Do The Seven Laws Permit Civil Unions?

Take the "Sex" Out of It: Rabbi Yirmeyahu Bindman, in The Seven Colors of the Rainbow: Torah Ethics for Non-Jews, notes that the Seven Laws of Noah forbid homosexual behavior as they do incest, adultery, bestiality, and some other sexual practices. Moreover, "no one can legislate any change to permit them." No surprise there. But there is a question of whether one should support anti-sodomy laws, which generally are not going to be enforceable or even desirable as a symbol in a country which doesn't cotton to telling consenting adults how to live their private lives. On the other hand, it seems to us that much of the impetus for protecting "gay rights" verges over into a desire for some societal endorsement of a specific sexual behavior. To be sure, there are some practical issues at work. Why should someone be denied the right to designate another person as their primary visitor to their hospital bed? Why shouldn't they be able to designate the person of their choice as their beneficiary or to share property with that person? Why shouldn't they be able to form a household with that person? Of course, currently they can make such arrangements through various mechanisms. But domestic partnership legislation would make it easier. And we have no objection, as long as such legislation doesn't define the nature of the relationship in sexual terms. Why should my barber, who has pooled his money and credit with his twin so that the two of them can each buy a home, be prohibited from forming a legal domestic partnership with that twin? It seems like the same issues apply--except for the need to have their relationship somehow endorsed by the state. Why is endorsement of particular sexual practice (beyond, possibly, marriage between opposite-sex couples) the job of the state? Think about how weird the extension of such a principle could get. We think that taking the "sex" out of the domestic partnership question is a compromise that solves a number of problems.
Schueller House.

The Shabby Chic of the Shabbos Goy

A Dilemma You Will Face: If you're a non-Jew, self-described "Noahide" or otherwise, you will likely be faced with the prospect of functioning as a "shabbos goy." Basically, this refers to a non-Jew who does for a Jew what he or she can't do on shabbat. For example, the lights might go off in the synagogue. Or the air conditioning. This is a dicey proposition, for the Jew as well as for you. First, Jews are not supposed to ask. What they might want is for you to realize that there is a problem and to get up and turn the light on yourself, which you probably shouldn't do (certainly in some situations, I would argue) but for which you would unlikely to be criticized (because that would be a violation of derekh aretz or politeness). If you are reluctant to get up and turn on the light without being asked, you might find yourself on the listening end of an odd conversation, in which a member of the congregation appears to be hinting without asking directly for you to turn the lights back on (or hinting without hinting, since hinting itself may be forbidden). Depending on where you are with your practice, you may to be happy to get up and flip on the light. Or, as in my case, you will not act as a shabbos goy (both because as a Netzarim geir, I forbidden from doing so, and because I don't think it honors the Jewish house to do something that is forbidden on shabbat). Even if you've decided that you cannot act as shabbos goy, it is not quite so simple (it is never simple). In some situations, it may be in order to do something that a Jew cannot do or would prefer not to do. For example, in San Jose, a young boy injured himself playing during the service and needed to go to the hospital for stitches. Certainly, the father could have taken him, this being a situation of pikuah nephesh (for life), However, I was more than happy to drive the father and the son to the hospital and open the car door for the father (which turned a light on), saving him the necessity of violating those normal shabbat prohibitions. Another time, I volunteered to push an elderly holocaust survivor in a wheelchair to the beit k'nesset, which would also have violated some rabbinic prohibitions. However, this was pikuah nephesh as well, the man needing to be with his community rather than at home alone on shabbat. Despite my silly headline, this is serious matter, worth thinking about before it comes up, and consulting with your rabbi (who will likely honor your decision but help you sort out any complications). I'm not clear on the source of this Shabbos Goy article (a Word file), but it does point to classic sources. Schueller House.

A Middle-East Irony

"2006.01.26 Why Hamas Win is Good for Israel — It should now be starkly clear why Fatah did its best to circumvent elections (and blame it on Israel): Hamas. No one with any sense can be even mildly surprised by the outcome. The Arabs only choice was between eternal impoverishment under a hopelessly corrupt and chaotic bunch of crony terrorists, on the one hand, or "throw the gangsters out" and vote in the non-corrupt terrorists. Is that hard to figure out? It isn't much of a stretch to assert that about the only votes Fatah received were from Fatah cronies on the take. The size of the vote for Fatah shows the depth of the graft and corruption that, until now, has impoverished and doomed Paliban society. There was never any doubt that, given the opportunity and lacking Arafat's cult-leader hypnosis, they'd "throw the gangsters out." The only question was the margin." (from Yirmeyahu Ben-David.) For more, go to the netzarim.co.il. (Note this newsy page changes quickly, so the link will probably only be good for a short time.)

Air Force Academy Evangelism Isn't the Problem

Shutting Up Airmen Isn't Kosher: Mikey Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the Air Force Academy, has filed a lawsuit attempting to force the academy to halt proselytizing and evangelism on duty based on the doctrine of the separation of church and state. (Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/9/2005) Some Christian groups counterpunch that they have a First Amendment right to share their beliefs with others. Aside from the constitutional issues at play, Weinstein is right to worry about how Jews and other non-Christians are treated at the academy but wrong about focusing on evangelism. As someone who practices Judaism, I am not offended when someone else shares how accepting Christ as their personal savior changed their life. Nor do I expect them to be offended when I share the joy I feel when I keep kosher. True, evangelism can turn into bullying--I could be called a Christ-killer, a Christian could be called an infidel, an atheist may be told she is bound for hell, etc.--and such uncouth behavior needs to be discouraged for the sake of corps cohesion.

However, the academy should not solve its perceived problem of intolerance by shoving religion in the closet. To the contrary, the problem for Jews is not Christian evangelism but systemic intolerance of the actual practice of Judaism. If Jewish airmen do not have regular access to kosher meals, if they are not supported in their attempts to properly observe shabbat and Jewish holidays (made instead to attend football games on Yom Kippur), how can the academy be accused of anything but intolerance? I suspect that Moslem airmen might have the same type of complaint.

The Academy needs to support religious cadets, not force them underground. For evangelical Christians, this may mean being able to share their faith in appropriate settings. For Jews, this may mean being able to work with a rabbi to find ways to excel at the academy without compromising religious observance. Email me your comments.

Spanish-Language Book on Noahide Laws

Now Available: Los Siete Colores del Arco Iris, an authorized Spanish translation of Seven Colors of the Rainbow: Torah Ethics for Non-Jews is now available as an E-book through Schueller House.

Another Example of the Double-Standard

... and of Politically Correct Anti-Judaism: How is it that Palestinians can deliberately insuslt a world religion--by burning down building formerly used as Jewish synagogues--and not be criticized for it? If someone--anyone--burned down a building used as a mosque, would they be immune from criticism? Email me your comments.

The World's Double-Standard

Questions that should be asked: The unilateral removal of Jews from Gaza by the Israeli government raises these questions. Why is assumed, by virtually the entire world ("the nations") and apparently by much of Israel itself, that there must be a Palestinian state and that this same state will be for Arabs only and that Jews will neither be welcome nor safe there? At the same time, the Jewish state of Israel already accepts non-Jewish citizens, including Arabs, and has since its inception. Moreover, this same state is expected to allow free access by Palesitinians into its borders for work, for worship, and for pleasure. Will Jews be allowed access to a future Palestinian state for work, for worship (to Jewish shrines), for pleasure? I would propose that no one support the existence of a Palestinian state unless and until Palestinian leaders commit not only to the existence of the state of Israel but can assure Israel that they will extend the same treatment to Jews with a Palestinian state that Israel extends to Arabs within Israel. Support for a Palestinian state absent such conditions seems to me evidence of pig-headed ignorance of the double standard being applied to Israel and the Palestinian entity and, almost certainly, Jew-hatred hiding in an international mask. Email me your comments.