‘normal’ in the bathtub, not expanding it’s definition to include a slightly larger slice of white middle class America….
    This is for you, Danielle!
    BTW, Saddleback is still worthy of study… someone should dig up the old NYT Magazine article about them.

  13. The posters are correct, by “radical homosexual agenda” I am referring to redefining the most ancient institution in the history of humanity. It is my understading that there has never been a society that has equated “homosexual” unions with heterosexual unions as a matter of law. I think this meets the definition of “radical” whether you agree with it or not. Anyway if any of you honestly search your hearts which of you do not relish being referred to radical? I suspect that many of you are disaffected with the order of society and have sought to make significant changes for some time. Therefore you are radical by definition so stop running from it. What Charles says is very wise and he correctly pegs me. Although my brother confided to me that he never had a heterosexual impulse and tearfully told me of his “orientation” before anyone else in our immediate family, I believe his sexual status is the result of a combination of environmental factors that could have easily placed me on the same path barring some slight distinctions in our experience. Likewise, I do not believe G-d intends people to be homosexual just as He does not intend them to engage in a variety of other destructive behaviors. What do you think my powerful natural sexual orientation is???? Although I have been blessed to be faithfully married to one woman for over 14 years, I assure you this is not my orientation. No, my orientation is exactly that of my father, to be a promiscuous adulterer married three times and never faithful. It is only by the grace of G-d that I have bucked my nature to be a respectable husband and father. Despite daily battles with lust, I resist these temptations for the sake of my wife and children. No mature human being chooses to exercise sexual license at a whim. Most homosexuals can properly orient their desires with therapy as proven by the American Psychological Association prior to the politicization of its diagnostic criteria. Now psychologists who help willing homosexuals who want to leave the deadly lifestyle are actually persecuted! How is this not a radical change? Why are you so sure you are right with all of history standing against you. Have you not ever habitually engaged in a behavior that you knew was wrong but yet you chose to continue doing it? Did you habit change the behavior from wrong to right? Perhaps if you twisted your conscience but if the conscience is the candle of L-rd as Proverbs says then you have only severed your connection to G-d. My only prayer is that you take a moment to reflect before insisting that black is white and vice versa for the sake of your soul.

  14. BD,
    He is deadly serious. And he is not the worst out there, by far.
    I don’t post comments very often, and when I do, I try not to be confrontational, but this guy pushed my buttons this morning at just the wrong moment. I am so utterly sick of being told that all the rest of us are going to go to hell by people who have conflated conservative politics with theology. It is they, far more than the terrorists, pedophiles and serial killers, who have convinced me that humanity is terminal.
    Cincylitigator, you didn’t answer my questions. You say that you love your brother. Do you anticipate spending eternity adoring God while your brother is suffering indescribable torture?

  15. Cipher,
    My favorite part is that he believes that he is a philander by nature, and that only through the grace of God is he faithful to his spouse.
    You know how I do it? I CHOOSE not to cheat on my girlfriend. It’s this delightful thing I have called self-control.
    Also, I don’t have a girlfriend. But I still have never cheated. I don’t need God for that.
    He even brought the old school APA nonsense into this.
    I want to engage in responsible speech a la Mobius’s guidelines, so like the Rav Joseph below, I will not attack the person who preaches the point, but I will attack the point of view:
    This is clearly the point of view of a total putz.
    Then again, I’m a sinner!

  16. To correct the factual inaccuracies in the press release from Jewish Women Watching:
    1. S3K did not invite Rick Warren to Sinai Temple, nor was S3K a sponsor of the event. Pastor Warren was invited by Rabbi David Wolpe on behalf of Sinai Temple to speak publicly at the Friday Night Live Service on June 16, 2006. S3K did host an invitation-only dinner prior to the service for S3K supporters, Sinai community members and guests from Saddleback Church.
    2. In June 2005, S3K’s Leadership Network held a private meeting and exchange of views between Rick Warren and members of S3K’s Leadership Network. Video clips from that meeting are available on the S3K website. In fact, during the meeting (again, this was in June 2005, not last month), a number of S3K LN members, including Rabbi Elaine Zecher (Temple Israel, Boston) and Amichai Lau Lavie (Storahtelling/RituaLab, New York) had a full and frank exchange of views with Rick Warren on his view of homosexuality and expressed their discomfort with his opinion on the subject.
    For the record, S3K is committed to the fundamental Jewish value that all human beings are made in the image of G@d regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
    3. S3K is not “holding Warren up as a moral leader worthy of emulation” nor do we take a position on his views. S3K invited Warren for a conversation with the S3K Leadership Network to specifically discuss the techniques and strategies pioneered by megachurches in building spiritual community.
    S3K believes that honest and open dialogue will make clearer both the commonalities and differences in attitudes between leaders from all religious traditions. Our encounter with Rick Warren, and with other Christian leaders, does not imply an endorsement of their theology, political positions or personal opinions. Within our transdenominational S3K Leadership Network itself, we embrace individuals who represent a wide variety of views. That is the nature of honest inquiry, and those are the goals we serve.
    Joshua Avedon
    Director of Communication
    Synagogue 3000

  17. No one seems to have noticed that cincylitagator claims to be Jewish. Cince, you left Judaism; you are no longer a Jew.

  18. To correct the factual inaccuracies in the press release from Jewish Women Watching:
    1. S3K did not invite Rick Warren to Sinai Temple, nor was S3K a sponsor of the event. Pastor Warren was invited by Rabbi David Wolpe on behalf of Sinai Temple to speak publicly at the Friday Night Live Service on June 16, 2006. S3K did host an invitation- only dinner prior to the service for S3K supporters, Sinai community members and guests from Saddleback Church.
    2. In June 2005, S3K’s Leadership Network held a private meeting and exchange of views between Rick Warren and members of S3K’s Leadership Network. Video clips from that meeting are available on the S3K website. In fact, during the meeting (again, this was in June 2005, not last month), a number of S3K LN members, including Rabbi Elaine Zecher (Temple Israel, Boston) and Amichai Lau Lavie (Storahtelling/RituaLab, New York) had a full and frank exchange of views with Rick Warren on his view of homosexuality and expressed their discomfort with his opinion on the subject.
    For the record, S3K is committed to the fundamental Jewish value that all human beings are made in the image of G@d regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
    3. S3K is not “holding Warren up as a moral leader worthy of emulation” nor do we take a position on his views. S3K invited Warren for a conversation with the S3K Leadership Network to specifically discuss the techniques and strategies pioneered by megachurches in building spiritual community.
    S3K believes that honest and open dialogue will make clearer both the commonalities and differences in attitudes between leaders from all religious traditions. Our encounter with Rick Warren, and with other Christian leaders, does not imply an endorsement of their theology, political positions or personal opinions. Within our transdenominational S3K Leadership Network itself, we embrace individuals who represent a wide variety of views. That is the nature of honest inquiry, and those are the goals we serve.
    Joshua Avedon
    Director of Communication
    Synagogue 3000

  19. Joshua suggests that he corrects the factual inaccuracies of the Jewish Women Watching Post. I think he misses the point though. Let’s take him at his word that Rick Warren was invited as a “consultant” to discuss how to build a spiritual community, to “discuss the techniques and strategies pioneered by megachurches.”
    The problem here is that these “techniques” are the point in question. Rick Warren and others have built a spirtual community through exclusion and fostering hate and fear of others. This type of “PR” can’t merely be adopted without also suffering a certain amount of infection by his ideas. (To overstate the point-there are many anti-semitic groups who have been succesful at builiding their communities, would they be invited?)
    And this is the point, Rick Warren, his church, his community, whether subtly or directly fosters an agenda which undermines values of the Jewish community. Why go to bed with morally questionable folk just because they are good at PR?
    Need proof? Rick Warren’s PR folks also helped to produce this.(A game whose moral agenda makes Grand Theft Auto look tame.) Yeah one of the members of Rick Warrnens church served on the board of advisors for this game, and the same type of “spirtual community building” that produced the church S3K seems so eager to welcome, is connected to this type of “everyone but Christians are going to hell” thinking. One cannot, no matter how much Joshua wants to, separate the two.

  20. One more important point:
    1. Joshua says:
    “For the record, S3K is committed to the fundamental Jewish value that all human beings are made in the image of G@d regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.”
    2. And than says:
    “S3K is not “holding Warren up as a moral leader worthy of emulation” nor do we take a position on his views.”
    Seems to me that these two statements can’t both be true. If you are truly for #1 than you are against #2. If you truly believe #1 you would have a very strong opinion on Warren’s views.
    Do you still claim to not have a position about Warren’s views Joshua?

  21. To cincylitigator: “The most ancient institution in the history of humanity”? Do you mean polygamy, slavery, oppression of women, stoning as punishment for adultery? No, or do you mean a union between one man and one woman, each with equal social standing? Guess what? That was not the “ancient” institution of marriage–that’s a product of thousands of years of evolution that continues to this day.
    To Joseph Avedon: Since it’s OK to get advice from homophobic and antifeminist fundamentalist “Christian” clergy on how to revive modern Judaism, I think we should consult Mein Kampf and Joseph Goebbels for some really great ideas on how to get people stirred up and organized. No? I guess the sensibilities of gay Jews and Jewish women aren’t REALLY THAT important. Talk about a shanda!!
    To Balaam’s Donkey: Not only has a blood vessel exploded in my head, but I am feeling pretty nauseous right now. That door slamming into my head hasn’t taken away the pain so I will go watch some Fox “News” for a more liberal perspective.
    Sorry for the bitterness. If I were gay as well as being a woman, I would really be pissed.

  22. cincylitigator,
    As an initial matter, I’d appreciate it if you’d take your prayers for the salvation of my eternal soul and shove them up your ass. I think your prayer time would be much more productively devoted to beseeching God to cure you of the deformed arrogance that leads you to try to impose your self-righteous religious fanaticism on the world at large, just because your father was a whoremonger, your brother likes taking it up the ass, and you’re a grubby peeping tom who has problems keeping his dick in his pants. Oh, and I have no idea what the range of acceptable political opinion is in polite society where you live, but here – after honestly searching my heart – I realize that there’s nothing “radical” about the “homosexual agenda;” indeed, the response to any smug, bible-thumping, glassy-eyed Jesus freak that would use the phrase “homosexual agenda” would generally range from pity to disgust, much as it would for a self-declared member of NAMBLA. Accordingly, if you’d like to have a political discussion, you’ll have to argue the merits of your position and lay off loaded modifiers like “radical;” in turn, I’ll rely on references to the “Christian Right” or “Republican conservatives,” rather than, say, hairy-backed, swamp-dwelling, nigger-hating rednecks. See, dialogue is so more meaningful if we eschew self-serving labels in favor of reasonably innocuous descriptions.
    As to the fact that cincylitigator loves his brother even though he hasn’t been cured of sucking dick, let me wish him a hardy mazel tov; let me also note that I didn’t kick my schnauzer in the balls today, but I don’t really expect a letter of commendation for it. Additionally, the bigotry and political opportunism of Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson have been exhaustively documented for decades; the notion that there’s pretty much anybody that doesn’t know the “first thing” about them is, to put it charitably, absurd. Indeed, in claiming the utility of the Christian Right as role models for anything, one maxim should be kept in mind: “Lie down in shit and they call you a pig.”
    As to the post itself, while I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of the article, I think it’s a fair to criticize as anachronistic any position claimed to be representative of the Jewish community as a whole. Personally, I think it’s silly to maintain the illusion that I have any fundamental interests in common with those who consistently denounce my religious practice as some deviant heresy. Such applies with equal force to those who would ally themselves with such classic Jew-haters as Pat Robertson, for the sake of furthering some narrow and ephemeral political objectives. Finally, I admit to knowing virtually nothing about JWW, but must confess to some skepticism regarding the position of any group that insists upon anonymity.

  23. joshua, this wouldn’t be the first time, in my experience, that jww got something entirely wrong. they completely misrepresented debby hirshman’s dismissal from the jcc in manhattan and proclaimed it an act of anti-gay discrimination without even talking to debby herself, who stated overtly that it had nothing to do with her sexuality. that’s why i mocked them with the now defunct “jewish women washing” website.

  24. Dan, your whole point about what Jews can learn from Rick Warren showcases a certain ignorance. What makes Saddleback worthy of study (not emulation) isn’t how it integrates a conservative politics with Christianity, but how it utilizes particular management and leadership techniques in the congregational context. Much of what they do CAN be divorced from specific opinions about gay marraige or abortion rights.
    For example, they have approached the problem of feeling ‘lost in the crowd’ but doing small hevruta’s in a particular way. Not necessarily what every synagogue should do, but well worth learning from. Saddleback management techniques don’t cause homophobia, conservative Christians do…. the techniques are just tools that can be used for ill or good.
    I can’t help but realize that Warren is sharing his expertise not only with likeminded churches, but with liberal Jews as well. He believes that despite certain political and theological differences, that people of faith share something important that transcends current hot button issues. I agree…. I’ll oppose his politics to the end, but I appreciate working on faith and congregational issues with a diverse group of talented people who see that a world with more spirit, however defined, is better than the alternative.
    JWW has gone off half-cocked in my opinion, and the defense of thier position shows a lack of understanding more than anything else. It would be great if they looked at things again, and corrected themselves, by way of apology. It takes real ovaries to do that!

  25. Here is my fictional interview I would like to see take place of Rick Warren at S3K.
    Interviewer: Rick do you stand by the idea that all people who are not Christian are going to hell? If so, why are you helping to build a congregation that will esssentially lead people down the road to hell?
    Rick: I uh, er, uh ….(insert non-commital response)
    Interviewr: What do you think of the video game “Left Behind”, I notice so far you have failed to comment on it?
    Rick: . . . . . .(silence)
    (Note if he answers anything but “I find the video game Left Behind deplorable”, he should be given a cab ride to the airport)
    Charles, I am sorry but ethics and politics cannot be separated from “techniques.” You wouldn’t invite David Duke would you? He has been very succesful at building his community . . .
    Still waiting for Joshua to resolve his fundamental contradiction . . .

  26. Also,
    What I’m reading here, is even if S3K says it’s work with Rick Warren does not imply an endorsement of his veiws, it certainly implies a pretty strong willingness to tolerate them.

  27. The JWW statement references a Jewish community that “still supports the separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose, and tolerance and equality.” Which Jewish community is JWW talking about? The Jewish community that contains rabbis who have called WorldPride in Jerusalem (an international gay pride event scheduled for next month) a “spiritual rape” of the city? The Jewish community that has national organizations that favor legal limits on abortion? The Jewish community that makes space for JONAH, a Jewish organization dedicated to “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians? The Jewish community that contains elements who refuse to allow gay and lesbian rabbis? The Jewish community that contains leaders in favor of not teaching evolution in schools? The Jewish community that has leaders who regularly label any Jewish critic of Israeli policy a self-hating Jew? Or did they perhaps have some other Jewish community in mind. I’d love a clarification on this point.
    Before attacking SK3 for having anything to do with Warren, one might reflect on the prominent leaders and rabbis within the Jewish world who probably agree with Warren’s views on many key social issues. That some Jewish leaders are largely indistinguishable from Warren on social and political topics doesn’t excuse SK3’s event. But it does put it in context.

  28. Dan, I hope that in your work, techniques and ethics very involved with each other. But so what? If I’m studying algebra, does it matter what the ethics of the text book author are? If I’m studying meeting facilitation, public speaking, or whatever, why do the politics (or ethics) of the teacher matter?
    In your words, you reiterate the perspective that what Warren is teaching Jews is intricately connected to his views on social issues. This is an argument left completely unproven by JWW and by you.
    It seems as though, you don’t care of there is a connection. You are demanding that Warren (and his useful, value neutral techniques) be boycotted as a way of protesting his views. And those of us not willing to engage in scorched earth political tactics are condemned as being tolerant of his intolerance. Well, JWW and you are being intolerant of Synagogue 3000’s tolerance.
    It reminds of that sad period of campus identity politics where various special interest groups were constantly denouncing or defending the decision to invite or not invite some speaker or other. Oh, what a sad chapter of the left that was…..

  29. This isn’t simply about tolerance of Warren’s politcal views – or even putting them aside because he has something “valuable” to teach us. That would be questionable enough. And it doesn’t really matter whether JWW got some of the facts wrong. This is about attempting to have a dialogue with a man who begins by invalidating us at the most fundamental level.
    I’ve seen the S3K website. For about a year, perhaps longer, they have been engaged in dialogue with people from the Emergent Church movement. These are ministers and theologians who are evangelical, but who question a good deal of the evangelical belief system, including salvific exclusivism. They may not define themselves as progressives in the mold of Jim Wallis of Sojourners, but they aren’t Pat Robertson by a long shot. Many of them are into “church building” as well, so I could see why the S3K crowd would want to ask for their advice. If they want to have these guys over for coffee and cake, fine.
    Warren, on the other hand, is a salvific exclusivist who believes that all Jews and most Gentiles will burn in hell for all of eternity – and he isn’t overly upset about the prospect. In his worldview, it doesn’t make God a bad guy. He’s perfectly willing to abandon everyone else who has ever lived in the process of cozying up to the Almighty.
    I watched a clip from his appearance at S3K last year (there are about a half-dozen on their website). He made a statement to the effect of, “What you may want to do in your ministry…”. Why is he even going there? Dan is correct; he is giving them advice about creating a community that he believes only goes one way -and it isn’t up. It’s completely disingenuous. It doesn’t even really make any sense.
    The whole thing is just wrong. Gay marriage and abortion aside – it’s monstrously inappropriate. If this is what it has come to – if we need to take advice from a guy like that – then perhaps we should just close up shop.
    Also, anyone who has ever seen a clip of him knows that he always wears those florid Hawaiian shirts. I’m sorry, but a guy who dresses like a Shriner on vacation has nothing of value to say to me – theologically or otherwise.

  30. Charles, algebra might not be an ethical issue, you might not care about the ethics of the person who wrote your textbook but. . .
    Are you really suggesting that theology, matters of faith, are not ethical questions? would you purchase building materials for your synagouge from a neo-nazi construction company?
    This issue is simple, even if you take S3K as just doing business, why do business with someone who is so intolerant of your views, and your community.
    His techniques are not value nuetral, have never been value neutral, again I refer one to “Left Behind.”
    Charles you contend:
    “In your words, you reiterate the perspective that what Warren is teaching Jews is intricately connected to his views on social issues. This is an argument left completely unproven by JWW and by you.”
    Here is the point what he is teaching is intricately connected, his techniques are based on politics of exclusion. This isn’t just borrowing a screwdriver from your marginaly prejudiced neighbor, this is inviting your homophobic anti-semitic, hate preaching neighbor into your house to tell you how to use a screwdrive like a good human being. Really now who at S3K believes this man is moral/ethical?

  31. Dan, his process of forming five person teams to reinforce church attendence and give each other support is not a theological position. It’s not an ethical position. It’s a value neutral way of organizing to build intimacy inside a large institution. Members of my synagogue have voiced complaints of not being ‘known’ in their community – a problem that has given birth to lots of successful havurot and independent Jewish communities. But for those stuck with large, traditional synagogues, for better or worse, the attitude should be ‘I have profited from all my teachers.’
    S3000 doesn’t ‘have’ to turn to Warren for advice, it wants to because he is a recognized leader in a particular field. The liberal emergent church folks might also be leaders, but they aren’t as successful. If they were, we’d be talking about someone else…. I’m sure that s3000 would be happy to be inclusive of liberal evangelicals whose views of social issues are closer to those of our community.
    Tell me how this technique is based on the politics of inclusion? His choice of a group of 5, rather than ten or twenty – how does that relate to homophobia? His groups meet with a certain frequency – why? What can we learn? Certainly not his position on abortion.
    I want this country to go in a progressive direction. I see a group of tens of millions of evangelical Christians spouting really offensive views, that I abhor. What I want might be to confine them to Alabama or something; but I’ll settle for some accomodation and mutual exchange. Inviting someone like Warren to a Jewish conclave is not just an opporunity to hear about his techniques, its also a chance to expose him to our views, our methods of dealing with text and tradition.
    Someday, tens of millions of these people might find a way to accomodate evolving roles for women, abortion rights, and glbt issues. It won’t happen because of shrill boycotting… it’ll happen because over time, doors of possibility were opened through which they these folks pass. There are enough Jews who really are in bed with right wingers, doing nasty shit. Picking on the meritorious and constructive folks at S3000 is poor strategy for isolating your real targets. Instead, one might conclude that ill informed, judemental and intolerant people on the far left are isolating themselves and thier views within the Jewish world.
    I say, pick a better target, and let go of the apologetics for JWW. Some of thier work is quite worthwhile, and this little escapade will recede into nothingness.

  32. If it were simply a matter of learning how to count, form a group of two, form a group of five, form a group of twenty, I am sure S3K could figure that out for themselves why invite a guy in a Hawaiian shirt to explain math.
    Seriously are you telling me this guy is an expert in forming religious communities? No, what he is an expert in is forming facist communities that preach exclusion. “Hey you, you are not like us, and unless you become like us we will continue to persecute you, and don’t you want to be good and join us.”
    Don’t you think it is a little dangerous to give this guy a microphone, give him “street credit” as it were? Again I ask would you invite David Duke he is awfully good at orginization as well, or how about Holocaust deniers to talk about how they got their books published? Sure could use some good info on that.
    “Hey honey, I know the neighbor hates us, voted to put Christian prayer in school, thinks we are going to hell, treats our gay friends as if they are somehow “unatural”, but he sure bakes a good choclate cake, and I always wanted to learn to bake a good choclate cake, let’s say we have him over for dessert.”

  33. Dan,
    You are free to castigate the views of someone as beyond the pale. But as a political strategy, it only works if you have the numbers. When it comes to dealing with evangelical, conservative Christians, we have lost the battle of making them untouchables like David Duke. You might wish to compress the ideological spectrum, so that Duke and Warren are one milimeter from each other; but it doesn’t get that way because of your wishes.
    Warren is quite mainstream in his views, including some of his hateful views. ‘Mainstream’ is socially defined, not ideologically. That’s why the Likud was seen as a ‘center right’ party and not as the fascist descendent of Mussolini loving Betar.
    You don’t win the argument just by default because your views are better than his (and they are.) You win by demonstrating that indeed, Warren is an unrepresentative figure far outside the maintream. But he’s not.
    You are trying, in vain, to turn a difference in values and politics into a winning strategic claim that shunning Warren is beneficial, and that S3000 in particular should adopt this view as well. The volume of your moral outrage does not match the logic and evidence presented.
    Moral outrage only works on the morally outraged, no one else. It’s a political dead end, unless backed up with real muscle. Go ask Cindy Sheehan.
    Um… Dan, you’re still with me in thinking that the maintream homosexual agenda isn’t radical, right? 🙂

  34. Anti-gay folks like to assert that the nature of marriage has “never” included same-sex marriage. This is not the case. There’s evidence, for example, of the existence of forms of gay marriage (legal and non-legal) in ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, parts of North America (native tribes), and Byzantine Christianity (see the book Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell and also books like The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture, by Walter Williams).
    The assertion that gay marriage has never existed in the history of the world is being made by the spiritual descendants of the very people who erased the history of gay marriage (not to mention the history of several non-Christian religions). How ironic!
    As for the Christian right supporting the “ancient” definition of marriage: the last I recall, the patriarch Jacob had four wives. Would Rick Warren allow that in his congregation? I think not.
    (And, for the record, dialogue is a worthy goal, but there’s no need to invite a person like Rick Warren to a public, advertised event. If the director of S3K wants to have coffee with him, or Shababt dinner, for the purporse of learning about his recruitment strategies, I think that’s fine.)
    As for my consciencve, I find it interesting that people are so certain of what my conscience should be telling me when they haven’t lived in my body, loved my p[artner and been made mbetter by it, or had the talks i’ve had with God. I’d sure appreicate a liuttle humility, and the understanding that _of course_ if you disagree with me, you think my conscience is wrong, because it doens’t match yours. But then

  35. Dan,
    I’m not arguing for ‘necessary evil’ in that I think relationships with people really different than me is a good thing, not something bad used to achieve a different purpose.
    The world is imperfect, we are imperfect, our allies and are foes are imperfect. The one thing almost guaranteed to make this better is a willingness to treat others with respect, learn from thier stories, and find common ground. The only people I’m likely to exclude from this circle are those using physical violence. I prefer to think of my attitude as emblematic of civilized behavior. Boycotts and shunnings of individuals is a person thing; making a political campaign to shun someone is usually silly and ineffective, whether it’s freaky right wingers against Juan Cole or JWW against RW. (It’s also a sign of political impotence, when you demand something you can never ever get…)

  36. I am not arguing that no one should talk to Warren, I would love to sit down and hear his views, although I doubt we would agree on much. But I wouldn’t invite him to an event and give him a microphone, in effect sanctioning his views. I will treat him with respect, however I will not give him the space to treat others with a lack of respect.
    And are you really willing to suggest that violence is only physical? Hate speech of which Rick is at least complicent if not guilty himself is a very violent act.

  37. Dan, if you believe that merely expressing hate is ‘violence’ in the same way that beating someone up is, then we part ways once again… I’ll go with accepted definitions of reality, and you can go with far left politico-jargon.
    As someone who has been called names and beaten up, I distinctly remember which one felt like violence. I’m reminded of the great scene in Monty Python’s flick where the English peasant shouts out ‘Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!’ Except that in our case, poor Warren has raised nary a finger….
    Alright, I’m done. Have the last word Dan.

  38. Charles,
    It’s one thing to sit down with someone who believes that Jesus is the messiah and that your ancestors have been missing the boat for 2,000 years, but who still believes that there is value in your religion.
    It’s quite another to sit down with someone who believes that, due to a difference of opinion, you and everyone you love will be tortured for all of eternity – and that there’s nothing wrong with that.
    There is something unwholesome about right-wing Jews working with conservative evangelicals to promote their mutually conceived political agenda (which, I acknowledge, was not the case at S3K). The evangelicals believe that the Jews are damned, and the Jews know that they believe it, and they know that they know… but everyone agrees to put that unpleasant fact aside for the moment. Aren’t we all being civil?
    When people complain to Dennis Prager about his siding with the Christian right, telling him that his “friends” believe that he will go to hell, he replies, “So what? I don’t believe it.” That’s not the point.
    I don’t believe that our values – theological or otherwise – will “rub off” on a guy like Warren. He isn’t going to go home and think, “I was really impressed by these people. Maybe they won’t go to hell, after all. Perhaps I’d better re-think this whole salvation deal. And perhaps I’m wrong about gay rights as well!” It isn’t going to happen.
    A line has been drawn in the sand. They drew it. We shouldn’t be pretending that it isn’t there. If Lerner were here, he’d probably be saying that fundamentalist theology is the product of internalized abuse. We shouldn’t be encouraging it by pretending otherwise. Yeilah suggested that a meeting with Warren should have been private. I wouldn’t even be able to tolerate him in that venue, but if someone else has the stomach for it – go ahead. But we shouldn’t be handing him a public speaking gig. This gives him credibility, even if only tacitly. It’s the reason that anti-missionary people don’t like to debate with Messianics, or scientists with creationists – because appearing with them in public, being willing to discuss/debate opposing points of view, implies that they have a legitimate pov in the first place. The people who support them aren’t going to change their minds, even if their man or woman is defeated. They’ll only come away with the reinforced idea that their belief system must, in fact, be legitimate – because the opposition was willing to engage them. I know that this isn’t precisely what happened here, but it’s close enough to form an analogy.
    I keep saying this, but at the risk of seeming like a broken record – it’s inappropriate.

  39. Anyone else seen this? It’s been making the rounds…
    > Dear S3k friends,
    > >Several weeks ago I wrote Ron Wolfson angrily and sadly, responding to the
    > >email he sent out with an enthusiastic invitation to join him and S3K
    > >leadership at Temple Sinai for Shabbat with Rick Warren. I am grateful to
    > >Ron and to several of the S3K Board of Directors for responding to my
    > >critique with sensitivity and warmth, and for opening this issue for our
    > >public conversation, per my request.
    > >The several weeks of back and forth conversation via emails regarding S3K’s
    > >policy and public ‘endorsement’ or Warren or other possible controversial
    > >figures, as well as the ‘side bar’ conversations regarding Jewish Law,
    > >Homosexuality, homophobia, and the general outlines of debate and
    > >inclusiveness have been illuminating and, I believe, valuable to this
    > >group’s ongoing dialogue and deepening sense of relevance. On a personal
    > >level, this conversation has sharpened and deepened my sense of affinity,
    > >affiliation and stand on these issues. I’d like to briefly share with you
    > >why I asked Ron for this conversation and what I take from it and bring to
    > >it – IT being this intricate and delicate cyber Talmudic dialogue…
    > >A personal anecdote to start:
    > >I am in Jerusalem since last Thursday, celebrating my father’s 80th
    > >birthday. The entire Lau clan spent Shabbat together – over 200 of us, 99.9%
    > >Orthodox, ranging from Chasidim in fur hats and their many children, to
    > >bereaved post Gaza settlers with machine guns casually draped on their
    > >shoulders. While the Shabbat was heart warming, gradually more personal, and
    > >yielding fascinating conversations – the rules of the game were clear, and
    > >my invisibility as a non orthodox (the only one!) and gay man(probably NOT
    > >the only one.) was a given. I chose not to challenge this given – my family
    > >status quo, realizing full well that there is a time and place for certain
    > >levels of dialogue, confrontation, truth. In this family, under my uncle,
    > >Chief Rabbi’s Lau’s guidance, true pluralism is NOT an option, and dialogue
    > >on hard issues, whether public or private, is not encouraged.
    > >And so, while delighting in a family reunion, I was constantly reminded of
    > >how silent I was tacitly asked to remain regarding so much of who I am.
    > >On the giant family tree prepared for the occasion, hanging on the wall in
    > >the lobby, mine was the only name among the generation of 30 first cousins,
    > >not coupled with another dot and leading to a branch of future generations.
    > >And even if I did have a cherished loved one in my life at this time, his
    > >name would not be present on that tree. Enough media publicity in recent
    > >years has alerted my disapproving family of my way of life and unorthodox
    > >choices, but taboo is taboo- traditionally, and conveniently, repressed.
    > >The following day, as I was writing down my impressions of this unique
    > >Shabbat, I remembered the last time I felt this level of invisibility and
    > >hurt: upon receiving Ron’s invite to join him and Rick Warren for Shabbat
    > >services at Temple Sinai. My anger and hurt was not at the fact that a
    > >shared interfaith event, even with a controversial figure such as Warren
    > >takes place. Those of you who know me, know how much I cherish and promote
    > >cross cultural partnerships of all stripes. I am full of respect to Craig
    > >for his ongoing successful endeavors, even if his choice of partner for this
    > >event is one I find offensive- it is his call as an artist and community
    > >leader. What hurt and infuriated me was the fact that this was an invitation
    > >very clearly sent by the leadership of an esteemed forum, with which I
    > >affiliate with honor and pride; an invitation that by default represented
    > >me, and simultaneously completely ignored who I am -an individual with a
    > >specific voice and identity in a multi voiced community. As the only openly
    > >gay man in our network, I found myself, for the second time at S3K, voicing
    > >more than a personal protest, voicing, perhaps, the invisible, silenced
    > >’other’ around the table.
    > >Please, put yourselves briefly in my shoes with compassion – all those of
    > >you who responded to Ron in support of open conversation with all those of
    > >other opinions in pursuit of pluralism and learning from the ‘other’:
    > >Warren is a prominent Christian leader, with known views on controversial
    > >issues such as abortion and gay rights. Recently interviewed on ABC he
    > >restated that homosexuality is ‘un natural’ and his views in this regard
    > >continue to influence policy makers in the US. While inviting him to a
    > >private session among peers, for further discussion and understanding is
    > >perfectly wise and beneficial – as, to some extent, the meeting our network
    > >held with him in LA last year has proven – inviting the public for a shared
    > >event with him is problematic.
    > >Would any of you agree to be listed among the members of the network that
    > >supports the activities of a man who finds your lifestyle ‘un-natural?’
    > >And would you consider endorsing him publicly as a legitimate partner for
    > >one part of the communal agenda while ignoring his biased stand on other
    > >items – fully aware how this silences, hurts, and marginalized your fellow
    > >network members?
    > >If S3k is truly about being transformational, inclusive and promoting
    > >diversity and progress – this is an odd way of showing it. Recent publicity
    > >on the shocking marginalization of women at top Jewish leadership positions
    > >may seem archaic and puzzling to some of us, but still, in 2006, it is a
    > >stark reality. The GLBT movement, along with the Feminist movement is
    > >fighting a fight which is not just about its specific members – it is a cry
    > >for equality and a better society. We have a long way to go towards true
    > >diversity in the Jewish community, and I joined S3K with high hopes of
    > >walking this talk, being part of the solution, not part of the problem.
    > >Sadly, it appeared that this was not a big issue for this Spiritual Network
    > >of Leaders. Ron and Shawn were somewhat surprised when I first called and
    > >emailed them regarding this. The few of you with whom I spoke personally
    > >before contacting the S3k leadership had similar reactions – ‘Oh, Yes – good
    > >point – I didn’t think of that ‘ or – ‘Yes, it did seem odd to have S3K
    > >invite the public to this event, but I didn’t think it was a big deal.” I am
    > >proud to speak out, but sad to have done it alone in this network.
    > >The gay issue, circa 2006 IS a big deal. Not only because it has become a
    > >hot and pressing call for progressive human dignity and human rights on the
    > >international and Jewish agenda – but also because it has risen to sharply
    > >motivate us to be truly inclusive and celebrate the delicate balance of
    > >democracy and Pluralism for all voices – the seventy faces of Torah.
    > >Warren’s political influence and public voice are not incidental or marginal
    > >and S3K, a Meta Denominational body, speaks volumes when choosing him as
    > >public ally. The message to me and my GLBT peers is – your issue doesn’t
    > >matter that much. And indeed, as Danny Maesang mentions, on the S3k site, a
    > >recent article sites the sense of lack of welcome sensed by many LGBT Jews
    > >in US congregations. Invisibility is mentioned several times in that
    > >article. IS S3K walking its talk?
    > >In his opening email on this, Ron asks ‘ Can we be in conversation with and
    > >still learn from those who hold positions that may be offensive to members
    > >of the S3K LN? How can we protect our commitment to inclusivity?’ Later in
    > >the same message he asks us to ‘Please, let’s keep the conversation “in
    > >the family!”‘
    > >Yes, Ron, I believe we can be in conversation with friends and foes alike,
    > >as long as there is mutual respect and sensitivity to the voices around the
    > >table and to the political/social implications of these public dialogues. We
    > >can protect our commitment to being truly inclusive by being truly
    > >sensitive. The delicacy of the dialogue with Warren was clearly discussed
    > >following his first meeting with this network yet no ramifications seem to
    > >have been considered prior to this second public encounter with him. I
    > >consider that lack of sensitivity. Rabbi Daniel Alter asks if the Non
    > >Orthodox are willing to sit with him and discuss the issues that may go
    > >beyond the pale – my personal answer is – OF COURSE. What is our community
    > >if not a place for real dialogue and conversation? But sensitive attention
    > >to the new paradigms of identity that continue to shape our reality must be
    > >carefully attended to first.
    > >And as for keeping it in the family – FAMILY is a big word. While in my
    > >paternal tribal family I choose not to rock the boat, and smile my way
    > >through a reality that deems me invisible, I refuse to do so in a setting
    > >where I am invited to participate based on who I am and what my role is in
    > >the world. If this network is a ‘family’ – and serious about making a
    > >difference in the way religious leadership is headed, then it is my humble
    > >request that we act like the family we all really want to be part of – warm,
    > >caring, sensitive, courageous, and truly supportive. I also hope that if
    > >this conversation is important enough for the larger community – that we
    > >will take it there, at the right time and the right context.
    > >Here in Jerusalem, the debate surrounding International Gay Pride Week, to
    > >be held here in August – is turning ugly. While I side with the opponents to
    > >the Pride Parade- suggesting that this event is a provocation that may yield
    > >more harm than good, and not placed in the right time and context, I also
    > >feel that the levels of hatred and homophobia emerging from prominent rabbis
    > >and educators in Israel (including, of course, my immediate family) are
    > >shockingly vile and deeply disturbing. Got to choose your battles, and I’m
    > >not sure I’m going to choose this one, or how to go about it. But I very
    > >much hope that the conversation this network of leaders is now having will
    > >have tangible results towards a more compassionate, considerate and
    > >welcoming dialogue among all seekers of divine wisdom, a warm home, and a
    > >fully lived life.
    > >Thank you , I look forward to continued conversations.
    > >Amichai

  40. Just a question to the site as a whole. David Smith uses profanity against my brother and my father. My brother are father are particularly subject to attack due to their alleged specific sexual practices – which allegations I do not know to be true. I am disappointed that the site allows this kind of profane personal attack without taking any action to address the posting party. Is the leniency shown to this attack simply because I am a Jew that has embraced the most practiced religion on the face of the earth today? Or is Mr. Smith’s seering commentary merely countenanced as a matter of course at this presumed basition of free thought? In either case, I do not believe this to be a welcoming environment to the exchange of divergent viewpoints and my brief history of posting here will terminate absent some specific invitation to continue dialogue. Despite Mr. Smith’s admonishment, although I had not thought to do so before, I will pray for you all and especially him.

  41. cincylitigator:
    You said:
    I do not believe this to be a welcoming environment to the exchange of divergent viewpoints and my brief history of posting here will terminate absent some specific invitation to continue dialogue . . . . I am disappointed that the site allows this kind of profane personal attack without taking any action to address the posting party.
    If you’d like an explicit invitation to continue commenting here, I’d be delighted to extend you one. But you’re barking up the wrong tree if you believe a “welcoming environment” means you get to offend others with impunity because you do so without profanity. This isn’t church, and people here aren’t banned for cursing; if your sensibilities are too delicate for that kind of talk, you may well be better off elsewhere.
    As to my “personal attack,” you ended your comment by stating “[d]espite Mr. Smith’s admonishment, although I had not thought to do so before, I will pray for you all and especially him.” Apparently you had, indeed, already thought of doing so, since you ended your previous comment as follows:
    My only prayer is that you take a moment to reflect before insisting that black is white and vice versa for the sake of your soul.
    Though I suspect such generous offers are habitual on your part, you don’t get to join a comment board of strangers, tell them that they’ve severed their connection to God and have twisted consciences, are spewing lies and slander, and then offer to pray for their souls. That is nothing more than an insincere, patronizing, obnoxious way of saying “fuck you” in evangelical speak, and while you’re welcome to keep doing so, you damn well better expect to be told to shove it up your ass.
    David Smith uses profanity against my brother and my father. My brother and father are particularly subject to attack due to their alleged specific sexual practices.
    Boy, that sure does sound like a shot below the belt doesn’t it? Well, here’s what YOU had to say about your father and brother:
    my orientation is exactly that of my father, to be a promiscuous adulterer married three times and never faithful. . . . Oh did I mention that my brother is a “homosexual” and that nothing could ever extinguish my love for him?
    First of all, who the hell asked you to drag your own father and brother into the discussion as pawns with which to justify your political views? Moreover, you’re the one called your father a “promiscuous adulterer;” I called him a whoremonger. Big deal. As I said, profanity doesn’t count for much here. More importantly, my use of these terms was an example of a phenomenon about which evangelicals are singularly tone deaf, something called irony. To the extent your brother may be subject to attacks because of his “specific sexual practices,” it’s sure as hell not because of anything I believe, but because people like you tell him he’s mentally ill, and will spend eternity burning in hell. Let’s not wallow in wounded indignation cause I said he likes to suck dick; that’s your hang-up, not mine.
    Is the leniency shown to this attack simply because I am a Jew that has embraced the most practiced religion on the face of the earth today?
    You can keep up that “poor, baby persecuted Christians” bullshit as long as you want, but its constant repetition won’t make it any more true. I have plenty of close friends who are Christians – Catholics, Baptists, and Episcopalians – not a single one of whom believes homosexuals need to be cured by psychologists, gives a damn what Jews think of Jesus, or thinks that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell aren’t full of shit. If it’s any consolation, my contempt is equally intense for those fundamentalist Jews who think they’re the sole custodians of the Truth, and that the rest of us are deviant heretics.
    In short, you’re free to hang around here as long as you want as far as I’m concerned. But I think you’ll find it a hell of a lot more enjoyable if you cut out the persecution complex, support your opinions with actual arguments, and treat the views of others with actual respect instead if self-righteous condescension.

  42. David:
    Thank you, your tone is concilliatory and I appreciate it. I agree bringing my brother and father into the discussion was a mistake and I will not do it in the future. In any event, I disagree with your thoughts on orthodox Jews. In my view the problem is with “liberal Jews”: in my view you ought to just drop the “Jew” part because it has no meaning. Liberal Jews are the true masters of chutsbah, first by reinventing Judaism in their own image and then by attempting to reinvent this Christian nation. It would be one thing if they were real Jews attempting to propagate Torah on our culture – this I would have no problem with because it would be honest. As it is they have abandoned all principles of Judaism and yet wear their identity on their sleves in corrupting rather than uplifting society. This is a blight on my people and certainly Ha Shem will hold us accountable.

  43. You know what?
    You just took a crap on me, my boss, many of my friends, and my whole community. First on the gay issue, and now on who is a Jew. I’m not going to let that lie after you make your little complaints, just because somebody swore at you.
    You proudly speak of your abandonment of Judaism for another faith, and then have the gall to tell us who should and should not be called a Jew?
    Judaism is a history of reinvention, in order to SURVIVE. Perhaps we should take those, who put the oral law into writing, and decide that they are not Jews. And those who abandoned the practice of animal sacrifice, while we’re at it. Perhaps we should take those “liberals” who stood at MLK’s side, and take away from them the title of being called a Jew.
    You convert to an evangelical theology and tell US that we’ve abandoned all principles of Judaism? Liberal Jews have committed themselves to civil rights for all, human rights throughout the world…..What do you want to do? Oh yeah, condemn the lives of human beings who happen to be gay.
    Reinvent this Christian nation? You mean the one founded on freedom of religion? I guess, yeah, I wanna send my kid to public school, and I don’t want him to be forced to pray to Jesus every morning. I guess that makes me a real liberal Jew bastard.
    You know what, though? I would rather be a liberal Jew any day, than be someone like you. Because what are you?
    You’re WRONG.
    Oh, and you can totally suck my balls, as far as “alleged sexual practices go”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.