I am Mani Leib, whose name is sung –
In Brownsville, Yeheputz, and farther,
they know it:
Among cobblers, a splendid cobbler; among
Poetical circles a splendid poet.
Mani Leib
How long does it take a movement to lose its focus, for a revolutionary idea to become watered down to mush? How long does it take before people simply get it wrong?
The answer depends on a variety of factors.
In the case of John Adams, as I learned from the recent HBO miniseries, it didn’t take long at all. At the end, he’s complaining that the famous painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence simply didn’t reflect reality — the hurried way in which people signed the document, because, after all, they were at war.
Other things went wrong from the beginning, too. People found all kinds of ways for the government to grow, although it stayed relatively small until the Progressives of the early 20th century thought that they could micromanage society to perfection.
Liberty dead at 150
The idea of liberty, of limited government, lasted perhaps a hundred years, 150 at most. After two world wars and the Great Society of the 1960s, the upward growth of government was guaranteed.
The bureaucrats and politicians took World War II as an example of their ability to solve every problem, and now that’s exactly what they’re trying to do, miserably.
Also, I have no illusions about the early Republic. Government and business were probably in bed together from the very beginning. But it wasn’t till the explosion of regulation that lobbying and influence peddling became a huge money and power game.
Oh, yeah, that original idea about America being a moral beacon of peace and liberty for other nations — forget about it. The criminally insane Bush and his group of demented cronies have guaranteed that America will be hated and at war for years, if not decades, to come.
Secular Humanism, 2nd generation
In the case of Secular Humanistic Judaism, the counterrevolution that came a lot sooner. It certainly wasn’t helped by Rabbi Wine’s sudden death, but even before that, Sherwin had turned to other things and was spread too thin to prevent what happened next.
What happened next was backsliding, Torah-nostalgic, wishy-washy Humanistic Judaism that endlessly reworks the old stories, that seeks to make congregants little mini-scholars in Jewish letters, and rather completely ignores where Sherwin was leading.
This kind of Judaism is barely distinguishable from Reformism and — in my opinion, the biggest hypocrites of all — Reconstructism, who literally commit linguistic chicanery to make the old texts say what they do not say.
Attics and closets
Rabbi Wine did not believe in endlessly obsessing over the old texts, in contrast to his protégé, the current local Humanistic Rabbi, who, although a very nice and bright fellow, dismisses all objections to the relevance of his focus on stories with comments like “well, they’re our crazy uncles in the attic” (of the Lilith story) and, “it’s our skeleton in the closet; we have to acknowledge it” (of the ghastly passages in Deuteronomy).
I’m through with the attic and closets of Judaism. Those excuses simply do not cut it with me.
In 12 years at the Birmingham Temple, I never saw a Torah passage quoted at length and read aloud at a Friday night service. They rarely read the Torah at all.
Why should they? It’s a text from the eighth century B.C.E. with little or nothing to say to us. It is our ancestors’ view of the world, nothing more, and we respect it as such.
Midrash = stories about stories
In 12 years at the Birmingham Temple, I never heard the word “midrash.” Why should we care about that? It’s just stories about stories. “We write it to fill gaps in our understanding,” says Jacquelyn Osherow in the Spring 2008 version of the Nextbook Reader.
Midrash meshes easily with post-moderninsm. Anything means anything.
I’m sorry, I think post-modernism is BS. There is a REAL different between translation/paraphrase and “midrash.” You CAN be (fairly) certain about what a text says.
I’m gone.
The last Friday night service did it for me: it sealed my decision not to support this kind of Humanistic Judaism with another dollar of my money, except under one condition, which I will share here and with the Rabbi, if he wants to hear it.
I can no longer support this endless reworking and spinning of ancient stories about people who did not exist. In this respect, Humanistic Judaism today — and I am talking about four out of four congregations I have seen, including the flagship Birmingham Temple — is no different from any other kind of non-Orthodox Judaism, except that there are no actual prayers.
I guess that for most people, that’s heretical enough. But today, it’s not nearly enough.
Good camo
As a linguist, I see the brilliance of this strategy: it enables humanistic Judaism, sufficiently reviled by believers already, to fly under the radar and to say to other Jews, “look, we’re interested in the same things as you. We even talk about God (even though we don’t believe in him).”
This is unacceptable fence-straddling and wishy-washiness. Rabbi Wine’s vision was bold, INcisive, DEcisive, and not confrontational but “differentiational:” it had a keen edge to it that always made clear the difference between the beliefs/behaviors of humanistic Jews and those of other Jews and religious believers.
It’s clear that secular Humanistic Jews don’t talk to God. That remains a clear demarcation.
But I know that they talk about God, and to the extent that that happens — to the extent that they endlessly replay the Biblical stories and ancient shepherd wisdom, trying to find modern meaning in it all — they are not attending to the proper focus of Humanism, which is humanity itself.
Backwards
Today’s humanistic congregations — and if the Birmingham Temple is doing it, I have to assume the practice is widespread — have gone far into the past in search of content, with their endless obsession over Biblical stories and people who didn’t exist, as opposed to the ingenious humanist twist that Rabbi Wine introduced: real Jews in real time.
Rabbi Wine not only did not pray… he did not talk much at all about Biblical characters and ancient events with little or no relevance to us. He was concerned with real Jews in real time.
He followed the format of a traditional religious service, but instead of the Bible, he might read an excerpt from a Holocaust memoir or a Hebrew poem by an Israeli poet…something meaningful and provocative which led into his sermon on some aspect of Humanism or the human condition.
I think the fault lies with the way Humanistic Rabbis are trained — the same way as they were always trained, whereas Sherwin’s method of teaching and preaching via real Jews in real time was so much more meaningful and really does not require a lot of extra homework.
Real Jews in real time
An example: I chanced upon a print periodical called the Nextbook Reader, which contains material for at least a month’s worth of humanistic Shabbat services.
There was an essay about Mani Leib, the cobbler and Yiddish poet. He was an amazing example of human courage, perseverance, and ability to rise above misery. Osherow writes: “Here was a genuine American tragedy: a man with a great gift, spending his days in a shoe factory, welcoming tuberculosis because it won him the time to write his poetry in peace.”
Real Jews in real time. What does this man’s story have to say to us? How can the way he dealt with the incredible problems of his world…help us to deal with the problems of ours?
I could go several ways if I were to do a sermon on him.
His wisdom is found in many cultures — the wry acceptance of his life, the determination to be authentic.
How can we incorporate these qualities in our life? It’s very hard to be authentic. Mass consumer culture envelops us. The political or religious bullshit come at us from all angles. They all want a huge piece of our identity. What is the self? What is “a life”?
Then there’s the matter of wry acceptance. Of course life does not measure up to our expectations.
I would urge the congregation to take a moment and dwell on some part of their life that does not meet expectations and then try to cultivate an attitude of wry acceptance, perhaps while I read one more of his poems.
200+ posts
This is simply one example of the direction in which I would practice and teach Humanistic Judaism. I realized little while ago that I passed the 200 mark on blog posts, and most of them were inspired by Rabbi Wine.
I wrote them because I was not reading them anywhere else (though they may be). They were not being articulated in any humanistic congregation that I attended after I left the Birmingham Temple.
A recent Friday night service on Women in Judaism was exactly what I expected – more tales of mythical figures, specifically, Eve and Lilith.
Sample service theme
Enough already with the stories! I would do such a service quite differently.
Can we at least hear about real Jews in real time – lesser-known Jewish women who achieved greatly? That would be a first step. Then perhaps we can talk about the status of women in Judaism today.
We can note the numerous cases of very pious Jewish men who are, with the full approval of their religion, absolutely degrading to their women.
We can explore, as humanists, the reason for this sadomasochistic bond (reinforced by doctrine and dogma), the motivations for it, the cost of resistance, the hypocrisy of correct religious practice with loathsome personal behavior (see also: Catholic Church).
The better we understand religious people, the better equipped we will be to resist the relentless march of religion and its takeover of government and society.
Key Humanist themes
So my Humanistic Judaism, as a perusal of the posts will reveal, embodies several elements, in addition to not praying, that are missing from the milquetoast humanistic Judaism being practiced today.
(1) The basic philosophical arguments in favor of secularism, humanism, and atheism. Congregants should have a very clear understanding of what these terms mean and be able to discuss them with believers, should the occasion arise. Such studies will also help congregants understand and give words to their own beliefs.
Just as other religions make certain that their members understand the basic tenets, every member of the congregation would understand what humanists do and do not believe in… as well as the many meanings of “God” and “spirituality.”
(2) Real Jews in real time. No more stories. Humanists must be clear that the Torah is an ancient document that deserves very little attention. If they then want to go ahead and study it, fine. It’s your life. Knock yourself out.
(3) A critique — yes, you heard me — a critique of religion and religious behavior. I refer to the activist secular stance of many humanist organizations: active opposition to the continued encroachment of religion into society, government, and education.
It’s gone way too far already. We can no longer waste time talking about Eve and Lilith. We must figure out how to keep reason from being extinguished entirely.
We must have the courage to speak with Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins: to affirm the possibility of a moral life without God…to indict religious behavior for the destructive insanity that is….to see the wide berth of undeserved acceptance that society gives it (the Pope and his outrageous red shoes!)…to disapprove of it as we would disapprove of bad drugs (feels good but harmful to the mind and dignity).
Urgency
While amiable humanistic rabbis recount Torah stories, orthodox Muslims are being programmed to destroy themselves and other human beings, to create a Muslim world. What stands in opposition? An equally virulent Christianity. We must be a very loud voice for reason.
(4) How do we use our Humanistic ideas to solve problems in our lives? I’ve heard some of this, but not nearly enough. If the congregants are coming for entertainment, stories, and Yiddishkeit, then let that be understood. But this is by no means the only approach to Secular Humanistic Judaism.
I know, I know, you have to bend philosophically to get the bodies in the seats. (The Orthodox don’t have this problem, of course.) If people lean toward Torah nostalgia, then that’s what you give them.
But I cannot finance it anymore. This is what I plan to tell the Rabbi at our next meeting.
Condition — NOT
The one condition, which will probably be unacceptable: that I become a prominent voice in the congregation, in accordance with (1)-(4) above. Maybe I could deliver a sermon once a month or write a regular column in the newsletter.
I don’t think it would ever happen.
I was recently called a “congregation of one.” I take that as a compliment.
I do know a few others. And I would rather have the companionship of their purity and integrity…than the company of thousands of believers…or even dozens of other so-called Secular Humanists, in many ways indistunguishable from other Jewish hypocrites who spin the ancient texts and pretend they’re relevant to us.
You have to give the Orthodox credit: at least they take their delusions seriously.
________________
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. He is the founder of Positive Humanists International/PHI ©