Richard Schwartz: Why is there so much skepticism about climate change?

In the days since Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate, there has been a great deal of discussion of Medicare and their economic policies on the news, but so far, very little has been said about the fact that Ryan is a climate-change denier.  Romney has also said he is "not sure" what causes climate change if it exists  -- and that in the face of so much mounting scientific evidence.  So I thought I would share this excerpt from my new book, Who Stole My Religion?:


Why is there so much skepticism about climate change?

          With all of this powerful scientific evidence confirming anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, why there is so much public skepticism?  In 2009, only 57 percent of Americans accepted that climate change was a problem and only 36 percent thought human activities were a factor.  Is this merely denial, or are there more sinister reasons?

         According to James Hoggan, author of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade To Deny Global Warming, the oil, coal, and other industries that are profiting from the status quo are willing to go to great lengths to mislead people so that they can continue to receive huge profits.  Hoggan, who was initially a skeptic about climate change himself, writes that it is a “story of betrayal, a story of selfishness, greed, and irresponsibility on an epic scale…  a story of deceit, of poisoning public judgment…”

         Another clue comes from the results of a study called, “Balance as Bias,” which considered a random sample of 636 articles about climate change in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  More than 50 percent of the articles gave roughly equal weight to both the scientific view and the scientifically discredited view (that humans do not play a major role in climate change). This would be similar to having a debate on the shape of our planet, and giving equal time to the Flat Earth Society.

         In addition, some conservative politicians and commentators downplay the significance of climate change.  U. S. Senator James Inhofe, for example, calls it the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”  No wonder many folks are so confused. On one side you have vociferously opinionated media pundits, bloggers, and politicians like Senator Inhofe (who received close to a million dollars from the oil and coal industries between 2000 and 2008). On the other side are the real experts, typically more cautious in their assertions.  

         Meanwhile, the media, leaning over backward to be perceived as balanced and reasonable, often gives equal time to both “sides” of the issue — even though the vast majority of climate scientists, virtually all peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and statements from scientific academies worldwide agree that the scientific probability is extremely high that climate change poses an existential threat to life as we know it — and that we are the cause and the potential solution. 

 

Waiting for 100% agreement means doing nothing

         Many people do not understand that scientists rarely, if ever, all agree 100% on anything.  As pointed out with the “Flat Earth Society” example above, there will always be a few fringe dissenters, even on commonly accepted facts.  Nor do people always understand that in science, a “theory” is not merely somebody’s made-up opinion.  Rather, it is a hypothesis that is supported by documentable evidence. The confusion over what scientific “probability” and “uncertainty” actually mean was addressed in a letter signed by 255 leading scientists that appeared in the May 2010 issue of the respected journal Science:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.  All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts.  There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.  When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. [Emphasis in original] For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Climate expert Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, former chief economist at the World Bank and former advisor to the British Prime Minister on economic matters, concluded in a major study of the potential economic effects of climate change that spending one percent of gross national product now to reduce climate change could prevent the necessity of spending five to 20 percent of gross national product later on to address the many harmful effects of climate change.

If we follow the strenuous recommendations of climate scientists, we have the potential for a far better, environmentally sustainable world. However, if we follow the advice of the skeptics and do not try to address climate change soon, we will likely end up with a climatic cataclysm.

Is climate change merely “liberal politics?”

         Another reason there is so much skepticism about climate change, despite the strong scientific consensus surrounding it, is the bias of Fox News.  An internal e-mail written in December 2009 and published by liberal-media-watchdog group Media Matters for America, on December 16, 2010, revealed that Bill Sammon, Fox News’s Washington bureau chief, told Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.  It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

         While it is true that there have been a few examples of scientific error and misbehavior among climate scientists, these have been unfairly seized upon and exaggerated by climate change deniers. Follow-up investigations have demonstrated that the mistakes were honest ones, and there were no efforts by the scientific community to mislead the public.

         The so-called “Climategate” scandal has been shown to be a bogus accusation.  Numerous investigations of the scientists in question concluded they were guilty of nothing more than failing to fully share their data with their critics and of making rude e-mail comments about them.  Investigations were carried out by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Inspector General, by the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee, and by an independent inquiry panel convened by the British University of East Anglia, among others.  An Associated Press review of the e-mails in question found no evidence that the scientists in question faked anything.

         Many people dismiss climate change as just “liberal politics.”  They give more weight to the views of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other reactionary commentators than to the scientific consensus.   These climate deniers should be made aware of the previously mentioned, little-known group, “Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP).”  There is an abundance of material about climate change and other environmental threats at their website (http://www.REP.org), including responses to many of the questions that climate deniers (and sincere skeptics) raise.

While REP is very committed to the election of Republicans, they were only able to endorse 19 out of over 500 Republican candidates (less than 4 percent!) for Congress and governorships during the 2010 midterm U.S. Elections, because so few of these candidates have positive records on the environment.* 

         Both REP and a sister group called ConservAmerica (http://www.ConserveAmerica.org)** share the slogan “Conservation IS Conservative.”  These groups deserve much greater recognition and their voices heard.  Climate change is not a partisan, political issue, but arguably the greatest moral, environmental, economic, and social justice issue of our time.

Richard. H. Schwartz

(excerpted from Who Stole My Religion? Revitalizing Judaism and applying Jewish values to Help Heal our Imperiled Planet,  pp. 180-183)

-----------------------------------------------------------

* It is indeed ironic that ConserveAmerica won't be able to  endorse their own GOP's presidential ticket, the Romney-Ryan record on the environment is so abysmal. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/11/677051/meet-paul-ryan-climate-denier-conspiracy-theorist-koch-acolyte/

** since publication of Who Stole My Religion, REP.org and ConserveAmerica have merged as ConserveAmerica.  Either web address takes you to the same website. 

See also Rabbi Gershom's article Vote Romney-Ryan and kill the planet for an excellent analysis of  Ryan as a conspiracy theorist and Romney as an energy Luddite.

And if you happen to be a Republican and still believe climate change is a hoax, please read this excellent article by Republican meteorologist Paul Douglas (founder of the WeatherNation Channel, among other things):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-douglas/republican-climate-change_b_1374900.html

Rosh Hashanah L'Behamot -- the New Year for Animals

Toward a modern Jewish New Year for Animals
By Rabbi Yonassan Gershom


Rosh Hashanah, the day that we traditionally celebrate as the Jewish New Year, comes on the first and second days of the month of Tishri on the Hebrew calendar.  But in reality, there are actually four "new years" in Judaism, each serving a different purpose  (based on Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1a, but arranged in a different order here):

1. The first of Tishri, for the counting of calendar years, Jubilee years, etc.
2. The first of Nissan, for dating the reign of kings and for various legal documents
3. The fifteenth of Shevat, for tithing fruits of trees
4. The first of Elul, for tithing cattle

Only the first of Tishri is a "New Year's Day" in the sense that we now think of it.  The others are more like fiscal years, similar, for example, to how income taxes are due on the 15th of April (in the USA) and not the first of the secular year.

The first of Elul "for tithing cattle" was the cut-off point for determining in which year an animal should be included in the count.  Animals born before that date were tithed in the old year; animals born after that date were tithed in the new year.  Nowadays very few Jews are raising flocks of animals and, since there has not been a Jerusalem Temple since the year 70 C.E. (when the Romans destroyed it), nobody is tithing animals for Temple sacrifices anymore.   Nevertheless, this date remains on the Jewish calendar, although, admittedly, it is not very well known today.

A mother hen on her nest in my yard.
(The white spot by her head is a chick.)
Very few chicks are hatched this
natural way anymore

Recently, there have been suggestions among Jewish animal welfare activists to make the first of Elul, the "Rosh Hashanah for Animals," into a day for focusing on the many teachings in Judaism about the proper treatment of animals.  This would not be the first time that a Jewish holiday got re-defined after the Temple was destroyed.  Shavuot, the "Feast of Weeks," was originally celebrated with processions of people bringing their first-fruits to the Temple.  Today it focuses on receiving the Torah at Mt. Sinai, which also took place on the same date.  Tu B'Shevat, the "New Year for Trees" (#3 in the list above) is now a form of Jewish Earth Day, when people not only plant trees, but also focus on current environmental issues.

In the same way, the New Year for Animals would shift the focus from tithing sacrifices toward learning about how animals are treated on factory farms, comparing that with Jewish teachings about the proper treatment of animals, and making choices about where we get our milk, eggs, and meat -- or maybe even considering vegetarianism as a better alternative.  Given that most Jews today are urban people who rarely, if ever, have contact with farmers or farm animals, I think that developing a modern version of this day would be a great educational opportunity.


Typical ram's horn Shofar

It would also fit with the overall theme of the month of Elul.  Traditionally, we blow the shofar (ram's horn) once each morning during Elul (except on the Sabbath.)  This is to remind us that the High Holy Day season is coming, and that we should "wake up" and take account of our lives in preparation for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.  Adding the observance of Rosh Hashanah for Animals on the first of Elul would mean that on the very first day of the month leading into the High Holy Day season, we would examine how we are treating God's creatures.  Perhaps we might start with the words of the Baal Shem Tov, founder of Hasidism:

"A worm serves the Creator with all of his intelligence and ability... A person should consider himself and all creatures as comrades in the universe, for we are all created beings whose abilities are God-given."  (Tzava'as Ha Rivash 12)

(This article was reposted here with permission from Rabbi Gershom's website, Notes from a Jewish Thoreau, where you can find more essays exploring the relatonship between Judaism and nature. 

See also Richard Schwartz's article, "An Audacious Initiative to Restore the Ancient New Year for Animals" posted on August 8, 2012 on Tikkun Daily.)

Thoughts on Shavuot and vegetarianism

On Shavuot, the "Feast of Weeks" or "Feast of First Fruits," it is traditional to eat a dairy meal  rather than a meat meal.  (For those of you not familiar with the Jewish dietary laws, meat and milk are never served at the same meal.)   Two explanations are usually given for this.  The first is allegorical, comparing the Jews who had just received the Torah at Sinai to newborn babies who were not yet weaned.  The second is more practical:  The details of the dietary laws concerning animals were not yet revealed (they come later in the book of Exodus), so the people did not yet know how to properly slaughter and prepare meat.

In this day and age, we would do well on this meatless holy day to give some thought as to the issues surrounding meat-eating.   With the growing interest in vegetarianism and veganism among Jews today, let us consider this except from Richard Schwartz's new book, Who Stole My Religion?, in the chapter, "Should Jews be Animal Rights Activists?": 

------------------------

Responses to justifications for eating meat

Many apologists for the exploitation of animals seek justification in Jewish scripture, but their analysis is largely based on a misunderstanding of two important Torah verses that, when better understood, actually endorse the struggle to improve conditions for animals.  The first misunderstanding is the common claim that the Torah teaching granting humans dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26) gives us a warrant to treat them in whatever way we may wish.

That this interpretation is incorrect is demonstrated by the fact that immediately after God gave humankind dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26), God prescribed vegetarian foods as the diet best suited to humans (Genesis 1:29).  This mandate is almost immediately followed by God’s declaration that all of Creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). 

Adam and Eve’s original vegetarian diet was consistent with the kind and gentle stewardship that God entrusted to them and to all humankind.  Another indication of the true message of “dominion” is the Torah verse that indicates that God put Adam, the first human being, into the Garden of Eden “to work it and to guard it” (Genesis 2:15).  To guard something implies that one must protect it, not exploit it.  Based on these statements in Genesis, the Jewish sages saw human dominion as based on responsible and caring stewardship.

In support of this analysis, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel and one of the outstanding Jewish thinkers of the 20th century, stated in his booklet, “A Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace”:

There can be no doubt in the mind of any intelligent person that [the Divine empowerment of humanity to derive benefit from nature] does not mean the domination of a harsh ruler, who afflicts his people and servants merely to satisfy his whim and desire, according to the crookedness of his heart. It is unthinkable that the Divine Law would impose such a decree of servitude, sealed for all eternity, upon the world of God, Who is “good to all, and Whose mercy is upon all His works” (Psalms 145:9).

The second error that the apologists for animal exploitation make is the presumption that the necessary implication of the Biblical teaching that only human beings are created “in the Divine Image” is that God places little or no value on animals. While the Torah does state that only human beings are created “in God’s Image” (Genesis 5:1), animals are also God’s creatures, possessing sensitivity and the capacity for feeling pain. So the fact that humans are in a different spiritual category than animals does not give us the right to treat animals as mere objects or machines for our pleasure.  God is concerned that they are protected and treated with compassion and justice.  In fact, the Jewish sages state that to be “created in the Divine Image” means that people have the capacity to emulate the Divine compassion for all creatures.  Rabbi Dovid Sears, in his book A Vision of Eden:  Animal Welfare and Vegetarianism in Jewish Law and Mysticism, in reference to the Talmudic teaching that we are to emulate God’s ways, states, “Compassion for all creatures, including animals, is not only God’s business; it is a virtue that we, too, must emulate.  Moreover, compassion must not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon, one of a number of religious duties in the Judaic concept of Divine service.  It is central to our entire way of life.”

In his classic work Ahavat Chesed (“The Love of Kindness”), the revered Chofetz Chaim (Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin) discusses this teaching at length.  He writes that whoever emulates the Divine love and compassion to all creatures “will bear the stamp of God on his person.”

Is today's meat really kosher?

The original intent of kosher slaughtering was to cause the animal as little pain as possible, as well as drain out the blood.  And indeed, studies have shown that a quick cut to the throat with a sharp knife renders the animal unconscious within seconds, before the pain sensation ever reaches the brain.  (Think back to the last time you accidentally cut yourself and did not immediately realize it.)  Even PETA has affirmed that, if done properly, kosher slaughtering is humane.  However, today’s kosher industry tends to focus only on the actual moment of slaughter, and the packing and preparation of the meat afterward.  Very little, if any, attention is paid to how the animals are treated before slaughter.
 

One has to wonder if this can be reconciled with the original intent of kashrut.  How can it still be humane if most kosher meat, dairy, and eggs now come from the same abominable factory farm conditions as does non-kosher food?   Shouldn’t we be concerned — indeed alarmed — about the ways that food is being produced?

In the past, farm animals ran free in pastures or open country, grazed on grass, and were slaughtered only for special occasions, such as when Abraham slaughtered a calf for his angelic guests. Chickens were hatched naturally under mother hens and usually eaten by Jews only on Shabbat and holidays — and then only after the birds had a life of freedom to scratch, peck, and live as a chicken was created to do.  There was nothing remotely resembling the year-round factory farm conditions under which food animals are raised today.  Therefore, although the Torah does permit eating meat, the conditions under which animals are raised today are a far cry from those used for the flocks of our ancestors...
(excerpted from Schwartz, Who Stole My Religion?, pp. 199-201)

---------------------------

Richard Schwartz then goes on to describe some of the horrific conditions in today's factory farms and the meat industry in general, coming to the conclusion that while the Torah does permit eating meat, there are many other considerations as well. "In light of the horrible conditions under which most animals are raised today," he writes, "Jews who eat meat raised under such conditions seem to be supporting a system contrary to basic Jewish principles and obligations."  Just because we can do something does not necessariy mean we should do it.  In this day and age, Schwartz says, vegetarianism is the diet most in harmony with the Torah we received at Mt. Sinai.
For more on this and other issues related to animals, vegetarianism, and the environment, download your free PDF copy of Who Stole My Religion? today.

Book review posted on May 8 on the email list, JewishMediaReview

Who Stole My Religion?: Revitalizing Judaism and Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal Our Imperiled Planet. Richard H. Schwartz. Lulu Enterprises. Inc. (http://www.lulu.com/). Paperback. 357 Pages. $20.00. ISBN: 978-1-105-33646-1.

As Rabbi Harold Schulweis writes: “Richard Schwarz has boldly broadened the Jewish agenda, and allowed fresh air into the dogma and doctrine of Jewish faith and political and social judgment with candor. He reminds us that ours is a questioning faith of a choosing people in its never-ending search for that which embraces all the searchers of Godliness.”

In the five decades since Richard Schwartz first became a religious Jew, he has watched the mainstream Jewish community shift more and more to the Right, often abandoning the very values that originally attracted him to Orthodox Judaism. In this soul-searching book, Schwartz examines the ways in which he believes his religion has been "stolen" by partisan politics, and offers practical suggestions for how to get Judaism back on track as a faith based on peace and compassion. Tackling such diverse issues as U.S. politics, Israeli peace issues, the misuse of the Holocaust, antisemitism, U.S. foreign policy, Islamophobia, socialism, vegetarianism, environmentalism, Schwartz goes where many Jews fear to go -- and challenges us to re-think current issues in the light of positive Jewish values. (With photos, notes, action ideas, resource lists, and annotated bibliography. Also includes appendix materials with Rabbi Yonassan Gershom.)

This is an important book, and should be read by all people concerned with healing our broken world, and restoring Judaism to its role as an open, accessible religion.

Dov Peretz Elkins

Moses was a radical -- and Judaism is a radical religion!

From its beginning, Judaism has often protested against greed, injustice, and the misuse of power.  Abraham, the first Hebrew, smashed the idols of his father even though his action challenged the common belief of the time.  He established the precedent that a Jew should not conform to society’s values when they are evil. Later he even challenged God, exclaiming, “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly?” when God informed him of His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:25).  By contrast, Noah, though personally righteous, was later rebuked by some Talmudic sages because he failed to criticize the immorality of the society around him.

At the beginning of the book of Exodus, the Torah relates three incidents in Moses’ life before God chose him to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. They teach that Jews must be involved in fighting injustice and helping to resolve disputes, whether they are between Jews, Jews and non-Jews, or only non-Jews.

On the first day that Moses goes out to his people from the palace of Pharaoh in which he was raised, he rushes to defend a Hebrew against an Egyptian aggressor (Exodus 2:11-12). When Moses next goes out, he defends a Jew being beaten by another Jew (Exodus 2:13). Later, after being forced to flee from Egypt and arriving at a well in Midian, Moses comes to the aid of the shepherd daughters of Jethro who were being harassed by other shepherds (Exodus 2:17).In all three cases, Moses pursues justice, no matter who the victims are or what group they belong to. One could argue that it was these three actions that demonstrated to God that Moses was the right person to confront Pharaoh and later lead the Israelites out of Egypt

The story of Moses has become an archetypal model for liberation movements today. This is a great gift from the Jewish people to the world. When Dr. Martin Luther King said to a gathering of civil rights activists in Memphis, Tennessee on April 3, 1968, the night before he was assassinated, “I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land,” he was evoking the eternal story of Moses as a model for the United States civil rights movement. Like Moses, Dr. King was confronting the Pharaoh of his own day with “Let my people go!”

...The greatest champions of protest against unjust conditions were the Hebrew prophets. Rabbi Abraham Heschel summarizes the attributes of these spokespeople for God: They had the ability to hold God and people in one thought at the same time; they could not be tranquil in an unjust world; they were supremely impatient with evil, due to their intense sensitivity to God’s concern for right and wrong; they were advocates for those too weak to plead their own cause (the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed); their major activity was involvement, remonstrating against wrongs inflicted on other people.

So prophets, in Judaism, are not fortunetellers. They are social activists, protesters, and yes, radicals. They care about the common people in the here and now and call the community to decisive action. They do not claim that human suffering is some sort of karma to be accepted with resignation. They challenge us to change ourselves, change the fabric of society, and "make the world a better place to live in." The prophets rage against injustices and demand that we fix them in the here and now. In the words of Rabbi Heschel in his now-classic book, The Prophets:

What manner of man is the prophet? A student of philosophy who turns from the discourses of the great metaphysicians to the orations of the prophets may feel as if he were going from the realm of the sublime to an area of trivialities. Instead of dealing with the timeless issues of being and becoming, of matter and form, of definitions and demonstrations, he is thrown into orations about widows and orphans, about the corruption of judges and affairs of the marketplace… Prophecy is the voice that God has lent to the silent agony, a voice to the plundered poor, to the profaned riches of the world. It is a form of living, a crossing point of God and man.  God is raging in the prophet’s words.

In sharp contrast to this prophetic heritage, today’s Jewish communities (and most others) often ignore or respond placidly to immoral acts and conditions. We try to maintain a balanced tone while victims of oppression are in extreme agony. But not so the prophets.   Isaiah cries out:

Cry aloud, spare not, Lift up your voice like a trumpet, and declare unto My people their transgression… Is this not the fast that I have chosen: To loose the chains of wickedness, to undo the bonds of oppression, to let the crushed go free, and to break every yoke of tyranny.(Isaiah 58:1,6)


(Excerpted from chapter 2, "Is Judaism a Radical Religion?" in Who Stole My Religion?  by Richard H. Schwartz)

--------------------

As we head into the Passover season, let us all try to rekindle this spirit of righteous protest within ourselves.  What is your personal "burning bush" calling you to action?  Who are the Pharoahs oppressing society today?  How do we confront them?  And if not now, when?

"Who Stole My Religion?" is now in print -- order your copy today!

Who Stole My Religion?
Applying Jewish values to help heal our imperiled planet



Richard Schwartz, author of
"Who Stole My Religion?"



In the five decades since Richard Schwartz first became a religious Jew, he has watched the mainstream Jewish community shift more and more to the Right, often abandoning the very values that originally attracted him to Orthodox Judaism. In this soul-searching book, Schwartz examines the ways in which he believes his religion has been “stolen” by partisan politics, and offers practical suggestions for how to get Judaism back on track as a faith based on peace and compassion. Tackling such diverse issues as U.S. politics, Israeli peace issues, the misuse of the Holocaust, antisemitism, U.S. foreign policy, Islamophobia, socialism, vegetarianism, and the environmentalism, Schwartz goes where many Jews fear to go — and challenges us to re-think current issues in the light of positive Jewish values. (With photos, notes, action ideas, resource lists, and annotated bibliography. Also includes appendix materials with Rabbi Yonassan Gershom.)

About the cover design:

The background photo (#ISS028-E-020072 from the NASA files) was taken aboard the International Space Station on July 31, 2011, when the sun was just below the horizon. When observed from space, the palette of gaseous layers of our atmosphere reminds us of the fragility and tenuousness of the thin cocoon that shelters life on Earth from the cold harsh vacuum of outer space. Without this precious envelope of air, life on Earth could not exist.

A thin crescent of the new moon appears to hang above the Earth, although in reality it is more than 238,855 miles away. On the Jewish calendar, the important holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which begins the High Holy Days season of repentance, always begins on a New Moon. Perhaps the message of this photo is to encourage us to think about how we are treating our planet’s fragile atmosphere, and to change our polluting ways before it is too late.

Where to order:   

Who Stole My Religion?  is available in both print and ebook versions on Lulu.com.  Order the print copy with this button:

A FREE download of the PDF ebook version is available to readers of this blog (see link on the sidebar).  However, if you can afford it, you are encouraged to buy a download on Lulu.com for $5, to help offset Richard Schwartz's production costs in self-publishing this book.  In addition to getting your book super-fast, the PDF version has the advantage of seeing the photos in color:

Will there be ebook versions for Kindle, iPad and Nook?

Not unless those programs are vastly improved for handling academic works.  Epub, the program used on iPad and Nook, completely reflows the text -- which means it does not respect page numbers, indented paragraphs for long quotes, footnotes, and other academic formats.  Every time the reader changes the font size, the pages are all renumbered.   Kindle does the same thing, plus the feedback on it's handling of footnotes is horrendous!  The fact is, these new e-reader formats are mostly suitable for novels and non-fiction works with plain prose text, but just can't handle the more complex layout of  an academic work.  Until such time as the program developers solve these problems, the format best suited to Who Stole My Religion? is PDF, which preserves the original layout and can be read on your desktop or laptop computer.

Why this book? A dialogue on "Who Stole My Religion?"

Richard Schwartz and Yonassan Gershom: 
Perhaps we can best explain our thinking about this book, why we wrote it, and what we hope to accomplish, through some questions and our individual responses.

Why did you write this book?

Schwartz:   I decided to complete this book, along with Rabbi Yonassan Gershom’s superb help, because I feel that Judaism has gone off track in some important ways and that our planet has as well.  Evidence is mounting that the world will experience an unprecedented catastrophe from climate change and other environmental threats and also very severe economic problems if major shifts in attitudes and policies do not soon occur.  I believe that it is essential that there be open dialogues on where Judaism stands today and how its teachings can help address the many current threats.  I believe that this book has the potential to break through some artificial boundaries and help resolve many difficult problems, reduce antisemitism, improve the security of Israel and, indeed, all the world’s people, and help move our imperiled planet to a sustainable path. If I did not believe this very strongly, I would not have decided that I must complete this book.

Gershom:   Richard and I have known each other for over 30 years, and have been dialoguing on these issues for at least a decade.  We don’t always agree on how to approach the problems – I tend to be more confrontational than he is – but we both agree that Judaism has gotten off track lately.  So when Richard asked me to collaborate on this book, I saw it as a great opportunity to put our heads together.  We started with our many email dialogues as a springboard, then Richard, along with a lot of input from many other people, went on from there to write the book.

What was the impetus that got you started writing this book?

Schwartz: I have felt that “my religion has been stolen” for a long time.  This feeling is renewed when I find Jews telling me that we need not be concerned about climate change or other environmental threats because God will take care of them or the Messiah will arrive and handle them; when members of my Modern Orthodox synagogue tell me that they are concerned only about Israel when voting, and they favor only the most hawkish Israeli politicians; when I attend a simchah (Jewish celebration) where meat is widely consumed and my wife and I are among the very few (if any) requesting a vegetarian meal; when I see so many women coming to synagogue wearing fur coats, unaware of the cruelty involved in producing them -- and much more that is discussed in the chapters of Who Stole My Religion.  Because of many such experiences, I decided that, in spite of the opposition that I expect to receive, I must complete this book.

Gershom:  I've been thinking along the same lines for quite a while now.  I have been a peace activist since the 1960s, and have become increasingly frustrated with the hawkish turn that the Jewish community has taken in recent decades.   In my own books, I use popular culture and storytelling to address Jewish issues, because I am working primarily with outreach to alienated Jews and the general public.  My 2009 work, Jewish Themes in Star Trek, for example, used that TV series to demonstrate a lot of basic principles in Jewish thought.  But I have also written many articles, essays, and letters to the editor on political issues over the years, the best of which were collected into Eight Candles of Consciousness:  Essays on Jewish Nonviolence in 2009.  So this is not the first time I have discussed these issues in a Jewish context.  My teaching methods are different, but Richard and I are on the same wavelength politically.

Who is your audience?

Schwartz: Who is our intended audience?  Jews who look to Judaism for moral and spiritual guidance, but who find that contemporary interpretations of our faith traditions do not address the pressing issues of today.  Jews who are seeking a Judaism that will make a difference in responding to the crises of today and will help guide humanity in directions that can bring a more just, compassionate, peaceful, environmentally sustainable future for generations to come. Jews who recognize that the Jewish calling to be a "light unto the nations" gives them a special responsibility to live in ways that benefit all of God’s creation. Jews who believe that Jewish teachings can make a difference in responding to the crises of today; Jews who feel connections to Judaism but also feel that something is missing; Jews who are turned off by some of the realities in Jewish life today and would like to see positive changes; Jews who would like more of a dialogue as to Judaism’s future direction. And, since other religions have similar problems and concerns, I believe that many non-Jews will also find this book interesting, challenging, informative, and valuable. Several of the commendations (blurbs) presented for the book are from Christians and one is from a Muslim.

Gershom:   I think we are talking to Jews from a lot of different backgrounds, who might have these same questions in their hearts but are afraid to say it in public.  You know, before I wrote my first book, Beyond the Ashes: Cases of Reincarnation from the Holocaust, there were both Jews and non-Jews who had past-life memories of dying in the concentration camps.  Behind the scenes, both therapists and their clients were telling me about these cases.  But nobody was willing to break the ice about it.  Outside the Hasidic world, few people even knew that there are reincarnation teachings in Judaism.  But after the Ashes book came out, it was suddenly OK to talk about it.  I opened the floodgates.

     So maybe we are doing the same thing here – giving people permission to say, "You know, I've felt that way, too."  If the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, maybe we need to be the ones to say so, even if we do look like fools.  In the courts of earthly rulers, the fool is often the only one free to give honest feedback to the king.

 

Is it proper to criticize Judaism at a time when Israel faces so many critical threats and antisemitism is increasing so rapidly?

Gershom: Yes!!!  Look at Tanach [the Hebrew scriptures] -- when the government went wrong, that is precisely when the prophets marched into the throne room and confronted the king.  We aren't prophets, but they do set the example.  If somebody is about to drive over a cliff, do you just sit in the passenger seat quietly and let you both die because you don't want to criticize his driving?  Of course not!  So yes, I think it is not only proper to criticize the current Jewish leadership, I think it is our duty as responsible Jews to do so. 

     Back in the 1980s when I carried a sign with both a Palestinian and Israeli flag on it, I was blackballed as a traitor.  Now the majority of Israelis support a Palestinian state, as do a lot of American Jews.  Was I wrong to criticize back then?  I don't think so.  I think I was ahead of my time.  As they say, "Walk three steps ahead and you're the leader.  Walk ten steps ahead and you're a heretic."  The moral principles do not change, but public opinion often does.

     My experience has been that a willingness to look honestly at a problem is respected, even by those who disagree.  Group-think denial of a problem does not make it go away, and is not really respected by anybody.  Group-think actually increases antisemitism, because people get the idea that all Jews think alike on every issue. 

Schwartz: Unfortunately, I do feel some loving criticism is called for today.  “An open rebuke is better than hidden love” (Proverbs 27:5).  It looks like Israel will face major threats and antisemitism will be a factor for some time, so it is not a matter of waiting perhaps a few years for a “proper time” to write the book.  As the great sage Hillel said: “If not now, when?”  After several unsuccessful starts due to the difficulty of challenging the Jewish community at such a difficult time, having Rabbi Gershom agree to work with me proved to be the factor that enabled me to continue and complete this book.

     I sincerely hope that our thoughts will help initiate respectful and open dialogues that will help revitalize Judaism, reduce antisemitism, improve Israel’s security and well-being and, in general, lead to a more just, compassionate, healthy, peaceful and environmentally sustainable world.

Aren’t you picking and choosing the aspects of Judaism that you think should be stressed while ignoring other aspects of Judaism?

Gershom:  So nu, who doesn't do that?  The Right picks and chooses, too.  We are just offering a different menu.  And I mean that literally.  There are a lot of people citing the rodef verses ("If someone comes to kill you, kill him first" -- Kahanites love that one) but those same people have never even heard of the pacifist lines that are also in the Jewish tradition.  As Ben Bag Bag says in Pirkei Avot, “Turn the Torah over and over, for everything is in it.”  So yes, we are choosing to focus on different verses than our more hawkish brethren.

Schwartz: I agree with Yonassan’s analysis, and I believe that the verses that we are stressing are those that reflect the true spirit of Judaism.  Also, we are trying to start a respectful dialogue in the Jewish community on the issues that we are raising.  Let those who disagree choose their quotations, and let the debate begin!

Aren’t you basically limiting Judaism to aspects of tikkun olam (repairing the world)?

Gershom: Not me.  I also want to talk about God, about inner spirituality, about personal soul-searching, etc.  The Haredi Jews might be ignoring tikkun olam (the mandate to heal the world), but the liberals are ignoring a lot of other mitzvoth (religious duties).  Each side is like a bird with one wing, flopping around because it can't get off the ground.  You need both wings (halachah and social action) equally balanced in order to fly.

Schwartz: Yes, but I conceive of tikkun olam very broadly.  In addition to trying to fix the world, we are also trying to properly transform Jewish education, synagogue services, simchas and other Jewish events, the celebration of Jewish festivals, and much more, to make all aspects of Jewish life reflect the tradition’s emphasis on compassion, sharing, justice, peace, and other positive values.

Gershom:  I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to synagogue services and rituals, but if you consider that, according to Hasidism and kabbalah, each mitzvah is tied into the spiritual fabric of the universe, then, in a sense, every mitzvah can be an act of tikkun olam.  That was the original way in which Rabbi Isaac Luria (16th century) thought of tikkun.  In many Hasidic prayer books you can still find meditations called tikkunim, to be said before carrying out a mitzvah, in order to focus the mind and heart on what you are doing.

What is your main objective of this book?  What do you hope to accomplish?

Schwartz:  In the face of today's urgent problems, I hope to help Jews return to our universal Jewish values and our mission: to be “a light unto the nations,” a kingdom of priests and a holy people, descendants of prophets, champions of social justice, eternal protesters against the present corrupt, unredeemed world, dissenters against destructive and unjust systems. I hope to convince Jews to become actively involved in working toward global survival and Jewish renewal, working for radical changes that will lead to a society where there is a major reduction in oppression, violence, hunger, environmental destruction, poverty, and alienation. I hope our book will help revitalize Judaism and help shift our imperiled planet to a sustainable path.

Gershom:  Plus, we want to reclaim a part of the tradition that has been ignored in the last few decades.  Richard and I are both senior citizens who grew up in a different era, and we feel we must pass down the Judaism we remember to the next generation or, heaven forbid, it will be lost.  We are told in the midrash that Lot stood in the town square and preached to the people of Sodom even though they did not listen to him.  Why?  Because he understood that if he went silent, he became like one of them.  So we must protest even if we think people are not listening.  God listens and knows our hearts, even if our fellow Jews do not.

Who stole your religion?

Gershom:  The religious Right for one thing -- and maybe the influence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.  Don't laugh.  The Mizrachis (Middle Eastern Jews) who came from Iran, Iraq, Morocco, etc. in 1948-50s were not the socialist liberals who founded Israel.  They were Jews with a much more hardened attitude about a lot of things.  They came from countries with a more restrictive point of view, without any Western liberalism.  Not that they should not have come to Israel -- all Jews should be welcome – but they are the majority now and there has been a real shift to the Right, both politically and in terms of Haredi-style learning.

       And I think David Ben Gurion stole it from us, too -- by writing off all of the Diaspora experience as a mere "shadow existence" and flipping us back to the Biblical militarism that the Talmudic rabbis had done away with.  Our sages had long ago transformed the historical battles in the Bible into moral lessons for our daily lives.  So, for example, “Wipe out the Seven Canaanite nations” became wiping out the Seven Deadly sins in our hearts.  There is a kabbalistic principle that, once something is elevated spiritually, you don't drag it back down again.  War had been elevated from Assiyah (physical level) to Yetsirah-Briah (emotions-mind level) where it was about ethical struggles with the yetzer hara.  Dragging it back down to political militarism has had disastrous results.  

      Everyone is upset about Abu Gharaib because it was the Americans who did it, and it got widely publicized.  But the Israeli Shin Bet guys have been doing things like that for years.  Only we refused to believe the Palestinians, even though the reports from groups like Amnesty International were pretty consistent.  In past centuries, Jews would never have used torture, which is forbidden by Jewish law.  So is cutting down trees during the siege of a city, yet we know that Israelis have purposely cut down olive trees and grape vines in the Palestinian areas, in attempts to drive the people out.  So we have to ask ourselves if Israel is really acting like a Jewish state should.  We must confront its government today, the same as the prophets confronted their governments in the past.

Schwartz: As a Modern Orthodox Jew who is proud of the many contributions the Orthodox community is making in terms of tzedakah (charity), acts of kindness, deep learning and much more (as discussed in more detail in chapter 1) I regret to say that the attitudes and actions prevalent in many Orthodox Jews are a major part of the problem. There seems to be a major gap between Judaism’s splendid teachings and the realities that I see in Jewish life today; Jews are generally failing to apply Jewish teachings to the many crises of today; many religious Jews have moved to the right and are supporting policies that are inconsistent with the historic Jewish emphasis on compassion, justice, and peace.  Hence, there is a need to revitalize Judaism and bring many disaffected Jews back to participation in the Jewish community.  All of this and more, which is that discussed in the chapters of this book, makes me feel very unhappy about many aspects of Jewish life today and that my religion has been stolen.

This is bound to be a very controversial book.  How will you deal with those in the Jewish community who attack your ideas?

Gershom:  Unfortunately we have already had to deal with some of that.  A few of the advance readers were not very happy over our political stands on some issues, and at least one friendship went sour over what material we decided to include.  But there were far more people who endorsed the book, and although they did not always agree with everything in it, they applauded Richard for having the courage to write it.

Richard: To those who will attack the ideas in this book, I would like to say: Yonassan and I are not claiming that there is only one acceptable way to view Judaism and world conditions today.  We are trying to seek common ground and solutions to current problems through respectful dialogues. To those who argue that all policies of the Israeli government should be supported for the sake of Jewish unity, please explain how Israel can avoid renewed conflict, effectively address her economic, environmental, and other domestic problems, and remain a Jewish and a democratic country if a comprehensive, sustainable resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians is not reached.  For those who think that we are exaggerating about a potential climate catastrophe and think global warming is a liberal plot, please visit the website of Republicans for Environmental Protection (http://www.rep.org/). For those who are supporting the present Republican Party that has moved so far to the right under the influence of the Tea Party, please explain how their support of the wealthiest Americans and highly profitable corporations is consistent with Jewish teachings about compassion, sharing, and justice.