Respect

Recently, an event about gay men in the Orthodox Jewish world was hosted at Yeshiva University. The purpose of the event was to allow Orthodox gay men to share their stories and for a broad Orthodox audience to hear those stories. However, the aftermath of the event tends to ignore the stories of these men. Instead, those concerned with the events have chosen to focus on issues of the proper halakhot concerning homosexual men and with issues of academic freedom and who does and should have the right to speak how on what topic at YU.

While I admire the progress that has led to this event being able to happen at YU, I can't help but feel ambivalent about the outcome. An event whose purpose seemed to be to put faces and stories together with the all-too-often-ignored identity of gay and Orthodox has been simplified to a catalyst for a conversation about halakha and whether Yeshiva University should be more yeshiva or more university. So even my progessive Orthodox (and non-Jewish) friends haven't wanted to talk to me about the power of Jewish Queer Youth founder Mordechai Levovitz's story, or those of his contemporaries, but rather about abstract ideas related to the theory of YU hosting such an event.

While they might have theoretical and academic aspects, recognition and respect are concrete, practical issues. We Jews tend to invalidate the experience and even the existence of anyone in the Jewish community who doesn't fit our conception of the "normal" Jew. Jews do not gamble, Jews are not alcoholics, Jews are not crazy, and Jews are not gay. Furthermore, Jews of a certain age are in happy, legal (both Jewishly and civilly) marriages with cisgendered cross-sex spouses and have smart, healthy, well-adjusted children who will grow up to make aliyah to Israel (and of course also be in happy,legal marriages with cisgendered cross-sex Jewish spouses). As long as we keep the conversation in theory, we're good. But this idea breaks down as soon as you go to a JACS meeting, or a NUJLS event, or meet the nice non-Jewish transmasculine partner of your son.

But it seems to me that people who attended or even read or heard about this event at YU have met out Jewish Orthodox gay men and ignored their experiences in favor of using the idea of their experiences to spark conversation that serves their own agenda. So, while I admire the progress that led to the event, it's hard for me to consider the event a success.

Open Letter to Mr. Alan Solow

Dear Mr. Solow,

I was disappointed to read your statement in response to Ms. Hannah Rosenthal's condemnation of Michael Oren's comments against the (American Jewish) organization J Street. In it, you write:

"As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions Ambassador Oren has taken as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community. Such statements have nothing to do with her responsibilities and, based upon comments I am already receiving, could threaten to limit her effectiveness in the area for which she is actually responsible."

Many aspects of your statement are of great concern to me. I fear that you may be falling into the same ruts that you accuse Ms. Rosenthal of being stuck in.

First, you state that U.S. government officials should not express their personal criticism of Ambassador Oren's views. Perhaps this is correct. However, the Obama administration recognizes the value of each person's voice and each organization's view, so Ms. Rosenthal criticizing the notion that some views are inherently invalid and not worthy is in keeping with the President's message of open dialogue and collaboration on a whole host of issues.

You also state that it is inappropriate for Ms. Rosenthal, as the anti-Semitism envoy, to express her views on "who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community." Your reasoning is that this area has nothing to do with her position in the administration as head of the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is built on the assumption that all Jews are the same, and moreover, that Jews are inferior and deserving of hatred. Therefore, it seems to me that it is well within the purview of Ms. Rosenthal, and certainly in the interest of American Jews, to ensure that as many Jewish voices as possible are heard on as many subjects as possible, and that people (yes, even Jews) who attempt silence these voices should be called out and counteracted. To borrow a slogan from the religiously-liberal Jewish movements in Israel, "yesh yoter miderech echad l'hiyot y'hudi" - "there is more than one way to be Jewish." Jews have more than one organization, more than one voice, and certainly more than one opinion. The sooner we project our diversity to the world, the sooner knowledge can start eliminating prejudice - and making the world aware of the whole range of Jewish voices is not only within the area for which Ms. Rosenthal is responsible, it is also a goal that she, you, and all major Jewish figures, even all Jews, should pursue.

So, in the future, Mr. Solow, please be more careful to make sure your comments are constructive in advancing the rights and privileges of the Jewish people, and not contributing to the silencing of Jewish voices.

Sincerely,

J. Stanton

On the 2nd day of Christmas, I post my 1st Shabbat Chanukah d'var Torah

11 December 2009 - Parashat Vayeshev - On Power: The Stories of Joseph, Judah, and Tamar - 25 Kislev 5770

"Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit." (Zechariah 4:6)

Most Shabbatot, the Haftarah portion, or reading from the prophetic tradition, is deliberately thematically linked to the week's parashah, or Torah reading. Most Shabbatot, the Haftarah selection is paired with the Torah text in an intentional manner. Not this week. So, why is this Shabbat different from all other Shabbatot? (I know, I know - wrong holiday.) This Shabbat, the Haftarah reading is dictated by the calendar (first Shabbat Chanukah) rather than the parashah. However, I think the pairing of Parashat Vayeshev with this special first-Shabbat-Chanukah passage from Zechariah is more fitting than the "thematic" Amos pairing, which draws only a weak parallel between Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery and the Israelites not caring about their fellow.

Parashat Vayeshev, Genesis 37:1-40:23, opens with a description of Joseph's role in Jacob's family. Joseph tends the flocks and spies on his brothers for his father. Joseph, Jacob's favorite son, also wears his "amazing Technicolor dreamcoat," a gift from his father, and speaks of prophetic dreams in which symbols of his siblings bow to a symbol of him. One day, while Joseph is saying, his brothers conspire to kill him. Reuben and Judah act, and Joseph is sold into slavery instead. The brothers let Jacob think his favorite son is dead.

Meanwhile, Judah gets married and has three sons. Er, his first-born, marries a woman named Tamar, but Er "was displeasing to the Lord," so God smites him. Onan, the next son, has a duty to Er and Tamar as a levirate, but he shirks his duty and God kills him too. Afraid to give him third-and-last son to Tamar, Judah sends his daughter-in-law back to her father's house. Scorned, Tamar tricks Judah into relations with her and bears twins. Tamar is an ancestor of King David.

The text returns to Joseph. Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh, buys Joseph. Potiphar trusts Joseph and grants him authority in the house. Potiphar's wife makes the moves on Joseph, but Joseph refuses to comply, prompting Potiphar's wife to claim rape, resulting in Joseph's arrest. In prison, Joseph becomes an interpreter of dreams. His foretellings are accurate, but his gift remains as yet unacknowledged.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit."

"The role of power in Parashat Vayeshev is central and at times complex. So, I went searching in my Torah Queeries anthology, a collection of divrei-Torah, with a queer focus, to examine the role of power-dynamics in Parashat Vayeshev. What I found was disappointing. Gregg Drinkwater states he is convinced that Joseph is the easiest-to-queer and most-often-queered character in Torah, and that he agrees that Joseph can be read as queer. But, Drinkwater ambivalently presents only superficial evidence for Joseph's queerness related to Joseph's attire, attitude, and actions. While Joseph's good looks, chaste nature, and mostly midrashic affinity for fashion might point to his difference, his queerness (if it exists) is displayed in his relationship to power. In this parashah, Joseph starts with a power bestowed on him by a supportive parent, only to have that power stripped from him by a dreamer-bashing band of brothers (to paraphrase Drinkwater). Joseph is sold to Potiphar and again granted power by the powerful, only to lose both power and freedom by acting according to his conscience. In prison, Joseph encounters Pharaoh's chief cupbearer and chief baker and interprets their dreams, giving credit to God. Later in Genesis, this becomes Joseph's Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit."

Furthermore, any interpretation of Vayeshev which leaves out the story of Judah and Tamar or dismisses it as merely an historical section sandwiched between "the interesting stuff" is incomplete. However you conceive of the authorship of Torah, to assume Torah has parts with no modern relevance is to deny its role as sacred text. While Joseph loses power in Vayeshev, Tamar gains it. By taking matters into her own hands, she is able to bear sons, continuing the tribe of Judah and enabling a future line of kings. Just as Tamar's story enables the Davidic line, Joseph's story sets up the biggest power-play in Torah: the Exodus. Without Joseph's loss of and rise to power, the Israelites may not have taken refuge in Egypt during famine, and without the experience of slavery in Egypt, redemption would be impossible and later revelation unnecessary. But, I digress. In both Tamar's case and that of Joseph, power is important, but until God's role in the situation is acknowledged, power remains meaningless.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit."

God gives significance to power. Without God, power is present or absent. With God, power is shared or hoarded, useful or counterproductive, reasonable or unreasonable, like or disliked, good or evil, holy or profane. Let us recognize what power we have, let us recognize what power we lack, and let us strive to acknowledge the divine Presence in our world. O God, on this first Shabbat of Chanukah, when we are reminded of the great miracle that happened there, help us to see the many miracles, great and small, that Your spirit creates in our lives. Then will we reflect the words recorded by the prophet Zechariah, "Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit."

A Wish on Christmas (Does that make this a Christmas wish?)

Sometimes, well, truth be told, often, I wish there was an on-off switch for being a token fill-in-the-blank. Most of the time, I am glad to answer questions about my gender identity, dispel myths about various sorts of queers, or discuss (at length) Arab-Israeli conflict. I usually don't mind being the only Midwesterner around, or the only sports fan, or wannabe-theater-geek. I will be patient and explain that, "No, Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah," as many times as necessary for someone to understand or at least stop bugging me about it. But sometimes, I just want to be me. I don't want to be Hoosier me, or UofC-educated me, or former-Obama-campaign-intern me, or jobless me, or Jewish me, or queer me, or trans me, or guy me, or dyke me, or even queer-Jew me. I just want to be me. So why does the Token Hat seemed superglued to my head?

What Religion Means (a post surprisingly not about the definition of religion)

The Vatican has moved forward with the second of four official steps in the canonization process of Pope Pius XII. The (now officially) Venerable Pius XII has had his heroic virtues confirmed by the papacy.

Pope during World War II, Pius' relationship with antisemitism and the Holocaust is complicated. Although the Church helped some individual Jews during the Holocaust, the Vatican remained politically neutral, and some statements denied that anything was amiss with the increasing number of antisemitic laws and actions the Nazis were responsible for. Though Pius was informed no later than 1941 of deportations of Jews (which led to mass murder), the Vatican did not take a public stance on deportations until 1944 (shortly after which deportations ceased). After the war, Pius XII was involved in holding to a 1946 document stating that baptized Jewish children who were orphans because of the Holocaust should stay in the custody of their Catholic caregivers.

I recognize that Pope Pius XII's history is complicated. I fail to understand the Vatican's surprise at reactions from the Jewish community to this development. A defensive statement from the Vatican on the issue:

Moving Pius toward sainthood “is in no way to be read as a hostile act towards the Jewish people, and it is to be hoped that it will not be considered as an obstacle on the path of dialogue between Judaism and the Catholic Church,” Father Lombardi wrote.

Right. Jews are supposed to ignore Pius XII's silence in the face of evil and failure to intervene to prevent further harm in order to maintain "dialogue" with a Church wanting to call him saintly. Furthermore, Catholics are supposed to ignore his flaws and see that his virtues are "heroic." To add insult to injury, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement saying that the beatification process evaluated the “Christian life” of Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, and not “the historical impact of all his operative decisions.”

What? To me, this reads, "He was a good Christian, even if he wasn't a good person." If that is even possible, saints should exemplify the intersection of good Christian and good person. I, for one, maintain that the purpose of religion in the modern world (whatever that is) is to establish a mode for the individual to better hirself and hir community. If being a good Christian doesn't make you a good person, then what is the point? (Asks a Jew.) If being a good Christian implies being a good person, as it should, then anyone being promoted for official sainthood should fit inside the good-person box. For the Vatican to admit that Pope Pius XII might fall short, yet still advance him on the path to sainthood puzzles me.