Religious conservative liberalism

David Brooks's column in the New York Times was quite interesting.
Essentially he sees that a war on poverty might be a uniting factor between religious conservatives and liberals. He writes

we can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both. That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy.

He continues:
Millions of evangelicals are embarrassed by the people held up by the news media as their spokesmen. Millions of evangelicals feel less represented by the culture war-centered parachurch organizations, and better represented by congregational pastors, who have a broader range of interests and more passion for mobilizing volunteers to perform service. Millions of evangelicals want leaders who live the faith by serving the poor.

Serious differences over life issues are not going to go away. But more liberals and evangelicals are realizing that you don't have to convert people; sometimes you can just work with them.

I've always wondered why, of all of the serious but non-controversial problems that religion could help solve, religious leaders often choose some of the most controversial and divisive: homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and evolution, among others.
Poverty is a natural issue and something that could unite all religions, and the socially concious non-religious. It could bring the compasion into compassionate conservative, and do the world a lot of good.

My Jewish History

My father attended an Orthodox synagogue until he was a Bar Mitzvah. He went to religious school. He attended synagogue with his grandfather as seldomly as he good. Then, when he turned 13, he ran away from synagogue life as quickly as he could.
Why? Mainly because his parents were not observant Jews. They didn't keep kosher or observe the Sabbath. When he went with his grandfather on Yom Kippur, his grandfather would pledge more money to the synagogue then he could afford. So, without the support of his parents, and with my dad's slightly rebellious nature (not atypical at 13), he left orthodoxy saying he didn't want to set foot in a synagogue again.

My mom grew up in a Conservative synagogue. She was never Bat Mitzvah'ed (I don't believe the Conservative movement was doing that then). Judaism was definitely a part of her life as well, but much more so culturally than associated with a a synagogue.

After my parents met and married, they settled on the Reform synagogue they attend today. The rituals, observances, and service suited both of their lifestyles.

They became active members. They sent my sister and I to religious school. My father even became President. His mother and aunt were so shocked they drove an hour to see the installation.

My sister and I both attended in religious school until we were 18. Although she didn't marry a Jew, she had a Jewish wedding and is raising her child Jewish.

Why do I tell this history? Well, Reform Judaism is often criticized because of the high rate of mixed marriage and secularization. I don't know this for certain, but would imagine that intermarriage is higher among Reform Jews. As a Reform Jew, you're exposed to more of the secular world. You are more likely to socialize, eat, and yes date non-Jews. In my dad's case, however, if Reform Judaism did not exist, it's unlikely I'd have the Jewish upbringing I did have.

So it's possible, just possible, that Reform (and perhaps Conservative) can appeal to people who would otherwise be secular: Jew by definition only, with little observance or education behind them. If they sent their children to be educated and they don't practice Judaism in the home, then their children may very well end up like my father did: running away after his Bar Mitzvah Torah portion was read.
I feel honored and much richer to have had a Jewish upbringing. Being Jewish is a deep part of my past and a large part of who I am now. Ever since I left high school I've always sought out some connection to the Jewish community. The Hillels at my undergrad and grad universities, and to the two synagogues I attended in the UK were very much a part of my life. I may not know every detail of an Orthodox service, or all of the appropriate prayers to say, but I believe I have a very good understanding of the religion's history and its traditions. Of course, there is much more to learn.

I can't say how my ideas will change as I get older. I struggle everyday with who I am religiously, and what it means for me to be Jewish. I struggle with the concept of God, and tradition, particularly in times where those words carry so much public meaning and power. But by having the upbringing I did have, Judaism will always be a huge part of who I am.

The House of Representatives passes another bill

First paragraph of The Washington Post's lead editorial on Monday the 16th could have been made generic to apply to any bill the House of Representatives passes.
Read the original at the link provided. Here is the generic version:

THE House of Representatives passed a bill last week designed to [do something noble]. The so-called [clever bill name] bill would greatly expand federal authority [to something that might be good in moderation]. It would [include details about it's excessivness]. These are terrible ideas that ought to be rejected if and when the Senate considers similar legislation.

The Good the Bad and the Ugly

As usual, it's been a full week in the world of politics and current events. Here are my thoughts on three stories that I found interesting.

The Good
On Monday (May 9th) General Electric announced it's new environmental initiative entitled "Ecomagination" According to the Washington Post:
GE is the biggest addition to a growing list of corporations seeking to be seen as "green," and one of only a few business titans to call for broad action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists say lead to global warming.

They are looking into wind power, hybrid technology, and simply more efficient technology. A lot of their customers are European. So, I've heard it argued that one of the reasons for this change is to satisfy the more environment friendly European customers. Is the whole thing lip service? Only time will tell. But regardless, it's good lip service, and shows private industry is going in the right direction. Maybe our pro-business government will follow.

The Bad
The "Emergency" spending bill recently passed in Congress is an awful example of how to pass laws. Here's the basic idea:
You come up with some cause that requires large sums of money quickly and that would be a huge political cost to argue against. In this case it's the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, you slip some other contentious items in the bill that wouldn't be passed without huge debate: in this case, some really controversial Immigration reform (reform used very loosely). Since debate is limited, and the political costs of voting against the money are so high, these bills get passed without debate. Disgusting!
If immigration reform is necessary, which it is, then you debate it and pass bills the normal way. Not by bypassing the legislative process.

The Ugly
The debate over Senate filibusters is really going to get ugly.
It looks like the showdown is going to begin next week. The president resubmits his 10 controversial judge nominations. The Democrats threaten to filibuster. The Republicans change the rules forcing an up or down vote on the nominations. All hell breaks loose.
Neither side really has the moral high ground. The democrats have often decried the filibuster when they were in the majority. The Republicans have used plenty of legislative tricks to block Clinton nominees, even if they didn't filibuster. They've also attempted to filibuster before. One, a Johnson nominee, was withdrawn before the filibuster was necessary. Other Republican filibuster attempts have been brought to a vote with help from other Republicans.
So what should happen? Well, from what I've read, I don't agree with
a lot of what these judges have to see. I'm not particularly qualified to judge their competency as a judge. The question is, how much leeway does Congress have over the president's nominees?
My solution: let the voters decide. Let the Democrats filibuster the nominees. If the voters think the Dem's went to far, they will make sure that there are not enough of them in the next Senate to do it again. If the voters agree that these nominees were "outside of the mainstream", then there will probably be enough Dems to force the President to choose more moderate judges next time.

Evolving Hitchikers in the Galaxy

I just saw the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The movie was the long awaited adaptation of Douglas Adams's radio show, book, and BBC short series.
The book is the first of five in the "Hitchiker's trilogy". It tells the story of Arthur Dent, who joins the imperturbable alien Ford Prefect on an interstellar journey, after the earth is destroyed by the Vogons (another alien race) to make way for an interstellar bypass. The book (and movie), however, is more of an excuse for Douglas Adams, through the voice of the electronic "Guide", to explain his philosophy about Life, the Universe, and Everything.
His main point: Humans aren't so special. They are an insigificant race in "the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy". "[Earth] is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea..." (remember this was written in the 80's).

In fact (possible plot spoiler here) they are the outcome of a computer program. The Earth is not actually a proper planet at all (please see the film or read the book for clarification).

Douglas Adams was a devout atheist, and quotes the evolutionist bible "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (brilliant book by the way) as his favorite book. The ideas in "Hitchiker" and many of his other books bring out this idea behind the absurdity and silliness of the plot. They are brilliant. Funny, silly, absurd, and incredibly intelligent.
Evolution has managed to get itself back in the presses. It's a scientific theory that has proven to be correct in explaining countless scientific phenomenon. The people who criticize it use disagreements over its mechanisms as an excuse to call the theory itself into question. However, it's pretty close to what a non-scientist would call a "fact". Its premise can be quite threatening to those that believe that humans are the center of the Universe. It can also be threatening to those who believe in God.
Do I believe in God? Honestly, I don't know. I believe there is a lot that we (as humans) don't know or understand. I swing back and forth as to whether that lack of understanding, can be called God, or is just the chaotic and amazing mix that's explained by the things we call physics, chemistry, and biology. Perhaps the answer is a mix of both. I certaintly don't know.
I do agree with Adams, in that we need to think that we, as humans, are not more important than the rest of nature. We are a apart of nature, and we happen to have the power to affect the planet, both for good and bad. We have to use that power carefully, or it will destroy us.

More Passover thoughts

Passover is over. I had my traditional pizza outing (don't worry, no sausage or pepperoni). As I alluded to in earlier posts, I find the holiday and it's traditions fascinating.
It's interesting to talk to different Jews to see what they do or do not eat. Some of course, are extremely observant. They'll only eat foods with the strictest of Kosher rules. They have separate Passover dishes. On the other extreme (not counting the unobservant), others, "Just avoid bread".
Personally, I avoid the obvious things. I don't eat bread, cereals, pasta, cakes, etc. I usually avoid rice and corn. But, I'll drink normal soda (the corn syrup is objectionable to many). I'll eat peanut butter and other beans as well (legumes are forbidden).
These are the things that seem meaningful to me. Are they the Biblically and Talmudically (the Talmud is the ancient commentary on the Bible, often referred to as the Oral Law) forbidden foods? No. Not entirely. I'm fine with that.
What I find interesting is that some differences in Passover observance are accepted by Traditional Jews. For example, Jews of Spanish and Middle-Eastern descent (Sephardic Jews) generally eat rice and legumes as they were staples in their diet. So, I've occasionally heard people say "Hey, you're lucky, you're Sephardic, you can eat rice!". I also just recently heard someone say to an Israeli, "Hey since you're Israeli, you only celebrate Passover for seven nights". The bible commands Passover to be seven nights. But, Jews who are not in Israel celebrate the holiday for eight nights,
to account for uncertainty and delay in communicating the beginning and end of the holiday in ancient times (See Judaism 101).
Both of these customs are generally accepted by Traditional Jews and both of those comments are comments I've heard from Traditional Jews. But these are customs. It's customary to celebrate the extra day. It's customary that the staple diet was accepted for Passover. I don't understand why those customs are ok and other adaptations and changes are not. To me, it's about what you can keep and what is meaningful to you. Tradition of course, plays a large part in that meaning.
My point? It shouldn't be about what "descendandcy" you are, or where you are. The holiday should be a mix of the tradition and personal meaning. But either way, I'm off for some more pizza.