Jewish Atheist

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

Isaac Asimov

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of God with minute and remorseless exactness…It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.”

Mark Twain

HJ Lite, as currently practiced at least on the North Shore of Chicago and at the flagship Birmingham Temple, is a diluted, backward looking betrayal of Sherwin Wine’s basic message, a return to Torah and Midrash, to stories and stories about stories.

Way too much time is spent on these interpretive activities, this intellectual wheel-spinning (but people eat it up; they love stories). The “product,” to use a bit of sports jargon, looks a lot like Reform Judaism.

In its place, I offer my humble alternative: HJ Classic (What Sherwin really was saying).

I: Critique of religion

The first premise in HJ Classic (and the subject of the previous post) is a critique of religion. We must stand with Dawkins and Hitchens…and, in our public events and services, not shrink from directing at religious believers the same sort of tough criticism they level at us (but without the anger and violence): contrary to the prevailing currents of society, religon is bad for you.

It humiliates people before deities, falsely states that salvation and forgiveness come from deities or in the hereafter, and weds humans to destructive delusional fantasies, with a lot of violent acting out, especially by Muslims.

Muslim or dead

I just heard that a huge number of people in the world do not consider Barack Obama — or even his father — Christian. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. Or you’re dead.

Thus Edward Luttwak (I’m a big fan) suggests that police and soldiers in a Muslim country could not guard a President Obama. They’d be required to kill him.

That is the kind of insanity we must oppose — not with more religion, but with the trurh.

II: Scientific perspective on ancient texts

The second fundamental piece of HJ Classic is a scientific perspective on the ancient texts. Let’s recognize them for what they are — and move on.

Long, long ago, when Star Trek was very, very young, there was an episode (”A Piece of the Action”) in which The Enterprise comes upon a race of highly imitative beings who have based their entire culture and belief system on one artifact from a departed colony of humans: a book about gangs in Chicago in the 1920s.

So they’re all dressed in pinstripe suits and carrying tommy guns. And Kirk and Spock, once again flouting Star Fleet’s nonintervention policy, beam down and do the same, in an effort to try to settle their dispute.

Books, beliefs, and spin

A whole belief system founded on one book! Does that sound…familiar?
Why do people get so attached to particular ancient texts? Let’s leave fundamentalists out of it for now. They’re delusional, and they’ll get their own separate rant.

Let’s talk about religious moderates, liberals, people who know better, who know that they can’t possibly take those old books literally, so they add hypocrisy to fantasy and spin the stories so that they’re somehow relevant to us.

When it comes to replacing superstition with reason, religious moderates, as Sam Harris has pointed out, are part of the problem. They subscribe to – and thus validate – the same “sacred” texts as fundamentalists, but they water them down with spin and selective quoting.

This has happened with Judaism and Christianity, unfortunately (I don’t think most Muslims have gotten to that stage yet).

So let’s look at a couple of Jewish examples, so you’ll know what I’m talking about…and learn to see the BS for what it is, wherever it happens.

The new old spin

I have become aware of the disturbing prevalence, if not ubiquity, of a particularly deceptive variety of rabbinical spin. Especially alarming to me as a secular humanist is the fact that it is coming from rabbis a generation younger than I.

For a full explanation of rabbinical spin and how it transforms the Torah text through linguistic chicanery, please see my book. The short version: rabbinical spin is dishonest interpretation that elaborates upon an academically valid translation, quotes out of sequence and context, mixes paraphrase with translation and metaphor, and even makes stuff up!

It is most regrettable that Jews who call themselves humanists have moved in this direction. They’re making stuff up about the Torah, instead of leaving the scroll, philosophically as well as physically, in the library.

Cowards! This is a half-way, wishy-washy kind of humanism that thinks it’s bold to not pray to God – but still continues to revere the ancient texts.

The price of dishonesty

I do not think that the Reform, Reconstructionist, and – now, sadly – humanistic Jews who invest the Torah with wisdom that it does not contain are being honest with themselves or their congregations.

If humanists do not regard the Torah as simply another ancient text and move on to the vast resources of more recent times, how exactly are they different from Reform and Reconstructionist Jews?

From substance to mush

I always thought that it took about a generation for the ideals of a religion to degenerate into mythology and mush. And probably violence. Secular Humanistic Judaism has not reached that point and probably never will, but in one generation, it has already drifted far from Rabbi Sherwin Wine’s original idea: Judaism beyond God.

I don’t know what’s responsible for all this Torah spinning and Torah nostalgia, unless it’s intellectual laziness or the fear of seeming different.

But integrity, as Rabbi Wine would teach, requires us to be authentic. And if “authentic” means “different,” so be it.

Spin case study #1

Thus Rabbi Tamara Kolton — of my beloved Birmingham Temple, from which I have resigned – writes in the April 2000 issue of The Jewish Humanist (“Betty Friedan, Biblical Rachel and Biblical Leah – three good women”):

“Jewish feminist writers are adapting a form of commentary on the Bible that was used thousands of years ago, called Midrash, to allow literary figures like Leah to be heard. We imagine her story. We break the silence of the Torah and give her a voice. We write between the lines of the Torah where there are no words, only the sounds of women who are objects rather than real characters driving their own destinies. You can say that Midrash is a way that ’the feminine mystique’ is lifted off the women in the Bible.”

Religion as creative writing class

The Rabbi then follows with an elaborate narrative backstory of Rachel and Leah, totally the product of her imagination, because, as she notes, the two characters are barely present in the Torah narrative (and in fact didn’t exist at all).

Stories about stories. What hogwash! This is religion as creative writing class, with the Rabbi as the writer-in-residence. Or maybe as film treatment: “Hey, let’s do a movie on the story of Rachel and Leah! In fact, make it a rock musical!”

But she’s giving us nothing new. If you want stories about strong women in difficult situations, they are as close as the public library.

Do your homework!

If Rabbi Kolton has something unique to say about women within the Jewish experience, then let her talk about real women — Golda Meir, Emma Goldman, Jewish suffragettes, abolitionists, civil rights marchers, labor leaders, heads of state. A whole essay on Jewish feminism and no mention of Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug?

Or let her do her homework and address the question of when the idea of feminine equality first appeared in Judaism, because it sure wasn’t there at the beginning. It is the product of modern times.

The value of human experience

Rabbi Wine always used real-life examples. In ancient times the Torah may have been relevant because everybody was so unlearned in matters of morality (at least among the early Hebrews — other societies were more advanced).

Now we have millennia of human experience to teach us good from bad; we have the stories of actual human beings and the lessons they hold for us. And if perchance that is not enough, we have all of the world’s literature.

Making stuff up about the Torah is not only intellectually dishonest and lazy (and in view of what we now know about language, literature, texts and truth, Rabbi Kolton’s assertion that making stuff up is okay today merely because it was okay a thousand years ago is absurd on the face of it).

This kind of spin represents selective reading. Some parts of the Torah are lionized, while others are completely ignored. The spin puts people in a woozy state of euphoria about the Torah. To recover from this state, they should read Deuteronomy 28:45ff.

Spin case study #2

Our second example comes from the online bulletin of a Reform congregation. Let’s compare the rabbi’s writing (the excerpts, in italics, are numbered and enclosed in quotes) with the actual Torah text, insofar as we knows what it says, as rendered by the much-revised and highly esteemed Jewish Publication Society version.

(1) “Chapter 10 of Leviticus provides us with an extraordinary example of human growth. At the beginning of the parashah, Moses exercises his leadership by overseeing the ordination of Aaron and his sons and then supervising the sacrifices for which they are responsible.”

Not quite. It is Chapter 9 that describes some very elaborate rituals involving animal sacrifice. The chapter does not specifically say that the rituals have anything to do with the ordination of Aaron.

(2) “Moses’s energies are focused on ensuring that the commands he received from God are followed.”

The spin begins

The text doesn’t say anything about that, though it’s a reasonable inference. But notice how – by mixing inference with paraphrase – the Rabbi gives us the impression that the text says something it doesn’t say. Chapter 9 (not 10) is nothing but a cookbook description of animal sacrifice rituals.

(3) “When Aaron’s sons offer ‘alien fire’ and die by a fire God sends to consume them, Moses responds as a leader intent on sharing his own perspective and understanding. He takes their sudden death and turns it into an object lesson for Aaron and, by extension, for all the people (Leviticus 10:1−3).”

What did Moses actually say after the Lord has torched his sons? Here are his words from Leviticus 10: “This is what the Lord meant when he said: through those near to me I show myself holy, and gain glory before all the people.”

Immoral moral

To a secular humanist who believes in human dignity, this is as outrageous and degrading an example of subservience as the binding-of-Isaac story. Your sons have just been incinerated because they didn’t do a ritual correctly, and you turn to your brother and say, in effect, this is how God shows his holiness and gains glory. Feh!

That’s an object lesson?? Not for me, it isn’t. The passive acceptance of incineration as the will of God leads directly to Auschwitz.

Let’s continue:

(4) “Throughout the first part of this chapter, neither Aaron nor the people challenge Moses’s directives or interpretations.”

Right. The text doesn’t say anything about their challenging his directives. So…?

She’s making stuff up.

(5) “In the wake of the terrifying sight of his sons’ deaths, and after hearing Moses’s words, Aaron becomes silent.”

Adept literary creation makes the text seem more dramatic than it is. The Torah doesn’t say this.

(6) “In silence, he hears Moses’s instructions about how he is to mourn.”

This is rabbinical invention. In the text, Moses and God provide the instructions, via direct quote.

(7) “In silence he watches his sons’ bodies as they are removed from the sanctuary.”

There’s nothing about this in the Torah text!

Three sentences of adequate paraphrase

(8) “Moses’s voice continues to direct the action. When the sacrifices are completed, Aaron does not partake of them as God had commanded him, the High Priest, to do. In anger, Moses rebukes Aaron for not following the ritual as proscribed (Leviticus 10:16−18).”

Adequate paraphrase of text. Bottom line: who cares how he did the ritual?

(9) “Aaron hears Moses’s chastisement and realizes that Moses has made incorrect assumptions about him and his motives. Rather than respond by changing his behavior or apologizing, Aaron chooses to clarify for his brother the factors he considered when making his decision. Aaron breaks his pattern of compliance with all of Moses’s directives—and speaks. He says, ‘See, this day they brought their purgation offering and their burnt offering before the Eternal, and such things have befallen me! Had I eaten purgation offering today, would the Eternal have approved?’ (Leviticus 10:19).

“Aaron’s words make clear that his decision not to partake of the sacrifice was not a lapse on his part. While well aware of the command, he also faced a dilemma. Aaron wanted to act in a way that was pleasing to God, but the future result of that action was not apparent. Yes, as High Priest, he was commanded to partake of the sacrifice. But, as a mourner, the identity that was closest to him emotionally, he could not eat. Turning to his brother, Moses, for understanding, Aaron underscores how his desire to please God—to act in ways that would gain God’s approval—guided his decision and subsequent action (or, in this case, inaction). Aaron hoped his choice would make him rise in God’s estimation.”

The above is a cluster of what I would call “close inferences,” i.e., slight elaborations of the text (see, e.g., the second and third sentences of the second paragraph – they’re mostly elaboration and extrapolation).

But taken together, they spin a moral lesson whose foundation is obedience to the dictated rituals of the deity. Not very uplifting.

If you want to illustrate the very real problem of conflicting roles, find me some real-life human examples, past and present. I can’t relate to a conflict about which ritual to observe.

Elephant labors, gives birth to mouse.

(10) “The chapter concludes with the next verse, Leviticus 10:20, which is short but open to a variety of interpretations. It begins with the words, “And when Moses heard. . . .”

The JPS version translates it thus: “And when Moses heard this, he approved.”

(11) “All of a sudden, the man who has been giving orders, speaking and directing the actions of others, is now silent. He is listening: listening to his brother, listening to his brother’s experience and to his brother’s perspective.”

Again, literary invention makes the text seem more profound than it is. Aaron has exactly two lines. It’s not like he’s spilling his guts or going on at excruciating length. Yet the Rabbi manages to wring a profound moral out of this simple bit of narrative:

(12) “And through this act of listening, really listening, Moses understands that his assumptions were incorrect. He understands that while he had only been able to see one option, Aaron had seen others. By listening, Moses is able to move from a position of harsh judgment, viewing Aaron and his actions unfavorably, to one of understanding his brother’s decision and accepting his brother’s choices. Moses’s ability to change and grow is indicated in the second half of the verse, which doesn’t lend itself to an easy translation. . . .[I’ve omitted a lot of discussion of alternate translations of the sentence. — AMP]

“. . . However this is translated, Moses comes to understand his brother’s behavior and motivation in a new way. He is able to change his perspective and, with that, his emotional response as well. He not only accepts and approves of what his brother did, but also changes his value judgment.

“Listening, really listening, is a truly demanding and complex activity, which offers the listener an opportunity for growth. When we truly listen to someone, when we hear not only the words, but also their importance to the speaker on an emotional level, we are transformed. By reflecting on another’s words, we come face-to-face with who we are, and the assumptions and judgments we bring with us. And like Moses, when we listen, we find that, in the end, it is we who change. It is we who benefit from the opportunity to see anew someone whom we have judged harshly in the past. It is we who can move so that others and their actions can ‘rise in our estimation’ and ‘find favor’ in our eyes.”

Whew! That is one hell of a lot of exposition for a few lines from a primitive text. And given that it’s all predicated on a shaky foundation of which ritual to observe, it really doesn’t relate very well to the life of a modern secular humanist – or any modern Jew, for that matter.

Do your homework!

If the Rabbi had instead spent her time looking into the lives of actual Jews who had to deal with conflicting roles or who learned something from really listening (are these really such profound lessons?), she would have found much more nuance, complexity and subtlety. And she wouldn’t have had to invent it – it would be real.

Midrash = making stuff up

Where are they teaching these young rabbis that they must continue the tradition of the Midrash, when modern scientific methods tell us (pretty much) what the Torah says, and the Torah doesn’t say much that’s relevant to us?

Are there no stories to inspire us other than Torah stories? Is the purpose of rabbinical teaching to make us all into mini-Midrash scholars, instructing us in the ways of spinning profundity out of nothing much?

Needed: courage

A rabbi doesn’t impress me with his/her command of Hebrew letters. Those are the ABCs (no pun intended) of the job.

What would impress me would be the courage to see that deriving all wisdom from the Torah cuts us off from a great deal of learning, tremendously increases our intellectual burden by confronting us with a lot of stuff that’s irrelevant to us, and, worst of all, through selective quoting and other devious techniques, makes us intellectually dishonest and perpetuates the pretense that there is something profound in this often well-meaning but ancient and largely irrelevant document.

That’s the kind of courage that would impress me. Sherwin Wine had that courage. I certainly have it. But how many others do?

___________________

Alan M. Perlman is a secular humanist speaker and author — most recently, of An Atheist Reads the Torah: Secular Humanistic Perspectives on the Five Books of Moses. For information, go to www.trafford.com/06-0056.