12 posts tagged “judaism”
Does it ever annoy you how many times in a day, week, month or year you hear the same tired argument (usually depleted by conversational Chinese whispers) being trotted out without anyone bothering to examine what they've said and actually decide if it's an accurate statement?
I love to read and write about faith and religion, but I rarely indulge because I simply can't be bothered to deal with the anti-God brigade anymore. Not because they don't have their right to an opinion - I really do respect people who are thoughtful, educated atheists; I might disagree with them but at least they've thought about it - but because so often you get a slew of comments along the same anti-religion line that not only miss the point spectacularly, they also cast these people as exactly the same as the people they're criticising.
The argument is that "religion has killed more people than XYZ / caused misery and suffering."
Okay, let's get this clear. Stalin was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of around 40 million people. He was an atheist and belonged to a Marxist regime that rejected religion as the 'opiate of the masses' (i.e. that which holds them back from revolution). Religion does not kill people or cause misery and suffering. People do that.
People are the best and worst thing on this planet. Nowhere but among people can you find the best examples of compassion, love and honour and the worst examples of depravity, violence and hate. Because people feel strongly about their religious beliefs, they are used as a cornerstone to build their hatred upon. This is perversion and corruption of the worst kind in any faith I can think of.
I am not suggesting that scriptures do not come with their problems. There are clear elements where personal or societal interpretations have lead to religious authority mandated violence and oppression. Those interpretations were made by people, not by some nebulous sense of the faith itself.
And now, by spouting hatred against religion because of the hatred that people have shown whilst hiding under the mantle of a corrupted faith, those people who reject religion on those grounds become exactly the same as the people they're rejecting.
The various offices of many denominations have been abused by those who knew how to manipulate them for power, wealth or influence. If you are put off believing because of the perceived violence of 'religion', that formless beast that rears in people's heads like an entity separate from both faith and God, then understand that that is the real myth. There are plenty of doubts and questions in the mind of the most devout follower and there are plenty of debates with atheists worth having. The "religion has caused upheaval" one shouldn't even be allowed in the foyer of the debating hall.
So, with text hugs from my beloved friend Aaron, real hugs from my beloved beloved Ash and a couple of hours of 24, season 3, I'm okay again. It helps that this morning I got emails from the CEO and my manager's manager reassuring me that they were supporting me. They really are great people and I'm so relieved I joined a team like this; it's always a leap of faith when you get a new job and I've only uncovered good things so far. Phew!
Also, anger is productive when channelled in the right direction. I took my upset for a walk across the road and up to the gym. I have never been more reluctant to schlep through the doors, down the stairs, past the proudly naked ladies and over to a locker. Yet, because of the all-consuming sense of indignance that was assailing me, I did much better than I usually do.
Okay, ten minutes better, but that's actually 50% up on last week. And I did a few weights, gritting my teeth, and stretched properly, and came home to a shoulder, back and calf massage from my weaselly one. He also made me dinner - a simple bowl of gratifyingly carby pasta with tomato and olives - and we settled down to TV. I shuffled myself off for an early night and now feel pretty much human again.
Also I'm meeting a friend for lunch and sushi is on the horizon! I am feeling slightly apprehensive because I don't see him much and fear the conversation might stall but I know he is very shy so I'm sure any efforts I make to keep it going will be appreciated! He works very nearby and this is the first time I've put my arse in a high enough gear to get in contact which is just plain silly of me.
Ash was at a lavoya this morning. We're spared the shiva, although I would have gone without complaint if it made Ash's dad feel better (it was his uncle). I'm becoming quite the veteran, to my dismay. I'd rather attend a few more weddings. Maybe a bris, although Ashley tends to feel faint at those...
I need good pet stories. My blog's stats rise and fall as rhythmically as the sea, and it would be nice to see them rise and rise. It's not a big issue, work-wise, but more of a personal goal of mine. Once the site redesign is done and there's a proper link to it, I'm pretty sure that'll no longer be a problem and there'll be a lovely mixed archive full of information to scroll through.
The feeling of peace - you just can't beat it.
It's been a schizophrenic few days. The balance of dealing with Internet mentalists and yet at the same time having the work I've done over the last few months being positively recognised by peer publications has been a heady one. Mainly I've decided to enjoy the good and use the bad as an impetus to hit the gym or, failing that much energy, at least go for a brisk walk at lunchtime to clear my head.
Wedding plans are now basically under control. The bridesmaids dresses are the main issue left, with various quotes from dressmakers littering my notebooks; I'm still waiting to hear from the most likely party. £90 from one (minus materials) but I can't call her until October. £160 (including materials) from another - eek! £200-£300 from a third - say what?! One of my bridesmaids helpfully and supportingly labelled the colour I'd chosen as 'shit brown' so I know she's never going to wear hers again anyway, so what do I care if they're completely perfect? Truth is, I don't. I want the women themselves to be comfortable and feel happy about their appearance. Beyond that, it's only so much excess frippery. My mother-in-law is slightly worried about the little girls but I am sure that decent flower girl dresses will be found.
Also the hairdresser hasn't got back to me yet but then I did take an age to reply to her last email. You get what you give.
And I have to call the florist...
Other than that, photographer, food, wedding dress, cake, etc are all go. We do have to find a free date for the rabbi and priest to meet, as the priest is travelling a great deal this summer and isn't around for much time before the wedding. They want to discuss our expectations and construct a beautiful blessing for us, which I'm really very excited about. I dare say that at least will be unique to us. Not that I care about being unique - I just want everything to mean something to both of us.
Speaking of which, we still don't have a first dance or even mutually adored song that is even vaguely wedding-appropriate. Suggestions could not possibly hurt...
Meanwhile we schlepped down to Southend-on-Sea last night to attend a shiva - my second. Prayers were lengthy and conducted by a very sweet and earnest young Rabbi who explained the significance of the Kaddish and how it is more valuable an expression of faith even than the Shema. "Because you are saying at this most difficult time that Hashem knows best". A rather lovely thing to say, I thought. I met some more of Ash's extended family who all seemed very nice and did their best to hide their appraising looks. I was wearing my cross which probably raised a few eyebrows but if it did it happened when my back was turned, so all's well.
I'm so tired. I'm going to drag my sorry carcass to the gym to try and wake myself up at lunchtime, but I'm keeping going today only by remembering I'm catching up with lovely friends tonight. Here's hoping I don't fall asleep on the pub table.
Today, I am mostly suffering from the Bichon Frise.
No, not the small, fluffy dog of the type that dominates Amber McNaught's life and has his own blog. It's my ignoramus's term for lachon hara, since to begin with I could only remember the "chon" part of the term, and the fact that it went -u -u (in keyboard-approximate pentameter markings). B'dum, b'dum if you prefer. Yes, I'm publicising my own inanity, but that's the world of blogging for you.
Anyway back to lachon / lashon / loshon hara, tangles and all. The Jewish "evil tongue" isn't really about saying bad things about someone irrespective of whether they're true or not. There's a seperate prohibition against slander. This is about saying something true about someone when they're not there to defend themselves.
I do this all the time.
But here's the clincher - according to Ashley this includes saying pleasant and complimentary things about them is the purpose of saying them is to make the person you're talking to feel bad.
Ouch... done that too (though less commonly. Usually if I think something nice about you I'll tell you to your face and tell everyone I know just cos I think you're fab).
I'm working on improving my outward behaviour in a bid to make it second nature not to think bad thoughts about people, but it's easier said than done. Is it true that someone I know is childish, rude and arrogant as well as being funny and talented (the reason I still know them)? Yep. I can't help dwelling on it when they piss me off. And then, in order not to explode at THEM, I talk to Ashley about it. When what I should do is have the balls to sit down with them and say "this is why you're annoying me".
See, my lashon hara doesn't come from being a natural bitch (though I am one). It comes from this enormous desire to make everyone happy all the time. Last night a friend accused me of not seeing them enough (even though they slept through the last plans we made!) and even though I knew I was 100% right that they were being unfair - and told them so, since they were a close enough friend to do so with confidence - I still second-guessed myself. I have a puppy-like desire to please everyone and instead all that happens is that I pick away at myself and then end up both indulging in the lashon hara and feeling guilty about it.
Oh and yes, I know I'm not Jewish. But it's the same heritage an' all and I dare say Christ upheld this particular law.
I know that sounds ridiculous on the surface. Maybe it's ridiculous at its root; I don't claim to be an intellectual, just a reasonably intelligent woman living in the West in the 21st Century. I am the product of my upbringing, my community, my reading and myself, and so I cannot help but have my opinions steeped in my experiences.
It's slow at work today so I've been trawling Melanie Phillips' Spectator blog. Mostly because I once was briefly acquainted with her son, but also because I read something or other which referenced Israel and she was the first person who popped into my head.
I find her someone with whom it is difficult to agree to disagree. She is regularly either uncomfortably right or disquietingly wrong about whatever she is talking about. Even when she is making some of her more eye-opening (and by this I mean the eyes are opened and the eyebrows raised, not that she has convinced me of the truth of her words) and alarming statements, she is full of passion which can sometimes be taken for being embittered. She reminds me of Ashley's best friend Dan, who questions why people think he is vengeful simply because he doesn't believe in proportional response. In his, paraphrased from memory, words:
"If someone hurts you, if the little country messes with the powerful one, then you don't calculate how much to hurt them in return. When they took a swing at you and only left bruises, they still meant to hurt, to kill. So you don't just shove back; you obliterate."
I can't say I entirely agree with his viewpoint, and I'm not, at this point, going to go into why. It just illustrates that sense of bullish principle that I find in Phillips' writing as well.
As a Jewish journalist, one might expect a reasonable amount about Judaism and Israel. But the post that struck me (and lead to my title pronouncement) was one defending the rights of two Christian preachers - one, allegedly, a convert from Islam - who were seen out of an area of Birmingham where they were preaching by a Muslim PCO (Police Community Support Officer) on the grounds that it was a Muslim area and this was "hate crime". They were warned that if they came back and were assaulted, well, "they were warned".
Now there are a whole number of issues here.
1. What the hell is a Muslim area? There are Muslim countries but within a country that defends free speech (albeit nominally a Christian country) there are no demarcated areas. People can practice their faith wherever the hell they want.
2. Police should be dealing with the perpetrators, not the victims. If they think violence is likely to erupt, they should deal with the causes of that.
But that's a specific case. What it showed, more generally, is the dangerous gap between offence and defence.
At what point does the innocent, non-violent, perhaps hopeless practice of one religion become offensive to another? Nailing a pig's head to an Asian community centre as happened earlier this week? That's a hate crime. It's disgusting. It takes a particular element it knows to be forbidden and unclean to a particular faith and culture and forces it upon those people with the specific aim of hurting, offending and discouraging those people. Hence the "go home" signs that accompanied it. Intention has a lot to do with the hurt, and since nailing pig heads to the wall isn't really common practice in any culture it cannot be explained away by any other argument.
Had the two Christian men been trying to convert by preaching that the Muslim people in the area were 'wrong', I would also have taken a step back. Of course, sticks and stones, but we label other kinds of name-calling as offensive and abusive. They were not doing such a thing as far as anyone knows (I'm happy to be corrected on this point if anyone knows better). I'd still be inclined to leave them to it, and I'd still offer them protection because we have this wonderful thing known as "freedom of speech" (or we like to think we do) but I'd disagree with their aims.
In the end we cannot, if we have any faith in the land we live in, expect the law to take sides. There will be times, by the very nature of things, when people will clash over beliefs. The law must protect everyone, so it cannot be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Baha'i... etc. etc.
How can the law decide whether it is an offence, for example, for a Jewish person to hear words said on the street that they do not agree with?
Using the excuse that it is an offence under that person's faith's law isn't good enough. It cannot protect a person of another faith, so it's not strong enough as universal law.
As a Christian, I am not interested in living in a Christian country, although under John Locke's version of tacit consent I have agreed to this. In an ideal world, I would be interested in living in a country where I can practice my faith for as long as and as overtly as I choose. I would expect the law to curtail me only if I deliberately and premeditatedly offended or physically hurt another person.
Recently, with the furore over the Archbishop of Canterbury's words on including elements of Shariah law in the UK, I was watching a debate programme in which a Muslim man explained patiently that Shariah law protected women, allowed faster divorces, etc. To him I say: Great! It sounds like there are elements that ought to be present in a modern, egalitarian society. We can't have a religious law for a mixed population and Muslim women shouldn't be the only ones offered this protection. Let's campaign together to change the secular law to accommodate these excellent concepts.
Christianity is the modern whipping boy. In some cases, defensive, angry Christians, who completely misinterpret turning the other cheek (in my opinion), spring up to demand protection. Sorry, folks, but you don't need protecting. You really don't. I get just as irritated with the stupidity of some of the atheist arguments and roll my eyes just as hard when people spout that bullshit about religion having "killed the most people". (Tell it to Stalin, the great, murderous atheist of the 20th Century). My point is I have the choice of answering those arguments or refraining from getting involved in the debate. I don't need to loudly trumpet my offence because I'm too busy discussing it rationally with my friends, my family and my God.
At the moment I am highly irritated by the situation in Greece where two gay couples will be prosecuted for taking advantage of a loophole in the law that doesn't state the gender of those being married. They wed, and now they will be taken to court over it because the law was inadequately stated. And why would the government want to protect the inadquate law? Because they're all Greek Orthodox Christians. And they're legislating in a Christian way. I shake my head, and wait for them to catch up with reality.
When will people stop behaving like children? When will they realise that "fair" is not stopping other people from doing something you disagree with but allowing them to live a free(ish) life?
It's not that I don't know that all ethics is essentially based on what you agree with. But the things that we - almost universally - don't agree with are things that physically or materially disadvantage someone, and there's not a religion or ethical atheist group in the world that I can think of who would have a problem with protecting people against those crimes. We already have the universal agreement. Now can we have the universal agreement to disagree?
And why do I make the claim that I do in the title? Because in a world where there are no longer many places that are exclusively one faith, pushing back and forth over minor issues is only going to lead to more people saying "bugger this for a game of soldiers, religions are full of mentalists" and perpetuating the nonsense that is said about religions until the practice of all faiths is banned. In the case of many a rabid atheist, that's exactly what they want. I don't see why those of us who have faith need play into their hands by constantly wailing and gnashing our teeth. We must accept that if we want our own faith to survive, we must leave room for someone else's and be ruled by laws that only make reference to faith insofar as guaranteeing freedom of non-harmful practice.
Update: Boy threatened with legal action for saying Scientology is a 'cult'. Scientologists aren't the first religious types to try stamping all over free speech, but like most people protesting too much (like those Catholics who get outraged over Harry Potter) they end up looking rather ridiculous. This is not a new story, but I wanted to add Caitlin Moran's comments:
Aside from the fact that if we ignored our brains and filtered this story purely through our dumb animal emotions, it felt a bit as if Tom Cruise was about to throw a child in jail - which was obviously quite exciting - you do have to ask, what is happening to this country? Have we turned into a bunch of wet nuns? First, we should be thrilled that we've got at least one teenage kid up, fully dressed, philosophically engaged and able to spell. Secondly, I'm embarrassed that all the grown-up liberal countries such as Canada and Denmark are laughing at us.
During the course of planning, I've been trying to think of every possible thing that will make our start in this marriage easier, and generally add to our chances of making a really good go at things. I'm not particularly concerned that we won't, but we might as well address the issues that can shake that solid ground you think you stand on.
Children have been discussed ad nauseam (no morning sickness pun intended) from pregnancy timings to baby names to religion to how involved parents should be... childcare, housing, pets... you name it, we've covered it. Finances? Split down the middle, with a joint account that will serve as a bills-and-future-mortgage-paying account with us each retaining the rest of our salaries, etc in our own separate accounts. Since my parents are giving us the deposit for our first house next year, we've discussed what would be an equitable ownership split that reflects the fact that the main cash is coming from my family but also that he will be paying half the mortgage. It turns out on all these difficult issues, we're completely resolved (well, at least until they take an unexpected turn, I guess).
So, of course, I had to bring up the Last Will and Testament. At the moment, all I have to leave anyone is a bit of jewellery, my depressingly empty bank account and a six-year-old Toyota Yaris. Nice, but nothing worth murdering me for. Still, there are other wishes and requests that should go in your will, and one of those is where we will be buried...
Some time ago, we went on a date / footle / stroll through Highgate cemetary. The historical, overgrown, haunting site is the final resting place of the Rosettis, Karl Marx, Douglas Adams and a great many local residents in one of my favourite parts of London. Among all was a headstone, marked with two names but just one set of dates - obviously the other half of this devoted pairing is preparing to be buried by her husband. Against his name was a tiny, elegant Magen David. Against hers, a cross. Beneath their names were the famous words of Ruth:
Entreat me not to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.
On seeing this, I started weeping like a baby. Startled, Ash held me until I could explain.
I was crying because it had suddenly hit home that here was this wonderful man, with whom I fully expected to spend the rest of my life though from whom I'd be permanently parted in death. He would lie in Jewish grounds and I in Christian, separated by who knows what distance.
Of course it shouldn't matter. My body will be so much worm food, and if there is any sort of after death consciousness, presumably physical distance is no barrier to being reunited. But to fight tradition and culture to spend our lives together only to be symbolically parted again after death is like saying that, try as we might to believe it, we weren't right together.
I'm half-wondering if my father will make My Big Fat Greek Wedding's "apples and oranges; we all different, but in the end, we all fruit" speech at the wedding. It would be funny. I just also want it to be true. No, I know it to be true. So I want it to be reflected in the symbols of our death (and isn't burial just a symbol for the living?).
So I was touched beyond words that Ashley has chosen to forego his right to be buried on Jewish consecrated grounds and will, when we get round to actually sorting out our wills, request to be buried in the local council grounds, as will I.
None of these things are, forgive the pun, set in stone. Should be divorce, we can revert to whatever prior choices we like. But as a gesture of a lifetime commitment, it doesn't get much more long term than pledging the circumstances of your burial to someone else.
The Rabbi's Daughter, Reva Mann's autobiography, is about to be released on paperback. My pre-order is in!
Truth be told, I'm already suspecting I won't like the author. Judging by this promotional interview in The Telegraph, her impulsive, addictive behaviour has little to do with anything Jewish and more to do with being confused or possibly selfish as a result of a bizarre upbringing. The fact that she had a religious upbringing is always a peg for people with some misguided anti-religious agenda to hang their prejudices on. See, they say, religious upbringings turn you into a nut!
This is insulting for two reasons. One, don't blame religions for the failures of people, if you believe they have failed. Two, you're assuming that her sexual promiscuousness - apparently a reaction to self-imposed ultra-religious strictures - is, in and of itself, a bad thing.
This leads me on to one of my personal bugbears. Personally I don't think impulsive sexual behaviour is necessarily very sensible in a time of great awareness of sexually transmitted diseases, but what I find people doing is firing a double-whammy of saying it's immoral whilst at the same time rejecting any code of religious ethics (which is far more likely to damn sexual permissiveness than secular ethics).
I'm not saying you can't pick and choose religiously - we all do. I'm just frustrated with the idea that the modern ideal is to condemn all religion whilst secretly thinking that the most restrictive rules might be okay when it comes to women. The heady combination of a blame-free society with dark ages misogyny is quite something, isn't it?
There are some religious ideas I reject, and I have to work through my own attitudes to that; for example, cultures that perform female circumcision disgust me, but for hygeine reasons I accept that male circumcision is fine. If there's a hypocrisy there, I should investigate it (and sometimes I think there is).
Women behaving with sexual freedom long enjoyed by men is no problem for me, although I believe that a lot of emotional, physical and sexual problems would be avoided if both genders showed some more respect to the act and its consequences, intended and unintended. It just drives me mad when women are condemned as sluts by the same people who deride religious beliefs. Which is not, by any means, all the people who are crass and misogynist, just a particularly loathsome subsection.
I shall try and withhold judgement on Reva Mann and look forward to reading her book.
I'm on a bit of a blogging roll recently; I was going to give it a rest until Illiask brought up something that has always unsettled and baffled me, and I thought my initial ideas about it would find a better resting place on (virtual) paper.
Greeks have always been brought up to be faintly suspicious of Jews. Now, this is a massive generalisation with all the provisos that entails; let's just put those aside for a minute to be re-examined later.
Politically, Greeks don't like Jews. Greece, at risk of losing crucial post-WWII, mid-Civil War* aid that was the only thing preventing many of its citizens starving to death, voted against the creation of the state of Israel. It stood pretty much alone, protesting the arbitrary creation of the state. Now, many Greeks then and now had enormous empathy for the Zionist cause - the need for a homeland is deeply ingrained in the descendants of those held under Ottoman rule for centuries - but the practical ramifications were a step too far. Also, with large expatriate communities in north Africa and the Middle East, there was a sympathy with Arabs and suspicion of the mighty US (if no tolerance of terrorism). My mother, for one, was born in Egypt; her brother was born there on the very day the state of Israel was created!
Although I believe that there is no going back now Israel exists, I rue the way in which it was created. The past is another country, however, and we need to press on to a peaceful future with Israel - there is no future for the region without it. I also can't wait to visit the country; I've been fascinated with it for years.
Greece has a shaky history with its tiny population of Jews. Mark Mazower's phenomenal book, Salonica: City of Ghosts, can explain this much better than I, but in the northern part of Greece relations have been strained since the war. Jews drafted in by the Turks to provide a financial middle class above the Greeks - they were encouraged to come to Greece after being expelled from Iberia - were all but obliterated by the Nazis, with most Greeks doing little to protect them. Salonica had been Greek for only 25 years; the hurt was very much in living memory. Compare the loss of 95% of the Jewish community in Salonica to 50% in Athens, free since the initial declaration of independence in 1821, pretty much. Greeks there protected their community as best they could from the occupying forces. To this day, Jews campaign to have the land around the University of Salonica marked as the site of a former Jewish cemetery but the authorities, embarrassed by the episode where Greeks helped destroy the original grounds, still refuse.
Religiously - well, put it this way. A friend of my mother's has a son who was seeing a Jewish girl for some time. She described it to my mother as "Yes, she is one of those who crucified Christ". It's a joke, but a painful one.
I think, however, that the problems aren't either of these things really. Going back to those exceptions we put aside, I suspect most modern Greeks barely even know that period of history - I didn't, and I know there are gaping chasms in my knowledge - and would be horrified by it if they did. The political issues are long past the arguing point and into the practical stage. I think the ultimate problem is one of suspicion.
Jews are naturally suspicious of anyone who takes too much of an interest. They've been tortured, killed, discriminated against, targetted and hated for so long, that the rule - spoken and silent - is to stick to one's own. Greeks also do this, but they are slightly offended by anyone who doesn't want to actively "fit in". I see this in my parents, first generation immigrants, who complain when other religious groups don't try to do more to "integrate". It's true my parents both speak and write exemplary English, but as white, Christian Europeans language was pretty much their only integration challenge. It sounds simplistic, but I think Greek discomfort with Jews comes down to not liking the feeling of it being "them" and "us". Judaism is so culturally ingrained as to be treated, thought of, referred to as a race, rather than a religion.
I used to work in a largely Jewish office - guess where I met JB! - and one woman there said to me "if you converted, some people would accept you as a Jew but if Ashley did - well, he'd still always be a Jew". It summed up an awful lot. The same woman told me she felt like her daughter ought to marry a Jew because there were so few left that she felt duty bound to create more. Now, her daughter could marry a gentile and still have Jewish children; the religion is matrilineal, unusually, with some claiming that is because you can deny being a father but not being a mother. The underlying assumption there, though, was even if I converted I wouldn't quite be Jewish. She wasn't criticising us - she's fond of me - she was just speaking her mind. I've got news for her, though - there are as many Greeks in Greece as there are Jews in the world (the rest, the joke goes, are in Melbourne).
The debate on what a Jew is rages in the wake of court cases such as that against JFS, and just the other day JB's mother said she thought the Orthodox conversion process was "too much" - and she's officially Conservative, not Reform or Liberal. I suppose it's somewhat irrelevant to me now I've decided to stay Greek Orthodox, but it's interesting to see that my future children would never have been accepted fully by many Jews anyway. I can understand why and I'm not criticising them for going back to basics, but I suspect it's beliefs and attitudes like this which lead to Greeks - always the quickest to jump to the defensive - to be uneasy with Jews.
By bringing up our future children as both, leaving them to choose which - if any - religion they want to align themselves with as adults, we might not be producing more Jews and more Greek Orthodox people. Hopefully what we will be producing is part of a generation of people who seek the similarities, not the differences.
*No-one I know seems to realise Greece HAD a Civil War - despite Captain Corelli - and that it was particularly bloody and vicious. Perhaps if they did they'd come to understand something about Elia Kazan and 50s Hollywood.
Today's disclosure in the London Metro that state-funded Jewish girls' school Hasmonean has been charging parents a £50 "deposit" for extracurricular activities - an admission fee by any other name - makes the third bid of bad press I've heard about Jewish faith schools this week.
Hasmonean isn't alone among faith schools of any type or denomination in this practice, incidentally, and faith schools are a law unto themselves when it comes to funding anyway. The other two stories troubled me more.
Back in November, I discovered as I poked around the Londonist this week, JFS, JB's alma mater, got into trouble for giving preference to children of born Jews over children of converts. The fact that I would be unlikely to go through the Orthodox Jewish conversion process was another layer of complication that put me off - I would be pleasing and convincing no-one except the most liberal and they wouldn't mind too much if I stayed just what I was. JB himself is in practice very reform, up to and including breaking most of the food laws, and one of his closest school friends, a girl I adore, is the now atheist child of a convert. So this principle is relatively new, evidently, or they just didn't bother checking before. What made the whole matter even more stupid was the fact that one child in question was the offspring of a member of staff - the Head of English no less! Converts are good enough to imbue a sense of Judaism and impart truths about the faith but their children are not good enough Jews? JB was baffled at the post himself, saying he'd never heard the term "ethnic Jew" before.
JFS was found to have broken anti-discrimination laws and forced to change its official stance, but it isn't going to change the underlying message sent out to converts. Surely someone who has gone through the process of becoming part of your faith and then wants to send their children to a faith school is just as valuable as a child who just happens to be born of Jewish parents who aren't particularly religious but feel faintly guilty that they're not really imparting a sense of Judaism at home? I'm not for a minute suggesting the average "ethnic Jew" is of the latter persuasion, incidentally, some are and many aren't, but that's my point exactly. The only selection criteria should be the genuine desire for a Jewish education. Beyond that, maybe a lottery is in order.
The Londonist also provided me with the last issue, a rather different one. Girls at Yesodey Hatorah put their principles where their pens were and refused to answer questions about Shakespeare in an exam on the grounds that he was anti-Semitic. Rabbi Abraham Pinter was proud of their principles and their stand, and so he should be. But by refusing to engage with Shakespeare these girls are missing a phenomenal opportunity. Instead of encouraging 11 to 14 year olds to spoil their grades, why not study the history of anti-Semitism in this country? Why not spin this off into projects that could help fight it? Why not compare the portrayal of Jews in Shakespeare to that of his contemporaries? If they're going to refuse to answer on Shakespeare then half the canon of English Literature is out too, most Russians, and a few other nationalities besides. Do not ignore the ugly parts of history as it refers to you; we continue, after all, to study the Holocaust for a reason. History must not repeat itself because those who suffered from it refuse to acknowledge it.
Faith schools can provide a phenomenal atmosphere and education. I worked in a Roman Catholic school, despite being Greek Orthodox, and thought it was the best school I set foot in throughout teacher training. I think JFS did well with JB; after all, he did go to Israel for a year after school, so they must have done something right. But those schools must look hard at the times they find themselves in and decide whether it is more important to be Jewish and enthusiastic or tick certain boxes and make a perhaps ill-conceived political stand.
I've come to the conclusion it was a really stupid idea to have a house party. Not because the flat, known by me and JB as the "Weasel Nest"*, is small. Not because we've invited far more people than can actually fit into it (we can shove them over the balcony, it's fine. The children downstairs can eat them). I've invited Jews and Greeks. This can only end in tears.
Everyone knows that when you come away from a Greek party or wedding, the memory that remains is the food. Utter social devastation can be caused by one person saying "it was okay, but the food was disappointing". Or worse, that there wasn't enough. My cousin makes jokes that his mother caters for the Israeli armed forces when she's having a couple of people round, but he's not entirely wrong. There has to be enough for leftovers to last at least two days and everyone has to leave threatening to instantly develop a hiatus hernia.
Jews, it turns out, not too much to my surprise, are just as bad. Or good, depending on how you look at it. Which is all find and dandy when you're attending a party hosted by one or t'other, but it's a bloody nightmare when you're hosting your own.
Leaving that aside, I have English guests too. They're pandering to their own stereotypes as well by just being interested in one thing: booze. Which is easier dealt with, if more expensively, but leads to lingering worries about people throwing up in places other than the toilet.
So now I somehow have to find a goodly selection of booze and cater for 20+ people squeezed into a tiny one bedroom nest. We intend to have a birthday cake at some point (I'm on Sunday, JB the next Friday, but it's also a belated housewarming put off since November) so we'll have to serve parev stuff - things classified neither as milk nor meat - plus milky stuff. It's going to mean a lot of fish, I guess. Or pizza, but I have a fear of pizzas at parties - it harks back to the days I used to be one of what seemed like 4,000 small children all attending a schoolmate's birthday party. I'm thoroughly tempted to go really retro and have pineapple and cheese on cocktail sticks stuck into half a grapefruit, but I'd yack if I actually had to eat that. Especially the grapefruit. *shudder*
This is going to mean a shitload of bagels, and JB is going to have to help. I was supposed to take the day off tomorrow but after I quit, and took two sick days this week, that wasn't possible so he's using the last of his holiday to clean house and buy supplies. I've got a mother-daughter pampering session I promised my Ma on Saturday, so we're going to be very, very short of time. Plus we're out Friday night at his mother's doing the Shabbas thing.
Calm yourself, Alex. It can be done. They're Jews and Greeks, not rabid bagel-devouring monsters.
In a word: oy.
*I'll explain some time.
