The origins of this absurd rule are not necessarily the same as its current strict interpretation. It was probably aimed at some specific prayer (not that this meaning was somewhat more justified). Still, nowadays it has evolved to forbid any male Orthodox Jew to listen to a woman sings. It’s still ok to listen to a woman talks. Yay.

One wouldn’t really care that much about religious oddities, but it seems once you try to avoid them – they chase you wherever you are. The recent huge debate in the IDF (Israeli army) is not ‘how to tackle terror’ or ‘what to do with Iran’s nuclear effort’, but rather: Are male soldiers allowed to leave official ceremonies where and when women sing? The strongest and most modern army in the middle-east is developing high-tech anti-missile defense, but is afraid of songs. Perhaps this should be the new Hammas weapon at hand – it seems more effective in driving away soldiers, than the old fashioned ballistic pipes filled with explosives.

One should also research the unclear boundaries defined by modern technologies: Is a woman’s voice still forbidden if distorted by audio-processing software? Is a man’s voice ok if made higher in pitch by the same software? What about artificial text-to-speech results? Rest assured, there will be a good religious verdict for each. God’s taste in voices cannot be left to coincidence.

Of course there are things I strive to change, like the separation of “church and state” and of course the history of this place has been very chaotic. Yet, looking forward into the future, I will generally look for political solutions along the above-described lines. That doesn’t mean I’m not ready to compromise on things, but as long as the main theme is preserved, and as long as the so-called “other side” is ready to compromise as well.

Many Israelis regard the Arab-Israeli conflict (and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular) as “the” most important issue to be solved, this way or the other. I have two important observations about this:

1. I think the internal problems of Israel, especially its gradual falling into religion, are much more dangerous to its existence. Not only an ever decreasing portion of the population actually contributes to progress, but soon the main issue will be not “who will defend the country” but rather “will there be anything worth defending”.

2. Very naively, if “both” sides somehow become convinced to shift from fanatic religious world-views into more rational and educated opinions, it looks as if the conflict is going to dissolve naturally. Instead of fighting over whose god is stronger, people may, just may, talk some sense into things.

With that in mind I wish everyone a happy Jewish new year and Shana Tova!

The protest is generally based on economy issues. The middle class finds it harder than ever to survive these times, let alone acquire a decent place to live. Thoughts about modest prosperity have become more like dreams. One can often hear arguments about overblown taxes, wrong priorities, etc.

These claims are typically right. About one third of the country population has gradually become the actual tax-payers and those that serve their country… in more than one meaning (referring also to spending precious years in the defense forces).

Alas, something is missing. The essence of “social justice” is equality. The criteria for taking and giving money should be relevant and objective. Easing the tax burden of sick people is an example of a good criterion. Ignoring certain civil duties of people who study religion in “Yeshiva” is not, and the list is long.

The problem is: You hardly hear any talks of equal rights and equal duties. Sometimes it looks like the protesters are ready to settle on some financial solutions. How come there is a demand for “social justice” but hardly any mention of equality? Could it be because people have been trained for years to take such unequal attitude for granted?

Read my lips: Solving social differences with a simple movement of resources from one place to another, is a short term solution. It’s a temporary pain relieving treatment for a patient that suffers from cancer. The pain is due to return, and perhaps even in a bigger form. Establishing relevant, objective and equal criteria, is the real cure for the disease.

Let’s take Belgium for instance: You can be a Belgian citizen, while from the ethnic point of view you may be Flemish or Walloon, or perhaps an African immigrant. From the religious point of view, you may be a Christian, or perhaps you are a Muslim. Of course you may be an atheist and enjoy a healthy set of values. All these words are different, each set reside on different axis.

The same goes for other lucky groups of people. If you’re an Arab, statistics show you are most likely to be a Muslim, but there are many Christian Arabs and those with other religions. Again there are also some lucky atheists.

However, things come to a total confusion when talking about Jews. Many people call themselves ‘Jews’ while declaring they are not religious at all. Some insist there’s no way of being Jewish unless you believe in the Jewish god, obeying his alleged commands. I’ve found out at least five very different definitions for the term:

1. The Orthodox Jewish definition is trying to be very clear: You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, or if you so-called “converted” to Judaism in the Orthodox way. This of course is a recursive definition, because now we have to examine your mother’s Jewishness, which is essentially the same task. Not to mention some awkward situations that arise when the two parents hold different religions, which have different rules for this topic.

2. The linguistic definition determines you are “Jew” if you are a descendant of the old tribe of Judea. Hence, perhaps many of the “Cohen’s” and “Levi’s” are not Jews, as they’re known to be descendant of the old Hebrew tribe of Levi. Yet this is from their father’s side… How confusing…

3. The Nazis had another clear-but-recursive definition of what a ‘Jew’ is. It was more-or-less someone with Jewish ancestors 2 generation before. Thus someone could be a ‘Jew’ according to Hitler, but not according to the Rabbi.

4. And there is the common definition: The Jewish “people”, from the ethnic point of view. Not clearly defined, certainly has nothing to do with “religion”, but very practical. The problem? Someone can be a Jew according to this definition, while know nothing of Jewishness, have no Jewish friends whatsoever, and be a total stranger.

Personally I think the best definition is the cultural one. The Jewish culture is many things: It contains the various branches of the Jewish religion, the Hebrew language, the geographical linkage with Israel, the Jewish holidays and literature, etc. I would easily define someone as a ‘Jew’ even if he/she has Christian parents, he/she has never “converted” and not religious at all, but truly shares the same culture with me. I would not define a total stranger as a ‘Jew’ just for having a Jewish mother by some chance.

This may be a symptom of the steep slope on which the State of Israel is quickly going down with its cultrure (and subsequently with its very existence).

However, one major point remains un-asked: If the Almighty wanted to, he would have prevented those sons and daughters from becoming a “memory” altogether, saving them from being killed in action.

Don’t you think it’s ironic to ask the killer to remember his victims?

“In India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of ‘respect’.”

– Salman Rushdie

In took the Unites States ten years or more to settle the score with Osama bin Laden, the number one terrorist of the new era. In the US, just like other places around the world, people went out celebrating in the streets. Still, every commentator bothered to explain the already-known: The fight against terror is not over, and a new spiritual leader will probably pop up to fill the gap.

– * — * –

Whoever experienced talking to people who had undergone some kind of brainwashing, knows the feeling of talking to a brick wall. A sort of infertile discussion that reminds the attempt of selling a used car to someone you’ve just murdered his family in front of him. A hopeless effort to conduct a rational argument with a brain that is apparently open for emotional considerations only.

During the first Israeli-Lebanon war, IDF soldiers became aware of the phenomenon of Shiite Muslim suicide bombers. Later on, many Israeli civilians learned first-hand about the horrors of suicide bombers, who are about to embark – from their point a view – a journey to a Heaven swarming with virgins made to serve martyrs, a.k.a ’shaheeds’. In days to come, the whole world witnessed some apparently educated people – language-speaking pilots – fervently navigating their airplanes into towers and buildings, equipped with similar motivation and goals.

And here is tactics vs. strategy for you: During the first Israeli-Lebanon war, the Israeli Chief of Staff – the late Rafael ‘Raful’ Eitan – expressed himself in the media: “We shall help them reach Heaven”. The State of Israel within its private struggle, like other countries of the Western World in their similar struggles, did help some potential suiciders to reach Heaven earlier. The problem is similar to a known Hebrew phrase discussing the issue of threatening a whore with rape: It is not really clear how effective it is to threaten a suicidal person with death.

– * — * –

In the end of the Nineties, a small Israeli organization named ‘Daat Emet’ (’Knowing the Truth’) was established. In its beginning, Daat Emet approached ultra-Orthodox ‘Haredi’ Jewish population, using some pretty good knowledge of their target audience. One may say they succeeded in doing the allegedly impossible, managing a rational discussion with irrational negotiators. The reason for their partial success is a fascinating topic by itself. In some way, Daat Emet’s contents approached the believers using their own language and mindset.

And here is a very long sentence: If such a small organization succeeded in transforming itself into a well-known brand, and even demonstrated considerable achievements in changing people’s mindset, up to the point of re-educating them into more skeptic and productive thinking… then one can only assume that a similar effort based on more serious resources (like the opposite effort using much of our tax money to educate little children into irrational religious thinking), would achieve a much more significant success.

Hence the question: Why not taking the same measures to encourage skeptical-rational thinking among religious fanatic audience, but not necessarily an Orthodox Jewish audience? The Orthodox Jewish nonsense does not have exclusivity in controlling human minds, and even the greatest deniers of evolution tend to define many of the Muslims as cousins of the Jews.

Yes, it takes considerable knowledge in Islam and its rituals. It also requires time and money resources. C’mon… for the price of four ‘Iron Dome’ missiles one may finance a significant and focused educational effort, targeting both Islamic knowledge and emotions, encouraging healthy skepticism and rational thinking.

– * — * –

Bin Laden’s extermination is a pain relieving medication while fighting cancer. A touch of good feeling for a couple of hours, not very much beyond it. The right way to tackle the “Islamic threat” is, if you will, an “Islamic Daat Emet” — Curing the roots of the problems rather than its occasional symptoms. Yet what is known as ‘The West’ (Israel included) will not select the right medication, for the simple reason it suffers from the very same disease: The Western countries have not yet been able to distinguish ‘religion’ from the alleged need to ‘respect’ it. Culturally and politically they largely believe in parallel nonsense. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that if and when they are released from this complex, it will be too late for them.

There are many words of wisdom in the Old and New Testament, as well as in the Koran and the Talmud. The Jewish Mishnaic tractate of ‘Eduyot’ says: “Your actions bring you closer, and your actions bring you further”, which simply and most wisely implies, “Judge things individually”. There are good things done by various religious people, and there are bad things performed by religious people. There are good things done by various secular people, and there are bad things carried out by secular people. If someone acts in a way that deserves criticism according to your opinion, then it’s okay to criticize that someone, whether he or she is a religious person or a secular one.

A somewhat related topic, but of a different ilk, has to do with associating the religious behavior of a group of people with having special protection from God. Religious Jews will generally tell you that it’s specifically their religious habits (especially following the Bible and keeping the Sabbath), which have kept the continuous existence of the Jewish people over the years. This follows the idea that it pays to be faithful, because it guards your community. Many Muslims will boast the fact that Islam has united them and their peoples, and will also claim divine safekeeping.

In a way, the above statements are right. A group’s tendency to live in relative isolation has always contributed to the survival of the group as a whole, with or without relation to any religion. Nevertheless, there are a few important points to note in this strange competition for celestial protection:

• Religion contributes to its own survival. There’s no wonder it works – this is what religion is built to do. A large part of religious content is tailored especially to protect the religious belief against external influences, regardless of them being true or false, good or bad.
• The survival and protection of the group is not the same as the survival and protection of the people. Many ancient nations have not survived, but their descendants live happily among us today as Muslims, Jews, Americans, French, Germans or whatever, time and again being very proud of their current people’s history.
• Furthermore, even groups and nations that have survived are generally different from their ancestors. During the years, habits and customs have changed. Some have changed slightly and others have been drastically altered. In most cases even the genes (i.e., the race) have been mixed with those of other peoples and groups.
• An old culture may wonder about its own survival and seek reasons for it. However, by definition, there will always be only those who survived – that is what survival is all about. Those who didn’t make it, for whatever reasons, are not here with us to philosophize on the matter, regardless of their original belief being more right or wrong. In other words: Where there is a finite set of nations, there must be a most ancient one. There is no reason to wonder that something that must happen has happened.
• For a group of people, being more ancient than another group does not entitle them to anything more or better. There are no points collected and no game to win. Just a little bit of pride (which is not bad in itself). Generally speaking, it should be more important to look ahead and plan for the future than to advocate the past.
• If keeping religious commands is associated with things happening to the group, then why only connect it to the survival of the group? It can be associated just the same with the suffering of the members of the group over the years, which has been unfortunately true in the Jewish case as well as (recently) in the Muslim case.
• And finally, with our modern world becoming amazingly and rapidly smaller, it seems that given enough time – perhaps hundreds even thousands of years from now – the ethnic issue will simply die of natural causes. That is, if mankind does not succeed in exterminating itself sooner.

Some researchers view monotheism (the belief in a single god) in the Western religions, as a root of arrogance, which leads to racism: Your gods are not legitimate, only ours is, hence we are superior to you.

A famous joke explains how cheap it is to call God on the phone from a certain location, because it’s a local call. The exact location depends greatly on the person telling the joke. It could be Ireland. It could be Jerusalem. It could be Alberta, Canada. It could be other places.

Are we special? Sure! We’re all special! We are human beings!! This is what makes us special. We should not forget and should not violate this uniqueness, by strange and foolish attitudes towards other human beings.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“Us, and them. And after all we’re only ordinary men.” – ‘Us and Them’, Pink Floyd, Roger Waters

Using passive voice is a great thing, a must for skillful politicians and salesmen. “Promised Land” and “Chosen People” are both amazing expressions without needing to explain who promised and who chose.

So, who are God’s chosen people? In what way are they chosen? The answer depends of-course on whom you ask. Many faithful Christians will say that the Jews used to be the chosen ones, until they abandoned the real faith, thus “the truth abandoned them and took refuge in the Church” (St. Ambrose). Many religious Jews simply know they’ve never ceased to be the “chosen ones”. Some of them may even explain about the myth of the Jewish genius. The faithful Muslims, not very surprisingly, seem to know a whole different story of choice.

Certain Melanists believe that the black pigment called melanin, in our skin, contributes to our intellect and spirituality. Guess who promotes this theory? You guessed right – this theory is promoted mainly by some black people. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), on the other hand, believes that white people are inherently superior to any other race, and that they are following the Bible in doing God’s work. In fact, they’ve often used the religious symbol of the cross for various activities… The Nazis believed that the Aryan race was superior, and acted to exterminate supposedly inferior races such as the Jews.

Rest assured, each of the above has brought a wealth of evidence to support the appropriate claims. Yet, there are a few interesting questions to be asked in this context.

Does God check your genes? Or is it your behavior that determines your being chosen? According to St. Ambrose mentioned above, it’s clearly the behavior of the Jewish people that disqualified them from being “chosen”. According to the Orthodox Jews, there is a clear option to join the chosen group by going through the process of proper conversion to Judaism. What’s a proper conversion? Ahhh… weeks of Israeli parliamentary activity has been spent on this issue.

According to Jewish Orthodoxy, the definition of a Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew, or someone who has been converted to Judaism the Orthodox way. Every experienced software programmer will tell you the problems concerned with the recursive nature of this definition. In simple words: Verifying the Jewish-ness of the mother is in essence the same task all over again.

It gets more complicated, since, for instance, an Orthodox Jew will not consider the conversion process done by a Reform rabbi as proper (but not necessarily the other way around). Conversely, for Muslims, the chosen genes are generally attached to the father. This may of-course raise various flavors of strange situations when one parent is officially Jewish, and the other is Muslim.

However, if Judaism is generally inherited, it makes one wonder how come Jews from African countries are darker? And why is there a large percentage of Jews with blonde hair in Russia? Evolution doesn’t work that fast. Apparently, whilst the Israeli parliament and its religious parties were not watching, there have been some, well, you know…

Racism is bad – most people will tell you this. Yet this confusion between genes and way of life has been known to produce false accusations of racism. For example: Is it okay to criticize certain religious beliefs and customs, or is it racism? Does Islam, just as an example, represent a race of people (or several specific races), and it is therefore wrong to speak against? Do the ultra-Orthodox Jews constitute a race, or is it valid to claim they’re wrong and criticize their habits? And what about the Amish? The Zulu? Others?

The question is not purely theoretical – it may have practical implications: If I run a factory that needs seven-day shift workers, is it legitimate to reject the candidacy of an Orthodox Jew who refuses to work on the Sabbath? How come it’s considered okay, for the wine industry in Israel, to employ solely Orthodox Jewish men in the wine manufacturing process (in this case, for the employees not to work on the Sabbath is one of the requirements, in order to get the kosher stamp for the wine)?

<< Prev Contents Next >>

The Hebrew version of this short article was written by Ora Lev-Ron and Shmuel Bartenstein. It appeared on the Hofesh website under http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/chagim/independence.html.

Israel was declared an independent state on Friday, the 5th of the Hebrew month of Iyar, at 4pm.

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister, delivered the declaration speech. Most Israelis were glued to their radios and even nowadays the old statements provide reason for excitement.

It was Friday, the evening before Saturday – an extremely important evening for the renewed Jewish settlement in the land of Israel. It was established as a holiday – the most important holiday of the state of Israel: Independence Day.

– — –

The holiday has been allegedly celebrated ever since in the original date, each year, similarly to other countries. However, in Israel, the religious political power has increased. Suddenly religious people remembered it was not nice to create states on Fridays, when the Sabbath may arrive any moment and bump into the young emerging country. Slowly they have also gained political power. Eventually the Israeli parliament, The Knesset, gently “moved” Independence Day from its original date.

Until 1957, the Israeli Independence Day had been celebrated in its correct time, twice on Saturday and once in Friday. In 1958 it was first “moved” and recently it has changed so much such that only three days of the week have been left, in which it is now “allowed” to celebrate the Independence Day: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Thus, when pupils in school are told that “today it’s Independence Day”, the meaning is that probably it is not really today, but today it’s ok to celebrate according to political compromises.

“He who sues his friend in their secular court – his sin is unforgivable.” (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, book published in 1981)

“Thus, a harsh edict, almost incurable, in the shape of democracy has fallen upon the world. That is a horrible disease that spreads and devours from soul to flesh.” (‘Yated Neeman’ – ‘Faithful Tent-Peg’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, January 1999)

“The dark Zionist regime of the last century will be extinct … The supreme court’s halls shall be swept from their current occupants, whose place will be taken … by Sanhedrin [religious court] …” (‘BaKehilla’ – ‘In the Community’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, February 1999)

“The Knesset [the Israeli parliament] as a whole is against the Bible … It does not matter which laws are made there … Even if we ourselves [the ultra-Orthodox Jews] vote and send our representatives there … to prevent harsh edicts … it does not imply any recognition of this institute …” (Rabbi Chaim Shaul Karelitz, a major ultra-Orthodox Jewish leader, article published in May 2000)

“The ideological perverts also named ‘secular’ … which are beasts. Perhaps improved beasts, one must say, as their external shape is human.” (‘HaShavua’ – ‘This Week’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, April 2001)

And the poor “secular” people – what do they say? Where are they? Alas, there are not too many real secular people, especially not in the Middle East. In fact, most of those granted the title “secular” are exactly those mentioned in the beginning of this book, which wander between the “reality mode” and the “religious mode”. The presence of many secular people, so to speak, is more of a worldwide illusion. There are mainly the more religious and the less religious.

Putting people with religious thinking in power may be hazardous to your health. By definition, a person who surrenders his or her sovereignty to some god of their choice is due to surrender his or her free will (and decisions) to the rules dictated by that god. These rules may not always represent the optimal solution in the real world.

Would you put a country’s education in the hands of a leader who believes that all species were created simultaneously? Would you trust a decision about the future of some territory to be purely rational, when one’s god has already sentenced this territory’s future? What about public busses in Tel Aviv during the Sabbath? And letting poor Mr. Cohen marry his loved one, who happens to be divorced, or even recognizing atheists (e.g., heretics) as patriots? Here is what Vice President George H.W. Bush had to say to Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, in 1987:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.

Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, a Holocaust survivor, is considered a moderate man. Yet, in his 2005 speech during the March of the Living at the former site of the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, while representing the state of Israel, he counted all evils one by one:

“Don’t we understand it easily, what the snake understood? … like poverty, like crime, like ignorance, like atheism, like terror, like anti-Semitism, like atom, like cancer, like AIDS, … isn’t a time that we understand we all must live together?”

Thus creating the equation: atheism = terror and cancer (or pick any other evil of choice).

As opposed to the United States, Israel cannot afford to fall back too much into religion. Yet this process is so clear, that many people simply fail to pay attention to it.

Leaving religion is what made the modern State of Israel, and returning to religion is what will destroy it. Moreover, when this happens, the few remaining secular people will be the ones blamed for the consequences.

<< Prev Contents Next >>