Who Needs Foreskin, Anyway?

I just watched some weirdo from the Bay Area debate Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on CNN about the issue of circumcision.  Using a very conventional and worn-out approach, Shmuley defended the practice by highlighting its merits from a medical and physiological perspective--it helps to prevent HIV infection, it enhances the sexual experience for both men and women, etc.

While I am on his side, Shmuley is all wrong.

It is precisely in its primitivity, the tribal character of the brit ritual--with its blood, pain, and mystery--that the power (and hence the validity and relevance) of circumcision lies.  The "hygiene" or "medical" argument is not the correct tactic to use against radical, dogmatic secularists who decry the "barbarity" of our millennia-old ritual; rather, a defense of circumcision should rely on what it has always relied on: fidelity to tradition, a link to our ancestors, the spirituality of the experience.

Muslims practice circumcision as well and have for many centuries.  Do we see them retreating like weasels behind the perceived protection (and supposed validation) of modern science?  Do they feel the need to make justifications and apologies for their ancient religious observances?

Hey, fellow tribespeople: Where is our backbone?

I've witnessed and participated in brit milah rituals from Brooklyn, New York to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and without fail, they have been some of the most moving spiritual moments in my life--as well as in the lives of the families and communities themselves.  Sure, it's discomforting to watch a baby cry; nevertheless, like the howl of a ram's horn during the Days of Awe, that cry awakens something so deep, so profound, and so transformative in the souls of all those who hear it that its psycho-spiritual power is impossible to deny.  And its practice would be totally myopic and inane to reject. 

Easy, Spartacus: Obama on Israel and Palestine

Let me first state that I agree with most of what President Obama had to say recently about the dire need for a two-state solution.  I concur with the idea that, in the end, some sort of territorial arrangement will have to take place that both ENSURES THE SECURITY of Israel and that also involves LAND SWAPS to make certain that such an objective is realized.  Too many people have failed to highlight this critical element in Obama's speech.  He did NOT advocate a unilateral return of the entire Golan Heights, the Jordan River Valley, or every single inch of the West Bank.

I think that it was a misstep, however, to talk about "pre-1967 borders" in a public and internationally-televised speech from the White House at this volatile and very uncertain moment in the region.  That's the reason behind a lot of the reactionary freaking out that we're seeing right now--as well as Netanyahu's patronizing, professorial rebuke as he sat by the President's side.  Obama, true to his nature and clearly emboldened by the killing of bin Laden, made a big, brash foreign policy statement that was somewhat reckless; Netanyahu, true to his nature, responded with typical arrogance and without any mention of the vital land swap point.  I think that President Obama made up for a good deal of his policy-wonk cockiness in his speech to AIPAC, where he more clearly spelled out his position and also--and necessarily--brought up the total impossibility of negotiating with anybody who considers Hamas (a terrorist organization which strives to destroy Israel) to be a "peace partner."

So now let's all take a deep breath.  Abbas, show some guts and get rid of Hamas once and for all; Bibi, get over yourself and start taking seriously what everyone knows has to happen.

Rodney King was wrong--we CAN'T all get along.  Fine.  So let's get down to the nitty gritty business of talking through territorial issues, ensuring security, and reconfiguring the region into two viable and peaceful nation-states.  Barack and Bibi have puffed their chests long enough.

Second-Hand Noise & Other Postmodern Irritants

One of my recent posts dealt with the issue of boundaries.  I want to pick up on that theme again in light of an experience I had yesterday on the L here in Chicago.

I'd just returned from a series of meetings in lovely Las Vegas, and I was beat.  I caught the Blue Line train at O'Hare Airport and settled into my seat, hoping to have an hour of peace after a long and busy weekend.  Before we 'd arrived at our first stop away from the terminal, I witnessed no fewer than eight people (about 40% of those in my train car) immediately start talking on their cell phones.  And I mean really talking--loudly, emphatically, and unapologetically, as if no one was with them and they were in the privacy of their own homes.

I heard each and every conversation: one young woman was griping about a boyfriend; an older man was having a verbal fight with his wife; a TSA worker was schmoozing with a friend.  And on and on.  I had no choice but to listen to their inanity, in all its minute detail.  I felt like I was trapped in a car filled with a bunch of chain smokers.  Their second-hand "smoke," however, was noise.

Part of me wanted to stand up, grab the cell phones out of everyone's hands, and hurl them out of the door at the next stop.  Part of me wanted to shout aloud, "Turn off your damn phones!  I don't want to hear your conversations and I couldn't care less about what you have to say to your friends and family!"  I restrained myself.

Today, I wonder why.  And I'm mad at myself for keeping silent.  If we have become comfortable enough as a society to say to strangers who are smoking in our face, "Would you mind putting out your cigarette?", then why should we tolerate the noise- and space-pollution of people who don't give a second thought to their surroundings or show sensitivity to the privacy of others?

What would you have done?

Bin Laden: Marked Man or Federal Case?

Suddenly the likes of towering intellectuals such as Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and even Osama bin Laden's own millionaire son are arguing that, rather than being the object of a targeted killing, bin Laden should have (somehow) been captured and "brought to justice" through a jury trial in the Hague or here in the United States.  Interesting.

These great minds have drawn comparisons with the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War, which helped to educate the world about the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and the machinery of genocide.

The analogy is comical.  Osama bin Laden was never the president, prime minister, nor Fuhrer of a modern nation-state.  He led Al Qaeda, a terrorist movement, through a network of cells, couriers, and social media outlets.  He commanded no army or navy, murdered Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and in the end aimed not to capture lands or repel invaders but to incite hatred, violence, and spread a twisted, cultish form of Messianism.

Had it even been possible, bin Laden deserved a jury trial about as much as Charles Manson deserved a talk show.

I have opposed, and always will oppose, state-sponsored capital punishment (a discussion on this topic at another time).  But the extrajudicial killing of a mass-murderer who was in the very thick of plotting yet more mass murders is not only justified, it is morally obligatory.

Are We Becoming a Nation of Schmucks?

One thing I can't stomach is when people use Facebook to tell me where they went for brunch or what they bought at Urban Outfitters.  I really don't give a damn.  It's just too much information and minutia.  Is there no such thing as having boundaries anymore?

We seem to have followed that same trend this past week when it comes to discussing the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden.  As some commentators have said already, this is likely the most "non-covert" covert operation ever.  We (and now, of course, the entire world, including the bad guys) know not only which special operations unit carried out the raid, but which specific team; we know the exact number of SEALS who participated; we know they had a dog with them; we know about the new, so-called "Stealth" helicopter; we know the number of minutes the team was on the ground and who they killed and in what sequence; we know that the CIA had surveilled the house for weeks ahead of time.  We know far too many details about the how, when, and where.  And so do the terrorists.

In the weeks and months ahead, there is little doubt that other covert operations will occur, thanks to the data that was collected a week ago.  But now, thanks to the media and a culture that loves minutia so much--and has such a poor grasp of the importance of exercising restraint and respecting boundaries--the very people our troops are stalking will be in a much better position to detect and/or avoid interception and to continue with their homicidal agenda.

When did we become such idiots?

How Do You Spread the "Gonzo" Gospel?

Here I am, after having written 9 books and dozens of magazine and newspaper articles, trying my hand at this (not so) new-fangled medium: the blog. I fought this for years, but I've come to the conclusion that as much as I think that technology and social networks can affect us in negative ways, they can also open up new doors of connectivity like nothing else. And now that I am no longer a congregational rabbi in the conventional sense, I want to start up this online community of seekers, dreamers, thinkers, questioners, doubters, and provocateurs. I have my own gospel to preach—call my approach "gonzo" or "guerilla"—and I plan to start preaching it through this venue. So read my stuff. Write back. Challenge me. Give me kudos or give me crap.  But join this group and jump on the bus with me as we explore this wacky, difficult thing we call the human condition. Come into my tent, sit your butt down, and let's try to figure out--as a community--how to evolve and grow more deeply as spiritual beings, how to critique society, culture, religion, and other trends and tendencies in productive ways, and how to better ourselves and our world by taking the Warrior's Path toward both inner and outer wisdom and transformation.

The Death of bin Laden

The death of Bin Laden was necessary; it was justified; it is not something that should be celebrated in the streets. While his removal should have occurred many years ago, our government and her allies know that this will not end the war on terror. We must remain vigilant and decisive and strong. Sadly, the fight continues.

I saw with my own eyes when the hijacked airplanes, directed by Bin Laden and his lieutenants, flew into the World Trade Center and brought down the twin towers. I counseled at Ground Zero with the other first responders. I helped guide a downtown Manhattan congregation through some of its darkest days. I will never forget those experiences; the memories will never leave me. Yet the reality and the symbolism of today's event makes me feel confident that, in the end and inevitably, evil will never triumph.

Whatever our political views, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the military and intelligence community for their diligence, efforts, and ability. We owe a special debt to our special forces. And, despite the inherent disagreements and tensions with them, we need to thank the government and military of Pakistan for their cooperation, even when it was reluctant.

This is not a time to rejoice or to mourn, to relax or to overreach. It is a time to reflect, assess, and pray.

May this world find peace one day. May we all, at long last, be able to lay down our weapons of war and work to heal this fractured world.