In Which We Mourn the Internet

I think the internet must be broken.  President Obama visited a Baltimore mosque yesterday and spoke about the need for Americans to resist the Trumpian siren song of suspicion and hatred, and yet I have not noticed any examples of head-exploding xenophobia, no rabid triumphal shouts of "I durn well knew he were one o' them Ay-rabs all along!"  So. . . Not sure why I'm writing this, as it will obviously not reach anyone. . . .

Listen, it goes against my own personal religion to turn on Fox News, so could someone please at least reassure me that the crew at "Fox and Friends" has dissolved into a frothing hatepuddle?  I'll wait.  But if I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume that the internet is no more and that I can just use this space as I've really wanted to all along: as a place to post my Doctor Who fan poetry:

Thro' time and space the whirling Tardis spins
Spin, Gallifreyan phonebox, spin!. . . .

In Which We Imagine No Religion

Generally, this blog is a funny place (I try), but it's hard to generate that kind of content on a day like today, when the front pages of the world's papers are filled once again with images of senseless slaughter and mayhem, this time in Paris.  We struggle to maintain our sense of proportion, of rationality--to say the right things about not judging all the members of a group based on the actions of a tiny minority, about how responding to violence with more violence leads only into an abyss--all the while longing secretly, guiltily, for some massive, cathartic act of collective vengeance.  But there's the problem, right?  As righteous as our angers feels, the lunatic rage of those who struck Paris yesterday oozes up from the same desire for revenge, the craving to get even for injuries real or perceived. 

The temptation is, first, to blame the seventh-century mindset of fanatical Muslims, as ISIS zealots claim responsibility for the latest carnage.  But then, we really need to blame not Islam, but religion in general, as every faith claims to promote peace while slaughtering its "enemies" in the name of a supposedly all-powerful deity--an all-powerful deity so insecure in its omnipotence that it requires murderous suppression of anyone who dares to so much as raise an eyebrow at its claim to superiority.  Bottom line, of course: Old-time religion's sole purpose is the rationalization of suffering: People suffer, see no reason for suffering, justify suffering as somehow holy--as proof of their actual status as beloved of God--and then release their frustrations on others who are, by definition, unbeloved of God and therefore fair game. 

Imagine no religion?  I'd like that.  I really would.  Still, I despair.  Even without God to blame, we'd still find excuses to kill each other.  A secular prayer, then: That one day we--the collective we, the we that is all humankind--will one day harness the near-unfathomable power we possess in our magnificent brains, and turn our attention to solving the problems we all face, instead of squandering our genius on blame and hate and rage.  I fear this prayer will prove as effective as those uttered by true-believers the world over.  But, hey, I'm only human--groping, too, for some hope in the dark.

Fly the Kosher Skies

Long-time Sloppists have noticed that I haven't posted regularly in a long time.  I had considered this a mere personal failing: a source of disappointment in myself, to be sure, but a victimless crime at worst.  Last night, I realized I was wrong.  I came face to face with the face of Solipsist Nation abandoned: a reader--perhaps my ONLY reader--who had come to rely on YNSHC to bring a little joy into his apparently insufficiently joyous life, and whom I had so cavalierly abandoned out of some sense of entitlement--entitlement to rest, to relaxation, to the right to plunge myself into a beer-fueled alcoholic stupor on a regular basis!  Who did I think I was?!?  So, to this Fanatical Follower of Solipsist, I simply say, I shall strive to do better.

Speaking of entitlement, I've spent the last day or so pondering this story in yesterday's paper, about a semi-common occurrence on airplanes.  Apparently, some ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse to sit next to women on airplanes, for fear that they may accidentally come into contact with members of the opposite sex.  Despite the fact that a prominent Orthodox rabbi has given dispensation for whatever incidental contact might occur, a number of Hasidim feel they would rather not chance it.  As you can imagine, though, problems arise when women refuse to relocate to accommodate the--let's face it--medieval strictures of their fellow travelers.

Those of you who follow me on Facebook know that I proposed a simple solution: If the idea of potentially finding himself seated next to a woman so fills a Hasidic gentleman with fear, then all he needs to do to avoid the situation is purchase an extra seat on the plane.  This comment of mine generated a number of comments--tongues more or less planted in cheeks--about the unlikelihood of Jews ponying up the cash for two seats (it should be noted that these comments all came from fellow Jews).  But the point, of course, is social not financial.  If these folks want to avail themselves of the conveniences of modern society (like airplanes), then they are simply going to have to accept the conventions of modern society (like the fundamental equality of the sexes--and let's not get started on THAT; that's a topic for another day).

Ultimately, I don't really have a problem with the Orthodox desire to maintain a separation of the sexes: If that's what they believe, that's what they believe.  The issue I find offensive is that the airlines and/or the other passengers should go out of their way to accommodate them.  I wouldn't have an issue with a Hasidic gentleman going up to another passenger--and for all I know, this happens--and saying politely something to the effect of, "Excuse me, Sir/Madam, I'm seated over in ___, but the seat next to me is occupied by a lady, and my religion prevents me from sitting next to her.  I was wondering if you would be willing to trade seats with me?"

I'm sure he'd find a taker.  Hell, what does the Hasid-proximate lady look like?  Maybe I'll trade seats.  After all, I'm single now.  Think of the possibilities!

"What was that all about?"

"Oh, his religion forbids him from sitting next to beautiful women."

"Really?"

"Well, strictly speaking, his religion prevents him from sitting next to any women.  I threw in the beautiful part."

"Oh, Solipsist!"

Cha-ching!  Mile-high-club!  I love Judaism!

They Also Had to Tell Him His Puppy Was Adopted

Just got back from a lovely dinner at FOS's house, cooked by WOFOS.  The food was delicious, a mixture of traditional Jewish and Danish delicacies that I have decided to call the Resistance Special.  (Trademark!)  I now feel no need to eat for the next couple of days.  Alas, the night was not without drama. 

Like your good friend the Solipsist, FOS is Jewish.  While not Orthodox, he is relatively observant--call him Conservative-Plus (I, in contrast, am Atheo-Semitic, at best).  After their marriage, WOFOS converted to Judaism, and she has taken her commitments to the faith seriously: Witness, for example, the homemade matzo ball soup at tonight's dinner.  She did not, however, convert right away--not out of any particular reluctance, but merely due to the fact that, you know, life was happening, and she didn't have as much time as she would need to meet all the requirements.  For in case you didn't know, we Jews are selective: We don't just accept any Tom, Dick, or Brittney.  There are classes to be attended, tests to be taken.  Unlike Jews such as Yours Truly--"Legacies," if you will, born into the faith, who can slide by with mediocre grades ("Mensch's C's."?)--dedicated would-be converts have to work it!  And work it WOFOS did, completing her conversion some six years ago.

Here's the thing, though, her son (OK, SOFOS) didn't know this: He knew his Mom was a convert, but he had assumed that she had completed the process before he was born.  It was only tonight, during dinner, that he discovered the awful truth: He was six years old before his mother was Jewish.

Now, if you know anything about Judaic law, you know that Judaism is a matrilineal faith: If your mother is Jewish, so are you; if your mother is not Jewish, well, then, you're just one of the Goys.  SOFOS was highly disturbed to discover that he had "not been" Jewish until he was six years old.  FOS immediately assured his son that he was, in fact, Jewish, as he (FOS) had taken the newborn SOFOS to the mikvah (a sort of ritual Jewish bath) shortly after his birth and had him officially converted (newborns don't need to take all the tests).  SOFOS seemed somewhat skeptical, but after much reassurance--and a promise to take him to the mikvah again if he insisted--the matter was, at last, put to rest.

I would just like to say to SOFOS: Young man, any woman who prepares matzo ball soup, brisket, and chicken pot pies for a Shabbos dinner is as Jewish as you'll ever need anyone to be.

Mormon, Mo Problems

Pity the Mormons.  And not for the obvious reasons, either, like the fact that their Mecca and Medina is located in a strip mall in Utah.  No, pity the Mormons because they are confronting a crisis in their history.  An article in today's Times reports that Mormons are discovering the "interwebs." They're now learning things about their faith--things that just don't add up.  For one thing, despite protestations of latter-day Latter Day Saints, Mormon founder Joseph Smith apparently was, in fact, a polygamist.  And the church was for most of its history less than welcoming of black men! 

Damn interwebs!

Of course, some of the things that Mormons are discovering are, shall we say, on the silly side.  For example, devout Mormons are concerned by the apparent contradictions in church lore:

"Why does the church always portray Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden plates, when witnesses described him looking down into a hat at a “peep stone,” a rock that he believed helped him find buried treasure?

"Why did Smith claim that the Book of Abraham, a core scripture, was a translation of ancient writings from the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, when Egyptologists now identify the papyrus that Smith used in the translation as a common funerary scroll that has nothing to do with Abraham?"

Look, folks, I know you're relatively new to this, but if you want to have a religion, you're going to have to resign yourself to some exaggerations, inconsistencies, and/or otherwise unpalatable truths.  I mean, we Jews have accepted the idea that Moses parted the Red Sea by whacking it with his stick--instead of just asking politely as God intended.  And if you Mormons wanted a religion with absolutely no history of violence or oppression, well then you should have just stuck with the mainstream Christian denominations.  I understand Catholicism has an utterly non-controversial history when it comes to things like tolerance for all humankind.

Of course, Mormonism's newness is largely to blame for these growing pains. 

“The Roman Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to work through the hiccups in its history,” said Terryl L. Givens, a professor of English, literature and religion at the University of Richmond and a Mormon believer. “Mormonism is still an adolescent religion.”

Mormonism is, in fact, less than 200 years old: I imagine there are still people out there who knew Joseph Smith personally!  At any rate, it's hard to build up a religious mythology, replete with supernatural events, when primary sources are still so readily available and made universally accessible through the Web.  In contrast, older religions can tell us anything, and we'll believe it.  A guy walked on water?  Why not!  Probably just trying to get away from the dragons.

Advice for the Next Pope from Your Friendly Neighborhood Jew

As cardinals begin to gather in Rome for the imminent Papal election, much is being written about what the next Pope will need to do to address the challenges faced by the Catholic church.  While I understand that the papacy is not something one openly campaigns for, I would like to offer a bit of unsolicited advice--something that would prove a highly popular plank in any campaign platform and that would immediately elevate a candidate to front-runner status in many people's eyes: Priests who sexually abuse children (or, frankly, anyone) will be defrocked, excommunicated, and turned over to the police.

What astonishes me--and, I suspect, many others--is not so much the apparent per capita prevalence of sex offenders among the clergy, but the sheer unwillingness of church authorities to deal with the problem.  I will not go so far as to say that the cover-up is worse than the crime; in this case, the crime is pretty much as bad as it gets.  But the cover up--the apparent indifference--is kind of inexplicable.

Because here's the thing: My understanding of Catholic doctrine, admittedly imperfect, states that the Pope is infallible: He literally answers to no one--no earthly authority, at any rate.  In that regard, he is more powerful than the most powerful corporate CEO, more powerful than any head of state (who can always be removed either by the electorate or by military overthrow).  His word is law.  For a Pope, therefore, to countenance in any way the depredations of his priests--his employees--is inexplicable.

The Catholic church, as mentioned above, faces many challenges: declining membership, archaic attitudes about women and homosexuals, competition from other faiths.  But a clear, uncompromising, zero-tolerance statement from the highest of the holiest would be a big step in the right direction--and might even help with some of the other challenges as well.

Not to Beat a Dead Horse, But. . . .

. . . I'm just tired.  Really, really tired.  It all just hit me today when I saw Sarah Palin's relatively benign (for her) comments on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.  Essentially, like Mike Huckabee before her, she insinuated that the shootings could be attributed to the fact that Americans have lost focus on what's truly important--the main thing that's truly important being, apparently, God.

For the record, I am an agnostic: I don't know whether God exists or not.  I feel reasonably certain that if there is some supreme being, He takes little to no interest in what's going on here on earth.

(EDITORIAL NOTE: I use "He" for simplicity's sake; I capitalize because I'm a slave to convention.)

That being said, I don't begrudge anybody else his or her belief in God.  I'm certainly not about to argue it: As I say, I don't know.  I'm a fairly logical sort of guy, and belief in God is, in the most literal sense, irrational: It must be taken on faith.  And that's cool!  If your faith helps you live a better life and provides you with solace in the face of tragedy, more power to you--or, to it, as the case may be.  But I cannot abide self-righteous proselytizers who blame society's ills on insufficient fealty to God-as-they-see-Him.

For one thing, the idea that God has been "systematically removed" from public schools, as Mike "This-Guy-Was-Once-Considered-a-Legitimate-Presidential-Candidate?!?" Huckabee proclaimed, is ludicrous.  Isn't one of the tenets of faith that "God is everywhere"?  More to the point, while courts have declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional, nothing stops individual children or teachers from praying quietly--by and for themselves--while they are in school. I suspect every time a teacher gives a test, quite a bit of praying occurs.  On a more serious note, I imagine many people at Sandy Hook Elementary were praying on Friday.  Which brings me to my second and more profound problem with the Gospel According to Huckabee.

Think this through to its logical conclusion:  If these children were slaughtered because of laws restricting officially-sanctioned prayer in public schools, then that means the God we are all supposed to pray to is some kind of petty-minded, insecure narcissist who will allow children and their devoted teachers to be massacred simply because we have failed to give Him his "props."  I don't know about you, but I don't think that kind of God is much worth worshipping.

Don't even get me started on those who claim this whole thing could have been avoided if teachers--who a few months ago were gleefully derided as lazy moochers leaching off the public teat--had just been armed!

During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama caught much flak for saying that certain people "cling to guns or religion. . . as a way to explain their frustrations."  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Separation Anxiety

"Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."
                                --"Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges"

If Catholic colleges want to cling to outmoded doctrine, that's their prerogative. But these colleges' administrations seem perfectly willing to overlook the offending behavior, as long as they themselves suffer no financial penalties for it.  Personally I think Catholic universities like Georgetown, Fordham, Notre Dame, or the ever-expanding roster of Marymounts have every right to require their student bodies to uphold Catholic doctrine as a condition of admission.  These schools could require students to sign pledges that they will, under penalty of expulsion, refrain from pre-/extra-marital sex or that, if engaging in church-sanctioned sex, they will remain apart from the "culture of death" that uses artificial means of birth control.  But they don't impose such requirements.  Not surprising, really, since, according to the same article quoted above, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptives.  These universities' admissions officers would suffer a collective stroke were such a policy implemented.

Let's talk hypocrisy, though.  Forget that 98% of Catholic women.  A probably greater percentage of Catholic colleges and universities enjoy considerable financial largesse from the very government whose policies they now resist.  If Fordham University and its ilk don't want to offer birth control as part of their health plans, that's fine.  No one should force them to violate their institutional consciences.  They also, therefore, should forego any federal funding for other programs.  No more Pell grants, no more federal research awards, etc.  Religious institutions should realize that they cannot invoke separation of church and state only when it suits their convenience.

"Consubstantial"? Really?!?

Last night, Stephen Colbert reported on recent changes to the Latin Mass.  Specifically, the Nicene Creed now states that Jesus Christ is "consubstantial with the Father."  This replaces the phrase "one in Being with the Father."  Now, I'm no Catholic, but I possess enough basic literacy skills to derive from the context of this discussion that "consubstantial" means "one in Being with"--except it's far more high-falutin'.  We can conclude from this revision, therefore, that Vatican scholars are like seventh-graders trying to impress their English teacher. 

Writers should never use five-dollar word when fifty-cent ones will do.  The single word "consubstantial" doesn't even really provide an advantage in brevity over the four-word "one in Being with": Both options contain the same number of letters and syllables.

As a Jew, I am apathetic.  As an English teacher, I am unimpressed.

The Daily Outrage

Well-wishes have poured in from around the blogosphere in response to the 1,000th installment of "The Solipsist."  I received very few actual gifts.  Don't feel bad, though, folks; I'm still accepting presents.  Besides, what I got from Pat Robertson will tide me over for some time: On Tuesday, the Right Reverend Voldemort counseled one of his followers on "The 700 Club" that divorce--while generally frowned upon by self-righteous rightists like him--is perfectly OK . . . if your spouse has Alzheimer's.

Context: Robertson was responding to a caller who was asking about a friend (yeah, a "friend") who had started seeing another woman after his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.  Robertson, predictably, frowned on the adultery and counseled that the husband "should divorce [his wife], and start all over again."

Now, I know what you're thinking, "What kind of scumbag is this douche?" Or, perhaps, "What kind of douchebag is this scum?"  Or, simply, "What the fuck?!?"  We hasten to point out, though, that Robertson only advocates spousal abandonment if the "friend" first "make[s] sure [his wife] has custodial care and someone looking after her."

Custodial care, of course, costs more than a little money.  Still, assuming the husband's insured, this shouldn't be a major problem.  Oh, wait, the wife will lose the husband's coverage after he, y'know, divorces her.  But THAT must be why Robertson so vocally supported President Obama's healthcare reform package. I mean, he RAVED about how healthcare reform would be part of some "socialist colossus"!  Oh. . . he didn't mean that in a good way, did he?  Well, his followers support it, anyway: That's why they've gone to court to say that it. . .uh. . . it. . .it violates the Constitution.

This isn't looking so good, is it?

Robertson justifies his matrimonial advice on the basis that spousal abandonment of an Alzheimer's sufferer is compatible with the whole "'Til death do us part" of the wedding vow because Alzheimer's is "a kind of death."  Well that solves everything, doesn't it? The poor, addled, soon-to-be-discarded former love-of-someone's life doesn't need health-care! SHE'S DEAD ALREADY, DUDE!  KICK HER TO THE CURB!

We should point out that this advice applies only to heterosexual couples.  If you're in one of them queer marriages, then the Alzheimer's is just God's way of saying "Told ya so," and you have to stick with each other to the bitter end.  But at least you'll have insurance.

And Don't Even THINK about Pillow Cases!

The Shabab, which has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, has imposed a brutal reign in areas it controls, chopping off hands of petty thieves, lashing women for showing their ankles and beheading anyone deemed a spy. They also banned music, television, gold teeth and bras, branding them un-Islamic.
      --"Shabab Concede Control of Capitol to Somalia Government"

Gold teeth?   Bras?!?   You get the feeling fundamentalists just sit around coming up with shit to declare "un-Islamic"?  Thank Allah that the Reeseseses weren't from, like, Afghanistan.  Mixing chocolate and peanut butter must be haram (forbidden).  Not only would that happy accident not result in a delicious treat but it would likely end up in a beheading.

Can you imagine the minutes of a Mullah-meeting?

"Last week we declared the following things haram: CD players, DVDs, mini-skirts, gold jewelry, silver jewelry, platinum jewelry, and jewelry; chocolate, cigarettes, chocolate cigarettes, and waffles; and seasons 3 through 5 of 'Lost.'

"We have discussed several items since the last meeting and have made the following additions to the haram list:

--Plungers

--"Star Trek" (the Klingon language sounds too much like Hebrew)

--The works of Carrot Top

--Flounder (too Jewish)

--Any use of the word "philately" (we don't know what it means, but it sounds dirty)
************************************************************************
[Please direct your fatwas to the offices of former Senator Rick Santorum--oh, and add "Santorum" to the list of forbidden things.  Go ahead, Google it.  You'll thank us later.]

Lace Collars

In Australia and Austria (which we have just learned are NOT the same country), as well as in the United States, numerous Catholic priests, risking excommunication, have openly challenged Vatican doctrine on the non-ordination of women as priests.  Their actions arise in response to the dwindling numbers of priests worldwide.  Without a rethinking of the attitudes towards female ordination--as well as toward the ordination of married and/or non-celibate men--these rebels with a cause fear a looming demograpinc crisis in the priesthood.

We can understand the hidebound, sexist attitude of this hidebound, sexist organization, but we urge them to reconsider in the face of reality.  In fact, in an effort to help the Vatican make the move, we took it upon ourselves to speak to some of the leading figures in the women's ordination movement.  They assured us that women can perform all clerical duties just as skillfully as their male counterparts, and, if it helps to seal the deal, they will promise to carry on the proud priestly tradition of molesting children.

That should settle that.

Solipsistography
"In 3 Countries, Challenging the Vatican on Female Priests"

All's Fair in Love and Taxation

Cash-strapped localities have started exploring the possibility of taxing non-profit entities. This makes a certain amount of sense. Non-profits that own substantial amounts of property could conceivably help cities and states withstand some of the ravages of today's economic crises. And if we're talking, say, about universities with multi-billion dollar endowments, one can understand the cities' impulse to ask these groups to contribute more to the common welfare.

We have some problems with the thought, though, of most non-profit organizations, which, remember, don't make a lot of money--some of them hardly make any profits at all!--having to pay taxes on their facilities. The whole point of offering non-profits tax exemptions is to help them to help us: Your local homeless shelter or after-school program provides services that a community needs. If an NPO didn't do it, the government would probably have to (or at least pay for the consequences of NOT having the service), which means higher tax bills for everyone. The tax break is a theoretically cost-effective way to assist these organizations.

What we really have a problem with, though, is the fact that while some non-profits may be asked to pay property taxes, others won't be. If states are going to start taxing universities and hospitals, shouldn't they also tax the other large property-owning non-profits like, oh, the Catholic Church and other large religious organizations?

Yes, we know, first amendment, blah blah blah. But if other NPOs must do their share, why shouldn't the church? We'll even make a deal: If the churches pay their fair share in taxes, then they can even participate in the political process. That way, for example, they could even encourage their parishioners to vote for certain candidates or, say, discourage their clergy from offering communion to Catholic candidates like John Kerry who support abortion rights, which they didn't do because they're non-profits and not allowed to participate in the political process. Oh, wait.

What's good for the non-profit goose is good for the non-secular gander.

Solipsistography
"Squeezed Cities Ask Nonprofits for More Money"

In Your Face, Nothing in Particular! (A Brief Post)

According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the people most knowledgeable about the Bible and world religions are atheists/agnostics, followed closely by Jews. As an agnostic Jew (not a contradiction in terms), the Solipsist is unsurprised. Heck, we took the sample quiz attached to the article and scored a perfect six out of six. But why would anyone doubt that atheists would have a greater grasp on the Bible (about which they need to know, if only for rebuttal purposes) and on world religions (about which they would be unblinded by sectarian prejudice) than Holy Rollers of every stripe?

Ignorance isn't only bliss, it's downright Christian.

Tolerance and Provocations

As you may have heard, a large Muslim organization has won approval of a project to build a massive mosque and cultural center about two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. Many individuals and groups, including the normally tolerant Anti-Defamation League, have spoken out against the project, while others, including Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who, for what it's worth, is Jewish) have staunchly supported the mosque project, saying that it will be a testament to the fundamental American values of religious freedom and tolerance that the 9/11 terrorists sought to undermine: “To cave to popular sentiment [and reject the mosque] would be to hand a victory to the terrorists — and we should not stand for that.”

As an enlightened liberal, the Solipsist supports the idea of the mosque, especially as its supporters explain that one of its primary missions will be to promote interfaith dialogue. Considering that this mosque, once completed, will probably be the most rigorously scrutinized house of worship in the country, we imagine its imams and congregants will represent the most moderate, tolerant, and modern viewpoints of Islam imaginable, which can only serve to soften the edges of a religion viewed as all too prickly by many Americans.

Still, we can understand the emotional response.

For a parallel, we imagine how people might react if Japan wanted to set up a cultural center within walking distance of Pearl Harbor. Today, the reaction would probably be a generalized shrug. But what if such a proposal occured in, say, 1950? There might be similar uproar.

Still, even then, there would have been fundamental differences. In 1941, the United States was attacked by Japan, war was declared, and the enemy was eventually defeated. Japan was officially no longer an enemy once its leaders surrendered to the United States. Thus, if Japan had wished to build a cultural center--even in the virtual shadow of its most outrageous attack--the US could accept it as a gesture of reconciliation--of bridge building--as the Manhattan mosque supporters argue their project represents.

Today, however, the situation is complicated by the fact that the US is still at war. And while we are not at war with Islam, as some would have it, we are at war with people who happen to be Muslims. We know intellectually that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and we believe that those behind the mosque project have sincere ambitions to improve the image of Islam in New York and the United States. But until we have that mosque or some other such a symbol of tolerance, Americans will contine to feel uneasy. It doesn't help that, for many people, the most recognizable "spokesman" for Islam remains Osama bin Laden.

The Muslim world needs a new public face in America. With a pulpit as prominent as a mosque near Ground Zero, we expect that a kinder, gentler face of Islam will emerge.

Try It, You'll Like It. Or Not.

The sign outside the church reads, "Try Jesus. If you don't like him, the Devil will always take you back."

(DIGRESSION: The sign had neither lower-case letters nor punctuation, so we're perhaps injecting our own editorializing through typography. EOD)

Try Jesus.

If you don't like him, the Devil will always take you back.

A surface reading of this sign suggests that Jesus is a warm, accepting figure--one who welcomes the most abject of sinners into his fold. But does this not also suggest that the Devil is equally welcoming? MORE welcoming, in fact: Not only is he open to new recruits, but he will also welcome people back even if they jilt him for his fiercest rival. Could you be so forgiving? Could Jesus?

Flip the participants: "Try the Devil. If you don't like him, Jesus will always take you back"? We would expect as much from the Prince of Peace. If that sentiment is not true, then Jesus is apparently less conciliatory, less accepting, less forgiving, than Satan. But if the statement is true, it suggests that--in the long run--there is little difference between choosing Jesus or the Devil, at least as it applies to one's final destination. Might as well choose the company that promises the most fun.

More News Jews Can Use

In an earlier post, we discussed the Judaic imperative to avoid "work" on the Sabbath. "Work," we pointed out, consists of all manner of activity, from breaking rocks in the hot sun to flipping a light switch. One form of activity that falls under the category of work is the act of carrying--anything. Thus, whether a Jewish man carts crates of lettuce across town or simply sticks a pack of kosher gum into his pocket, he is effectively dishonoring the Sabbath and not keeping it holy.

On the face of it, you might think refraining from schlepping is not so hard. But consider the plight of the Orthodox Jew who wants to go to temple on Saturday morning and simply wants to lock his door behind him: How can he do this without carrying his keys? As the noted rabbinical scholar Homer Simpson might say, "D'oh!"

Leave it to Hebrews to come up with a solution. Behold, the eruv, a thoughtful solution to an intractable problem--in other words, a loophole. Basically, an eruv is a symbolic virtual extension of the home, which allows people to carry things within its confines. Traditionally speaking, an eruv is an enclosure demarcated by walls and/or doorways of at least ten tefachim in height. (We did not just make up that word.) Within those walls, Jews may engage in the same Sabbath-sanctioned activities they engage in at home: carrying keys, drinking Manischewitz, juggling latkes, whatever!

But what worked just fine in the Sinai--where there was nobody to care if the nomadic Israelites threw up multi-tefach walls hither and yon (especially yon)--poses greater challenges in the modern metropolis: One can't just erect an eruv on the Upper West Side.

Never fear, though; modern Orthodox rabbis have a solution: They can declare an area an eruv and, instead of marking it with walls, simply string wires from lamp posts to mark the boundaries. Such an eruv, in fact, has been erected in Manhattan, and it extends "from river to river between Harlem and the Lower East Side" ("A Jewish Ritual Collides with Mother Nature"). For those of you unfamiliar with New York City geography, this encompasses approximately 80 blocks north-south (about four miles) and about 12 long blocks east-west (a little over a mile): That's some backyard.

The reason this made the news is that the recent heavy snowfalls in the northeast have pulled down some of the wires that demarcated the eruvim. Orthodox Jewish parents have been sending their children off to synagogue without so much as a hankie. But if this whole thing is symbolic anyway, couldn't rabbis just declare an eruv through other-than-physical means? Couldn't, say, the fiberoptic network comprising the World Wide Web safely encompass the religious piety of the Orthodox community? Since religion is all about the observation of ritual, and rituals can obviously be altered to accommodate the realities of the modern world, we think the time has come to inaugurate eruv 2.0 and thus ensure that the Jews of New York are not left without eruv over their heads.

Sorry.

It's a Lousy Hijab, But Somebody's Got to Wear It

Sorry.

We've gotten semi-embroiled in a debate of Facebook. A friend posted a link to a story on Yahoo! News about the French government's proposal to ban the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that some Muslim women choose to wear as an expression of their faith.

Essentially, we are opposed to such legislation, while our interlocutor feels that, if a person chooses to live in a Western society, one should adapt to that society's norms; if one wishes to live under the laws of sharia, she should, similarly, remain in a sharia-oriented society.

We agree with our interlocutor in certain respects: We, too, find the compulsory veiling of Muslim women--or of any women--distasteful and primitive. (Well, unless we're talking about really, really, really ugly women, in which case it's fine.) (Sorry.)

OK, seriously, though--we see the point: We oppose the policies of Islamic governments that force women to remain veiled, and that forbid them to drive or to vote or, essentially, to have anything near the same rights as men. But the point we would emphasize is that, in France, nobody--at least, nobody in the government--is forcing these women to don these robes. Thus, to some extent, it is a matter of personal choice--religious choice--and should be respected, as long as it poses no threat to civic order.

The French government claims that it DOES pose a threat to civic order. Indeed, they mask (pun intended) their objection to the veil with a "public-safety" argument, claiming that the covering of the face in a public setting poses a security risk. We might buy this argument if the French government had previously banned ski masks, but we know of no such legislation.

Indeed, we think that such a ban would create security problems, as it lends credence to the fanatical claims of Muslim militants who complain of a Western "war on Islam."

One of the most loathsome components of totalitarian Islamic societies are organizations like Saudi Arabia's Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice--the "religious police." These are the folks who run around making sure that women are properly veiled and that other affronts to Allah are quickly snuffed. Does France really want to turn its gendarmerie into a secular version of these bullies?

Remember, France, it was your great countryman Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it."

Conversion: It's Not Just for Heathens, Anymore!

We were struck today by a story about the Roman Catholic Church: "Vatican Bidding to Get Anglicans to Join Its Fold." As more and more disaffected Catholics leave the church over quibbles like priestly child molestation and medieval attitudes towards homosexuals, women, and other disreputable groups, the Vatican is reaching out to disaffected Anglicans who may wish to leave their communion over its more enlightened attitudes towards homosexuals, women, and other disreputable groups.

We can't wait to see the advertising campaign: "Roman Catholicism: Now with 78% more tolerance for the less tolerant!"

It's nice to see the Vatican following the lead of Islamic fundamentalists and the Republican Party, hunkering down and clinging to outdated modes of thought, expanding its base by appealing to xenophobia and prejudice. Frankly, we think the Anglicans should welcome this turn of events: It gives them an opportunity to rid themselves of the more backward members of their flock without feeling like they're abandoning these folks to spiritual perdition. If you can't beat 'em, let 'em go join another team.

A note, though, to any Anglican priests contemplating a conversion to Catholicism: Child molestation is optional, not mandatory.

News You Can Use? II

First, some "News You Can Use":

Beware: Airline fares are on the rise. If you're waiting to book your holiday travel, don't! As the holidays approach, major carriers are raising seat prices daily.

Personally, we assumed this was how the airline industry always worked, but apparently last year, in the midst of the economic meltdown, many airlines actually cut prices. Consumers who were expecting the same thing this year are in for some rude surprises.

So, if you're planning a trip for Thanksgiving or Christmas, book now! And if anyone wants to join the crew here at Solipsist HQ for the holidays, we'll throw an extra 'dillo on the barbie for you.

**********************************************

Now, "News We Can't Imagine You Can Use and So We Wonder What It's Doing on the Front Page of The New York Times"

An article on the front page of the Times tells the story of Pat Bond, a middle-aged woman whose son Nathan Halbach is battling cancer. What makes the story interesting is that Nathan's father is a Father--that is, a Roman Catholic priest. He and Bond had an affair over twenty years ago, and Nathan was the result ("A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest").

Bond reached a settlement with the Franciscan order of which the priest, the Rev. Henry Willenborg, was a member--essentially, a child support agreement. In exchange for Bond's signature on a confidentiality agreement, the Franciscans agreed to pay a few hundred dollars a month until Nathan turned 18. (Bond received the money in a lump sum after Nathan was born.) Subsequently, the Franciscans also helped Bond pay for Nathan's college tuition, and, in his illness, they also agreed to pay 50% of any "extraordinary" medical costs. After a dispute over some funds that she felt she was owed, though, Pat Bond went public with her story.

A few questions:

1) Why is this news--front page news, no less? Granted, it is notable that a Roman Catholic priest engaged in sex with someone who was not a pre-pubescent boy. But aside from the Thorn Birds titillation, does anyone really care?

2) We get the feeling that the writer expects us to be shocked--shocked!--by the callousness of the Franciscan order: How dare they not take proper care of this cancer-stricken lad, the fruit of one of its member's randy loins. But how much are they supposed to do? (They are, after all, a mendicant order.) From everything we read in the article, it seems the Franciscans did everything they agreed to do--and, frankly, more. Nothing in the original agreement, for example, required the Franciscans to help pay college tuition, but they did--in addition to half the tuition, they agreed to provide $586 a month until Nathan turned 21. And even though Nathan was over 18, they continued to contribute to his medical care.

What Willenborg did was undeniably sleazy and unethical. But we can hardly accuse the Franciscans of being deadbeat dads.