Romney's Concession Speech: "Praying" for Obama

Photo By MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS

I was relieved to hear Mitt Romney's concession speech, on a number of levels. First, that he even made one last night, meaning that the election was decisive, rather than devolving into law suits, vote recounts, etc. That would've been a nightmare. Second, I thought it was gracious, as in:

"His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations. I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady and their daughters."

Given the often biting tenor of the campaign season, to bow out gracefully and wish your opponent well is a very welcome change of feel.

Third, which gets to the title of this post, there's the issue of prayer. Romney states:

"This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation."

And at the end:

"I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader. And so Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation."

Contrary to what you might expect, I was actually pleased to hear Romney invoke the language of prayer here. I'll tell you why. Just as in my previous post, where I explained how one can rationally say "thank God" as an earnest expression of gratitude, so too one can say "I pray for" or "I pray that" as an expression of solidarity.

The line I particularly liked was "Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him". Meaning, rather than come out and say something like, "The election is over, but we will keep fighting!" or say other things to the effect of "this is not my president", he instead invoked language of solidarity with the president, as if to say, "This is one country, with one president, and we're all together in this."

In a similar vein, Romney spoke about working together and getting past partisan politics:

"The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work."

True, there's no reason to believe partisan bickering won't just continue as usual, but even to hear this "sentiment" coming from someone who was so involved in the bickering for the better part of the past year, is again a relief. It's a message that bears repeating - and taking seriously.

Now for a Jewish tie-in. Related to getting beyond partisanship, beyond extremist tendencies and toward moderation, I was thinking about the language and content that people tend to give over when talking "to their own" versus talking to people outside their circle. For instance, and this drives me nuts frankly, when frum Jews say the most preposterous, extreme and/or offensive things when they're speaking to a frum crowd. That includes of course rabbis and people in leadership positions. Bring these same people to an audience of non-frum Jews, or non-Jews, and they would not dream of making similar remarks. They'd be forced to articulate themselves in a far more reasonable, even-keeled, judicious, pragmatic way.

That is part of the problem, it seems to me, with partisan politics. When politicians on the left and right speak to "their crowd", they're less reasonable, less even-handed. They appeal to the more extreme sentiments in order to garner support, which ends up locking them into more extreme positions that they now have to fight for. The result is not a "reach across the aisle" mentality but a "knock 'em down and grab as much as you can" mentality.

What's the solution? Well, you can't keep politicians from speaking to their own crowds. But certainly it would help if they were forced to speak more often to the "other side", because the more people do that, the more reasonable thinking and policy-making is engendered.

Or how about this as a radical idea... When it comes to say, presidential primaries, we say as follows: If you're a registered Republican, you vote for the Democrat of your choice. And if you're a registered Democrat, you vote for the Republican of your choice. That way, Republican and Democrat politicians have to appeal to the opposite side of the aisle and not take extreme positions, and we end up with a field of candidates - and maybe a political atmosphere - which stands some realistic chance of working together toward solutions.

Hurricane "God"

First off, I want to say that my heart goes out to those people who have suffered as a result of Hurricane Sandy. I'd like to make two points, one brief and the next I'll try to keep as brief as I can.

1. Thank God more people weren't killed. And when I say "thank God", I mean thank the fact that we live in the 21st Century, with the infrastructure and communications that enable us to prepare for and weather storms of this magnitude. And thank human beings for actually devising and building the technology that makes this 21st Century reality possible. Because given the immense destructive power of this storm, the loss of life could have been much, much worse - and it would have, had the same storm hit 100 years ago.

I say this because this thought did occur to me, and also to illustrate how a non-believer can say "thank God." It's essentially a way of expressing gratitude in cases where there's no one "person" or "factor" to whom to direct it. "Thank God" is an expression of general thankfulness. It doesn't have to mean anything more than that. And to those who reply that it's disingenuous, I'd say that a true and from-the-heart expression of gratitude, however you express it, is far more genuine than a "thank God" or "baruch Hashem" which is said as a perfunctory religious statement with no real emotion behind it.

2. I can't say that I was surprised, more pained and embarrassed, by this video making the rounds where a certain Rabbi Leiter blames hurricane Sandy on gay marriage. The sad thing is that the charedi establishment is not even at the level of Pat Robertson, who at least had the good sense to keep quiet this time around! Though I have to say, I find this rabbi's words far less frightening than I do the kind of virulent hate that gets spewed out in YouTube comment sections, in this case calling for Jews to be killed, thrown out of the country, etc. For all you kiddies out there... Yes, there really are monsters in the world.

But on the brighter side, I was very much  heartened by this article by R. Shmuley Boteach wherein he lambasts the presumptuousness of religious people who assert that such-and-such disaster happened "because" of such-and-such wrong behavior on the part of the victims, as a form of Divine retribution. (Yes, he has a book coming out on the subject that he's also promoting, and yes he's currently making a run for Congress, but I'm not so cynical that I can't appreciate the article for its content!). Let me pull out a few choice quotes, starting from the top:

"What was G-d thinking when he sent Hurricane Sandy and what could have been its purpose? In truth, I don't much care..."

Beautiful! Now, personally I would say that the question is a non-starter, because I wouldn't assume that God sent Hurricane Sandy in the first place. But... If you're going to take the common religious position that everything happens in the world because God wills it, then this is a MUCH healthier attitude. Yes, God did it, and must have had some reason in mind, but I don't know what it is and frankly I don't care... Much, much better. He continues from there:

"...because our role as humans is not to understand G-d's plan in the face of horror and tragedy, but to challenge God and demand that human life always be protected and preserved."

Again, I wouldn't presume any plan on the part of God, no less "demand" anything from God. But for believing folks, it is MUCH healthier to get angry at God for not doing a better job protecting us than it is to rationalize or as he says "divine the mind of God" in the face of tragedy. It's better for the same reason that Iyov's position (bitterly claiming Divine injustice) is preferable to that of his visitors (self-righteously claiming Divine justice). It's better because at least it's not constructing an absurd reality whereby anyone who suffers is being somehow punished for their sins. Ok, next quote:

"I have grown weary of those who say that suffering is somehow redemptive, that it carries with it a positive outcome. I do not deny that this is at times so. Those who suffer can sometimes emerge humbler, wiser, gentler. But let’s get real. There is nothing beneficial that comes from suffering that could have not been achieved far more effectively through a positive means."

Too true! Even for those who suggest that suffering makes us better people, I agree that it's time to stop romanticizing suffering. We don't need it, and we don't want it. (And I have a feeling this is what his new book title "Fed-Up Man of Faith" is hinting at, a bit of a jab at Soloveitchik's "Lonely Man of Faith", getting away from the idea of romanticized suffering and existential/theological angst as a part of religious life. As he goes on to say:

"It is time we human beings agreed to wage an all out war on suffering so that it is never excused as something blessed again."

Yes - thank you for saying that! Because we do need to make meaning out of our suffering. And one of the best, most constructive ways to do that is to take one's suffering as an occasion to try to REDUCE the suffering in the world. THAT is fantastically meaningful - and not just to oneself but to others, in a very real and concrete way.

So would I have written this article differently? For sure. Aren't the points I picked out from the article ones that should simply be obvious, self-evident? For sure. But for a traditional, God-believing religious Jew to say this I think is a beautiful step forward.

The First Rashi - Thorny Theological Territory

Rashi's very first comment on the Torah quotes the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat Bo), which says the Torah should have started in Shemot 12, where the mitzvot instruction of the Torah gets underway:

Said Rabbi Yitzchak: It was only necessary to begin the Torah from “This month is to you,” since this is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded in. And what is the reason [the Torah] opened with "Bereshit"? Because of [the verse], "The strength of His works He told to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations" (Tehillim 111:6).

End of the Midrash citation. Rashi then adds his own words:

For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, "You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations," they say [back] to them, "All the earth belongs to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He created it, and gave it to whomever was fitting in His eyes. By His will He gave it to them, and by His will He took it from them and gave it to us."

Clearly, Rashi felt this would be an effective retort. He was coming from 11th Century France, at the time of the First Crusades. The Crusaders were people who held of the divinity of the Bible, and yet as evidenced by the fact that they laid siege to Jerusalem, slaughtering Jews and Muslims alike in their quest for control of holy sites, they contested Jewish claims of being the "rightful inheritors" of the land. But how can one believe in the Bible and dispute what's written in black and white, the theme that runs throughout the entire Torah, and especially the book of Bereshit, that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews? That's how I interpret Rashi here.

Two comments on this:

1. Even in Rashi's time, would this really have been an effective response? Wouldn't Christians have simply said in reply: "Well, once again, God took it away from you and gave the land to people more fitting in His eyes - the ones who accept His one and only Son, our Lord and Savior!"
2. In our time, this response would be considered circular reasoning, a laughable line of argumentation. A person hears this today and says: "So what? Your ‘proof’ that the land belongs to you is in your own religious text? You’ve got to be kidding me.”

When I look at this Rashi, while I understand the desire to underscore our connection to Eretz Yisrael, historically and emotionally, what I dislike is the language of theological justification. Ironically, it is precisely Rashi's "retort" to the nations that provides the justification for the Crusades. Even the most horrific bloodshed can be justified if it's deemed as being in accordance with "God's will," whether that "will" is identified in Scripture, commentary, by clerics or prophets. As soon as we go down this road, what results is a battle of justifications, what my god says vs. what your god says.

Regarding the land of Israel, of course there is a legitimate Jewish claim on the land. Do we have to defend that claim? Unfortunately yes. Is it an "exclusive" claim? No, and that's part of what makes it a tricky issue to work out. But if we have any hope of working it out, we have to stop using language about what God "wills", who God "likes" better and wants to give the land to. It's a conversation that holds no possibility of different sides coming to an agreement. It's a line of discussion that necessarily ends in killing. It's just a question of which one thinks their Messiah will come and magically work everything out, and which one thinks the way to bring the Messiah is to start the slaughter.

To sum up, using theological reasoning to feel an attachment to Eretz Yisrael - if that's your thing, fine. But to brandish theological justifications about our "God-given right" to a piece of real estate - this is an exceedingly bad idea. It's what I'd call "anti-TED", an idea definitely not worth spreading.

Thank You Torah Temimah!

I was looking at the Torah Temimah over Shabbat, which cites passages in the Talmud where verses in the parsha appear, and offers some commentary on the Talmudic statements. Devarim 28:46-47, in the middle of the infamously long section of curses, says: "They (the aforementioned curses) will be a sign and a wonder upon you, and upon your descendents, forever. Because you did not serve Hashem your God with joy and with gladness of heart, from an abundance of everything."

About this verse, the Torah Temimah cites Arachin (Erchin) 11a: "Where do we derive the requirement of the song (shira) of the Levites from the Torah?... Rav Matna said: From here - 'Because you did not serve Hashem your God with joy and with gladness of heart.' What service is done with joy and gladness of heart? You must say it is song."

Now, there's nothing whatsoever about Devarim 28:47 which by any stretch of meaning would point to the Levi'im or their song. It's obvious that Chazal had in mind the joy and significance of the shira (singing), and one of the sages looked at this pasuk, made a mental association to the Levi'im, and eventually it made its way into the pages of the Talmud. In other words, there IS NO reference to the Levi'im singing in the Torah. But there IS a tradition about the singing, and for whatever reason (actually we'll see the Torah Temimah's reason below) Chazal felt it was important to hang that tradition on a pasuk in the Torah.

And there's nothing wrong or disingenuous about this - so long as one is honest about it and acknowledges that it's merely a pedagogical tool. I say "merely" but I don't mean to diminish its importance. It's a fantastic teaching tool! The problem is when "frumkyte" starts to demand that we all believe that the Torah itself is telling us about shira, when clearly it's not, or that this drash is "built into" the Torah, that Rav Matna received this tradition from Sinai, when clearly many/most/all of these drashot were developed by Chazal as memory tools. Why is it such a big problem to hold this erroneous belief?

1. Because it ups the ante on what one is required to believe in order to be considered "frum", incorrectly identifying people who don't believe it as "heretics". 
2. Because it's not true even from a traditional Torah standpoint, and why should we encourage a misconception of Torah? 
3. Because when you feed people notions that are untenable, the mind starts to regurgitate, and it's things like this which make people roll their eyes at the Torah tradition and make them want to distance themselves from it.

But you don't have to take my word about drashot being pedagogical tools created by Chazal. Take it from the Torah Temimah (R. Baruch Halevi Epstein) himself!

"We have already written a number of times in our treatise about the question of Aggadic drashot (interpretations) like these, where the intent of Chazal is not to explain the plain meaning of the text [and] to instruct regarding this interpretation literally. Because the truth is that no Scripture ever goes out of its plain meaning. Rather it is that the method of Chazal in holy [writings] is to juxtapose (l'hasmich) every matter that is received [in the tradition] and pass it down from generation to generation using some word(s) in the text of the Torah, so that this matter will have a hint or sign [in the text]. Because according to the law it is forbidden to write down matters within the Oral Torah, and therefore it is good and proper to give each matter that is taught in the Oral Torah a hint and an associated-text (asmachta) in order to remember the matter, since this is the nature of memory, where if there is something with which to associate a matter, it will remain in one's memory..."

That's the Torah Temimah's comment on the Gemara in Erchin. Chazal didn't want to write down oral traditions like the shira of the Levi'im, so they attached such traditions to the Torah text. The system of drashot was a fantastic creative project of associative thinking and memorization techniques. Thank you Chazal for creating it, and thank you Torah Temimah for saying it straight!

Teshuva for Believers and Non-Believers

I was reading Rabbeinu Bachya's commentary on Ki Tetzei over Shabbat. Devarim 22:1 talks about "hashavat aveida", returning a lost object to its owner. R. Bachya puts it simply: "Each person should desire the benefit/welfare of his friend." And he goes on to say:

This is what is meant by: "You may not hide yourself" [so as to ignore the lost object and not return it]. Don't understand this as referring to a lost object only; rather this is the law regarding ... all the other benefits that a person has the ability to bring to his friend, or to remove and push off damage from him. He is obligated in all of them, as it says: "You should love your neighbor like yourself."

It struck me after reading this that regardless of whether you're an atheist or a believer, THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT Jewishly - namely, simply wanting the best for one another, not wanting to see them suffer, and actually taking action to improve one another's welfare, and to prevent them from incurring harm. And it has nothing to do with the issue of "belief". If we have any commitment or love for Judaism, THIS is the foundation. This needs to be the focus, the essence of our spirituality as Jews.

And unfortunately we look around and see that this is very often not the case. Disappointingly, we see that religious Jews all too often lack this basic foundation - being so hyper-focused on externals, whether relating to dress code or minute details of this or that ritual halacha, far more focused on perfecting "their mitzvah" and gaining "their Olam Haba" (or simply caught up in everyday life) than they are on desiring the benefit/welfare of people around them. It's not that frum Jews are any worse than others in this regard, but someone who is truly "frum" should positively excel in the area of concern for others. They should conduct themselves as if this is their very reason for being. Love for one another should ooze out of their pores. Because THAT is what it means to be religious. That is what it means to thwart the human tendency toward self-interest at the expense of others, the tendency that makes kids cruel to one another, and which makes adults look at one another in the street as "noise", people in the way, ahead of us in line, taking up space and resources, or as means to ends. If we don't combat that tendency and start looking at each other as people whose well-being we genuinely we care about, what exactly have we accomplished? How have we evolved or matured, and how can we possibly think of ourselves as "spiritual"?

But I bring this up not just to harp on frum Jews who aren't getting it right. I also have to say I'm disappointed in the skeptical "community" for often being shameless offenders in this regard. Not only is the tone of discourse routinely used in blogs and comment sections highly disrespectful, devoid of sensitivity, filled with flippant, sneering and cutting remarks, but there doesn't even seem to be an awareness that there's anything wrong with it! It has so become the norm that no one bats an eyelash at it, let alone speaks up and rejects it as immature, mean-spirited, and not in keeping with our ideals. There's no "conversational pressure" against it. And again, it's not as if the skeptical Jewish community is worse than others - indeed there's no corner of the internet where you don't see people ripping one another apart with shameless abandon.

I'm suggesting here that when we post comments, we try to remember that we're speaking to another human being. And if we want to think of ourselves as mature, sensitive, spiritual, evolved people, we should be every bit as concerned with that person's benefit, their physical and emotional well-being, as we are with the point we're trying to make. If we're in that head-space, how on earth would we say something designed to make them feel bad, feel stupid? Yes, there's a place to disagree - of course there is. And there's a place sometimes to be sharp. But as I've said before, people are more important than ideas. So we can try to destroy an idea, but don't destroy the person in order to kill the idea. That's a big mistake.

I'm reminded of a Gemara I saw recently, in Berachot 10a. There were some hooligans in Rabbi Meir's neighborhood, and he davened that they should die. His wife Bruria chastised him that he should daven that they do teshuva, quoting a pasuk that "sins will cease and there will be no more evildoers" - it says "sins" should cease, not "sinners". So Rabbi Meir davened for them, and they did teshuva. (Happy ending - halavai it were that easy!) Point being, even for the lousy people of the world, we should desire their well-being rather than their destruction. "Kal v'chomer" (all the more so) for the vast majority of decent people out there, we need to desire their well-being. We need to act on that desire, and we need to be vigilant about it.

And I'll say further. If Jewish skeptics/atheists don't conduct themselves in a refined, dignified, evolved, sensitive manner, all this does is feed into the idea that without God to tell us how to behave, we become a bunch of "behemas" (animals). So it's particularly incumbent upon such people to make a statement that this is NOT the case. How? By demonstrating that it's not the case, with our words and our actions. Yes, it is possible to be rational and uncompromising in matters of truth, AND to be of the finest character, highly sensitive and evolved. It is possible to reject the part of Torah that is worthy of being rejected, AND to enthusiastically embrace and fulfill the part of Torah that is worthy of being fulfilled and embraced.

That's the teshuva we all need to work on - skeptic and believer alike, Jew and non-Jew alike. So with that, a happy and productive Elul to one and all!

Tearing Up the New Testament

Minister of Knesset Michael Ben-Ari caused an uproar this week when he publicly tore out and trashed pages of the New Testament in a Bible sent to him (and to all MKs) by Victor Kalisher of The Bible Society, a Messianic Jewish organization (i.e. Jews for Jesus). Two brief points I'd like to make on this:

1) I'm far more concerned about the "messianic Judaism" of Ben-Ari than I am about the group who sent out the Bibles. Let me put it this way - in the continuum of beliefs (from better to worse, in my opinion), we have:

a) rational/benign
b) delusional/benign
c) rational/dangerous
d) delusional/dangerous

Jews for Jesus are in the "b" category, as are most decent, moderate religious folks. But Jews like Ben-Ari earn a solid "d". Yes, sending the New Testament to Jewish MKs is provocative in its own right, but that is altogether different than reacting by publicly antagonizing 2 billion Christians by destroying their holy book on camera, inside a Knesset office with the Israeli flag in the background - and in so doing unilaterally damaging Israel's relationship with the Christian world.

I'm all for standing up for what's right even when it's unpopular, and occasionally being a bit radical if that's necessary to get things done (by writing a blog like this, I guess that's obvious!), but the priority always has to be people over ideology. And that requires the ability to be pragmatic and flexible, to work with people, to compromise, and seek out live-and-let-live solutions. By deliberately alienating, provoking and essentially "flipping the bird" to the entire Christian world in order to show everyone what he thinks of the New Testament and attempts to proselytize to Jews, Ben-Ari has proven himself to be ideologically narcissistic, a "kanai" (zealot), a loose canon who has no business holding public office or representing the State of Israel. He's lucky it was a New Testament, since Christians are by and large civilized folks who don't take to the streets in a frenzied rage whenever a stupid stunt like this gets pulled.

2) I also want to mention this article from yesterday's Jerusalem Post: Christian MK calls for legal action against Ben-Ari. What I find particularly unfortunate about this is, assuming any legal action is warranted here, why should it be that a "Christian MK" is the one who has to call for it? Is what Ben-Ari did a "Christian" problem, because it was an affront to Christians? Or is it something we all need to be concerned with and do something about? Jews generally have a good track record for defending the rights of others, standing up against tyranny, injustice and intolerance, even when it doesn't impact us directly. But in this case, out of 120 MKs, it's the one Christian who has to take the lead on this. I find that highly disappointing and frankly embarrassing given the fact that this is not simply a case of "the other guy" being intolerant - it's Jewish intolerance, of a highly charged religious variety.

Jews, and especially Jewish elected officials in Israel, need to stand up in defense of Israel's Christian minority, in the same way we'd want Christians to stand up in the 99% of other places in the world in defense of the Jewish minority (which for instance would have been appreciated in the recent ban on circumcision in Cologne, Germany). Because that, my friends, is how we're going to survive and thrive in this world. Decent, benevolent, good-willed people need to have each other's backs. We need to be willing to fight the other guy's fight, when that fight is righteous, as if it's our own. The same goes for the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The only way this situation is going to resolve positively and peaceably (again, in stark contrast to MK Ben-Ari's "Kach" approach) is for both peoples to adopt a "got your back" mentality. But that's another story for another time...

Why Don't I Feel the "Unity"?

I was reading the Jerusalem Post over Shabbat, and I found a writeup about a conference which took place in South Africa a few weeks back called the "Sinai Indaba" (indaba being Zulu for "business" or "matter"). The conference, arranged by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, featured an array of international speakers "from almost every walk of Torah-faithful Jewry".

Let me start off by saying I'm sure it was a productive, stimulating, enjoyable conference for all involved. It sounds like a great event, and I have absolutely nothing negative to say about the conference per se. That said... Let me quote from the Post:

The inclusive nature of the Indaba is a core element of Goldstein's aim to replicate the unity experienced by the Jewish nation at the foot of Mount Sinai, described by the sages as being "like one man with one heart." This unity is understood to be a prerequisite to the proper acceptance of the Torah, and is perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing today's Torah world, in which partisan allegiance to particular brands of Torah often creates great schisms in Orthodox Jewry.

To overcome this challenge, Goldstein looked for the core commonality underlying the various groupings, around which he built the Indaba. He explained: "The common feature uniting the rich array of topics and speakers is the acceptance of the basic tenets of Judaism as defined by the 13 principles of faith set out by the Talmud and codified by the Rambam [Maimonides]. At the heart and soul of the Sinai Indaba is the principle that God gave us his Torah for all times, all places and all circumstances; and, therefore its breadth and depth are limitless, as is its capacity to inspire, enlighten and guide Jews in every generation."

A few reactions to this. First off, I have to admit I don't quite know what to do with the idea of "unity". It obviously has a powerful emotional appeal. I'm a sucker for tearing up when thousands of people are singing the Star Spangled Banner or Hatikva - it's something about people from different backgrounds coming together to stand for something, to express gratitude, affiliation, and yes, unity. And I recall very well the first few days following 9/11, there was a feeling of unusual goodwill among Americans, strangers on the street. People were more polite, more considerate - it was a sense of being "in it together". Of course this is a generalization, but the positive sentiment was palpable. That's a unity based on acute awareness of there being an "other" - which happens in times of war. Israel has had that kind of "unity" thrust upon it all too often. It's the one silver lining in the dark cloud of war.

Speaking of clouds, it would be easy to envision the Israelites feeling unified at the foot of Mount Sinai if indeed they all experienced the clouds and thunder, the ground shaking and fire consuming the top of the mountain, with the voice of God booming out at them. (Forgetting for the moment about the historicity of the story.)

Yet unity is something that makes me nervous. Unity can mean group-think. It can mean a North Korean-style "common purpose" whereby the value of the individual is based almost solely on their contribution to the collective. It's a kind of totalitarianism, like the Tower of Babel, where what looks like great unity of language and purpose ends up being the very thing that destroys them. I recall Dennis Prager once saying that we should be extremely wary when we hear people make calls for "unity", since too often what it really reflects is a person's desire for everyone to "unify" around their own position - "Things would be so much better if everyone would just think like me!"

My experience is that it's actually diversity, not unity, which makes us strong. That thought is expressed in the Torah tradition as well. For instance, R. Nachman of Breslov talks about "machloket" (disagreement) as the "ikkar briyat ha'olam" - the main ingredient for creation. Disagreement keeps us sharp, helps us refine our thinking. Diversity keeps us from being a homogeneous blob. The key is how you deal with that disagreement, how you live with that diversity. To me, that's where unity comes in.

So now let me get to the other part of the quote. What is the unifying factor of the conference, according to the Chief Rabbi? The "acceptance of the basic tenets of Judaism as defined by the 13 principles of faith". Well I feel positively left out! Not only don't I believe in all the 13 - I don't believe in any of them! Now, if there were God, I suppose I'd believe that God was "first and last". And I'd probably believe God has no body. But since I'm not particularly inclined to believe in God - and certainly not "with perfect faith", it pretty much puts me out of the running on any of the 13. So despite the fact that I'm an observant Jew, enjoy learning Torah, and am positively steeped in Jewish life and identity - I can't join the club. Unless I check my particular mind at the door and adopt this set of beliefs, I'm "michutz lamachaneh" - outside the camp.

Now of course, I'm sure the Chief Rabbi and others would have let me join the conference if I really wanted to go. I give him that benefit of the doubt. I have a feeling the "13 principles" notion represents an "official" atmosphere of belief that he hoped would permeate the event. But still, the notion of supernatural belief as a unifying principle is something that gives me pause. Especially when there is so much more within Judaism worthy of believing in - values of life and compassion and justice, freedom and peace and mutual responsibility, the list goes on and on. And I would imagine that in all likelihood it was precisely these kinds of values - and not belief in the supernatural - which comprised the actual core of the conference.

So I leave you with the following questions:

• Do we really need a belief in the supernatural to be able to believe in and strive for all these other values? 
• Does Judaism really fall apart without it?
• Is unity of belief the right kind of unity to envision, or is it unity despite differing beliefs?