On the Conservative Movement's Gay Rights stand

The other day I was sitting at my desk, the old Olivetti humming in anticipation, both of us just knowing that this was going to be the break-out column, the one that would win the Pulitzer, the one that would get us out of this one-horse-town, to the big time, Peoria, at least. We were going to combine analysis of the Bi-partisan Iraq report with intra-Palestinian bloodletting, Christmas on public property, the slaughter of Muslim by Muslim in Iraq, the possible fall of the Lebanese government, the “Holocaust is a Hoax” conference in Iran, and the price of gasoline. It would've been terrific.

But then, over Ollie's humming, I heard another sound, a grunting sort of noise, accompanied by an indescribable odor. “What's that?” asked I, sotto voce. It typed back that I was covering it's i so it couldn't c (he thinks that's funny). Slowly, ever so slowly, I turned around. What greeted my astonished gaze was an 800 pound gorilla, sitting in my easy chair, chomping on Nachos® wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “No Anal Sex.”

Somewhat taken aback, I asked the monster, “Who are you?” He replied in a Dickensian voice, “I am the personification of the Conservative Movement's Law Committee Decision on admitting gay rabbinical and cantorial ordination, of permitting gay commitment ceremonies.” “Oh, that 800 pound gorilla,” I said. “The one that will prevent me from writing about serious issues.” “Yes, boychick, that one.”

Elsewhere in these pages you will find two rabbinical opinions. The one fellow, Epstein, says triumphantly that no longer will halakhah be used to prevent openly gay people from becoming rabbis or cantors—but they aren't to have anal sex, just... What? We can only guess. The other fellow, Roth, says it's not true, it's all unhalakhic. He's wrong. By majority vote. Later that day I got a call from a friend of mine who attends the Orcharder Avenue Schul. He asked, “Why don't you come and join my place? After all, we don't care about halakhah either.” I demurred. Moments later another friend, this one from the Rochambeauer Synagogue rang me up. “Why don't you come to our place? We actually believe in halakhah.” You can understand my confusion. The world is going to hell in a handcart (Nukes in North Korea and will soon be coming to a radical Islamic state near Israel) and the Wise Men of New York are debating amongst other things whether rabbis can have anal sex with other men? “No,” is the answer, but others thought “Yes.” And who's to check on this? Do we trust rabbi Moishe Pipick who is openly gay and living with a partner not to engage in forbidden er, pleasures or do we put a camera in his bedchamber? Gods, what fools these mortals be. I've heard of re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic, but I never thought I'd live to see the day. Read the newspapers, Rabbis. There are actual real crises out there.

So, why do they engage in this debate? Because they want to be fair to a minority that feels itself excluded. But is there no blow back from this? Membership in the Conservative movement is on the wane. Will this increase membership? Probably not. Will it further diminish it? Probably it will. Similar arguments are occurring in the Episcopal church. So is secession; whole congregations are abandoning the American branch of the Anglican church and are affiliating with African and other more traditional Anglicans. (Yes, it's a strange world in which we live.)

What is to be done? Gay people are people. They want the same opportunities as the majority. And who can blame those who strive to give them what they deserve? Not I. But I can quote Hillel in Pirke Avot, “Do not separate yourself from the community.” This decision will please gay people and those straight people who advocate for them. But it will fracture the once proud Conservative Movement as surely as that 800 pound gorilla collapsed my easy chair. It can be argued that if one looks for the right time to make radical change, it will never come. Martin made this case in his Letter From the Birmingham Jail, and gay people associate their cause with the civil rights struggle. They have overcome. Mazal Tov. Let's see if Conservative Judaism survives the take-over. It might. After all, Hillel also taught that we ought not judge our fellows until we have stood in their place.

William A. Donohue, and the “CATHOLIC LEAGUE for Religious and Civil Rights”

The Iraq war is over. Well, no, it’s not that Iraqis have stopped killing Americans and each other; that continues unabated, it’s that there is now near unanimity that the war was a disastrous mistake from the beginning and only getting worse. But there is a new struggle to replace it. It was brought home to me by a series of disassociated articles in last week's New York Times all of which had as their theme the conflict between religion and secular society.

The piece that really set me going was an advertisement appearing on the November 28 op ed page written by William A. Donohue, president of an outfit called the “CATHOLIC LEAGUE for Religious and Civil Rights” whose logo contains a phallic sword, rampant, emblazoned on a shield with the point penetrating the crest. Surely this is a man who each morning must decide whether to wear his brown shirt or if the black is still sufficient. He tells us that the United States is 85% Christian (which, he informs, means we are more Christian than India is Hindu and Israel is Jewish) and that 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas. “So,” he asks indignantly, “why do we have to tippy-toe around the religious meaning of Christmas every December?”

Let’s stop here for a minute and study the math. 85% of America is Christian? Really? Does Il Donohue know that large segments of right wing Protestants don’t consider Catholics to be Christian at all? Even if we do concede that Catholics are Christians, a full 11% of Americans who are not Christian celebrate Christmas? They do? Religiously, as opposed to decorating their stores to increase sales? And 97% of Americans say that are not offended by Christmas celebrations? The Gallup people didn’t poll me. Did they you? So, what is it that Donohue and his group want? He’s not entirely clear, but apparently he’s opposed to “the neutering of Christmas” which extends to banishing Nativity scenes from public squares, the expulsion of the baby Jesus from crèches not otherwise forbidden, something about banning red and green at school functions and the censoring of “Silent Night” at municipal concerts, etc.

Oh, the horror of it all.

So as not to be misunderstood, Herr Donohue reminds that “it is important to recognize that the few who are complaining do not belong to any one religious or ethnic group—there is plenty of diversity to be found among the ranks of the disaffected.” He means Jews. I don't remember Hindus or Muslims protesting public displays of religious Christmas, but Jews aplenty have for years let their feelings be known. Dirty Christ killers that we are.

Fairness, Donohue informs, dictates that their intolerance (he means our intolerance, gentle—not gentile—reader) “should not trump the rights of the rest of [ready for this?] us.” Us. Not you. He then goes on to extol, or at least to justify, excluding people—Mother's Day, Father's Day, Veteran's Day, Black History Month, Gay Pride Parades—they all exclude someone. All of those are religious, William? Who knew?

By celebrating Christmas, he states in his peroration, “we” (he means not Jews) are celebrating diversity! We should not let “the cultural fascists get their way this year.” Psychologists call it “projection,” the ascribing to others the sins of ourselves. It's a kind of projectile vomiting of inner conflict. If Mr. Donohue is looking for fascists, his mirror is his best source. His rhetoric is identical to Mussolini's in the 1920s and '30s. The will of the people as expressed in me, Il Duce, must not tolerate any dissent!

What do we know of Mr. Donohue? A quick Google search turns up some fascinating data. Here's an interesting item, one among many: “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” Well, I can't speak for Hollywood, but I am a secular Jew and I hate neither Christianity nor Catholicism in particular, though I don't have a particular fondness for Mr Donohue or his ilk. I can't speak for Jesus, either, but as he was a co-religionist, perhaps I can guess what he would think of those who would impose religious values on all. The Catholics I know were appalled when the Supremes ruled that a nativity scene, when surrounded by secular objects like Santas and reindeer is just as secular. They are not; they are objects of devotion which should adorn front yards, and churches. Happy Holidays, Bill!