Nofrat Frenkel made the news two weeks ago — by getting herself arrested. In violation of an Israeli court order, she took out a Torah scroll in the area of the Western Wall consecrated for women’s prayer, and prepared to read it.

Why is such an apparently benign, religious act against the law, worthy of arrest? When it isn’t a religious act at all, but rather a political one, aimed to disrupt the prayers of those around her and to confront them with her agenda.

Frenkel begins her essay by speaking movingly, poetically, about the fervent religious sentiment of those praying at the Western Wall. She presents her case as if her wish were merely to join them. “The atmosphere at the Kotel, the feeling that all those women praying around me were also turning to G-d and pouring out their hearts to Him, inspires me with the joy of Jewish fraternity. Here is one place in which, shoulder to shoulder, all the hearts are calling to G-d.”

Eventually, though, she exposes her true colors. “The Kotel,” she writes, “is not a Haredi synagogue, and the Women of the Wall will not allow it to become such” [emphasis added]. In other words, she was not there to join in Jewish fraternity, but to disrupt it — to confront those sincere and pious women with her political message, and to deny them their place of traditional worship. She demonstrates a complete lack of the very tolerance for which she begs, and inverts every relevant fact in order to make her argument.

The discussion which led to this post began, of all places, on Twitter. Shai Gluskin, a Reconstructionist Rabbi whom I’d met on a train four years ago, was monitoring the J-Street Conference this week, as I was. I posted several comments about J Street and it’s formula for peace, he noticed and followed me (that’s a Twitter term), and we got into a discussion about what it means to be pro-Israel, what it means to be Pro-Peace, and, in Shai’s words, the “terms of engagement for Jews who disagree.”

Someone wrote to the Twitter account of the Republican Jewish Coalition that “Making pro-Israel advocacy a partisan issue weakens the pro-Israel lobby and weakens Israel.” I believe this individual felt that the Republican Jewish Coalition should not have commented on the fact that someone was at the J Street conference recruiting for a “freedom march” in Gaza. I responded, opining that it “Can’t be worse for ‘Pro-Israel’ than defining expansion of a Hamas terrorist base as ‘Pro-Israel’.”

Shai Gluskin: “Where did you get the idea that J Street wants ‘expansion of a Hamas terrorist base?’”

YM, in a six part series: There’s this place called Gaza, which Israel left, and which Hamas soon took over and operated as a terrorist base. // When Israel (finally) took action against Hamas, JStreet called it collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza // JStreet did so despite Hamas using the populace as human shields and Israel avoiding civilians to an *unprecedented* degree // JStreet calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas terrorists, who will be part of a two-state solution // Those who do not recognize that the obvious result will be an expanded Hamas terrorist base are, in Eric Yoffie’s words, appallingly naïve. // QED what JStreet is working for is an expanded Hamas terrorist base, whether they recognize it or not.

I am honored that Professor David Neipert, one of the faculty members who initiated the EEOC complaint against Belmont Abbey College, saw fit to respond to my earlier article on this topic (as it appeared on the Baltimore Sun’s “In Good Faith” religion blog). Given his personal involvement in this case, it is obvious that he begins with a far greater knowledge of its particulars, and I appreciate his sharing his perspective of the facts.

Here are the key points that he has made, to the best of my understanding:

1. The status of Belmont Abbey College as a religious institution is questionable. This is buttressed by the fact that the College “advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted funding that was not available to religious institutions.” Additionally, the majority of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni are not Catholic.

2. The college offered coverage for these services for 26 years, “indicating that this was a change of a deliberate policy.” It was then done immediately, unilaterally, and without discussion, and the College refused to negotiate.

Belmont Abbey College is a small Catholic liberal arts college in North Carolina, serving nearly 1500 students. It was founded in 1876 by the monks of the Belmont Abbey, a monastery of the Benedictine Order. The school mission is “to educate students in the liberal arts and sciences so that in all things G-d may be glorified.” It is, without question, a religious institution, guided by the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church.

In 2007, the College discovered that its employee health benefits plan inadvertently included coverage for abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilization. The college president, William Thierfelder, immediately altered the plan, declaring that the school “is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.” And at that point, several members of the faculty went running to the EEOC, charging “discrimination.”

If you think that government agencies take the First Amendment seriously, you should pay close attention to this case. In March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed the charge, stating that it was “unable to conclude” that the statutes had been violated. But then, in July, the District Director of the EEOC reversed course, and claimed that Belmont Abbey is discriminating against its employees. Why? The following is an unaltered quote: “By denying prescription contraceptive drugs, Respondent is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.”

It is somewhat bizarre that the EEOC did not similarly refer to the lack of abortion coverage as “discrimination,” since it is equally true that only females obtain abortions. But this is the least of the evidence that this is little more than an attack on religious freedom, using whatever spurious reasons might be found.

While everyone, from left to right, may be scratching their heads in disbelief, I don’t see why one should be so perplexed. The Peace [read: politics] prize has been given to Al Gore for one-sided pseudo-science about Global Warming… and Yasir Arafat, whose “peace” plan was an advanced [and very successful] war strategy. So why should we be surprised?

Eytan Kobre asserts, in his most recent contribution, that the secular Jewish media turns free-market economics into sinister “pressure” when the word “charedi” can be placed before it. And, of course, he is right. Whether it’s separate swimming or cellphones without Internet, “serving the customer” becomes “bowing to pressure” when the customer is a Charedi Jew whose preferences stem from his or her religious beliefs. Yes, the normal and appropriate is turned by the media into something bizarre or sinister when the observant are involved — but it would be a mistake to believe that this only applies to the world of business.

The same is true, for example, in the world of Jewish philanthropy. To wit, Largest Outreach Effort for Alums Of Birthright Raises Concerns, appearing in The Forward. Were the effort in question not “characterized as Orthodox,” it would not raise any concerns at all — in fact, anyone raising “concerns” would be criticized for questioning the right of Jewish philanthropists to make their own choices and investment decisions.

Birthright Israel, as we all know, was co-founded by Michael Steinhardt. Three years ago, Birthright Israel NEXT was created to do “the critical job of follow up.” And Steinhardt — no Orthodox Jew himself — specified through a “restricted gift” that his funding for Birthright Israel NEXT should go in large part to an organization called the Jewish Enrichment Center.

A classic case of a donor stating how his donation should be spent, which is non-controversial, right? Wrong! The Jewish Enrichment Center has been labeled an Orthodox outreach organization, and that makes Steinhardt’s gift very controversial indeed.

It is an interesting coincidence that two new volleys in the gay war on traditional religion were both fired last week, on two continents. While “GBLT” advocates in Israel were busy cynically misusing a shooting in a youth center to castigate rabbis who dare speak honestly about the Torah’s view of “alternative lifestyles,” the American Psychological Association also re-entered the fray, asserting that its members “should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.” Instead, its new official recommendation to those experiencing a “conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs” is that they “explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation.”

In other words, you can change your life path, meaning your religion, because, in contrast to your religious faith, your sexual orientation is an unchangeable fact.

A bit of historical perspective is in order. Until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In fact, a psychiatrist who spoke out about the issue the previous year wore a mask to prevent professional repercussions for identifying himself as a homosexual. Then, quite suddenly, the APA reversed course and announced that homosexuals were perfectly healthy. Today, its website says that “since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with [alternate] orientations” — a stigma that the APA itself helped to propagate for decades. Now, barely 35 years later, it has swung the pendulum completely the other way — creating a new stigma for those who might wish to change their own “orientation,” and those psychologists who might dare suggest that this is even an option. “Practitioners should avoid telling clients they can change from gay to straight,” says the press release.

If this were not amazing enough, this momentous resolution results not from extensive research into the efficacy (or lack thereof) of “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE),” but from its absence. “Insufficient evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work, says APA,” it reports. Given that lack of evidence, its response is not to commission new studies nor to suggest that the issue be examined, but to slam the door.

Even without the recent spate of well-warranted negative media attention towards Orthodox Jews, the cynical misuse of a recent murder in Tel Aviv for further Charedi-bashing is little surprise. It is, nonetheless, worthy of note. With even a cursory examination of the facts, it becomes clear that those whom the GBLT community seek to blame are a politically-convenient target, rather than those whom the police might do well to investigate.

Here is what we know. A single shooter, masked and dressed entirely in black, entered a GBLT youth center in Tel-Aviv and opened fire. After killing two teenagers and wounding over a dozen others, he ran back out and disappeared into the streets of the city. It is reasonable to suspect that the killer chose his target in advance, having planned to enter with his features already disguised, shoot, and run. So the police are looking for a person who knew something about the “scene” in Tel-Aviv, knew that this was a youth center, and chose that youth center as a target.

In one instance after another of mass shootings, the killer has imagined himself rejected by the target group. This is especially true of teenage (e.g. Columbine) and college-age (e.g. Virginia Tech) shooters, but is equally true of the man responsible for the shooting at a Pittsburgh fitness center last week. Mass shootings infrequently target those pursuing an alternate, not to say deviant, lifestyle as a group — in one exceptional case, the man’s last name was “Gay” and he blamed that community for the teasing he endured.

There has also never been a mass shooting carried out by an Orthodox Jew, and no murder under rabbinic encouragement — despite the frequent accusations made following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which were disavowed by the killer himself. [The sole exception to the above is the murder of the wife of a Reform Rabbi in New Jersey, whose husband is now serving 30 to life for arranging her death.] As a more honest voice said in the wake of the Rabin assassination, “Any rational review of murder statistics would show that orthodox Jews do not contribute their share of transgressors to this group.”

For what it’s worth, I have never met any of those ensnared in the money-laundering scandal in Deal, NJ and Brooklyn, NY. Nonetheless, it’s always embarrassing when you have a scandal involving several rabbis. Rabbis are supposed to do better, right?

Of course, you have the defenders coming forward and pointing out that they were trying to help their institutions rather than personal gain, or even doing a favor for a guy who’d fallen on hard times — only to learn the hard way that he was an FBI informant. All of that will come out in court, and it’s pretty unlikely that some of them will see any significant time behind bars.

But all that doesn’t matter. Rabbis are supposed to do better.

Miriam, Moshe’s sister, also did something wrong. She spoke badly of her brother, and she was punished for it. And the Medrash Tanchuma says that those sent to spy out the land of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish Nation, “saw and did not take Mussar.” They didn’t learn. We can either look at what happened and make clucking noises, or we can learn from events.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a short post providing an example of Israel’s media twisting the words of Charedi protesters, turning a quote from Torah and Halacha into a perverse call for the death of other Jews. The most frequent nay-saying comments said one of two things: “yes, but they did say such and so,” or “yes, but their behavior was abominable” — as if either justified the media’s bad habits — and why didn’t I criticize those?

It has become obvious by now that those “on the inside” in Israel, those with sufficient stature that their voice actually makes a difference, are coming forward and making the necessary and well-deserved statements of condemnation of the violent demonstrators. I did say their behavior was abominable and inexcusable, but also knew that Israel’s Torah leadership does not need the voices of American writers telling them what to do or the hooligans how to act [the idea of me sharing my opinion alongside that of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel or Rav Moshe Shternbuch is frankly laughable]. As I expressed in a recent comment, I concur that there is internal soul-searching to be done, and not just at the individual but the communal and educational levels, in the wake of events like these, but my voice is hardly necessary there. The residents of Meah She’arim are not the readers of Cross-Currents.

The internal soul-searching should also be largely irrelevant to anyone outside the Charedi community. In any other situation, a person expects the police to behave in a reasonable fashion, and in the absence of such, will be less interested in the behavior of individual demonstrators than police lawlessness. In any other situation, one expects the media to attempt an unbiased picture of the totality of a situation, neither, for example, underestimating the total size of a protest, nor overestimating the number who resorted to vandalism or violence. As I mentioned previously, to condemn the hooligans and overlook police brutality and lawlessness because these hooligans are Charedim is hypocritical and anti-charedi, and frankly indistinguishable from the way anti-Semites treat Jews in general. The fact that Charedim are supposed to behave better is no excuse. Jews are supposed to behave better, and — to use another, perhaps even sadder example — a generalization from five Rabbis in Deal and Brooklyn to all Rabbis is no different than a generalization from Bernie Madoff to all Jewish financiers. [There were five Rabbis accused of money laundering for the benefit of their charitable efforts, and sixteen mayors, assemblymen and other officials -- all elected to serve the public trust -- accused of abusing that trust by accepting bribes for their personal enrichment. Now which do you think got the above-the-fold photographs and dominated the headlines?]

What is remarkable is that a number of distinguished Israeli journalists have awakened to this reality, and are saying the same thing. Quoting Ruthie Blum Leibowitz in the Jerusalem Post: “the knee-jerk presentation of the haredim as hypocrites at best, and evil at worst, should be cause for pause. That such pause came this week from Yediot Aharonot’s prime political pundit, Nahum Barnea, is as surprising as it is refreshing.” This is a double surprise, coming from a Jerusalem Post writer better known for her interviews with politicians and broadcasters than her defense of Charedim.

“In the Mix” is the name of a monthly column by Julie Wiener, carried by the NY Jewish Week. Ms. Wiener describes herself as “married to a lapsed Catholic — one who has encouraged me to become more involved in Jewish life.” But in her most recent column, she nonetheless grapples with her own discomfort at the thought of a Rabbi entering into a relationship exactly like her own. As she puts it, “there’s something that feels, well, not kosher to me about intermarried rabbis.”

I am tempted to joke that I have been gifted with prophecy for the following prediction, but it is no laughing matter. I do predict that the HUC will be ordaining intermarried Rabbis within the next decade — and my main concern, in terms of accuracy, is that I’m giving them too much time by half — but that just stems from common sense and seeing the writing on the wall. To my knowledge, there has yet to be a deviance from Jewish law and tradition concerning which “a debate has swirled in progressive Jewish circles” which has not become normative “progressive” Judaism sooner or later, and usually sooner.

While Ms. Wiener’s husband may be a “lapsed” Catholic as she claims, she is more influenced by her husband’s Catholic view of religion than she may realize. In Catholicism, of course, there are very serious differences between the conduct expected of their clergy versus the laypeople. Rabbis, on the other hand, don’t have more Mitzvos to follow than anyone else. While we obviously expect, as Rabbi Adlerstein put it, the behavior of a Talmid Chacham to change as a result of his Torah, the basic requirements are the same.

The converse, of course, is also true. There are no dispensations for laypeople in Judaism. Perhaps, in some measure, this explains why the misdealings of a person who dresses and carries himself like an observant Jew are pounced upon by the media — because there really is no such thing as a Jewish layperson. We are a mamleches kohanim v’goy kadosh — a Nation of Priests and a Holy Nation — and anyone dressing the part is expected to play the part… ready or not.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, has been appointed a Life Peer by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. A life peer is given the rank of Baron among British nobility, and a seat on the House of Lords.

Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits zt”l, Rabbi Sacks’ predecessor as Chief Rabbi, was also given peerage during his tenure, but Rabbi Sacks’ nomination comes at a time when there’s a lot of anti-Israel agitation in Britain. The Jerusalem Post also says that the Chief Rabbi’s office is underscoring the fact that the appointment was an apolitical recommendation from the Lords Appointment Commission, rather than from PM Gordon Brown’s office (the PM and the Chief Rabbi are said to have a close relationship). The appointment is notable in its own right, but the time and the source both speak to British high esteem for Rabbi Sacks.

For those who are interested, Cross-Currents now has a Twitter account, so you can “follow” us and be automatically apprised of any new updates. It’s automatic, so all new posts should come to you right away.

Enjoy!

Yesterday found me at the District Court of Maryland, Traffic Division, to fight a parking ticket. We had received a “Warning Notice” for failure to respond to a citation that we had never received, for our van being parked in a Transit Zone, in one of those neighborhoods in which you might be ill-advised to park in the most legal of spaces — especially after dark, which, according to the time on the notice, it was. Mistakes happen, and the most likely explanation is that the wrong license plate number was transcribed from the citation onto the notice. Besides a compliment from the judge for having a “mean” hat (like many Orthodox Jewish men, I wear a black fedora, which he didn’t want me to forget on the bench), he also gave me the Not Guilty verdict I was looking for (benefit of the doubt).

The experience was notable for a few reasons. First and foremost, the judge was (as the previous comments might indicate), very friendly and down to earth, very unpretentious. He was handling “non-incarcerable offenses” (his translation: “the only way you can go to jail is by doing something really dumb in this Courtroom”), and was happy to show the friendlier side of the court system. Everyone appealing a ticket seemed to have some justification, and he was happy to give a Not Guilty to, for example, the obviously handicapped woman who was driving the wrong car on the day she was ticketed for using a handicapped spot. “Justice, justice shall you pursue…” but tempered with mercy. I was impressed.

He also told the following story, which happened to take place in the same neighborhood in which we were charged with parking illegally. He walks, he says, through all of Baltimore’s neighborhoods, and on a Sunday morning a young man approached him on the otherwise-deserted street corner. “Hey man,” he said, “want some weed?”

The judge responded by reaching into his pocket, and pulling out his badge indicating that he is a judge. The young man looked at him, looked at his badge, back to him, back to the badge, and finally back to him. And then he said, “so does this mean you don’t want any, or you can’t have any?”

While the weekly demonstrations against municipal Sabbath desecration in Jerusalem are in all the Israeli papers, only the Jerusalem Post has an “ultra-”inflammatory headline: “Haredi protesters: Shabbat desecraters must die!” You won’t find anything like that in Yediot, Maariv or even HaAretz.

The reason is pretty simple. In Hebrew, a Biblical quotation sounds like… a Biblical quotation. Imagine that! And when you say to someone violating the Sabbath that the Bible says a desecrator “will surely die,” that’s not a call to murder, but the very opposite: “Why are you killing yourself?”

Only for an audience ignorant of the original Hebrew, can the media get away with turning the Bible into a call for murder. And make no bones about it — the editors of the JPost speak Hebrew just fine, thank-you-very-much, and they know better. The protesters were not calling — and would never be calling — for the death of other Jews, no matter how far from our mutual heritage they may lie.

No, it’s not what you think. I am not referring to a healthy (and Biblically-mandated) fear of G-d and his Ineffable Name, but an aversion to mentioning G-d as a motivating force in our lives. Joel Alperson, a past national campaign chair for United Jewish Communities, wrote about this in a recent Op-Ed entitled “Don’t fear ‘G-d,’ ‘Torah’ and ‘Judaism’” published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He writes:

I’ve collected the mission statements of the largest 17 Jewish federations in North America, and not one mentions “G-d,” “Torah” or “Judaism.” Nor do the mission statements of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hillel, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Wexner Heritage Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah and the Jewish National Fund. Of all the organizations I looked into, only United Jewish Communities mentions but one of the three words, Torah, in its mission statement.

Mr. Alperson’s theory is that these terms are avoided because they are “more particularistic. Tzedakah [Charity], tikkun olam [Repairing the World] and klal yisroel [the People of Israel] are considered universal and inclusive terms.” He bemoans this phenomenon, and considers this problem to be one with a uniquely Jewish angle. He believes that the reason these terms induce such discomfort is because communal organizations, aiming to serve the breadth of the entire Jewish community, are afraid of any mention of a term that might highlight our numerous and profound internal divisions.

He may be right. But at the same time, I am reminded of an article written over 20 years ago by Daniel Polisar* — today the director of the Shalem Center, and at that time a fellow student at Princeton University. He described an experience in a class in Philosophy and ethics, in which the students were asked to respond sequentially to a classic question of moral and ethical behavior: when confronted by an assailant who orders you to murder another, on threat of your own life, what are you supposed to do?

Rabbi David Mark of Temple Sholom in Pompano Beach, Florida, is anxious to fill a void. “There was a need out there among the public for something like this,” he said. “It hurt me so much to my very core that I could not help these people.”

Perhaps more to the point, though, Rabbi Mark was very anxious to help his Temple away from the old, stodgy, tradition-laden Conservative movement. The Temple “recently shed its ultra-conservative image” and now calls itself “progressive conservative.” I think there’s a confusion there between Conservative and conservative, because from a religious standpoint, it’s not the conservatives usually called “ultra-.”

And how better to prove how “progressive” they are by hosting the “first ever commitment ceremony in the county?” This refers, of course, to an alternate form of marriage for two people of the same gender. This was the “need out there” that Rabbi Mark found, that pained him so greatly while the Conservative Movement’s Committee of Jewish Law and Standards refused to give its blessing.

And now that that’s changed, he’s advertising. And advertising. And now it’s in the news: “Rabbi Searches in Vain for Kosher Gay Couple to Marry.” The Temple “wants to be the first of its kind in Broward County to hold commitment ceremonies for gay couples… But it has to find two people who want to take the plunge together.” And thus far it isn’t finding them.

In the wake of the shooting attack at Washington’s Holocaust Museum last week, many organizations issued public statements. Most of those were similar to these words from President Obama: “This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms.”

Agudath Israel, the Jewish communal organization representing the interests of traditionally Orthodox Jews, issued a statement as well. Its statement, though, was different — it consisted solely of an open letter to the young son of the security guard who gave his life defending the visitors to that Museum.

This letter’s personal touch reminds us all that this was not only an outrage against the national consciousness, but an acutely personal tragedy as well.

To the Young Son of Stephen Tyrone Johns:

While I contemplated writing this article before hearing from Rabbi Oberstein that he wanted to send his remarks as well, I believe that our two perspectives together provide yet more fodder for dialogue. Here, then, is where I stand on President Obama and Israel, in the wake of a visit to the Middle East that has the Israelis frowning, and its Arab enemies crowing.

It’s not always enjoyable to be proven right. Sometimes you’d much rather be wrong. My early assessment of President Obama’s attitudes towards Israel — which was joined, of course, by many other pro-Israel writers — is a case in point.

In advance of the election, when Obama called for “an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” I was sharply criticized for terming that “an inability to discern between good and evil.” Similarly, when I questioned why the President-elect refused to support Israel during the recent Gaza conflict — unlike so many of his colleagues in the Senate — I was accused of a “desire to assume the worst about Obama.” When Rabbi Avi Shafran posted words of hope about Obama, that same commenter asserted that “those who once vilified our incoming president are now scurrying to demonstrate their moderation and seek his favor.”

It wasn’t our moderation that was the issue, but Obama’s. And now we fast-forward to the present day, as the President charts out an anti-Israel course without precedent in the last 50 years of US-Israel relations. One is reminded of the Eisenhower administration, which refused to sell weaponry to Israel while simultaneously demanding that Israeli Naval vessels leave the Gulf of Aqaba — leaving Eilat defenseless from a naval assault.

With Baltimore’s Shabbos Rally now a week behind us, I’m a bit overdue on posting about it… but better late than never. I think it is important that this rally/demonstration be discussed far beyond Baltimore — because I would call it a model for how a protest rally should be done. I am at a loss to recall hearing about any protest, anywhere, that has been held with this level of decorum, honor and mutual respect. In fact, it could barely be called a protest or demonstration at all; it was a rally in favor of Shabbos.

For the second time in 12 years, the boards of the JCC and the Associated (Jewish Charities of Baltimore) are considering opening the Owings Mills branch of the JCC on Shabbos afternoons — and for the second time in 12 years, the Orthodox community conducted a rally dedicated to the honor of Shabbos, and requesting preservation of the status quo. We (Torah.org) posted audio and video (as we did last time). A few thoughts and impressions follow, in no particular order.

First of all, the crowd conducted itself with near-perfect decorum. The Baltimore Police Department had advised organizers that they would be unable to assist with crowd control, having already maxed their overtime resources for the Preakness, held the previous day. Given that the location was the local public high school, the task thus fell to the Baltimore City Public Schools Police, which is, of course, much less familiar with handling crowds of adults at a demonstration.

Cpl. Johnson, the commanding officer, said that the eight to ten officers he’d assigned were fewer than he would have, had he known how large the crowd was to be. [I've seen a news stories claiming "over 4,000," or simply "larger" than the turnout estimated at 3500 last time -- honestly, I would say at least 6,000 were there.] And yet they had nothing to do besides traffic control before and after, which was conducted with convivial, even jovial interactions between police and attendees. Cpl. Johnson had “nothing but high praise” for the way people acted. Yes, I realize that it’s different when the demonstration is against something the government is doing, and the police represent that government — but at the same time, it is too unusual for comfort to be able to say that every aspect of the event was a Kiddush HaShem, an honor to G-d’s Name in the world.

Those moving from America to Israel on aliyah are predominantly Orthodox, while Reform and Conservative Jews are staying put in America. Most of us would attribute this to Orthodox “willingness to pay a personal price, both in quality and comfort of life,” for the sake of the “mitzva of settling the land,” compared to the 88% of Sunday School graduates who don’t feel a strong connection to Israel. But if you’re the executive director and CEO of the Masorti (Conservative) Movement in Israel, the obvious (and obviously correct) answer is unacceptable. Thus readers of the Jerusalem Post were recently treated to an alternative theory authored by Yizhar Hess: the Orthodox make life nice and comfy for their own, and miserable for everyone else. Yes, the reason Reform Jews don’t immigrate to Israel can be traced to the Chassidic Rebbes of Meah Shearim.

The article is notable primarily for the petty nature of its grumbling against the Orthodox. Hess spends two paragraphs documenting the financial advantages of children’s Jewish education in Israel vs. the United States. Besides the laughable assertion that a chareidi classroom is “more comfortable, less crowded” than a secular one, he’s clearly missed the obvious: anyone moving to Israel for an improved standard of living — material living, that is — is smoking something of which the Rabbis don’t generally approve.

The article then goes on to recycle a number of tired and overused claims of state-sponsored Orthodox discrimination. Hess claims, for example, that the state government funds Orthodox synagogues, exclusively. Not only are the vast majority of synagogues funded privately, but this tired old claim was recycled once too often — it’s no longer true. Yet government funding of Reform Temples had absolutely no known impact upon the likelihood of American Reform Jews to make aliyah. It was, in fact, so insignificant that Hess himself apparently forgot about it.

His memory lapse continues when he speculates, “With which feeling will the Conservative girl return after almost being attacked at the Kotel for wanting to pray with a kippa and tallit?” To date, no Jew has been almost, nearly, or otherwise attacked at the Kotel for wanting to pray, as compared to wanting to make a political statement. Mixed “Kabbalat Shabbat” services on the Kotel plaza were a weekly feature of a summer’s Friday night during my time in Israel, and I presume this remains true even with the rehabilitation of Robinson’s Arch (see below). This is something the Conservative and Reform movements tried to obfuscate well into the 1990’s, but spokespersons (such as Anat Hoffman, Meretz politician and entirely secular in Jewish affiliation) developed an annoying habit of admitting to open microphones that the only “prayer services” generating controversy were more aptly described as political rallies.

Whatever your stance on the abortion debate, no decent human being can fail to be repulsed by the story: “Baby Trashed After Botched Abortion.” Apparently the doctor didn’t show up in time to abort the child of his 23-year-old patient, so she gave birth instead. At which point one of the clinic’s owners wrapped the breathing infant in a biohazard bag, and threw her out.

The defenders of abortion-on-demand will, of course, decry this horrid aberration. The president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women talked about how important it is to be sure women don’t go to “these types” of clinics. But is it really an aberration? True, one doesn’t see stories like this at all frequently — yet. But one line in this story reflects, in my opinion, a very clear sign of the true state of affairs: “The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic’s actions constitute murder.”

According to the autopsy report, the baby filled her lungs with air. There is nothing to contend. There is nothing to discuss, nothing to debate. The clinic owner murdered the baby. If this was not murder, plain and simple, then any baby, any terminally ill patient, anyone with a birth defect or mental retardation can be “put out of their misery” without hesitation, the philosophy of Peter Singer made real. And by claiming that only the “anti-abortion” community “contends” that suffocating a baby is murder, CBS News has declared that the entire “pro-abortion” camp shares Singer’s lack of moral compass.

What is truly frightening is that I’m not at all sure that CBS is wrong.

Armed with my backpack and the Let’s Go Guide to Israel, I descended from the intercity bus at Jerusalem’s Central Bus Station, planning to spend a few days exploring the city for the first time. I intended, based upon the Let’s Go recommendation, to stay in a youth hostel on King George Street — but at that point I was approached by a young student like myself, in T-shirt, jeans, the mandatory Israeli sandalim, yarmulke and tzitzis. Okay. Almost like myself. I had a yarmulke too, somewhere back in Be’er Sheva. And after inquiring to determine that I was both Jewish and looking for a place to stay, he suggested that I visit the Heritage House, a free Jewish youth hostel in the Old City. Given that it was centrally located and the price couldn’t be beat, it wasn’t a hard decision.

Rabbi Meir Schuster’s youth hostel had one limitation — it closed at 9 a.m., while many popular tourist destinations did not open until 9:30 or 10. For this reason, the hostel manager suggested going to a class at nearby Aish HaTorah, which oh so conveniently happened to start at nine. And thus I was introduced to a Jewish yeshiva, and to Rabbi Noach Weinberg, zt”l, Rosh Yeshiva of Aish HaTorah, who passed away on Thursday after a long illness.

Rabbi Weinberg was giving one lecture of what became one of his most well-known and acclaimed series of classes, on “48 Ways to Wisdom,” based upon the list offered in Pirkei Avos, the Chapters of the Fathers. If I am not mistaken, the morning’s topic was the attribute of Happiness. But what I remember more clearly is that the discussion turned to the topic of the Moshiach, the Messiah, the Anointed Leader of the Jewish People who will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and usher in an era of Peace. Rabbi Weinberg looked at us and asked, “have you ever wondered if you could be… the Moshiach?”

And with similar clarity, I remember my answer: “no.”

Long-time readers may remember that the same was done during the War in Lebanon. Your prayers are needed!

An open letter to Acheinu Benei Yisroel [Our Brethren, the Children of Israel]

After learning about the heart-rending appeal of the Gedolei Torah [Leading Torah Scholars] to intensify our Tefilos [prayers] and Torah learning during this very trying time for Klal Yisroel, we have undertaken to join and aid them in their prayers.

The Medrash Rabah and the Yalkut relate that during the war against Midyon, for every one that went out to battle there was a designated person whose task it was to pray and learn for him.

As we follow the current “conflict” in the Gaza Strip, it’s easy to discern who cares about the facts, who displays a genuine understanding for the realities of the situation, and who is only interested as casting the Jews and Israel as the evil aggressors. When we look at media reporting about the Orthodox community, it is similarly easy to discern who is attempting to present a balanced picture, and who is primarily interested in finding yet another opportunity to say something bad about frum Jews.

Exhibit A: The NY Jewish Week’s “Group Charged With ‘Playing G-d’ Over Genetic Testing,” Gary Rosenblatt’s one-sided slur of Dor Yeshorim, the Committee for Prevention of Genetic Diseases, a charitable organization which has done simply amazing things in behalf of the Jewish community. The facts are wrong, the science is lousy, the judgment unrealistic and poor, and the bias, self-evident and inexcusable.

Dor Yeshorim, says Rosenblatt, is no stranger to “controversy.” A more accurate statement would be that Dor Yeshorim is no stranger to bad reporting. Back in 1994, the US News & World Report accused Dor Yeshorim of practicing “eugenics,” which is both an incendiary charge in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust, and also stands truth on its head. The net effect of the Dor Yeshorim screening program is to increase the population of carriers of fatal genetic defects, by enabling carriers to marry and reproduce without giving birth to afflicted children. Time after time, reporters have demonstrated their lack of knowledge regarding how Dor Yeshorim screening works, how the stigma of being identified as a carrier is avoided, and why it is necessary.

Put briefly, there is a disconnect between what we know intellectually, and our fears. According to a geneticist MD friend of mine, it is well-established in the research community that the average person is carrying around seven “recessive lethals,” the vast majority of which result in an (often undetected) miscarriage. We are all “carriers,” and carriers of Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis or Familial Dysautonomia are no less healthy than anyone carrying any of the myriad other recessive abnormalities. But try telling that to a high school kid who’s just been told to avoid marriage with another carrier — or try explaining it to the nervous mother of a prospective spouse. And before reaching the conclusion that this is because the “insular” Orthodox are “ignorant” of human genetics, note that the U.S. Air Force dismissed 143 healthy African-American applicants because they were carriers of the Sickle-cell gene — a practice it abandoned only after being sued.