Dr. Harvey Alpert 11/30/98 21:56
The Suburban Temple, Wantagh, NY
The Ten Principles are long overdue. A movement cannot define itself by
what it does not believe. Finally, we have a statement of beliefs that
promotes K'lal Yisroel. Tradition is the glue that binds the Jewish
people. This brings Reform into the mainstream of Judaism. Choices will
be made on the basis of study and knowledge and not convenience. As a
Reform Jew, I allow others to make choices that are different from mine
and I think no less of those who choose not to keep kashrut, wear a
kippah or tallit, keep the Sabbath holy as long as their beliefs are
grounded in study. At last I read a set of beliefs that would make me
proud to be a Reform Jew.
Laurie H. Livingston 11/30/98 16:45
Peninsula Temple Beth El (member), San Mateo, CA
I could not even finish reading this in the magazine because it was so
rupulsive. If this passes, my children and I will join swelling ranks
of the unaffiliated. I have gone to great lengths to give my kids a
strong Jewish education and Jewish identity. They love going to
temple. But this proposal, at least the part I read, is too regressive
and orthodox for me.
Erwin and Sima Lesser 11/30/98 16:44
Temple Beth Am, Miami, FL
We have been members of our Reform Temple for over 35 years, but we
have pretty much, very sadly, decided not to renew our membership for
next year. this is not because we no longer believe in Reform Judaism,
but rather that organized Reform Judaism seems to have left its roots.
One of us (E.L.) was raised with no formal religious affiliation, and
it was not until he met S.L. and was introduced to Classical Reform
Judaism that he could freely affiliate with organized Judaism. The
other (S.L.) was raised in Classical Reform Judaism and remains
wholeheartedly devoted to it. Neither of us could have affilitated with
a Conservative or Orthodox synagogue, yet we believe wehave been every
bit as Jewish as their members.
We have no argument with
those who wish to follow the traditional practices as described by
Rabbi Richard Levy, but we no longer find a place for those of us who
prefer a more rational, rather than emotional, religion. The practices
described by Rabbi Seltzer, more rational and thoughtful, appear to be
going into extinction. The choice appears to have been eliminated; we
wonder how many more like us are out there with no place to go.
Erwin and Sima Lesser
7670 S.W. 142nd Street
Miami, FL
33158-1636
Tel.: 305-238-1829
e-mail: IrvL114@aol.com
Keith Raffel 11/29/98 14:16
Congregation Beth Am, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Overall, I find Rabbi Levy's reformulation of the tenets of Reform
Judaism to be refreshing, thought-provoking, and enlightening.
However, there is one phrase, which as a Jew of the diaspora, I cannot
countenance. In his Eighth Principle, Rabbi Levy writes, that "we
encourage Reform Jews to make aliyah, immigration to Israel." If he
were merely "welcoming" the decision of diaspora Jews who wish to
move to the Holy Land, I would have no problem with his formulation.
But by using the word "encouraging," Rabbi Levy indicates that those of
us who live, pray, do tzedakah, and study Torah in the diaspora do so
at a diminished level as compared to Jews in the Holy Land. The future
of Judaism would not, I fervently believe, be enhanced by having all
Jews -- or even all Reform Jews -- live in Israel. A Jewish life just
as meaningful can be lived in the Diaspora. Our people have proven
that over the last two millenia.
Roger M. Palay 11/28/98 12:59
Beth Emeth, Ann Arbor, MI
|
To: |
Reform Judaism Magazine |
|
From: |
Roger M. Palay |
|
Subject: |
Responding to Lead Articles |
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the lead articles of the Winter 1998 Reform Judaism issue. I have read the RJ interview with Rabbi Levy. It gives rise to 21 objections, listed below as I01 through I21. I have read the three sidebars on earlier platforms. They give rise to 2 objections, listed below as SB1 and SB2. I have read the "Ten Principles for Reform Judaism - A Draft Proposal." It gives rise to 14 objections listed below as P01 through P14. And, I have visited the Web site. It gives rise to 2 objections, listed below as W1 and W2. In all cases I have tried to clearly identify the source and context of the objection.
With respect to the interview and Rabbi Levy, please note that I do not know Rabbi Levy. Therefore, I must give my response based solely on the text of the interview. I trust that the interview correctly quoted Rabbi Levy in each instance.
The Interview
Objection I01: in reference to question 1, page 12; why now?: Rabbi Levy does not provide a cogent answer to the question.
The interview starts by asking Rabbi Levy, "Why do you think the Reform movement needs to issue a new set of guiding principles now?" His immediate response only asserts that we need a new course for the 21st century. A change in the year of the calendar does not demand, nor should it even encourage, a change in the direction and/or thinking of any group. To be sure, the process of review, reconsideration, and refinement should be on going. However, the change from 1999 to 2000 is no more important than the change from 1960 to 1961.
Objection I02: in reference to question 1, page 12; Why now?: Rabbi Levy begs the question by trying to cast the Pittsburgh Platform as outdated because it is old, and because it has some undue influence over our thinking and lives.
Levy continues the response by suggesting that it is strange that "the Pittsburgh Platform of the nineteenth century continues to influence how we Reform Jews relate to Jewish tradition." Why despair that a considered, thoughtful, and articulate document still has influence? And what influence is there? Is the Pittsburgh Platform read at every service? Is it the source of sermons? Does any sizeable portion of Reform Judaism know what is says, or even know that it exists? The remarkable (not strange) fact is that a document created in 1885, without having been preached, paraded, posted, or even particularly praised over at least the last 50 years, still contains some ideas consistent with current Reform Jewish thinking.
Objection I03: in reference to question 2, page 12; How so?: Rabbi Levy misstates the text of the Pittsburgh Platform, convoluting the meaning in order to attack it.
Levy purports that 'The Pittsburgh Platform argues that "the views and habits of modern civilization" should determine which Jewish "ceremonies" are appropriate'. However, the text of the Platform reads "reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization." Levy's version puts the "views and habits" in the active role of determining the appropriateness of Jewish ceremonies. The actual text suggests that "views and habits of modern civilization" are a metric with which we can consider aspects of religious life. The true platform statement clearly suggests that we do not just follow blindly the practices of yesterday, but that we consider them within the context of what we know and believe today. The subtle alteration that Levy espouses is unjustified and self-serving. The fact that Levy restates the alteration in the second sentence does not elevate the error to correctness.
Objection I04: in reference to question 2, page 12; How so?: Rabbi Levy again misquotes the Pittsburgh Platform, attempting to gain sympathy and righteousness while escaping a sense of responsibility.
Levy changes the platform text from "Mosaic and rabbinical laws" to "mitzvot." This can not be considered a meaningless editorial change. Rather, this is a purposeful play to cloak "diet, dress, and priestly purity" with a sense of truth, righteousness, and universality. Whereas the true meaning of "mitzvot" may be "laws" or "commandments", the popular view and wider alternate use of the term as "good deeds" hides the rabbinic role in creating and enforcing these laws. By referring to "mitzvot dealing with diet, dress, and priestly purity" Levy attempts to elevate man-made rules and strictures, often justifiable only in terms of the need for separatism and self-aggrandizement as "holier than thou" activities, to a level of divine goodness.
Objection I05: in reference to question 2, page 12; How so?: The run-on, second sentence argues against itself with respect to diet.
Levy seems to confuse length of statement with logic and consideration. He begins (or rather continues) with a charge that "a majority of Reform Jews … feel … traditional dietary practices or religious dress are inappropriate." Levy counters the dietary issue by pointing out the increasing diversity of diet. If anything, the increasing diversity of diet is opposed to a strict adherence to rabbinical dictates on what is or is not Kosher and what should or should not be eaten. Apparently, by burying the text inside a rambling sentence the readers are expected to assume that the weight of the words supports his view rather than contradicts it.
In addition, I am totally unaware of any Reform Judaism position that would suggest that Jews should not eat Kosher food. Rather, keeping Kosher, at whatever level, is a matter of personal choice. It is not to be forced (overtly or covertly) on anyone. Furthermore, keeping Kosher is an activity that does not, in and of itself, elevate a person to holiness, goodness, or devoutness. It is a personal decision that reflects yet another facet of human diversity.
Objection I06: in reference to question 2, page 12; How so?: The issue of religious dress is confused and misleading. The conclusion does not support Rabbi Levy's point.
Levy challenges the religious dress aspect of his assertion "a majority of Reform Jews … feel that … traditional dietary practices or religious dress are inappropriate." He does this by pointing out that "more and more Jews of all ages wear identifying Jewish symbols, and when, at the last Biennial Shabbat morning service, more people wore kipot than went bareheaded." However, Levy does not enumerate the "identifying Jewish symbols" in his tally. I can believe the claim if it is referring to wearing a "Chai", but not if it suggests a widespread wearing of phylacteries. To count the wearing of a "Chai" as a marker for wearing religious dress is at best sophomoric and worst purposefully misleading.
Levy's observation with respect to the attendees at the Biennial Shabbat service is more damning than supportive. It reveals the skewed nature of the attendees. After all, if Levy is correct in saying that a majority of Reform Jews would disapprove of such a choice, then, clearly, the attendees did not represent the majority view.
Objection I07: in reference to question 3, page 12; What has changed since 1976?: The first paragraph of the response does not answer the question.
The first paragraph starts by drawing a distinction between the 1976 favoritism toward the word "obligation" versus the claimed current in vogue status of the word mitzvot. It is certainly true that "obligation" appears 9 times in the 1976 document. Of those 9 times, it is used 4 times in titles, and it does provide an organizing theme for the document. Levy's Ten Principles uses mitzvot 12 times, two of which are in titles. Where the 1976 document uses "obligation" in a consistent manner, the new document plays to the many different understandings of mitzvot, be it laws, good deeds, blessing, and/or practices. In any case, changing the "word du jour" from obligation to mitzvot is not a change significant enough to warrant a new statement of principles.
The paragraph then shifts to an unsupported list of items, not for consideration, but merely as a list. There is neither evidence that the list is true nor, in many cases, an explanation just what the item means. These are supposed to be important things that have changed since 1976. The list starts with "A year in Israel." What is this? When did this happen? Nobody went before 1976? Everyone went after 1976, for a year? Then the list moves to "A growing comfort with traditional practice." What is the evidence? What is meant by traditional practice? Whose tradition? Who has a choice? How do we measure comfort? Then there is "An enhanced desire for a richer Jewish life." How do we know? What is the measure? Who gets to say what is a richer Jewish life? What if a person were to want a richer Jewish life, but mean a desire to return to the Reform community, with Reform practices, thought, and insight. Such a person would neither like nor enjoy the numerous moves to "conservative-lite" that have already been instituted. How is that person's vote to be counted? "Involvement with Hillel." What does this mean? Who is counting and what are they counting? What has been the change since 1976? Why is this at all meaningful, especially in response to the interviewer's question? Creating a list of unsubstantiated, unclear items does not justify the need for a new set of principles.
Objection I09: in reference to question 3, page 18; What has changed since 1976?: The second paragraph states a truism, but one that has not changed since 1976.
This paragraph extols the need to work together. The same view is clearly stated in the 1976 document. There is no argument. The view has not changed. Therefore, this can not be a justification for creating new principles.
Objection I10: in reference to question 3, page 18; What has changed since 1976?: The third paragraph references the Ten Principles in an invalid circular justification.
The original question asked what had changed to warrant a new set of principles. Levy created the Ten Principles, which include a call for "new texts and worship environments", apparently to further the agenda of piety and a return to pre-Reform dogma and behavior. Having created the document, Levy points to it here, in the third paragraph, as evidence that times have changed and that we need the new principles. Were there some pre-document existing and urgent manifestation of the need for such a change, then it would be that manifestation that should be presented here. It is inappropriate to point to the proposed remedy as justification for identifying the illness.
Objection I11: in reference to question 3, page 18; What has changed since 1976?: The fourth paragraph reiterates the sins of the previous two in new settings.
On the one hand, the 1976 document contains a strong call for all of the activities proposed by the new draft document, other than the call for the ever increasing use of Hebrew. Thus, outside of the language issue, there has been no change from 1976 to the present. Therefore, Levy should not use the list of activities, other than language, to justify the need for new principles.
On the other hand, the new principles do make a dramatic change in the call for an ever-increasing use of Hebrew, everywhere. However, as in the third paragraph, it is inappropriate to use the proposed document as a justification for creating itself. Where is the external, pre-existing clamor for more and more Hebrew? If it is there, if it is evident, if it is widespread, then merely point it out and substantiate its depth and breadth of appeal.
Objection I12: in reference to question 3, page 18; What has changed since 1976?: The fifth paragraph misrepresents the text of the 1976 document, creating a void where none existed.
Levy states 'The Centenary Perspective said only: "We demand that Reform Judaism be unconditionally legitimized in the State of Israel."' In fact, item 5 of the 1976 document contains three paragraphs, 13 sentences, and over 250 words dealing with the State of Israel. Levy chooses to acknowledge only one short sentence, and then claims that a bigger message must come forth in new principles. Misrepresenting the past does not justify the creation of a new platform.
Objection I13: in reference to question 3, page 18; What has changed since 1976?: The sixth paragraph misrepresents the text of the 1973 document, and grants the proposed principles a strength it may not deserve.
The sixth paragraph claims that between 1976 and today we have come to recognize a need for a stronger statement of gender equity. However, the 1976 Perspective gave an unequivocal, simple, statement on gender equity. It said, "women have full rights to practice Judaism." Levy implies that his proposed text is stronger. This may not be the case. In fact, the proposed text may be a step away from full equity. Levy's reference to the "different contributions men and women can make" is far from a statement of equality and equity. Though it may not have been intended as such, the proposed statement is tantamount to asserting "separate but equal." The 1976 statement stands out as an unambiguous statement. No evidence has been presented that we need to change it, and certainly there is no evidence that we need to move backwards.
Objection I14: in reference to question 6, page 20; "Your proposals undermine the very foundation of Reform Judaism": Rabbi Levy ignores the question and uses the space to put questionable statements on the record, without being challenged.
Levy suggests that it is automatically legitimate to restore some of the things that our forebears rejected. This is not the case. Rather, it might be legitimate, if there is a compelling reason for doing so. To state the absolute legitimacy is to deny the role of science, reason, understanding, and thought in the evolution of Reform Judaism.
To be sure, the rest of the supposed answer is filled with questionable comments and worrisome attitudes. In particular, a blatant reference to "the Torah God gave us at Sinai" flies in the face of true Reform belief. The same is true for statements such as "preparing food as our tradition believes God wants us to" or "Wearing clothing that reflects the presence of God."
Levy tells us what we want. He tells us that we are "crying out to elevate our lives", that we have fallen before the pagan gods of fast food and sitcoms, and that we are inured to the atrocities around us. Where is his evidence? What are the people saying? It seems more a case of Levy's projection of his own concerns than it is our common conscience. Certainly, there will be some who will agree with Levy's positions. Certainly, some of those will be vocal. The point of diversity and of acceptance within Reform Judaism is that such beliefs are not just tolerated, they are accepted. However, they are accepted along with the beliefs of those who know how to turn off the television, how to pass the burger stand, how to plan and engender a loving, caring family, and how we can make our own contributions, however small, to the betterment of humanity. A foundation of Reform Judaism is that very acceptance. Without even looking at the proposals, Levy's response to the question at hand attacks and erodes that foundation.
Objection I15: in reference to question 7, page 20; Should we be separated from other people by Kashrut?: Rabbi Levy mistakenly confers upon separation the benefits of ethnic and religious identity.
There is no evidence of any true societal benefit from separation. There are acknowledged benefits to ethnic and religious identity, but only in the environment of diversity and mutual respect that has been at the forefront of the Reform Judaism perspective. It is true that the clergy have a long history of preaching separation. It is true that there are numerous manifestations of separatist and isolationist idioms. And it is true, that a little demagoguery goes a long way in creating fears of assimilation. Yes, Reform Jews are different in some respects. Yes, Reform Jews can continue to be different and to be proud of those differences. But we can do that without the need for artificial behaviors imposed in order insure separation.
Objection I16: in reference to question 7, page 20; Should we be separated from other people by Kashrut?: Rabbi Levy opens a Pandora's box with the statement "And, of course, you can dine out with friends and eat different foods." What does he mean?
There is little chance to ask an article for clarification in an ambiguous sentence. Levy's statement can be taken at least two ways, and both of those interpretations are entirely consistent with the text and with observable and familiar practice. In the first interpretation, Levy could be saying that following a kashrut existence does not preclude one from dining out with friends. Given the diversity of cuisine, one can always find something on the menu that allows one to maintain the mitzvot, while not forcing one's friends to limit their choices. This may or may not be true depending in part on location and the tastes of one's friends, but it is not really worth an argument.
The second interpretation would have Levy suggesting that following a kashrut existence at home does not preclude one from dining out with friends and eating whatever one wants, independent of maintaining a kashrut home. Not only could the text support this understanding, but this is also a common current practice. One must assume, from the rest of the article, that Levy does not support this second understanding. However, it is sad that Levy could not have been more clear with his statement so that there is no doubt about his intention and feeling in this matter.
Objection I17: in reference to question 8, page 20; Authorship of the Torah?: Rabbi Levy evades the question.
Authorship is not an issue if it is a choice between Joe or Minnie or Dora or Harry. Authorship is a question if it allows for God literally giving the Torah. Levy responds with an obfuscation, but one that includes the phrases "considers the Torah holy", "regard it as received text", and "holds as authoritative." While formally saying the question is immaterial, Levy clearly prejudices the direction toward direct divine authorship.
Objection I18: in reference to question 9, page 20; Individual autonomy?: Rabbi Levy not only obliterates individual autonomy but lays out a program to yield the autonomy of the Reform movement and of Reform thinking to the wider, or rather more orthodox, Jewish community.
Levy is entitled to his view. After all, in the Reform movement, we recognize personal autonomy. Nonetheless, his is a most disheartening position. He dismisses personal autonomy by the generalization 'Reform Jews have tended to interpret "you have autonomy" as "you don't have to."' The question was, "What is too far?" Levy does not give examples. He ignores the question and instead talks about our need to bend our wills, our understandings, our beliefs, and our practices to the "Kenesset Yisrael, the greater Jewish community." One must assume that the Kenesset Yisrael that Levy perceives includes Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, and the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Rhetorically one must ask, does it include the non-affiliated, the non-practicing, the ethnically associated Jews as well? But the answer to that is really not as important as is the subjugation of Reform belief and attitude to the more orthodox sects. Levy uses two issues to present his concerns, same-gender officiation and (in the next section) patrilineal descent. These are important issues. The former faces us and we need to address it with the reason, openness, and humanity that had been the mainstay of Reform thinking. The latter was addressed, although it would seem that the opposition is mounting another attack. However, both issues should be decided by and for Reform Jews respecting personal autonomy and concentrating on reason and rational thought. Had gender equity been subjected to Levy's trail by Kenesset Yisrael, women would still be in the balcony behind curtains.
Objection I19: in reference to question 11, page 21; Where does Levy stand on patrilineal descent?: Rabbi Levy projects an apologistic view where no apology is needed.
Levy needs to more carefully consider the cases. There is a difference if the rabbi to whom he refers is Reform or Conservative/Orthodox. "If a child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother wants to marry a Conservative or Orthodox Jew," a Reform Rabbi will not "require him/her to undergo a conversion process." However, a Conservative or Orthodox Rabbi probably would. Such a conversion is the "ticket" to getting into those sects. It is their game and they make the rules. We assume that the person getting married is an adult, is capable of rational thought, and can make the decision. If such a person decides to choose one of the more orthodox routes then so be it. That is the decision of the person. It requires no intervention by Levy and does not call for us to change our view on patrilineal descent.
Objection I20: in reference to questions 13 and 14, page 20 and 21; Gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies: I do not object to Rabbi Levy's account of the situation. However, it is important to state that using
"taking an official stand on this issue would fly in the face of Kenesset Yisrael and widen the schism between us and other movements"
is no justification for denying gay and lesbian Jews complete access to and support of Jewish life and ceremonies.
Objection I21: in reference to question 16, page 54; Where do you stand in relation to the majority of Reform rabbis?: Rabbi Levy again avoids the question and uses the space to advance a program of more orthodox behavior.
Levy's response does not answer or even address the question. Instead, Levy misrepresents the Pittsburgh Platform and then launches into a defense for increasing the presence of kipot and tallit, along with institutionalizing these garments in the formal service. The omission of an answer is troublesome. The misrepresentation is easily verified (the Pittsburgh Platform does not say, "you don't have permission to…"). But the justification for institutionalizing orthodox behavior is unacceptable. It is not the case that anyone should feel that they can not wear a kipot or a tallis, but it is the case that nobody should be made to feel that they must or should wear such symbols. Levy's position clearly fosters the latter condition. Institutionalizing these artifacts must leave the non-wearer in a position of being an outsider and at best a second-class congregant. And, if anything, the true Reform rabbi would be the last in the congregation to acquire such items, preferring to demonstrate that these items are not mandated by the religion but are rather a matter of personal choice and autonomy.
The Sidebars
Objection SB1: in reference to the all three sidebars: The editorial excerpting of these documents biases our understanding of them and is not justified.
Why excerpt these documents? Their text, nature, and meaning is crucial to understanding the issues at hand. There are numerous references to these documents. Why not print them in their entirety? They are, after all, quite short. They are written in English. They are understandable.
The Pittsburgh Platform is the shortest, containing but 8 points and a short introductory paragraph. The Columbus Platform is a bit longer, but here too it is a mere 9 points, each a bit wordier than was the case 52 years earlier. And the Centenary Perspective, being the longest, comes in at 19 paragraphs and only 1639 words. Furthermore, on what basis were the excerpts made. In the case of the two more recent documents the excerpts completely quote exactly 2 of 9 points and 2 of 6 points from the original documents. We lose any and all sense of the other points. How does this happen? Who makes such a decision?
At the same time that I raise this objection, I do applaud the UAHC and the CCAR for making the text of these documents available on the Web. That was a great help. [I would point out that there seem to be a few typographical errors on those pages. I hope that the errors can be corrected soon.]
Objection SB2: in reference to the Pittsburgh Platform sidebar on page 12?: The text is not an excerpt, as it is purported to be, and does not reflect the actual document.
The text presented uses some portion of the true Pittsburgh text, but it is hopelessly twisted, interpreted, and augmented. Where the original platform was comprehensible, the alleged excerpt is a jumble of thoughts and phrases that defy understanding and appreciation. Why was this done? Who did it? The first two points in the sidebar are given in two length sentences, the first 101 words and the second 72 words long. The original text expressed these same ideas in points numbered 3 and 4, and did so with three sentences with lengths 59, 34, and 29 words. The original took less space and was easier to read. Why change it?
The Ten Principles
Objection P01: in reference to the Preamble, page 14; Much has changed: No evidence is given for this self-serving assertion
It is not enough assert that "much has changed", there needs to be some evidence of this. As noted in the objections to the interview, Levy presents no case for this, other than his ascendancy to his leadership role.
Levy does point out that we will be changing centuries and that a new platform is due for the new century. There is no special significance to the change from one year to another as was pointed out in I01, above. However, if by some chance I have missed to point here, if the start of a new century is cause for writing a new platform, then I welcome Rabbi Levy to table his proposal for at least 40 years. After all, it is 5759 and the new century is 41 years away.
Objection P02: in reference to the Preamble, page 14, paragraph 2; "As rabbis dedicated to a Reform Judaism that can transform through holiness": ..Holiness is inappropriate and misplaced.
From whence cometh this dedication and this interpretation of Reform Judaism. Holiness? Whose idea was this? Transform through reasoned thought, respect for the individual, concern for humanity, an appreciation of diversity … those are the Reform Judaism approaches that have been central to our movement. "Holiness" appears 9 times in this document, compared to a total of 4 times in the previous 3 platforms. In those earlier platforms the term was used as a goal not as a means to salvation.
Objection P03: in reference to principle 1, page 14; Seekers after God: The anthropomorphic idealization of God is inappropriate.
The anthropomorphic idealization of God is inappropriate in a principle for Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism rejects the Biblical tale of creation, it questions the puppeteer understanding of God's role in the redemption from Egypt, and it certainly does not see us standing shoulder to shoulder with God at Sinai. Metaphorically, we can talk of all of these. But the text in Levy's document goes beyond metaphor. Although antithetical to true Reform belief, he is welcome to have it as a personal persuasion. Just do not force it upon the movement.
Objection P04: in reference to principle 1, page 14; Create texts and worship environments … : Text and environment should follow the Reform foundations, not the aggrandizement of ceremony.
There is no objection to creating text and worship environments so long as they serve to further the Reform view of rational thought, science, understanding, humanity and diversity. However, based on the conclusion of the sentence, Levy is clearly not talking about those goals. Rather we are to create texts and environments so that we may prostrate ourselves before God and by inference before God's messenger and interpreter, the pious rabbi.
Objection P05: in reference to principle 2, page 14; … heard God reveal the Torah: As noted above, this is not the Reform concept of God.
Objection P06: in reference to principle 2, page 14; God's mitzvot: God does not have mitzvot, people are responsible for identifying, refining, and fulfilling mitzvot.
Others may look for God's guidance and authority, but the Reform Jew works to do the right thing because it is right, because we can see its correctness and understand its contribution to humanity. The problems that face us are not easy. The solutions are not always clear. But the problems get no easier and the solutions no clearer if one abdicates responsibility and turns to the rabbinic authority to interpret God's mitzvot.
Objection P07: in reference to principle 2, page 14; we proclaim that the Torah is our center…: This is not a statement of true Reform belief.
The closest that we might come to Levy's statement is to proclaim that the study of Torah as a means for training and opening the mind has been and continues to be an important aspect of our development into thinking, caring, and compassionate people.
Objection P08: in reference to principle 2, page 14; respond to the call of Torah in two ways: out of the ever-growing body of interpretation by Kenesset Yisrael, … : "The wide practice of a sin does not make it a virture."
Levy's statement is absurd. If an Orthodox rabbi proclaims that, according to the Torah, Reform Jews are worse than Catholics, do I have to weigh that in my understanding of Torah? If 45 such rabbis make the same statement, do I count it 45 times? Reform Judaism exists independent of the beliefs and practices of the other sects of the religion. Their scholarship, in so far as it is scientific, rational, and open, is always welcome, as would be the scholarship of any other people. Their prejudices, hatreds, and insecurities are not welcome, and have no higher claim to be heard than do the prejudices, hatreds, and insecurities of any other group.
Objection P09: in reference to principle 4, page 14; We are Committed to Shabbat: Another unacceptable call for symbolism.
This is yet another call for symbolism. Shabbat is important. But the concept is more important than the specific day. Our attempt should be to expand Shabbat throughout our week and our lives. Furthermore, given the pressures and opportunities of modern life, it may well be more important and beneficial to recognize the essence and concept of Shabbat throughout the week, not just at the prescribed time. It is the thought, the contemplation, the perspective of Shabbat that can bring majesty, awe, and a love for life and for humanity to us at any time.
Objection P10: in reference to principles 4 and 5, pages 14 and 15; Religious Practice: The changes are only for form, symbolism, and separation. There is no need for these changes.
These calls for ritual and support for ritual are troubling because of their audacity. Furthermore, there seems to be no need for these statements. Levy maintains that so much has changed since 1976, and yet in the 1976 document there is an entire point devoted to Religious Practice. Within that point there are clear calls for
"creating a Jewish home centered on family devotion: lifelong study; private prayer and public worship; daily religious observance; keeping the Sabbath and the holy days: celebrating the major events of life; involvement with the synagogues and community; and other activities which promote the survival of the Jewish people and enhance its existence."
What is it that has changed? What is Levy proposing? Clearly, he is promoting a more separatist life view filled with more ritual and less critical, reasoned thought.
Objection P11: in reference to principle 6, page 15; Expanding the Mitzvot of reform Judaism?: Rabbi Levy proposes institutionalizing matters reserved for personal autonomy.
Levy argues not to expand the concept of mitzvot, but to expand the mitzvot recognized by Reform Judaism. In other words, adopt the mitzvot of the conservative and orthodox sects. As noted many times in these objections, there is no problem with a congregant who wishes to partake of these activities. However, it should not be a principle of the movement to codify and/or sanction such practices unless they contribute to the foundation of Reform Judaism, reasoned thought, respect for the individual, concern for humanity, and an appreciation of diversity.
Objection P12: in reference to principle 8, page 16; … make aliyah: Interesting, but inappropriate here.
An interesting idea, but not one that belongs in the principles. This is a call that should only come from someone who has made aliyah.
Objection P13: in reference to principle 9, page 16; Hebrew as a Holy Tongue: Rabbi Levy expresses his personal view, not a statement of fact.
Here is a new twist and a real change. But from whose agenda does it arise? How does it advance the foundation of Reform Judaism? Would it not serve to exclude those for whom Hebrew holds neither attraction nor meaning? After we have reached a level of understanding and rational thought in our native tongues, after the other problems of humanity are solved, then there should be no objection to additionally learning and using Hebrew.
I must add that there is little that is more absurd than to hear my relatives and friends, from across the spectrum of Judaism, fumble and bumble through the Hebrew version of the Torah blessings. These loved ones insist on making a mockery of the process, knowing full well that they are not up to the task. They attempt the impossible because of the pressure of the environment. They choose to butcher the language even when it is perfectly acceptable to give those blessings in English, a language they all read, speak, and understand. Why would the Reform Jewish movement want to further institutionalize this behavior?
Objection P14: in reference to principle 10, page 16; … honor the different contributions men and women can make.: This is a dangerous step backwards.
This is a step backwards from the earlier platform. As noted above, in I13, the 1976 document was unambiguous about gender equity. The proposed statement is chauvinistic and open to "separate but equal" interpretations.
The Web Site
Objection W1: The documents.: Errors and versions need to be corrected.
It was terribly helpful to have the documents on the web. What a great idea. However, it would have been better to have had the spelling corrected and to have had the same version of the documents as had been printed in the magazine. In particular, there were minor changes between the Web version and the printed version of the Ten Principles. The versions should have been identical, or, if the Web version is a replacement, then such should have been noted.
Objection W2: The "Vote Your View" page. Interesting but prejudiced and flawed.
An interesting idea, but the questions are leading and make it impossible to put any meaning in the results. For example, one can agree with the statement in question 1 and yet totally disagree with Rabbi Levy's interpretation and coloring of that concept. How does such a person vote? Will all the "yes" votes be taken as supporting the statement, or as supporting Levy's view, or supporting Levy's proposals?
A more straight forward set of questions would allow for a more straight froward interpretation of the results. I would suggest questions more like "Should the principles contain a statement supporting kashrot?"
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the articles. Please feel free to print or make available the entirety of these comments. You do not have permission to edit and/or excerpt them.
Roger M. Palay
Saline, Michigan 48176
rpalay@aol.com