Andy Bannister informs me that 75% of religious persecution in the world today is directed at Christians.  Andy Bannister would have me believe that the majority religion of Europe, the Americas, and much of Africa is subject to religous persecution.

Andy Bannister is wrong. I’ll come back to this below.

Hagai, whom I know slightly, informs me that free speech in Israel is threatened by a new law. He’s right.

Hagai’s assertions impose an American model of free speech on Israel. Hagai and I disagree vehemently about that. The American cost of free speech is very, very high.

It’s high time that the high cost of free speech becomes an private financial burden rather than a public one, in Israel and elsewhere.  The high cost of free speech is acknowledged in Canada, which has hate laws that prohibit certain types of speech. Civil libertarians, both on the left and the right, detest Canadian hate speech laws.

The Israeli law doesn’t follow the Canadian model: it  does not deny the freedom to speak whatever is on your mind. The Israeli law is directed at NGOs; it imposes a financial burden on inappropriate dissent, not on all dissent.
Burn an Israeli flag? Call the Jewish character of the state into question? See your budget reduced. And why not?

Israel was founded on the premise of protecting Jews by giving them a national state, it was not founded on the premise of free speech. Free speech is an American ideal entirely foreign to Jewish tradition, which prohibits lashon hara (literally, “evil speech”).

The American concept of free speech was necessary in its time to eliminate the tyrrany of the minority imposed by Britain. The American concept of free speech permits odious and deformed behaviours and is not worthy of emulation.

The American concept of free speech allows Westboro Baptist church to cause unforgivable pain and sorrow. The American concept of free speech allows Andy Bannister to teach that Christianity is subject to 75% of the religiouis persecution in he world today.

The American concept of free speech is ridiculous.

I was one of two rabbis in the room to hear Andy Bannister make his absurd assertion. I am embarrassed to admit that I subdued my warrior sage: I did not stand up in protest. The other rabbi present is a man with whom I am most-
oft in opposition. He is, however, a diplomatic sage; he presented a perspective on the panel that shamed Andy, and quite rightly so.

Christianity is the single largest religion on Earth.

Christianity is, among Abrahamic religious traditions, the majority religion. Of  3.2 billion Abrahamic adherents, 2.2 bn are Christians. The Abrahamic traditions include, in historical order, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bah’i.

There were perhaps 10 million Jews in antiquity. By the 1930s there were 18 mn Jews among a world population of 2 bn. In the opening years of the 21st century there are 14 mn Jews among a world population of almost 7 bn. And I am supposed to believe Andy Bannister that Christianity is a persecuted religion?

I think not.

Andy would have me believe that Christianity is the great dissenting tradition in the world today. Hagai would have me believe that dissent without checks and balances is an essential value in a democratic society.

They’re both wrong.

The disrespect shown McLuhan’s insight proves both its elegance and its validity: a joke is a type of medium. Making fun of Mcluan’s insight is a type of message.

Communication studies is usually applied to interpersonal communication: how people communicate with each
other. This can and does create specific types of interpersonal communication studies, both applied and
theoretical. I am an applied communication specialist. I use communication studies both as a clinical educator
with my students and in my clinical work as a spiritual director.

I am also somewhat a communication theorist because I am a theologian. Theology is the study of how one
communicates with the Divine. A theologian is a theorist specialised in transpersonal communication.

I am given over to this speculation because The Metivta of Ottawa, where I teach and am taught, is moving its Internet operations over to something called a content management system. My varied training includes the ability to write the code that becomes the foundation of web sites and journals.

This code is a combination of hypertext markup language (HTML) and cascading style sheets (CSS). The simple distinction is that HTML codes what you read and CSS codes how you read it — content vs style; Mcluhan would recognise this as message vs medium, for a medium has always been about style, and far more today than at any other time because our notion of style has changed so radically.

There is one medium, however, with a consistent and constant style: the Divine Conversation. This medium is one of several used in transpersonal communication.

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov counselled the use of hitbodedut, which I would describe as a combination of three media: prayer, meditation and confession. It is prayer because one speaks to G!d; it is meditation because one listens; and it is confession because one gives over his or her secrets.

We spend so much time in the midst of technology that we forget our own voices. We have made the medium the message when it should be the transmitter of the message.

Find your voice.

Some will see my griping as jealousy, I suppose; I don’t deny that I think my opinions have equal or greater merit than those put forth by the “official” organisations.

Certainly my opinions have equal merit to those put forth by the CIJA agencies — Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada-Israel Committee; certainly my opinions have greater merit than those put forth by Bnai Brith.

We are told in Mishna Pirqé Avot not to be opposed on principle. I am not opposed on principle to Canada’s Jewish communal agencies. There is tremendous accomplishment behind both Canadian Jewish Congress and Bnai Brith.

The current leaderships of these storied organisations should be ashamed of themselves.

I want to see Canadian Jews involved in civil society. There is a place for ethnic Jewish voices, perhaps represented by Congress, and for religious Jewish voices.

Not for a moment do I think that The Metivta of Ottawa is the only valid Jewish religious voice. I have seen wonderful religious perspectives put forth by Dow Marmur, Jean Gerber, and Elyse Goldstein.

I’d love to be challenged by religious perspectives put forth by my Orthodox colleagues; no one in Canada seems willing to take risks like those of Avi Weiss or Dov Linzer in the USA. Well, there is me — and I’m lonely.

I suppose one may consider the book launch I attended a “Jewish” since the author is Dr Truda Rosenberg, one of the most remarkable people I know. Truda calls herself a victor of the Shoa, not a victim. She is a larger than life figure.

Every other event on my calendar, however, was a civil society commitment.

I started my day at 7:30 am at the local synagogue’s morning service. It ended at 11:30pm at home. In those 16 hours I met two chaplaincy referrals from the local detention centre, paid a pastoral visit to the Pride Centre at a local university, attended the book launch, and atttended a multifaith dinner.

My involvements in civil society reflect my faith-left perspectives. My involvements include restorative justice, corrections, interfaith, and the elimination of intimate partner violence.

I am most frequently the sole member of the Jewish community at these events and even when not I am almost always the only rabbi. There is, however, another rabbi in Ottawa who has an impressive legacy of civil society involvements — and I can never hope to catch up to him.

Rabbi Reuven Bulka has spent most of my lifetime getting his hands dirty in building Ottawa’s civil society infrastructure. He obtained the key to the city last year. Every Canadian Jew should take pride in Rabbi Bulka’s astounding achievements, which are unique for an Orthodox rabbi.

Rabbi Bulka and I know each other slightly.  We agree on the importance of Jewish involvement in civil society. We disagree on probably everything else.

Lone Jewish involvement in civil society is controversial, most especially where Canadian Jewish Congress is nvolved. This has always been a peculiarity of the CJC and it has become more pronounced of late. I was at a conference last spring in Toronto that included representatives of Congress, and they looked upon me with utmost suspicion.

Canada’s Jewish community is not well-served by such patrician attitudes. This nonsense needs to end.

What is especially important, I think, is relgious Jewish involvement. We need to see rabbis from every Jewish traditional movement get involved in the general community. The problem is that by far the majority of Canadian rabbis are congregational rabbis; this makes Rabbi Bulka’s legacy all the more impressive: most synagogue boards
are not overly supportive of their rabbi being involved in non-Jewish affairs.

Jewish religious communities in Canada need to retreat from the suburbs and join the street again.

I am religiously traditional but also progressive and identify with the faith-left. I’ve become convinced that politically I am a Progressive-Conservative, however, that strange Canadian hybrid that is progressive but isn’t Liberal and certainly isn’t social democratic. I would have been, at one time, a perfect candidate for Bnai Brith membership.

That’s certainly not so today.

The Bnai Brith of my youth is gone, overtaken by a neoconservative cadre led by Joseph Ben-Ami and Frank Diamant. I know Joseph and like him; I know Frank Diamant by reputation alone, and what I know I do not like one bit. One does not yell at Irwin Cotler and earn my respect. I’m aware of Irwin’s claws and flaws; I take what I like and leave the rest, which is why I can also like Joe Ben-Ami even as I detest his politics.

Jewish neoconservatism is a frightening development. Jews have been historically victimised by Christian Democrats, the movement North American neocons look to for guidance; most necons this side of the Atlantic tend to be faith Christians of one type or another, so this makes sense.

Economic and fiscal conservatism is certainly something Jews can support. I’m less convinced that Jews can suuport political conservatism; it definitely does not make sense, however, for even the most politically conservative Jew to make common cause with a movement that is historically antisemitic.

The notion that conservative faith-Christians are somehow staunch allies of Israel is ridiculous. One must not confuse being an ally of Israel with being an ally of Jews. Yet Frank Diamant and the other necons in Bnai Brith maintain otherwise.

They honour Christian “Zionists” and take honorary degrees from their Bible seminaries. The same people who are lauded as Christian Zionists are funders for missions to convert Jews. I simply do not understand how we can seek their support — a criticism that applies also to many on the Jewish far-left, espeically groups like Independent Jewish Voices [IJV].

There is nothing “independent” about IJV — they are communists, surely not a movement noted for their independent or ciritcal thinking skills. Neither is there anything particularly Jewish about IJV, which is a great shame: IJV could otherwise speak with a prophetic voice.

IJV loses its opportunity to have a Jewish identity precisely because it is not a Jewish organisation. It takes support from the non-Jewish far-left. This is not precisely the same issue Bnai Brith has — Bnai Brith has always been inherently and coherently Jewish, and the Jewish far-left has never been either — but it’s close enough: both our neocon(servative) and our neocom(munist) groups hold fast to non-Jewish bosoms and suck away.

Perhaps you don’t like that analogy, so here’s one that’s uniquely Canadian: imagine a hockey team with only one forward shooting from the right playing another hockey team with only one forward shooting from the left. The team with only a Right Wing will statistically score more goals than the team with only a Left Wing — but neither team has a Centre, the position from which most goals are scored.

Canadian Jews deserve better.

Tomorrow I’ll have some perspectives on Jewish involvement in civil society.

This article is not about Israel, it is about the organised Jewish community as I understand it — or don’t understand it — in Canada.

Canada’s national Jewish community organisations have long been Bnai Brith and Canadian Jewish Congress.

There has historically been some bad blood between these organisations at one level, because both groups believe they had the right to speak on behalf of Canadian Jews.

Both organisations need to grow up.

Canadian Jewish Congress has no right to speak on behalf of Canadian Jews because it is a secular, centre-left organisation that makes no room for a Jewish religious voice.

Bnai Birth has no right to speak on behalf of Canadian Jews because it is a secular, right-wing organisation that makes no room for a Jewish religious voice.

The Metivta of Ottawa provides a religious Jewish voice for Canadian Jews. It has no right to speak on behalf of Canadian Jews because it is a religious, faith-left organisation that makes no room for a Jewish secular voice.

The Metivta, moreover, needs to grow up: it is surely a sign of adolescence that The Metivta is embarrassed to be seen in the company of both Congress and Bnai Brith.

Perhaps not. Bnai Brith and Congress are like two relatives that show up to dinner anticipating the good fight that will occur, while the rest of the table talks quietly among themselves or observes in embarrassed silence.

Canadian Jews deserve better.

Tomorrow’s article will confront Bnai Brith and excoriate the Jewish far-left.

Even in the real world I’ve only ever accepted five of the 200 requests I’ve had over the last 10 years. And only two have completed with me.

In the catch up realm I spent some time with my astounding wife, Rebbetzin Dr Susan J Landau Chark. We did some shopping together. After returning, I re-organised some of The Metivta’s journal policies and guidelines, made the soup for Shabbat, and asked someone I don’t know to join our advisory board.

Fridays used to be frenetic. I’ve finally learned that word in the phrase “erev Shabbat” is Shabbat.

Shabbat shalom. My first official post on Sunday will be on imposing a Jewish religious voice on Canadian civil society.

Reb Arie’s Midrash began with the idea that a Canadian voice from the Jewish faith-left could compete with an American voice such as Michael Lerner’s.  I still believe that’s possible. It became impossible last year only because I became so busy caring for others that I forgot to car for myself.

I had two severe asthma attacks, both so severe I thought I was having a heart attack. I began to look after myself and actually took a phony summer vacation.

I lead a small wisdom school called The Metivta of Ottawa. The reality is that The Metivta is very small — but I think it’s Harvard Corporation; all that needed to happen  to run it that way, with a mixed business model that includes education but does not rely upon it, was an enforced summer vacation of sorts.

I didn’t go anywhere, but I also didn’t work much. I did think a lot, read a lot, and watched cartoons — a lot.

I  rested. That is almost certainly what allowed the innovations now under way at The Metivta to occur. An executive committee formed in the autumn and and a corporation is now being organised for the spring because  The Metivta has developed some significant intellectual property.

I have been absent from the blogosphere but not from the Internet, and the Internet media developed to promote The Metivta has led to the development of services not previously considered.

One of the services is media. The Metivta is preparing several journals to become credible Jewish media in Canada and internationally. Most of these media will present and promote Greenkosher*, probably The Metivta’s most significant innovation to this time.

And what of Reb Arie’s Midrash? It has a new mission: oppose everything!

There is a great deal in Canada’s organised Jewish community to oppose, unfortunately, and there is no credible media to do it. The plan is to become a weekly journal updated every Friday afternoon.

Reb Arie’s Midrash is strongly focussed on Ottawa’s Jewish community, on Canada, and on Canadian Jewish communities. It is politically centrist. It has no opinion on Israeli politics, which is to say that I neither endorse nor oppose Israeli politics — unless they are egregious.

I will editorially support any reasonable initiative put forth by the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Canada-Israel Committee, and while I do not oppose the Canadian-Jewish Political Affairs Committee neither do I enthusiastically endorse it.

I am editorially opposed to Bnai Brith Canada and KAIROS Canada; Independent Jewish Voices — which is neither independentnor very Jewish — and the notion of  Israel Apartheid are odious.

To launch the new version of Reb Arie’s Midrash I will write daily for the week beginning on 28 February. It’s good to be back.

* A trademark of  The Metivta of Ottawa

I foolishly read this article.

Under the banner of “Opinion”, Morgan Duchesny wrote an article headlined What About Criticism of Israel? in which he makes the astounding assertion:

Strictly speaking, “anti-Semitic” should also mean anti-Arab, since Arabs are also Semites.

He makes this absurd assertion also in this article.

Antisemitsm is brought to English translation from the German antisemitische Vorurteile. This term is used to describe the racist rhetoric of individuals like Heinrich von Treitschke, for whom semitische was synonymous with Judentum (Jewish).

Wilhelm Marr, however, is truly the author of modern antisemitism. He published a pamphlet in 1873 in which he used the word Semitismus interchangably with Judentum. In 1880, Mars coined the phrase antisemitismus and then founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Antisemites).

The English term antisemitism was never intended, in its German original, for application to any group other than Jews. The foolish assertion that antisemitism must be applicable also to Arabs (or to Ethiopians, who are Semites; and what of those who speak Swahili, which is a Semitic language?) is merely an attempt to deny the unique racism of Jew-hatred.

Morgan Duchesny describes himself as an activist. He is, furthermore, a graduate of the Third Party Neutral program offered by the Canadian Institute of Conflict Resolution. This being so it is truly surprising that someone trained in mediation would make such egregious errors in his understanding of Jew-specific racism.

Politics trumps training, I guess.

Duchesney offers appropriate criticisms of Israel. He does so only, however, in the context of explaining that being anti-Israel is not being antisemitic. Why? What convoluted thoughts lead him to link the two ideas?

I do not think criticism of Israel is antisemitic. No reasoned Jewish perspective equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

There is one perspective, however,that equates antisemitism with being anti-Israel. The perspective of the antisemite.

These rabbis are wrong.

Pereq (chapter) 1 of Bava Batra raises the expectation that neighbouring lands will want walls or fences. The pereq sets down rules under which these barriers can be built and who pays for them.

The Gemara introduces the halakha of chezeq ra’ahya — literally “damages from vision” — and offers two main sugyot (analytical passages) on pereq 1. One sugya accepts the legitimacy of a damage claim based on being seen. The other sugya questions the legitimacy of the claim.

The halakha ultimately accepts that damages may be claimed based on an expectation of privacy.Rabbi Bulka does not discuss the expectation of privacy. He specifies that dignity is an important concept — and then ignores the indignity of such scanning technology. The technology is tremendously invasive.

Is this image dignified?

Dignity or security: Which do you prefer

The trend among religious Jewish bloggers is piqu’akh nefesh dokh’eh tzni’ut — modesty is not offended with respect to saving a life.

I agree. How will these scanners save a life?

The real reason for this scanning technology has nothing to do with safety. The purpose of the scanning is to quickly assess who may or may not be a threat. The technology is about line-ups, not about protecting lives.

Heaven forbid! aircraft should have to leave a bit later. No, we can’t have that. We have to intrude on the basic right to personal privacy so that the airlines can fly efficiently.

Why am I alone among the religious in criticising this perversity?