On Shifting Views - Media Bias and Gay Marriage

(via CC) A study by a UCLA professor finds that journalists and the media are so biased that we perceive centrists as conservatives, and liberals as centrists:

Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias. Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players.

The simple reason:

Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter.

Helen Thomas is the perfect example of this. While a White House reporter, she was considered a great journalist... but now is exposed as not just having liberal opinions, but as being a far-left nutcase. How is it possible that someone with such extreme opinions was able to co-exist - and be heralded as great - in a supposedly neutral environment as the journalistic field, when people who express commentary that even agrees with mild right-leaning initiatives are blasted as being biased? It is when the journalistic center is skewed so far to the left, that extreme liberalism is viewed as mildly liberal while mild conservatism is viewed as extreme.

This is true beyond media, however. Whenever we shift conversations in a specific way, it redefines the center viewpoint, making one side or the other seem extreme. For example, even proponents of gay marriage who are liberal but not gay claimed that it would never impact or be forced upon religious people in any way; that it was the religious who were unfairly imposing their morality on homosexual couples. And yet, as gay marriage has become fait accompli, proprietors are being sued for being unwilling to cater to homosexual couples' wishes, such as hosting or catering or photographing their wedding. Proponents of the separation of church and state (not in the Constitution) felt that religious values should have no weight in determining what people can and cannot do. But one of the protections afforded by the Constitution was freedom of religion, which was supposed to mean that people would not be forced to perform acts that are against their beliefs. By suing proprietors for standing up for their beliefs, gay couples, through the Courts, are essentially reversing the Constitution by forcing people to perform services that they feel go against their religious beliefs. Moreover, in discussions on the subject, people who formerly claimed it does not have anything to do with religious people and that "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone", now have shifted their views even further, noting that to not service gays should be discrimination like any other, such as racism or sexism.

That all said, not all bias is extreme, nor does it shift completely to one end of the spectrum. In the rather extensive Wiki on media bias, it notes that Groseclose and his colleagues found that despite the heavy bias in media in the USA, all major news sources remained within the overall center - from the New York Times at the left edge of it to Fox News in the very middle, all were within the range of moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If news organizations were people, Fox would be somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John McCain, while the NY Times would be somewhere around Bill Clinton - which, upon a little thought, would likely make sense to most people.

EZ Reads 3/14/11

It seems that for the most part the best pieces of writing in the J-blogosphere revolve around the Fogel family.

• Jameel attends the funeral. 25,000 attended (that would be like 2 million in the USA attending a funeral in terms of countrywide scope).
• A Soldier's Mother gives a telling story of just how an incident such as this impacts everyone in the country down to the simplest parts of their day-to-day lives.

  [The 12-year old found] her little 2-year-old brother shaking is parent's bodies, trying to make them get up. I can only hope these details are not known to my daughter.
  
  "Bnei Akiva saved her," my daughter said, "because if she'd been home, she would have died too."
  
  Too much knowledge for an 11-year-old. "And they killed the baby. Only 3-months-old." Too much knowledge.
  
  "Just lock the door," said my 20-year-old said as he went back upstairs. Too much knowledge even for a 20-year-old.

• Treppenwitz says it's all in how you say it, after hearing a co-worker's comments:

  ...it's apparently okay for a lefty to say that the Palestinians can't help but be provoked to murderous rampages by the mere presence of Jews in their vicinity.

• Harry writes about an interesting Orthodox Rabbi who matches up gay men and women in marriage, with moderate success to date. 
• Sussman's (hat tip: SaraK) writes a beautiful post "I Am Ruth Fogel".
• Knowledge is a Power Tool (hat tip: Serach) says we need to start working.

EZ Reads 3/9/11

Happy engagiversary to Serach and me! I've updated the tabs at the top (which I will try to make more noticeable in the near future) to include and be up to date on the various series that are ongoing on this blog. If you would like to read through any major series, those are the best places to start. Some fun links today:

• Following up on their previous analysis, The New York Times determines that American Jews lead the happiest lives of all Americans. Brilliant first comment on the article (just saw it was removed!): Sure, most of them are happy, but those other 30%, boy can they complain!
• Mishpacha has a very good article this week explaining charter schools and how they can (and usually have not) impacted Orthodox schools and yeshivos. Excerpt:

  Unlike the situation in Brooklyn and East Brunswick, Florida’s Ben Gamla charter school network has attracted a solid Jewish majority in its student body, and the system is growing by leaps and bounds. Following the Hollywood branch’s popularity, Ben Gamla schools were opened in nearby Plantation (in 2009) and Miami Beach (in 2010). There is an independent after-school religious studies program available to students throughout the Ben Gamla network.
  
  However, even these schools’ success comes at a limited cost to local frum institutions. Sources familiar with the makeup of the school’s student body estimate that only about 5 percent of Ben Gamla students are from frum homes. Currently, the four-year-old network’s Jewish students are primarily either non-Orthodox, who would otherwise have attended public school or Conservative or non-denominational Jewish day schools; or special-needs students who require costly services not subsidized in private schools.

  The article is in this week's Mishpacha, which you can subscribe to here.
• Did you hear? The Maccabeats came out with a new video for Purim! (Yes, I heard about 100 times.) Admittedly, Uri Westrich put together another good one - great job sticking with themed jokes, like the sombrero and the dripping jelly.
• Chana realizes there is a difference between compassion and understanding, and publicity and support, when it comes to homosexuality in the Orthodox community.
• Finally! xkcd pokes fun at ads which say things like "Sales of up to 15% - or more!" So... you mean you have sales going on at various percentages below and above 15%? Why not just pick any number below the max percentage discount so it sounds bigger? Do people really suck this bad at math? This always frustrated me.
• Michael Medved has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal decrying the propensity of Republicans to label Obama as a radical/extremist. This trait is especially true in the Orthodox Jewish community, and it doesn't do anybody any favors. Medved notes that realizing that Obama's views are rather mainstream Democrat is important if the GOP wishes to win the next election.
• Finally, an old neighbor from Cleveland who is absolutely hilarious has a number of videos doing various impressions of all types of people. Her latest is up on YouTube and has already picked up 11,000+ views, so I feel like it's okay to put it on the blog this time:
  
  
  I wish some of her other stuff would go up, too - she's just really, really funny.

Setting Bad Precedents

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - Oath of the President of the United States

Most of us learned in elementary school that there are three branches of government in the United States: The Congress makes the laws; the President and the Executive Branch enforces those laws; and the Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, determines if those laws are Constitutional. Within reason, each branch is supposed to respect the ideals of one another, as there are gray areas all over and there are often disagreements, depending on one's point of view. For example, members of Congress are not supposed to put forth bills without demonstrating their need and why they fall under the Constitutional rights of Congress to enact a law about, a point which the new Republican majority has tried to impress; and the Courts will often try to retain portions of a law even if other portions are found to be unconstitutional out of respect for the Congress.

Yesterday, the Obama administration made a very interesting and unprecedented decision: It decided that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed into law by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996, from constitutional challenges in the Courts. [Note: I don't believe the subject matter is particularly important for the legal discussion, on which (hat tip: Nephtuli) there are two very interesting posts with many interesting comments on Volokh Conspiracy (a top legal blog).] One of the most interesting parts of the administration's decision is that while they will not defend the law, they will however still enforce the law. This seems to be quite a split - some have argued that this makes sense, from the standpoint of the Executive Branch is required to enforce the laws of this country, and therefore even if they don't like a law, they can't simply not enforce it. Others have argued the reverse: The Executive Branch should be required to defend the law so long as it is on the books, but can choose to selectively enforce or not enforce a law as it sees fit. Still others have argued that they must do neither, that to enforce or defend but not the other is an inherent contradiction.

But Orin Kerr's piece points out the stickiest issue here: By the Executive Branch choosing to not defend a law passed by Congress, it essentially becomes an Executive power grab:

If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.

The simplest example is perhaps coming up rather soon. If a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012, is there any doubt that they would exercise this new technique to not defend the health care bill should it come to the Supreme Court? The Department of Justice has a longstanding practice of defending all federal laws which are challenged in court, regardless of the President's views on the subject. To stop appears to be a horrible precedent to set, allowing the President in his capacity as Chief Executive to unilaterally determine which laws it will or will not defend (or enforce, though again that does not seem to be at issue here).

As an aside, Kerr makes an interesting analogy to President Bush's administration's defense of approaches that were certainly against the mainstream interpretation of law; however, at least those cases were regarding the powers of the Executive Branch and how far reaching those powers were (such as could they wiretap without a warrant people who had been in contact with foreign terrorists), and it is reasonable to allow the Executive Branch to attempt to determine the limits of its own powers. Here, President Obama's administration is applying its opinion to laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton - without waiting for the Courts to decide the Constitutionality of the law, but making their own judgment and acting accordingly. This is essentially spitting in the face of Congress and precedent, that laws remain as such until such time that the Congress repeals or amends the law or the Courts determine it to be unconstitutional.

This is also not the first time President Obama has seemed to overstep his boundaries a bit. In last year's State of the Union address, he openly criticized a decision by the Supreme Court, prompting a reaction from Justice Alito and a bit of a negative backlash from all over, as no President had ever done such a thing before. For a President to almost interfere with another branch like that was shockingly bad precedent; yesterday's decision likely is as well. It appears that President Obama's administration is either unaware of the precedents it may be setting; uncaring due to the policies it feels are worth promoting despite the costs; or specifically creating such precedents to redesign the way the United States government functions and to transfer greater powers to the Executive Branch. None of those choices are particularly comforting, and we can only hope that the precedent is stopped and reversed as time passes.

Is “Being Orthodox” the same thing as “Being Gay”?

Guest Post by Adam

 

In the age old debate of nature vs. nurture, no facet of this argument is more heated than when it comes to homosexuals.  Is their attraction inborn, or is it an acquired orientation?  It is a choice?  What about finding ones way to halachic observance?  Nature or nurture?  Inborn or chosen?  I started to think about this after an Internet chat I had with a friend.  This friend describes himself as a Radical Reform Jew. 

We got into a discussion on the idea that one may receive more than one gives, when giving tzedakah.  The following is the transcript, edited for clarity, grammar, and anonymity (RF stands for Reform Friend).  

********

me: I've seen it many many times, my expenses are somehow lower when I give more tzedakah.

RF: ok

me: there is a cap, 20%, and I don't get anywhere near that yet

RF: mine tend to be much more because I have to pay the donation too

me: just saying, this is the one place where we're told in the Torah to test it out.  So next time you give money, look around your life and see if you either received an unexpected cash increase and/or lower expenses soon after

RF: i will; and then if i do, i will believe

me: lol no you won't :)

RF: ok you are right!

me: even when I had my "wow" moment 12 years ago at the kotel, it still took me another 2 years until I really started keeping Shabbat.  I never expect or even want a Jew to totally flip around based on one good vibe

RF: well i am pretty secure in my belief.  I don't think a single moment at a place that doesn't accept my religious practices is going to change anything.

me: it didn't bother me back then

RF: what didn't bother you?  

me: standing there, as an actively Reform Jew, at the Kotel.  It didn't bother me that men and women had to pray separately

RF: you were never a Reform Jew

me: I wasn't?

RF: you were on your path to where you are.  Perhaps you were practicing as a RJ but you weren't part of the movement like say you are part of the MO movement.

me: I wasn't a twice-a-year RJ, I went to all of the Hebrew school, Sunday schools, Reform and nom-denom youth groups and summer camps

RF: but "something was missing", right?

me: not until high school, but yeah

RF: so once you could start thinking for yourself, when you could actually become a Reform Jews, you did not - that is what i am getting at.

**********

It was the “something was missing” line that really got me thinking.  Something WAS missing in my life.  I really didn’t feel fulfilled there.  It was a relief to find out that there were others like me.  These are all statements that the gay kid makes on the after school special after coming out of the closet.

Which gets back to my opening question:   Is “Being Orthodox” like “Being Gay”?  

What do you say?

Being Gray in the Modern Orthodox World: A Conversation

Transcribed by Eli D. Clark
This is for Chana, the original can be found here

Rabbi Schwartz: Welcome everyone. Our topic tonight is “Being Gray in the Modern Orthodox World.” Each of our panelists will talk about how it feels to discover that you are really yeshivish after growing up Modern Orthodox. Before we begin, a few ground rules: We are not going to discuss Hashkofoh, Halochoh or the Heisman Trophy. For that we turn to Gedolei Yisroel. Please save your questions for later; if you wrap them in airtight plastic bags, they should stay fresh for days. Our first speaker is Chezkie.

Chezkie: Thank you, Rabbi Schwartz.

Growing up, I never realized I was gray. I went to day school and Camp Moshava . I went mixed swimming (which was about 95% mixed and about 5% swimming). For seven straight years I watched “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” I wore my baseball cap backward.

But there were hints from an early age. I remember, around age 6, I cried when the barber cut off my payos. (He also removed half my ear lobe.) I always liked wearing black. When my friends played Nintendo, I would sneak off and read “The Little Midrash Says.”

But no one wants to admit that he’s, you know, different. So in high school I started going out with girls. But deep down I knew I’d rather be sitting in a Kollel with guys.

In 12th grade I finally told one of my Rabbeim I was gray. He was very supportive. He gave me a bunch of Artscroll biographies. He got me a subscription to the Jewish Observer. He took me shopping for my first black hat.

The hardest thing was telling my family. My father had taken me to baseball games, to the Israel Day Parade. He dreamed that I would study medicine and join his practice treating nervous gall bladders. Today he realizes that I will probably live in Passaic , work in computers and have children named Shraga and Pessie.

The good news is that I have met other guys who like wearing jackets, even though they grew up in Teaneck and the Five Towns . They helped me understand that I was not alone, that Boro Park and Lakewood are full of guys like me.

Rabbi Schwartz: Chezkie, thank you. Our next panelist is Nachi G.

Nachi: Hello everyone. My name is Nachi and I’m gray. It takes some courage to say that. I remember in high school all my friends were really into sports and I just wanted to sing like Lipa Schmeltzer.

My brother and sister would make comments. They’d say, “Nathan’s such a frummie.” And my mother would say, “Don’t say that. Maybe he’ll end up that way.” She tried to get me to join NCSY, Bnei Akiva, anything where I might meet some girls. But all I kissed were mezuzos.

As a teenager I stopped eating chodosh and cholov nochri and pas akum – I lost a lot of weight. My mother got upset, but my dad said it was just a passing phase, like the time I went four months without changing my socks.

I started talking yeshivish, everything was geshmak or gevalt. In my bedroom I hung a photo of Rav Aharon Kotler. I stopped shaving, but everyone thought I was trying to look like Brad Pitt.

After high school my father wanted me to go to a Religious Zionist yeshiva – Shaalvim or Hakotel. But I went to Toras Moshe and after Elul I switched to the Mir. What an experience! I sat in a bais medrash with a thousand guys who had stopped learning math in fourth grade.

Around Chanuka, my parents came to visit me in Israel and I told them I was gray. (At the time I was really black. It was a white lie.) To my surprise they were great, totally supportive. My mother switched to cholov yisroel and stopped bringing her smutty magazines into the house, stuff like Popular Mechanics and Accounting Today. My dad said I could go to the Mir in Brooklyn , as long as I promised to study accounting at Touro. He even gave me permission to live in Crown Heights , on the condition that I not marry a Lubavitcher.

My sister is still hostile. Maybe it’s because I said her Tinkerbell nightlight was pritzusdik. But I’m working on her. Last month I bought her a book called “The Adventures of Chanoh Soroh Fraydel, the Shayna Maydel in a Shtaty Shaytel.”

Rabbi Schwartz: Our third panelist is Mordy S.

Mordy: Despite what you see, it actually took me a long time to admit that I was gray.

Today I look like a typical chunyuk. But I didn’t always. I grew up in Boston , went to Maimonides, learned Gemara with girls. One of my best friends growing up was Irish Catholic. (Sadly, he was injured in a freak miniature golfing accident and now speaks only in iambic pentameter.) My mother taught me my bar mitzva parsha.

So there I was – a poster boy for Modern Orthodoxy. But little by little, I started to change. Once I criticized my sister for wearing pants and talking to boys; she was four and a half. I stopped going to movies. I stopped reading English books not published by Targum Press. I stopped eating broccoli and cauliflower. (Not because of bugs; I just hate vegetables.)

At my parents’ suggestion, I started seeing a psychologist. He was a shul member, a friend of the family. He dabbled in hypnosis. Every time he heard the word “marmalade,” he would start singing the “The Whiffenpoofs Song” in Pig Latin. At our first session, I told him, “Modern Orthodoxy is hollow and hypocritical.” “Yes,” he replied, “but what don’t you like about it?” He suggested I go to an Ivy League college for a few years, then decide. I told him that we were created to learn Torah, not to study “The Architecture of the Igloo.”

My parents suggested I change therapists. The new guy was an old guy, 83 years old and certain that all religious devotion is a sign of neurosis. “Do you think God really cares if you hold your tzitzis during Shema in your left hand between your ring finger and pinkie?” he asked me. “I don’t know about God, but I care more about the Mishnoh Bruroh’s opinion than yours,” I replied. After six months, he announced his retirement, left Boston and opened the first Dunkin’ Donuts outlet at Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul .

I asked my Rebbe what to do with certain Modern Orthodox seforim I still had from high school (Soloveitchik, Steinsaltz, Ibn Ezra). He said that they were not vaday kefiroh, so I mustn’t burn them, but it would be assur to give them away, because the recipient might read them and think they are true. In the meantime, I hid them in a box under my collection of Star Trek action figures.

I am still dealing with a lot of issues, but today I can proudly look at myself in the mirror and say out loud, “I am gray.”

Rabbi Schwartz: Our final panelist is Rachel O.

Rachel: It is very exciting to be here and be called by my new name “Rachel,” after a lifetime under the name “ Shannon .” I was born Christian. I started my conversion process with a respected rabbi, who unfortunately was not schooled in telephone etiquette and had a lot of friends he wanted me to …

Rabbi Schwartz: Um, Rachel? Do you know what the topic of this panel is?

Rachel: Sure. “Being a Ger in the Modern Orthodox World.”

Rabbi Schwartz: I think that’s all for tonight. Thank you to our panelists, our audience and the sponsor of this evening’s program: Borsalino. Since 1857: When Your Father-in-Law Can Buy You the Very Best.

Moron

You know you're in bad shape when even most YW commenters think you're nuts:

“When Americans are suffering economically and millions need jobs, it’s shocking that the Administration is focused on its ultra-liberal militantly homosexualist agenda forcing the highlighting of homosexuals and homosexuality on an unwilling military. This is the equivalent of the spiritual rape of our military to satisfy the most extreme and selfish cadre of President Obama’s kooky coalition.

We agree with Eileen Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness that this will hurt the cohesiveness of the military, cause many to leave the army, and dramatically lower the number of recruits, perhaps leading to the reinstatement of a compulsory draft.

“Thirteen months before 9/11, on the day New York City passed homosexual domestic partnership regulations, I joined a group of Rabbis at a City Hall prayer service, pleading with G-d not to visit disaster on the city of N.Y. We have seen the underground earthquake, tsunami, Katrina, and now Haiti. All this is in sync with a two thousand year old teaching in the Talmud that the practice of homosexuality is a spiritual cause of earthquakes. Once a disaster is unleashed, innocents are also victims just like in Chernobyl.

“We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough.”

Whether gays should or shouldn't be in the military is a decision that military commanders have a better understanding of than anyone, and let them debate this with the White House and Congress. But this is just insanity.

Discussing Discussions vs. Disgusting Discussions

With thanks to Binny, who made the point so well.

There is an oft-used tactic in modern debate which is extremely effective, yet quite obfuscating were one to consider not just its methods, but what exactly it's about. Confused yet?

...Exactly.

While many public debates are debates over the substantive issues at hand, there are issues where this is not the case; rather, the issue at hand is itself whether a discussion should even be held. In other words, the debate is about what the discussion would be, not what the discussion would be about.

In cases like this, the oft-used tactic is to paint those on side A of the issue as "intolerant", and those on side B as very "tolerant", because side B is open to "discussion" and side A is not. However, this is incredibly twisted: It is not that side A is not open to the idea of discussion, but that in a particular subject, that the "discussion" itself is the issue and they are against it. Side B, itself unwilling to accept this as a legitimate point of view, then tries to paint this as an intolerant approach and tries to sway those who might otherwise agree with side A by claiming their "intolerance" shows them to be "extremists". After all, they argue, "What's wrong with just having a discussion?"

This happens with so many issues, but the recent panel at YU on homosexuality in the Orthodox world is a perfect example. A number of people mentioned to me that after the hubbub began, a group was started on Facebook for people who "Support a YU that Engages the Issues". What these people so obviously miss is that those in YU who were against the panel did engage the issue - and felt strongly that what YU did was wrong. As is clear from the group's introduction*, the group is one that strongly supported the panel that occurred and wishes for more such panels to take place. What they are not accepting of is discussion as to whether or not such panels are appropriate in the first place. (One person who tried to question as much on the group was quickly shot down, labeled as a "bad guy", his views as "bigoted", and was told that those who support the group were "good guys" and "open-minded" - and that was all in the first comment!)

It is important to recognize, particularly in issues regarding morality, that often the debate is over whether a topic is itself even up for discussion. Both sides of such a debate are well aware that even having such a discussion is itself a shift of the lines of debate and one which often is used to blur the discussion itself completely. Again, using the YU panel as an example, by taking halacha out of the discussion it shifted the debate from "how should we work with someone who is struggling with homosexuality but wishes to be Orthodox" or even "to what extent should homosexuality be a public subject" to "how should we react to someone who has homosexual relationships" (as two of the panelists openly acknowledged having or craving such relationships). Without many people even being cognizant of it, this shifts the debate into one of how to accept and make someone feel accepted despite their actions instead of whether they should be accepted because of those actions.

Just to switch the example to another subject briefly to show this approach is not confined to this situation, this is similar to how one can shift the discussion of abortion with ease {note: in conversation, not in historical political discourse}. Instead of allowing that abortion is a wrong, sad event, but that there may be exceptions where it should be allowed (if not encouraged), people will note that abortion is a necessity in some types of cases and therefore should always be legal - just in case. This then shifts the debate to whether abortion should be allowed only in specific cases, or even for anyone who wishes to abort her child early on in a pregnancy for any number of a variety of arguable reasons. That then sometimes shifts the debate even further as to whether partial-birth abortion** should be allowed to those who wish it as well. The shift of debate through the argument of "discussion" is a brilliant but immoral maneuver.

Switching back, it is clear why so many in, around, and outside of YU were upset with what occurred, and more importantly for the future, how some completely missed the primary focus of those who spoke out against it. What is especially important moving forward - not just in this situation, but in any - is that people such as the ones who joined that Facebook group understand that oftentimes, "engaging an issue" occurs by deciding that an issue is inappropriate for the venue, the crowd, or the university it represents. That many people feel an issue should not be publicly discussed does not mean it is not being engaged; nor does the fact that it is not being engaged in the manner that so many have come to or have been taught to expect as the norm translate into any other approach being incorrect or intolerant. Tolerance is not a free-for-all where anything goes; it is a respect that others have differing points of view, even ones we don't agree with or much like at all. Most importantly, tolerance is not acceptance, but balancing how one reacts with how one feels about a person or subject versus how they act upon the same.


* Quote from the group: This is a group for alumni, students and others who care about Yeshiva University to express their support for events that allow for open, nonjudgmental and safe dialogue and discourse on issues of importance to Orthodox Judaism in the twenty-first century. In light of YU’s noble decision to hold a panel last week on “Being Gay in the Orthodox World,” this group actively encourages such people to email President Joel and others in the University Board/Administration to express support for such events, and to ensure that the university administration is aware that, despite some voices to the contrary, such discussions are welcome and vital to a vibrant YU campus and community."

** Wikipedia: The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[8] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal.

Fallout

One of the aspects of the homosexuality panel discussion that have been especially interesting is the comments I've been hearing from friends and others, including comments that are being passed along the grapevine. Friends and colleagues whom one wouldn't even expect to have read the previous post, let alone necessarily agree, have stated that they thought the comments and opinions expressed were especially good and right along the line of what they themselves felt on the subject - whether people from the "right" or "left" of the Orthodox spectrum. In addition, R' Twersky's and R' Reis' speeches tonight were excellent, and the general goings-on at YU are fascinating.

There are a few minor and major points that seemed especially interesting and which are worth mentioning:

• One YU Rosh Yeshiva apparently voiced what many have been thinking: Until now, the yeshiva world blasted YU, but didn't have much ammunition behind it. Now, they have something legitimate.
• One friend noted simply that her brother (a good friend of mine) who is planning on entering into social work had previously been considering attending Wurzweiler for graduate school. That just became extremely unlikely.
• A friend commented that she now somewhat regrets attending Stern, and questions how YU can consider itself a frum school.
  

One of the most interesting comments came from an alumnus who was furious at the event, and basically vowed not to send their children to YU in the future (as it does not live up to the ideals of Orthodoxy that they feel are important). When I asked what if it straightens itself out, they expressed serious doubt that this was possible, noting strongly: [sic]

...It can't straighten out. They are out of control!! It only gets worse from here. They do these radical things, make radical statements. And for what?? More money? They don't honestly care about these people who were on the panel. President Joel doesn't give two ***** about homosexuality in the frum community.

While that's surely an immediate overreaction that will temper with time, how much of perception here is reality? How much of a hit will YU actually take - perhaps not from alumni, but from current and future enrollment, from support? This presumably won't help their recruitment in Israeli yeshivos and seminaries, and it marginalizes their own graduate schools - certainly Wurzweiler - at least a little bit by making them viewed as far less Jewish and far more as just a Jew-heavy school. (Though this was true already to an extent, this certainly isn't going to help the cause.) How many roshei yeshiva will continue to stay in a university where many supposedly were already uncomfortable with some of what goes on? There are certainly other options out there for many of them.

It's important to remember that many, many people were already somewhat wishy-washy on YU and its direction over the past number of years, uncomfortable with what they viewed as a leftward-leaning direction. An event such as the one held last week only confirms and seals this perception for those people and allows them to cross off YU in their minds permanently. While certainly not for all, for many, YU was viewed as the strong, appropriate balance of Judaism and how one maintains and builds on their religiousity while balancing that with the secular world. Without that balance, for those people, YU loses its identity at best, and quite possibly crushes it - eliciting reactions like the ones above.

In the earlier post, I touched on the idea that R' Gil Student, in his post on the subject, may have somewhat overstated the idea that the Orthodox world will be swinging to the left after this panel. I think he has it partially wrong and partially correct: YU itself will likely continue a gradual shift back to the left, but Orthodoxy as a whole won't go with it - in large part because those who are uncomfortable with YU's direction will shift away from that world. It seems as if YU itself only realized just how much of its constituency it upset with this after the fact, and its own rabbonim are furious and extremely saddened.

As a friend in YU put it: After years of toeing on the brink, YU is now in a full-blown identity crisis. Instead of a world outside which often looked askance at its actions but a strong frum core from within who could defend its balance, it has now crossed the line where even its staunch supporters are now forced to question what they're supporting, exactly. R' Reiss and R' Twersky spoke strongly (and extremely well) tonight, and the excerpts that have been shared with me by people who attended seem to have nailed the issues perfectly. One lamented that at a few points in the panel, there was applause for what the panelists were saying. At no point, however, did anyone object to what was being said, including when a panelist alluded to homosexual acts.

My friend also made an interesting analogy, comparing it in a way to the Golden Calf. When making the egel, everyone who was there thought that it was not just okay, but important to do. Aharon HaKohein felt that it was a good idea, at least to some extent, if not completely. Only when a person steps back and takes a look from a bit of a broader point of view can they realize "What the heck are we doing!?" and understand that it sends the wrong message and doesn't accomplish much beyond a short-term good feeling.

A number of people have noticed one other important point: Before the event, a lot of people were indifferent to the event. But as the last week has passed and people have thought about the event and read the transcripts, read the commentary, they have found themselves more and more against the event having taken place. They don't understand what it was supposed to have accomplished, what it actually accomplished, and taking a step back, they're questioning why something like this should have happened on such a public stage - and nobody has a good answer, and that's forced people to shift from disappointment to disillusionment (if not outrage).

As discussed in the previous post, perhaps if there were a positive outcome that emanated from this panel, one could argue that it was necessary despite the negative aspects and implications that can be drawn from it. But without that, all it does is raise questions as to what YU stands for and where its priorities lie. This time, those questions aren't coming mostly from outside, but instead, they're being hotly debated from within its very core.

Homosexuality in the Orthodox Jewish World

PERSONAL REQUEST: Please do not read this post prior to reading the full transcript of the Yeshiva University panel Being Gay in the Orthodox World posted on Chana's blog. Please also read her To Deserve and To Sacrifice post and R' Gil Student's The Growing Problem of Post Orthodoxy post as some points that will be attempted to be made below will undoubtedly overlap with some of the points they made in their writings. If you have the time, I recommend skimming through some of the comments on those posts as well - there are some interesting discussions scattered throughout. Thank you in advance.

Last week, Yeshiva University's Wurzweiler graduate school for Social Work hosted a panel whose mission was to share with the public the incredible difficulties faced by homosexuals in the Orthodox community, as halacha (Jewish law) does not allow for them to act upon their desires. As might be expected, it's a strong flash point in the Orthodox world, and discussions have abounded wherever one might step foot, with very interesting and different discussions all over - at work, at home, at Shabbos meals with different crowds, at shul.

According to the organizers and panelists, the primary purposes of the event were to promote discussion [and/that would in turn] evoke sympathy and understanding in the Orthodox world as to the difficulties faced by gays and lesbians in the frum community. The stories themselves are fascinating and in some cases, surprising and eye-opening, and each of the four panelists' stories bring up different aspects of the trials a gay person goes through. There are a number of things that can strike a person upon reading the transcript, but perhaps the most interesting point that sticks out is one that demonstrates just how unnecessary the entire production showed itself to be at this point in history.

The issues regarding homosexuality in the Orthodox community are predominantly different than those faced in the overall American public. The battles are not over gay marriage or civil unions, and based on the statements of the panelists, they never should be: The cause is to help those who are committed to living an Orthodox lifestyle while struggling with a severe test, which by definition a gay marriage could not be. Instead, the issues are more similar to those perhaps of discrimination, or more likely those of social ostracism and other social and familial relationships.

What was particularly interesting, however, was the overall consistency of the responses put forth from all over, with the summary being along the lines of: "That must be incredibly difficult, and we feel horrible for their impossible plight. If they're not acting on it, that's amazing, and good for them - I can't possibly imagine how hard that must be; if they are, it's something that needs to be condemned, not condoned. But did this need to be made into a public issue at all?" This is similar to the letter put out by some of the YU Roshei Yeshiva the morning of the event and also the letter YU's President Richard Joel put out along with the RIETS menahel (principal), R' Yona Reiss, after the event:

[...] Of course, as was indicated in a message issued by our Roshei Yeshiva, those struggling with this issue require due sensitivity, although such sensitivity cannot be allowed to erode the Torah's unequivocal condemnation of such activity. Sadly, as we have discovered, public gatherings addressing these issues, even when well-intentioned, could send the wrong message and obscure the Torah's requirements of halakhic behavior and due modesty. [...] We are committed to providing halakhic guidance and sensitivity with respect to all challenges confronted by individuals within our broader community, including homosexual inclinations, in a discreet, dignified and appropriate fashion.

Perhaps, however, the point was most clearly made by one of the panelists himself, when discussing his friends' reactions:

I told one friend and he was cool with it, but he would say ‘you can’t tell so-and-so because he’s too religious.’ So I went for it, next person I told was him and he was even better about it. And he said, ‘But you can’t tell so-and-so’ where it became this game. If only everybody even today knows how okay with it the next person was- truthfully it really surprised me. My friends are amazing.

It seems that people assume there to be a huge swell of homophobia and lack of tolerance within the Orthodox community to homosexuals - but that in truth, this just is not the case. There is certainly a lack of tolerance to or acceptance of homosexual actions, and anything which seems to condone this will immediately be shunned by the frum world - an appropriate reaction even according to at least some if not all of the panelists and presenters. Such a reaction would likely be similar to the one people would have to those who would openly break Shabbos or otherwise act in a way that was clearly against a major precept of Torah observance; in fact, people who have turned away from observant Judaism can likely confirm this to be true. While there may be eventual acceptance of "this is who he/she is" when a person leaves Orthodox Judaism, no Orthodox person would likely condone actions that are against Orthodox beliefs and imply that they acceptable within the Orthodox camp.

Instead of homophobia, however, it seems that gays and lesbians within the Orthodox world, when it actually comes down to it, are met predominantly with acceptance and usually a quiet sympathy. The assumption of intolerance just does not seem to match the actual reactions people have when faced with the situation. Much like in the outside world, when it comes to practical differences the gay population has with the straight population, there's not really anything there. Much like in the outside world (hat tip: Charlie Hall in the comments on Hirhurim), there's a clear level of acceptance that is particularly there among the younger generation. And much like in the outside world, it's hard to say that additional discussion would advance anything more that is positive for gays and lesbians, particularly as that translates into the Orthodox Jewish world.

In the end, it comes back to what the panelists themselves hoped to accomplish with this event, and that's difficult to say. If it was about understanding and sympathy, it is unclear what was accomplished; it seems that this understanding and sympathy was already there, certainly among the crowd that was drawn to the event and almost assuredly in the crowds that have been discussing it. The panelists seemed to feel that most of the Rabbonim they approached about their struggles reacted surprisingly well, and that the same was true of their peers. Typically it was families who reacted the worst, at least initially, but this is not particularly surprising in a community which prides itself often on its future plans and progeny and suddenly learns that this will not be happening as they may have been imagining it. All in all, it seems doubtful that the panel will have made much of an impact in how people view gays and lesbians in those terms.*

Some of the arguments people have for turning this into a public issue revolve around comparing it to other issues that were taboo or ignored in the Orthodox world until people forced them on the public until they finally started dealing with them. The primary flaw in this argument, however, is that there's extremely little the public can actually do in this case. As opposed to agunos**, publicly discussing homosexuality will not be placing pressure on others to help right a wrong that was committed. As opposed to molestation, discussion will not create awareness of a problem in order to protect children. As opposed to abuse, a public event will not help those who are getting hurt find a place to escape to to avoid that hurt. With homosexuality, it is a private and personal issue which the public cannot well relate to and where the public is almost completely powerless to help beyond what they are already doing at this point in history.

Ten or twenty years ago, this panel would have helped bring about incredible change by speeding up the acceptance of individuals who are gay or lesbian by their friends and relatives by helping them understand what they go through at a time when people really didn't understand well enough what being gay or lesbian meant. In December 2009, however, there doesn't seem to be that fundamental unawareness in the Orthodox community. The creation of such a panel and the promotion of groups that promote additional tolerance seem unlikely to create more tolerance but far more likely to create an impression (whether intended by its creators or not) of an acceptance of homosexuality that perhaps goes beyond just sympathy and understanding. That there was so much confusion as to this point even at YU seems to show an obvious lack of clarity as to where the lines are drawn in Orthodoxy, despite the panel's best efforts to mark those lines. While perhaps R' Student's warning of an upcoming leftward shift are overstated, he is certainly not wrong in seeing how this event can be used as a catapult for such a shift. Moreover, there are undoubtedly those who will use this event as a springboard to accepting homosexuality to a greater level than it should be, despite the best intentions of the planners of this event and the pronouncements of those who appeared.

Ten or twenty years ago, this panel could have been incredibly important and made a positive impact on the Orthodox Jewish community. Now, its potential for change is far more toward paths that most of the panelists and presenters themselves would deem completely unacceptable in Orthodoxy - and that's a shame.

* To preemptively discuss, the argument of "discussion shows positive impact" is a somewhat ridiculous comment in a context such as this, as discussion having a positive impact is true when there is a desire for some type of change to occur. As there is no such change being sought here, it turns into a circular "discussion is good because it's discussion, and that's good" argument.

** The comparisons of homosexuality to issues such as agunos are actually disturbing and somewhat despicable, in that they cheapen the plight faced by the various victims in those situations. Agunos receive public support for two primary reasons: 1) They were hurt by members of the community who are abusing the halachic system to shackle them, and therefore the community feels a responsibility to show the person that the community as a whole cares for them. 2) Publicizing the issue hopefully helps to force the 'husband' to send a get to her that otherwise he would not have. Molestation was made into a public issue to instill greater fear and responsibility in our schools and others to help stop abuse from happening in the first place and to encourage victims to speak up and families to not view it as taboo to do so, in order to punish the perpetrators and protect others from becoming victims as well. To compare situations like these to homosexuality is absurd - there is no unwilling victim and there is no outside factor playing a role that the community can help with.

E-Z Reads, 2/24/09

As is often the case, there are a number of interesting reads out there on this fine sunny February morning; in general, if you see something interesting, please don't hesitate to send it to me at serandez@gmail.com. Thanks!

• Bad4 says an advantage of dating is the opportunity to broaden your mind.
• Jameel has copied a beautiful piece on the parents of one of the students who were slaughtered in last year's Mercaz Harav massacre. Tonight is the yahrtzeit.
• Treppenwitz is troubled by the sticker he accepted that allows him to pass easily from his home to the rest of the country - why does he need it?
• Northern Light gives a little education on the definition of marriage.
• William Isaac - someone who has actually nationalized banks - explains why it's just such a horrible idea.
• A day after the NY Times asks a question [thanks SpEd] that has troubled many people for a while - is Google too big - Gmail crashed all across the world. (Personally, I've found it to have turned more and more glitchy lately.)
• Seforim blog has a very interesting piece by Daniel Lasker on a piece of Judaism that has yet to occur in my lifetime, but will be happening next month: Birchas HaChama.
• Daled Amos has fun news from the world of medicine - blogging is good for your brain.
  

Enjoy!

And So Begins the Witch Hunts

Considering how the left and Hollywood still remember the days when members of their own community were picked out and literally had their lives destroyed, I find it too ironic (and scary) what is being done now. Contributions over $1,000 have been published publicly on the internet for all to see. Now, they are being used. Of course, this isn't the first, and it's not the last. 

Here is another case regarding a suit filed against eHarmony. Really, I don't understand this feeling of entitlement. A business caters to a certain niche market, and now is forced to change? Can I sue the all womens gym in LA for not letting me in?

Proposition 8

One of the more widely discussed outcomes from this past week's voting around the country is the "Yes" win on Proposition 8 in California. The short version is as follows:

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

To the surprise of many around the country, strongly liberal California passed this measure 52.3% - 47.7%. There are very strong posts about the measure by Northern Light (celebrating the result) and Holy Hyrax (explaining why he thinks Prop 8 passed), while Nephtuli - not discussing Prop 8 per se - explains why he is not against SSM (same-sex marriage) on his blog, though I argued against some of his reasoning in the comments. In addition, HH has some truly troubling links in his post, including a school in Illinois which had 14-year old students attend a pro-homosexuality seminar and sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell their parents.

Personally, I've never understood what the desire is on the part of the gay community. If they wish for equal rights and equal opportunities under the law, they already have this with the advent of civil unions. If gays wish to say there are situations where they are treated differently, such as visitation rights, then work on making those equal as well. But to fight consistently to allow gay marriage is silly: Either argue that the institution of marriage is 'wrong' because it discriminates against any non-monogamous, heterosexual union, or just ignore it. To redefine it to be more broad is simply making the word meaningless, by allowing it to mean whatever suits your goals - and if it must lose all meaning for it to include gays, why would they care to have it at all.

California, Gay Marriage, and Law

A few worthwhile posts on the issue:

• LWY is focused more on how this will play in the national elections;
• Noyam is more intent on the Defense of Marriage Act;
• and BrightLightSearch has a rather excellent essay on the subject in general, focusing on this case in specific only to start. It's a great read (whether you agree or not).
  

Enjoy.