More Discussion

This week’s Parashah was the section dealing with G_d opening up a passage through the Red Sea for the Israelites to escape oppression. In this time of heated discussion and attempted compromise on immigration reform, the thought arises that perhaps, if a wall is built, G_d will tunnel the people through who might need to come across. Certainly, in this case, the DACA people are for the most part free to leave. Most of them are not being oppressed, they have rights. The issue is that they also are part of our communities and families, and thus their fates are enmeshed with ours, and it is a reflection on our moral character and history to treat them generously.

At the end of the day, if it means that a young cadre of people must leave their homes and families and go out into the world, and get visas and green cards to come back when the community says “WE MISS THEM”, then this is in fact more than their parents were able to do when they came. The kids are more empowered, and should not sell out their less empowered undocumented friends by building a wall that would make it more difficult for families to unite around difficulties, etc.

So. DACA period. No wall period. We don’t want the problems of fewer than 3% of the US population to dictate the freedom of the rest of the population. And make no mistake about it, a wall will be a pain for everyone who wants to come and go across the border.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the question of the wall

I would rather live in the rest of the world free to move among countries than live in this country surrounded by a physical barrier.

Although I think it is disgusting for DACA immigrants to be held hostage over this question, if the only way that they can gain legitimacy is for us to agree for a wall to be built, then I (arrogantly) make the decision for them, and abandon their cause.

A country with a physical wall is not my country.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Peaceful thoughts

So, I went down to the capitol for the protest. We were a few thousand in the middle of the day on a weekday. I got a $50 parking ticket but opted to stay short of an arrest. I thought I could do without the interaction with the criminal justice system. This ticket is a hardship for me, and the trip was exhausting. The plight of these people needs to be addressed. As many of the signs pointed out, deportations are inhumane.

The juxtaposition of this protest with the recent events in Jerusalem gave me some insight.

What is common about these 2 situations is the idea of self-identity.  Israelis have considered Jerusalem to be their capital for a very long time with all of their government offices there.  The rest of the world has not chosen to acknowledge this identity for reasons of peace with the community that surrounds Israel.  It is difficult because, the shadow of anitsemitism (as with racism) is always present in every evaluation of Jewish relations with the world, and therefore criticism has to be carefully considered.  It is not that these communities are always right, or above criticism.  Indeed they are diverse communities – a fact that is often ignored.  Rather it is that because of existent bias, one has to be able to determine what is culturally relevant to the history of this group, and understand why others without this history may not see things the same way, and then screen this difference very carefully for harmful bias, that many people are not even aware that they possess, which can be strengthened or “validated” by positions.

Rabbi Polack gave a talk last night on nonviolent Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, and there was an interesting point raised during the course of the talk.  The conflict can be seen in its earliest inception with Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael, and Isaac.  Ishmael may be stronger (older) and the first born, but Sarah was Hagar’s master, and therefore, when her own son, Isaac, was born, her son took preference, although the original birth of Ishmael was to have been considered Sara’s birth by proxy.  Hierarchy notwithstanding, it was apparently up to Abraham to settle the peace in his own household, and he felt that the only way to do this was to cast Hagar and Ishmael out into the wilderness.

So here we are 3000 years later.  Isaac (Israel) has almost been sacrificed (on the mountain) with the Holocaust.  The world has determined that they were almost willing to allow the Jewish people to be exterminated in the most horrific way, and so we are left with a “saved” people who must express their right to exist in the face of the most horrific aggression against their own families and lives.  They need boundaries.  They need a country.  It was logical that their original homeland be considered for this.

So, what to do with Hagar and Ishmael (the Palestinians)?  In modern sensibilities, you can’t just kick them out into the wilderness.  This may have worked 3000 years ago, but in today’s world, all sides are empowered to the point where negotiation and settlement are needed.

So, Isaac (Israel) says, “I may not have been the firstborn, but I have decided to have that identity.  The rest of the world may not see me this way, but it is my identity, and in the spirit of self-determination, this is the image that I choose.”  In reality, there is little that changes significantly on the basis of this identity crisis.  The Palestinians are not being asked to evacuate their homes.  They are not even being forced to recognize the Jewish claim of Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol.

Now, the US (Abraham?) steps in and says “We choose to acknowledge Israel’s claim to identity.”  Did the US overstep?  Our friends probably have the right to agree.  Still, Isaac and Ishmael have to make their own living situations.  They have to live with the consequences of how they treat one another.

In the end, it is better to have friends.  It is better to say, “You are my brother, and although I would rather see things differently than you see them, I do value you as a part of this family.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Important Action

I write this message today to give people some time for discernment on how they want to participate in this event. Another arrest is planned for this Wednesday, Dec. 6, along the same lines of what happened Nov. 1. The action is designed to deliberately have a government documented protest against government intervention in family lives by the deportation of undocumented children – basically supporting a congressional renewal of DACA, which was recently repealed.

Can an undocumented person defend themselves with this protest without undue fear and consequence?

If one can defend oneself, why should we care about others who can’t? Isn’t it too risky to get a criminal record over this question?

The results of the first protest were published on Nov. 1.

The time to act:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The high holidays started. Although this is a time of peace, the struggles over the past few weeks had escalated to the point of almost being unmanageable. It crossed my mind on more than one occasion that I might not be in the right frame of mind to participate. Like Abraham, I was tested. So, here I was in what is quite traditionally a return to very Jewish identity, the Holocaust as the ultimate rationale for nationhood and borders, the state of Israel. And yet the head of this both young and old state apparently supporting an angry intolerance of two different states – North Korea and Iran. The disconnect between authority and people has rarely seemed so palpable – as Tillerson eloquently put it, “The President speaks for himself.” So, pro-Israel, but not the one that supports the warlike posture of the leader of the country I live in, I answer the call to be present on Rosh Hashanah, nevertheless understanding that “Silence is not an option.”

We are perhaps just noticeably fewer at the synagogue (parking was a little easier). The service was healing in spite of the wounds that it revisited. We were offered a poet’s response to Muriel Rukeyser’s poem, written during world war II “To be a Jew in the 20th century“, with a seemingly more open posture. As the service moved through the traditional passage on restoring purity, only one person walked out, although many probably mentally made the walk. There was only one overt laugh during the prayer for our country at the line “Let our country be an example to the rest of the world.” And then there was the traditional reading of the binding of Isaac. We were all called to the bimah during the reading, and this year, for the first time, I noticed that none of the women around me said the words. Every year we have struggled with the meaning of this story, interpreting it in different ways. Was it the answer to adolescence – “Don’t look to your father to save you, be a man, only G_d saves.”? Was it the end of child sacrifice- one anthropological explanation? Or was it a “horror movie”-like once-in-a-lifetime Durkheimian-Jungian enaction that evoked a tribal reexperience of fear and then celebration at survival – a sociological and anthropological explanation? Does everything hinge on the word “we” meaning that Abraham knew he would return with his son? Or does everything hinge on the word “tested” meaning it was “for real”? As Abraham raises the knife to his son, I step down from the bimah, and then quickly return as the angel appears to stay his hand. It was my expression of this teleological suspension of the ethical – the asking of the taking of a life that is not yours, but rather G_d’s, to take.

I kept thinking about it, and eventually this year I understood a different meaning. The message was about humility. It was about accepting an origin of being unworthy of life, that only by the grace of an angel is our life spared or given to us. And this is the meaning of the words “only son” as the story is told in the Jewish text. Our people have no greater origin. I remember the stones that are symbolically thrown for the women who would save their sons in other traditions, and I am yet not silent.

Be at peace.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gospel, hurricanes, monsoons, and North Korea

“9Let your love be perfectly sincere. Regard with horror what is evil; cling to what is right. 10As for brotherly love, be affectionate to one another; in matters of worldly honour, yield to one another. 11Do not be indolent when zeal is required. Be thoroughly warm-hearted, the Lord’s own servants, 12full of joyful hope, patient under persecution, earnest and persistent in prayer. 13Relieve the necessities of God’s people; always practise hospitality.

14Invoke blessings on your persecutors—blessings, not curses. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. 16Have full sympathy with one another. Do not give your mind to high things, but let humble ways content you. Do not be wise in your own conceits. 17Pay back to no man evil for evil. Take thought for what is right and seemly in every one’s esteem. 18If you can, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with all the world. 19Do not be revengeful, my dear friends, but give way before anger; for it is written, “‘Revenge belongs to Me: I will pay back,’ says the Lord.” 20On the contrary, therefore, if your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, quench his thirst. For by doing this you will be heaping burning coals upon his head. 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome the evil with goodness.”

The above is from a Weymouth translation of the Book of Romans, authored by Paul. Although sensitive to Judeo-Christian differences, I consider all authors of the “New Testament” to be originally Jewish, so the evolution (or devolution) of their thought is understood in that context.  So, I went to a Methodist church this morning. I felt the need to come to some understanding of recent events, and for me it felt necessary to hear someone else’s thoughts about G_d. Max Weber stated that there are 3 religions that can explain the incongruence between merit and destiny. I don’t the Judeo-Christian tradition was mentioned as one of them. So, the sermon was on the fact that “Life’s not Fair”. We have millions of people right now in Houston who have elephant needs and attachments to their possessions which were lost in the hurricane. Next to this, you have millions of Indians walking to school through waist-high water whose attachment to things was much less, and although 950 lives were lost, the property and infrastructure is relatively less in India. So, Houston will have to be rebuilt, and if there is anything positive to come out of this, it may be that there will not be enough money to rebuild Houston and fight wars, build walls, etc. The money rebuilding Houston and the jobs and more efficient and better infrastructure that will result from this has the potential for good.

What a time (ironically?) for problems with North Korea. So, here I don’t think that G_d is militant. If North Korea has tested a very dangerous weapon, the question remains how to handle this. There are many countries with nuclear weapons, and it is almost insanity to believe that we will get along with all of the countries forever and ever. So, the two problems that I see that could be resolved nonviolently between the US and North Korea are:
1) meeting the needs of the North Koreans for survival and well being in a context of a world that has enough resources to meet these needs. Show concern for the country.
2) North Korea does not accept that the US dictates how it should be – armed, disarmed, starving, with a different government, etc. It very likely sees the US as a threat with nuclear arms the same way that the US sees it. It would be horrible to think that these weapons are safer in a country that has the appetite that the US has, than in North Korea which is possibly defending against national survival.

Do I think morality is on either side of a war? In terms of G_d and the survival of the world, a country with less consumption is probably ultimately better for the world. I don’t think that legislating this is a solution, but I also don’t see maximum consumption legislating others on the verge of survival as being a good way forward for the world.

So, why not accept that N. Korea will become nuclear, allow them to have a life-style which is comfortable for them, and be at peace with the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


As I listen to the back and forth on this issue, it occurs to me that the opinion is out there (I’ll say way out there, but for others it is not so far) that the foundation of the united states is corrupt. I think that there are at least a few that feel that overthrowing a “white supremacist” government and restarting the country with a “more moral foundation” would be a noble path forward that would channel a lot of energy – a complete rejection and break from the past. And then, I reflect on the other alt-right side that seems to want to take down the government (or weaken it) from within (hire people who have wanted to destroy agencies to lead them, etc.). With both of these movements given voice, we (define we here, but maybe I mean those caught in the middle) try to ensure that most people can live happy productive lives in the limited environment that surrounds us.

So, here I would argue that physical walls are for the most part (again avoiding absolutism) a really bad idea. If in a moment of tension, we weaken to the point that strong government does step in, the walls become our own prison that we have built for ourselves. It is much better to resolve issues with words and kind diplomatic gestures than to create barriers for ourselves to get in and out of our own homes. It is a challenge (that can be practiced daily) to learn to resolve conflicts oneself without violence or threat of violence, to develop the presence that allows our own individual peace and will to be able to find and express itself.  Vine Deloria, Jr. made an argument in his book that “Geography is often used to trump history.” This statement is often true about Native American history – the displacement of the Native Americans to reservations, about segregation – the separation of people with imagined possibly different agendas, about prisons – the building of walls to separate crime from the everyday world, and ultimately about political geography. Nations build and defend borders to protect their way of life; often displacing those that interfere with it. Deloria’s statement is a military statement. If one would rather see nonmilitary solutions to conflicts then, perhaps, extending this provocative thought, we should try to increase our level of tolerance for discomfort with other people’s histories.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment