I notice that Aron Tendler’s divrei Torah are all over Torah.org. Torah.org is run by a man with his own predatory ways.
Some of them are reprinted in Community Links, which is distributed all over Los Angeles. Aron Tendler co-authored a couple of Torah essays in recent issues of Community Links (Feb. 13 and Feb. 20).
I left my Alexander Technique class 15 minutes early today so I could get to my therapy at 12:45 pm.
My therapist and I entered a room I had not been in before. We sat in front of a mirror. Behind the mirror was a clinical supervisor and six interns.
I had been preparing for this for weeks. I volunteered for this. I like the attention.
Maybe you’ll get a replacement
There’s plenty like me to be found
Mongrels who aint got a penny
Sniffing for tidbits like you on the ground
I’ve been thinking about what to talk about, what would be most appropriate. I most wanted to talk about a complex interaction I had with a young woman in the back of my 1979 Toyota stationwagon one Sunday night in 1995 but decided to leave that for my private therapy.
I tell my therapist: "The reason I wanted to do this is that ever since about 1992, I’ve had the idea that there are people out there who can help me. In 1992, I was in my fourth year of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I was essentially bedridden. I had been going to various doctors but nobody seemed to have the answer to my CFS, yet I knew there were people out there who could help me, but I didn’t know how to reach out, so I began placing and answering singles ads. Eventually I met a woman 11 years my senior who I went to live with in Orlando in August 1993. She had an excellent psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel Golwyn, who got me on Nardil and on the road to recovery.
"Though I pretty much lead a normal life now, I still feel like I’m facing problems I don’t know how to solve. How am I going to find money to pay for three years of Alexander Technique training so I can qualify to be a teacher and then have a more stable source of income than just my writing? I need to borrow $20,000 for this. How am I going to upgrade my life? During almost every social interaction, I feel like I have "loser" emblazoned across my forehead. At almost every gathering, I feel left out. I feel like I’m standing off to the side and nobody wants to talk to me and finally someone comes over and gives me a mercy chat.
"Nothing’s changed since second grade. Very few people wanted to talk to me then. I was never the biggest loser in my grade but I was rarely among the cool kids. Sure, all the losers were happy to talk to me, but I wanted to be included in the cool circle. I’ve always depended on one cool person adopting me and then guiding me through the social shoals. They’ve shlepped me along and I’ve ridden on their kindness. I’ve been feeling lost since Cathy Seipp died two years ago. Nobody’s replaced Cathy.
"I was talking the other night to a girl I met at LimmudLA. And she said that while I seemed interesting and with things on the ball, at one point she just felt bad for me because it was so obvious I had no friends and nobody wanted to talk to me. And it’s true. I just have this pathetic broken please-rescue-me quality that shines through all my yoga and Alexander Technique and Torah learning and blogging.
"I feel increasingly dependent on this therapy. I know you’re going to leave one day and I’ll have to get another therapist and I’ll be very sad. It’ll be like when my rabbi of seven years gave me the boot. It was horrible for about a month. I felt lost. Then I recovered and life went on.
"I prefer to feel powerful rather than pathetic. I prefer when lots of people are clamoring for my attention and I can choose which one I want to talk to, rather than when I scan a group of people and try to start a conversation. I prefer to have lots of work options so I don’t have to work for someone who calls me "penis breath" or "cocksucker" or "nigger.""
I go on in this way for 30 minutes. It feels stilted compared to regular therapy. I feel like I’m repeating stuff I’ve already covered in therapy so I can bring these strangers up to date with my pressing issues. I feel like my work with my therapist today is less intimate and less effective. I don’t think I want to do this again.
Then my therapist and I switch rooms and I watch four interns discuss for 15 minutes what came up for them when they heard me talk.
I find myself riveted. It’s like watching a movie about your life. I suddenly feel ten times more alive. All my sense are tingling. I feel vulnerable and scared and excited.
They said I was complicated. That I was seeking connection but analyzing it to death in ways that interfere with my connecting. They suspected that when I felt like a loser that that negatively impacted my ability to connect with others. They wondered if I considered the impact my actions have on other people. Have I considered how reading my offensive blog posts affected my rabbi and my religious community? Would I be willing to rein myself in more as a blogger to maintain connection to my rabbi and my community? Did I think about what I had to offer others? That I was keenly aware of my shortcomings, was I also aware of my abilities?
This went on for about 10 minutes. Then we switched rooms again and I discussed for ten minutes what I felt while watching the four interns talk about me.
I want to yell at the interns: "I only want to connect with people who read books. That’s only a small percentage of the population."
"I can’t write while taking into consideration other people’s feelings. I just write with blinders on. Then after I’ve poured everything out, I can review it and edit it appropriately to maintain my most important relationships."
I need a team of psychiatrists working on me around the clock, like they did with the Elephant Man. That’s the only way I’m going to get better.
From my live cam chat:
palestine4ever: As a Jewess, how do you feel about Luke?
palestine4ever: Strictly speaking, did you prefer Twink-but-Porny Luke or Torah-but-Hairy Luke?
Guest12: i prefer clean shaven non yoga lukaleh
palestine4ever: I’m really not trying to be offensive when I say this
palestine4ever: But if he went out with a red nose and big clown shoes I think he’d have better luck
Orthodox Rabbi Reuven Spolter writes:
In a "Modest Proposal" styled op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post, Rabbi David Forman finally throws down the gauntlet. After years of trying to gain recognition from the government as legitimate streams of Judaism and years of failure, it’s time for the Conservative and Reform movements to declare themselves as a separate religion. He writes,
IN LIGHT of all the above, if, together, the Reform and Conservative movements were to declare themselves a separate religion from Orthodoxy, which in fact they are – perhaps not in some of their ritual and liturgical traditions, but most certainly in their ethical moorings regarding their respectful tolerance and concern for the "other" – the state would have no choice but to grant them the rights and privileges enjoyed by other religions in the country, which would necessarily include control over life-cycle events for their own constituency.
Several thoughts crossed my mind:
Click here to read more1. I find it fascinating that he automatically binds Conservative and Reform Judaism together, as if they share identical values, religious beliefs and dogma. Do they really share that much in common? His inadvertent bundling reminds me of my earlier post on the issue, and serves as just another indication that the two streams flow ever-so-slowly towards the inevitable merger. See also this article in the Jewish Standard (that I found via Hirhurim) about the chairman of the Conservative movement which said that
Eisen — co-author with sociologist Steven M. Cohen of “The Jew Within: Self, Family and Community in America” and a respected scholar of American Judaism — acknowledged that he hears much talk about post-denominationalism and has visited some successful, non-affiliated synagogues. “I think that movements are indispensable,” he said, but noted that there’s room for those congregations that are “beyond” movements as well as for cooperative ventures among the different institutions.
2. Despite the derogatory rhetoric about Orthodoxy, I find it refreshing that Forman is finally willing to face the truth: Reform and Conservative Judaism might not be the same religion as Orthodoxy. This raises thorny questions about what a religion really is. How do we distinguish between different faiths versus dividing different streams within a single faith? What would the implications truly be were the two more liberal denominations to declare themselves distinct religions?
BARUCH PELTA POSTS: When R’ J. David Bleich suggested that Reform and Conservative be considered different religions, people got really ticked off.
I guess it’s cool as long as an Orthodox person doesn’t say it.
MYCROFT POSTS: Does Fohrman really think that the move would help the movements? While they might achieve minor benefits in Israel (which is truly doubtful, to be honest), what would the costs of such a move be?"
The costs to Orthodox in the US would be immense-what political power would a religion of 400-500K have in the US especiallyy when the majority would be centered in a couple of counties inNew York State.
In Israel-one should not forget that the anti-religous vote is now as large as the religous vote-Israel Beitenu main bargaining points for coalition were conversion and civil marriage issues-represents 1+million Russians inIsrael. Certainly a high percentage of Meretz, Labor and Kadima were voted for because they have next to no religious support-see egLivnis campaign at the end of the recent Israeli election.
In JerusalemPorush lost to an outand out secularist-Jerusalem where UTJ got approx 10% of the vote-Tel Aviv probably more typical UTJ got 1%.
HAGTGB POSTS: Certainly it was not the Conservative movement that was first to make this move. During the rise of Reform (and later the Conservative movement) the Orthodox went all out to try to keep them out of the official communal bodies of Europe and tried to deny them communal funds (and often, when the Reform took over, they were happy to try to return the favor). As we all know this was because the Orthodox could not legitimize these movements, i.e. saw them outside of Judaism. And the Israeli Rabbinate (and the RCA, Agudah etc.) proudly keep this tradition.
Later, when the Reform took over in Germany, it was R’ Samson R. Hirsch who first moved to have the Orthodox declare their independence from the formal Jewish community. Of course his movement’s goals failed but the point is he went to considerable effort to be declared officially separate from the Reform. Another religion. Separate monies.
And that was for ideological purposes (primarily). Here, we have the Conservative and Reform seeking independence for practical purposes (i.e. to get money to Orthodox have made sure they don’t get).
What I’m trying to say is that what is being suggested is hardly radical. I do agree with R’ Spolter that it is unlikely to have dramatic benefits for those consideration it. It doesn’t change underlying dynamics it appears to me. And as to its effect as a statement, just ask R’ Hirsch. It nearly ruined him.
JOSH POSTS: I agree with the larger point here–this is definitely not a positive development for Klal Yisrael. But I hope perhaps it will serve to highlight how often Orthodox leaders have insisted that Conservative and Reform Judaism are not, in fact, "real Torah Judaism." And yes, this sort of disrespect is sometimes a two-way street, but let’s be honest: has anyone ever heard of a Conservative community rejecting an Orthodox conversion?
A couple other thoughts on a very thought-provoking post:
A. It’s not clear to me how the Eisen quote illustrates Cons and Reform Jews being lumped together. "Post-denomenationalism" and Independent Minyanim are an important phenomenon in the Modern Orthodox world as well (though not to the same extent as in the Conservative world)–Indy Minyanim like Hadar in NYC draw significant numbers of MO Jews as well, and even more importantly the growing tide of Shira Chadasha style indy minyanim emerging from MO communities is a part of that trend too.
B. Also not clear to me how losing a tie to Orthodox Judaism hurts the other movements in practical affiliation #’s. I don’t know many Reform Jews who are active in their Reform temple because it’s not an Ortho Shul but hey, at least it’s the same religion! For better or for worse (I’m probably vote worse), most non-Ortho Jews really don’t care all that much what Ortho Jews think of them. Or, put in more empirical terms–the Jews leaving Cons and Reform aren’t for the most part, joining Orthodoxy. They’re becoming less connected, less affiliated.
DR. D.M. KALMAN POSTS: Is this not like the situation with the Kariates? They are known as "Kariate Jews" but certainly no longer viewed as actual Jews by mainstream or Torah Judiasm. As the Reform and Conservative give the "get" and make converts in non-orthodox ways they will move more and more into a completely different catagory–only the first generation of the breakaways will be acceptabe back into to fold should they choose to do tshuvah. I suspect the same will eventually happen to Chabad if it doesn’t turn back from the nonesense with which it has become involved.
ARYEH POSTS: In my community, there is such a minyan. I would not view it a spart of modern orthodoxy. It meets in a Reform temple library. Its members almost exclusively grew up conservative shuls. Perhaps their only touch point with Orthodox Judaism was some years in a Modern Orthodox day school. Creating something new, and saying it is part of Orthodoxy, does not make it so. BTW I am Modern Orthodox Jew, not some right wing radical, but someone who lives in the modern world with a professional job etc.
On the larger topic, this is where our path has lead us. Woe to us! Conservative and Reform have become one because ni really practices Conservative Judaism anymore (how many Conservative Jews only drive to the nearest shul, not to the one they like to go to, or ot to breakfast before shul), and Reform has become more "traditional" in its ways (kippot). Unlike most, though, I view the idea of klal yisrael as more important than temporal issues. We need to find ways to come together even we disagree theologically. Saying we are a different religion, ends those chances.
JOSH POSTS: Aryeh, that’s actually very interesting to hear–it’s quite different from my own experience with a few of these Shira Chadasha style minyanim in different cities. The ones I’ve been to have a majority of congregants who are children of Ortho families, grew up in Ortho shuls–very much coming out of the MO world. I’m not calling these minyanim Orthodox; that’s why I think they’re "post-denominational," but I think they’re the primary way post-denominationalism has an impact on MO communities.
Also, the minyan you describe is puzzling to me. What’s the attraction of a Shira Chadasha style minyan for non-Ortho Jews? Many non-Ortho Jews I know dislike Shira Chadasha style minyanim because it feels regressive–why go from fully egalitarian davening to only partially egalitarian davening if you don’t feel halachically constrained to do so?
ARYEH POSTS: Josh, I think for the group I am describing it comes down to two types: 1. A compromise between spouses who might otherwise be in different places; 2. People who grew up Conservative, but practicing who feel that the Conservative movement has left them entirely and certainly does not have many Shabbat communities. These "partnership minyanim" provide that community for them. That is all fine for them, but there seems to be some longing to be indentified as Orthodox, and to explain why Orthodoxy has a big problem that is solved by their minyan. Orthodoxy, MO in particular, has many problems. But, none of them are solved by this type of group.
Orthodox Rabbi Gil Student writes:
There is a recent news item quoting R. Ovadiah Yosef as permitting women to read megillah on Purim for men (Haaretz, Arutz Sheva). This is in the news because R. Yosef recently said it publicly but it is not, in my opinion, newsworthy because he has consistently ruled like this for decades and has published this ruling multiple times in his writings (e.g. Yechaveh Da’as 3:51, 5:34; Yalkut Yosef, vol. 5 pp. 287-289).
However, I believe that there are three important comments to be made about this ruling.Click here to read more
There are a few recent articles arguing that this only applies during the day and not at night, but they are (in not just my opinion but that of many others) entirely unconvincing. R. Aryeh Frimer, a self-described feminist and a chronicler of halakhic views on women’s issues, concludes in his article "Women’s Megilla Reading" (link):
See also these two article in the Torah U-Madda Journal, vol. 9:
Y. Aharon posts: None of the arguments that have been raised here against women reading the Megillah are relevant to the issue of a woman reading for women. Even the consideration of the megillah reading (as pirsumei nissa) being enhanced in the presence of a large number of men and women, i.e, in shul, doesn’t apply to the many women whose family obligations prevent them from attending the regular shul readings. Instead, they arrange for "private" readings – often by young bachurim who do not read accurately. In their case, it makes more sense to hear the reading from an adult, learned woman. That is the more honorable way which also allows them to better participate in the event, i.e. by booing Haman.
LIMER RICK POSTS:
There once was a woman from Manila
Who wanted to read the Megillah
No one would heed her
To make her the reader
Leaving her between Charybdis and Scylla
JOE SCHMO POSTS: Who says that an Askenazi Jew cannot follow the psak of R.Ovadia Yosef, an undisputed gadol and gaon of our generation?
Why does skin color or country of origin determine one’s "halachic allegiance" ? Why is there such a concept at all of ‘halachic allegiance,’ (meaning, one that persists to today when Jews are no longer cut off from other communities, or no longer live in "Ashkenaz" or "sepharad" or Poland,etc) where did it come from, what are the sources to back it up as valid in a Torah framework even now?
If ROY has daath Torah, and his reasoning on the issue is considered valid and consistent by the Jew in question who accepts his authority, and it makes more sense than a contrary opinion, why must said Jew "ally" himself with a posek of similar skin color or similar national origin from 3-10 generations ago rather than follow this psak? Not that I particularly care to hear megilla read by a woman vs. a man, but on principle I disagree with/ do not understand the premises of this discussion. Someone please explain.
WASHINGTON (March 2, 2009) – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s refusal to even use the word “terrorism” in remarks prepared for a congressional hearing last week underlines the fact that she has yet to commit to upholding the laws that derive from the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on border security.
To highlight the importance of these measures, Janice Kephart has prepared the latest installment in her “Border Basics” educational video series, this one entitled “What Is Terrorist Travel?” Kephart, the Director of National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, concludes that securing against terrorist travel is essential to eliminate the fraud that enables people to enter, stay, and work in this country for illegal purposes.
Among the laws based on 9/11 Commission recommendations which Napolitano is now responsible for are:
Verifying identity, authenticating travel documents, and assuring legal status to live and work in the United States have all proven their worth in improving security. Since terrorists exploit many of the same border vulnerabilities as identity thieves, drug runners, alien smugglers, and illegal aliens to enter and stay in the United States illicitly, it is imperative that the lessons learned and reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission remain on the front burner of policy development. And yet solid programs that work to expose, deter, and arrest fraud are at risk of stagnating or even being rolled back.
View all the videos in the “Border Basics” series. All of our videos can also be viewed on our YouTube and Facebook pages.
I talk to Bill (WilliamLobdell.com) by phone Sunday afternoon.
Bill: "I thought the two (religion and journalism) were intertwined. I thought God’s calling for me was to be a religion writer."
Luke: "People do feel called to journalism. There is a sense that is a holy calling and it’s a clique of priests."
Bill: "I guess so. I guess that’s why we don’t mind the low-pay and the terrible hours. I guess journalists want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, probably religion is similar to that."
Luke: "There’s also the zealousness for truth."
Bill: "I’m old-fashioned in that I think that’s dying out. In the younger generation of journalists, it is not so much a calling as a job. I don’t see that same passion among many of the younger reporters I’ve worked with."
Luke: "How many evangelical Christians were there among the reporters and editors [at the Los Angeles Times]?"
Bill laughs. "Not many. It’s a fairly godless newsroom. There aren’t a lot of people who attend services on a weekly basis no matter what their faith. I ran across a couple of evangelical Christians, but I always kept my faith on the downlow because I don’t think it would’ve reflected well on me and my career so it was kinda sad for me. Because I didn’t wear it on my sleeve, I was privy to the comments people would have about evangelical Christians or people of faith in general, and they weren’t always kind."
Luke: "What was the ratio of kind to unkind comments from your peers about evangelical Christians?"
Bill: "They are viewed as interesting or weird animals. It’s gotten better over the years. People have gotten more sensitive to the fact that there can be thoughtful normal people who are evangelical Christians, but I do think there is a kneejerk…uneasiness about it because I think it’s foreign. It’s not anything that’s vicious or that they are out to get them. I just think it’s ignorance."
Luke: "To what extent is that cultural disconnect responsible for the failure of the Los Angeles Times as a business?"
Bill: "Very little. Over the long-term, it probably did have an impact, but with the market forces, they could’ve been an exact mirror of Southern California and they’d still be in the same spot they are in today."
Luke: "If I had asked you eight years ago why were you a Christian, what would you have said?"
Bill: "Because I had experienced Jesus in my heart. I had prayed for it, I felt him come into my heart. And that that’s backed up by my reading of scripture and other books that support that feeling."
Luke: "It was primarily an experiential thing."
Bill: "It was. My friends who were Christian seemed to have a much happier life than I was having at the time. It was their Christian walk as displayed in everyday life that made me envious of them, made me think, ‘Maybe there’s something to this?’ Then I found the same kind of experience and felt the same kind of feelings. That’s what sucked me in. It wasn’t some intellectual exercise. It became that later on to make sure that my beliefs were true. I spent a lot of time in Christian apologetic books and classic Christian literature with minds that were far greater than mine to shore up my faith, but initially it was an emotional experience."
Luke: "Yes. And it was an emotional experience that moved you out."
Bill: "Yeah. It was the same kind of thing. It was several different incidents, really hundreds of different incidents that put dents in my faith and made me doubt it. And then I did the same kind of thing, I went around trying to shore up my faith and trying to gather evidence that it was true, but this time I was looking at it through a slightly different [lens]. Instead of being someone who had just gained his faith and wants to learn about it, I was someone who was questioning his faith and was gathering some evidence to shore it up. And everywhere I looked, the evidence was pointing in the other direction, which was quite a surprise."
Luke: "On page 273 of your book, you quote an email you received from a church-going mother after you told your story in the Los Angeles Times and she talks about losing her losing 10-year old child to cystic fibrosis and how she felt betrayed by God. It’s a common feeling among other people in your book and in the world in general. It’s interesting to me that when other people were losing their children to cystic fibrosis, this woman wasn’t feeling betrayed by God. Only when it happens to them."
Bill: "That’s like life, isn’t it? My teenager got diabetes. I knew it was not a great thing to have, but it wasn’t until he got it that you understand the horror of the disease and how tough it is. Answers are more simple when they are in the abstract. It’s like when you have a gay son and you’re really against homosexuality and you have to reexamine your thoughts and values."
Luke: "So much of what you describe in the book is people being religious while it works for them and stopping being religious when it no longer works for them."
Bill: "I view that differently. The vast majority of people that are religious give God all the credit in the world when things go right, including finding a parking space, and He gets none of the blame when things go wrong. That always drove me crazy. I’d love that job where I get all the praise when things go right and none of the blame when things go wrong."
"Even very religious people have these kind of doubts but they’re just not allowed to talk about them. I think it’s better in Judaism than in Christianity. Culturally, you’re not allowed to really doubt too much. The answers are all very pat. When someone like me comes out and says, ‘I had these doubts and they haunted me,’ people, even when they’re still Christians, like to read it. One of the places I’m getting booked the most is churches. They want to hear the story."
"In Christianity and Judaism, it’s been watered down so much in so many denominations that people sense that there’s not a whole lot there. It’s more something to do on a Sunday and they meet some friends but the rest of the week they are not really living out the radical messages that are in the Gospels, for instance. If they would do that, they would probably lose a lot of people, but the faith would be more authentic. That’s why I like much better the people on the far right or the far left of any kind of faith, because they act like their scriptures are real."
Luke: "How big of a role did friends play in your journey into and out of religion?"
Bill: "Certainly into. I made a whole bunch of friends who I am still close to. We had a weekly Bible study. That was the hard part of leaving, my whole life was centered around this world. It was hard to come to grips with not believing this stuff anymore. It took me about four years. I lost my faith around 2002 and it took me until 2006 to admit to myself that I just don’t believe anymore."
"Before I wrote this essay for the Los Angeles TImes, I initially thought this could be a book. I called agents and they said, ‘A book on atheism would never sell in America.’ About eight of them said that. Then in six months, three of them are at the top of the bestseller list. That shows that there’s a real hunger out there for people to talk honestly about matters of faith. I bet a lot of people of faith have bought those books to get the other side of things."
Luke: "Did you lose friends when you switched churches and when you left the church?"
Bill: "I didn’t lose friends when I switched churches. I did lose a couple of friends when I left the faith. Especially because I spoke out about it, they thought I was doing damage to the Body of Christ. They thought I was either a troubled person or a danger to Christianity or a tool of Satan. When my kid got diabetes, my brother in law called to tell me it was because I stopped believing in God. God’s protection had been lifted from my house. But those were exceptions. He’s a little nuts anyway. Now we don’t have to talk to him anymore."
"Everybody could use a little bit of humility. I find atheists to be arrogant people. There are religious people who are so cocksure of their beliefs. If everybody would just step back a bit and instead of preaching, just act out their faith, we’d all be a lot better."
Luke: "How much ego did you have invested in your Christianity and is that why it took four years for you to come out of the closet about your loss of belief?"
Bill: "It did. It was ego and it was a lot of self-denial. I couldn’t believe that this world I had built myself around, being a mainstream journalist it was not the most popular thing to be this public Christian, and I didn’t even realize how much I had invested until a friend asked me what was new, and I said, ‘I lost my faith.’ He just stopped dead in his tracks. That was tough. My mind wouldn’t just let it be. I tried to ignore it. I tried Bible study, prayer, retreats. None of it worked. It was just gone. There was no light on. Eventually, because I was going crazy, I decided I just had to be honest. Living in truth is the best way to go. It was a real relief once I accepted what had happened to me."
Luke: "How difficult was it for you to start offering your services as a media manager aka publicist?"
Bill: "Yeah. I haven’t gotten one job. I haven’t really pursued that. I thought I’d put that on the website in case someone I wanted it. No one does. I am actually pretty close to starting with a partner a local paper for Newport Beach, Costa Mesa. We’ve figured out a model close to the Voices of San Diego model [but for profit]. That will eventually be my fulltime job."
Luke: "How dangerous is the serious practice of journalism to one’s religious life?"
Bill: "Oh God, this was probably a failing of mine if I really believed my faith, but I was always a journalist first. I was always wanting to get the story and not being concerned at all about the consequences. I felt in the back of my mind that as long as the truth got out that would be good for the institution or the faith. The newsroom is not the most conducive environment to people of faith. You’re fairly isolated. You can find people of faith in there but it’s not like finding a Democract in the newsroom. There are times that you feel isolated and you can’t talk. There are things that you do such as knock on the door of an accident victim’s father to see how he feels, there are things that conflict with your faith that you’ve got to reconcile."
Luke: "How easy was it at the Los Angeles Times to be out about your homosexuality as opposed to being out about your evangelical Christianity?"
Bill: "I don’t think there’s any problem with being out about homosexuality. I mean zero. I don’t want to give the impression that there’s some oppressive environment at the Times, it’s just not the norm, and a lot of people don’t know how to deal with it. I heard some whispers that some people were uneasy that an evangelical Christian was covering the religion beat as though I was going to be proselytizing on it. I’ve never heard that concern when it comes to having a Democrat cover President Bush. I found it really insulting. It’s almost a benign neglect of how they don’t know about a certain kind of faith as opposed to some kind of persecution of people."
Luke: "I did a project where I interviewed editors in the parochial Jewish press and some of them told me that if you covered a synagogue with much scrutiny, you’d destroy it. What do you think?"
Bill: "I think you should cover with as much scrutiny as you possibly can. If there’s corruption or malfeasance within that institution, it should be brought to light. For the members sake, for the community’s sake. These are tax-free institutions. In a way, they’re underwritten by the rest of America. If they can’t hold up to scrutiny, that’s their problem. I get that quite a bit, especially covering the Catholic church. ‘When are you going to stop? This is a good institution. You’ve got to stop hammering on it.’ I think that as long as there are stories there, there are scandals there, it needs to be brought out into the light of day."
Luke: "I broke the story about the mayor’s marriage ending. I think it’s a story who the mayor is sleeping with without any other news consideration. What about a pastor? What do you think?"
Bill: "I think there has to be some sign of hypocrisy before it becomes a news story. That the woman the mayor was having an affair with was reporting on him makes it no question a big story. A pastor who rails against homosexuality and is having a gay affair, that’s fair. Pastors are in a different league. Any kind of extra-marital affair is against their scriptures. They are supposed to be good moral people. For others, it is a case by case basis. If the mayor was separated and dating on the side? Is that a news story? I don’t think so."
Luke: "I’d think that whoever the CEO of a major city is sleeping with is a big story."
Bill: "I disagree. If he was sleeping with a waitress or someone who has no influence on the city, I don’t see the news story. If he’s sleeping with a lobbyist or the head of a big company that is getting favors from the city, then it becomes a news story."
Luke: "What role did Howard Stern play in the writing of your book?"
Bill: "I really like Howard. I think he’s the comic genius of America. He’s the best interviewer in the media of anyone. He had Martha Stewart on and within two seconds had her talking about why kind of vibrator she uses. I’m not sure anyone else can do that. He also gets other information that is not so sexual. More than that, what makes Howard Stern compelling is that he’s relentlessly honest about himself. He talks about all his shortcomings, all his dark thoughts, all his failings. That makes him like someone giving a testimonial at an AA meeting. It makes him totally lovable, you see him as he is, this public personality. One of the hard parts of writing the memoir was being honest. I had to admit some things that were really painful. I kept going back to, ‘What Would Howard Do? How would Howard handle this?’ Sometimes it took two or three passes through the material before I got down to what the truth was. I hold him up as this icon of truth. It’s kinda funny being on the religion beat that I have to go to a controversial shock jock — I hate that expression — as my model for truth when I had Catholic bishops and other holy men around me that I would never use as models of truth."
Luke: "It’s amazing what a low value truth has in the organized religion I know."
Bill: "It’s such a scandal. It’s not just with the hierarchy, the people in the pews don’t want to know the truth. They just want to go to their place of worship, be sealed off in a bubble, and feel that everything on the stage is perfect and there’s no trouble…"
"One of the reasons I began to doubt my faith was that if these great leaders could not have the courage of their religious convictions to tell the truth, who could? Where is this courage? I didn’t see a lot of courage out there. The Catholics are an easy place to start. People always tell me, ‘You talk about the molesting priests and the bishops who cover up, but there are a lot of really good priests out there.’ Most of the priests out there knew what was going on and they chose not to get involved. They turned away. Is that a good priest? They do a lot of good things, no doubt, but it’s not like they are completely innocent. You’re dealing with kids here. They would just turn a blind eye to what was going on."
Luke: "I was struck by your point about how little courage there is in the Christian media."
Bill: "Don’t get me started."
"The people who try to reconvert me and get me over to their movement, it’s such a waste of time. I’ve been through it all. I probably know more than what they do about what they’re pitching. If it’s an evangelical Christian, I’ll say, ‘Hey, let’s say I’m a Mormon. And I say, ‘As proof of Mormonism, I’m going to send you passages from the Book of Mormon that are underlined and say you have to read this and this and they’ll convert you,’ would that mean anything to you?’ They go, ‘No, why would it? It’s not true.’ I go, ‘That’s the way I feel about the Bible. Save your paper. Save your breath. I always tell them to do what St. Francis of Assissi said, ‘Preach the Gospel at all times, and sometimes, if necessary, use words.’ If you would just act out your faith in a way that’s in accordance with the Bible, you’d have more converts than you could handle.’ But they just don’t do that."
Luke: "Any reactions to your book that surprise you?"
Bill: "I’m pleasantly surprised at the quality of the reviews. They’ve been very kind. I’m surprised by the embrace of the book by serious Christians. They’re usually on the Left or the Right. They’re inviting me to their churches to be their guest speaker. They want to hear what I have to say because they think there are lessons they can learn. The pitch by the pastor of this church in San Diego that invited me is, ‘If Christianity can drive a person like this away, we’ve got to understand what’s going on.’"
Luke: "I had a rabbi who made the point that if Christians had tons of rituals, they wouldn’t be as driven to proselytize. As a Jew, you’re so busy just performing your religion that there’s not much time left to proselytize. As you said a minute ago, people don’t want to do the hard work of actually living their faith in a way that’s a glory to God. They just want to make converts."
Bill: "That’s a good point. It’s much easier to shoot me off a few Bible passages or a pamphlet. I get a fair amount of, ‘You’re so stupid. You’re going to spend the rest of eternity in Hell.’ That’s easy. I sense that this is from the people who have some insecurities about their faith. The real hostility, certainly not Biblical, in the way they’re coming after me. In their eyes, they’re taking a gun and shooting a lost sheep. That’s easy.
"The hard thing is to bring in the homeless. The Catholic Worker, a lefty group in the Catholic church, they believe that Jesus was serious when he says take care of the homeless. They open up homes and anybody can come in there and spend the night. The one in Orange County that I focused on, they get 170 homeless people that are mentally ill, on drugs, in one fairly small house and backyard, but they can’t turn anyone away because Jesus wouldn’t turn anyone away. That’s the kind of radical faith that’s very difficult. I spent the afternoon there and I got the hugest headache. I was thinking, ‘I’m not really a Christian. I would never do this.’"
Now he’s been hit with holy conviction:
Lakewood, NJ – Hatzolah responded about 11:00am Shabbas morning to East End Avenue, for reports of a teenage boy who was unconscious and didn’t wake up, from a drug overdose.
After Hatzolah trying to work on the child to resuscitate him, the 19-year-old boy was r”l pronounced dead, as the result of overdosing on the pain reliever drug Percocet.
