Monday, June 30, 2014

On the Murder of three Israeli Teenagers


“Baruch Dayan HaEmet. Blessed be the judge of truth. We recite these words from our tradition upon hearing of the death of an individual. I intone these sacred words to express our grief at the news yesterday that the Israeli authorities found the three teenagers murdered and laying in a field in the vicinity of the city of Hebron. We hoped and prayed that these boys would be able to return to their families and we watched as the Israeli army gave their frantic and best efforts to rescue them from their Palestinian captors. Does it take this kind of brutality to demonstrate to the world that Israel continues to be a victim of terrorism? Leaders will signal their outrage and others their sympathies while other leaders will remain silent. Still some of Israel’s adversaries will celebrate this brazen and despicable crime.
I know we as a congregation share in the mourning and in what must be the unbearable pain that the families are experiencing at this moment. For this reason I invite everyone to join me at services this coming Shabbat to recite the mourner’s Kaddish as we add their names to the Kaddish list for the next four weeks.
Naftali Frankel 19, Gilad Shaar 16, Eyal Efrach 19, will be laid to rest. We pray to god “hastrireyhu b’seter c’nafechah l’olamim shield them forever in your sheltering presence. And may their souls be bound up in bonds of eternal life. The Eternal is their Portion and may they rest in peace.”
Once again this tragedy calls upon us to express our support and solidarity with the people of Israel and its government. May the government of Israel use its wisdom in response to those responsible for this act. Let us pray for the parents who are grieving at this hour and that their prayers and the support they are no doubt receiving from friends, family and those around the world who reach out to them will in time to come ease their burden. “May God comfort them amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”
Shalom

Rabbi Brad L. Bloom

Saturday, June 21, 2014

The Presbyterian Assembly's Vote to support Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel and American Companies

The Vote for Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel
The vote is in and the Presbyterian Assembly has spoken. Even though it was a close vote 310-303, the Assembly made its choice. I woman who was guest at Shabbat Services on Friday came over to me and said,” never mind what the national vote was it did not reflect how we feel about Israel in our church.” I was comforted by her comments but the truth of the matter is that the vote to support BDS sends a clarion call to Presbyterians and liberal Christians around the country and the world that the tide is shifting and the center of gravity is shifting away from Israel. It leaves us with more questions than before such as, ‘When we analyze their vote and their congregational study guide Zionism Unsettled should accept the fact that at the root of this movement there is a powerful and dominant core which is blatantly anti-Semitic? Do we engage our Presbyterian neighbors and try to change their minds? Should we reach out to the more conservative church movements who do offer complete support to Israel? Must we become more proactive in making the case for Israel than before with all our Christian neighbors?  These are just a few of the questions that call upon us for a response.
Another issue has arisen which is the speech and letter by Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the URJ who accepted an invitation to speak to the Assembly during its debate on this matter. First we should say that Rabbi Jacobs did the right thing by showing leadership and delivering his speech as well as composing a letter earlier on that was distributed to every member of the Assembly. What is troubling are some newspaper accounts such as the New York Times article that appeared on Saturday reviewing the vote and his speech. The Times reporter said, “In a last-ditch tactic on Thursday, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, leader of the Reform movement (the largest branch in American Judaism), addressed the assembly and offered to broker a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the church’s two top leaders so they could convey their church’s concerns about the occupation — on the condition that the divestment measure was defeated. That offer appears to have backfired, with some saying afterward that it felt both manipulative and ineffectual, given what they perceive as Mr. Netanyahu’s approval of more settlements in disputed areas and lack of enthusiasm for peace negotiations.“I’m not sure it was the strategy I would have chosen,” the Rev. Gradye Parsons, the church’s stated clerk and one of the two leaders invited to meet Mr. Netanyahu, said in an interview. “I’m sure it was a sincere and generous invitation. I’m not sure it was helpful in our debate.”
Read between the lines at how the clergy reacted to his remarks.  Having read the speech I could see how they would react that way.  Aside from the fact that I am deeply saddened by their decision, I have questions about Rabbi Jacobs remarks. I call upon him to provide us in the movement further clarification about what he was trying to achieve and why he thought that offering the Presbyterians a seat with him when he meets with Mr. Netanyahu was an effective strategy in his speech?’
It is quite possible that no matter what he said the vote would have turned out to be the same result. I wonder, however, whether staying on message regarding the values of Israel and its connection to prophetic values would have been a stronger pathway for this speech.
For this reason I have included a variety of links consisting of his letter and speech as well as my letter to the congregation about this matter. Judge for yourself and let me know what you think.
Shavua Tov
Rabbi Brad Bloom
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/presbyterians-debating-israeli-occupation-vote-to-divest-holdings.html
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/146b99869534edad
http://www.icjs.org/featured-articles/open-letter-presbyterian-church-0  Reverend Chris Leighton who is a Presbyterian Ordained Minister wrote this article regarding the vote and the book Zionism Unsettled.
JTA Jacobs invites Presbyterian leaders to join him in Netanyahu meeting
June 19, 2014 5:00pm
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The leader of the Reform movement asked his Presbyterian counterparts to join him in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make their case against Israeli practices in the West Bank.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, spoke Thursday in Detroit at the biennial general assembly of the Presbyterian Church-USA, which is considering a proposal to divest from companies that deal with Israeli security services in the West Bank.
Jacobs said passage of the proposal, which has already been approved by a key committee, would occasion a rupture between Presbyterians and Jews.
“A vote for divestment will cause a painful rift with the great majority of the Jewish community,” he said.
“If we are truly partners and you disapprove this divestment overture, I look forward to sitting with your leadership in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem,” Jacobs said. “You can choose partnership and engagement or you can choose separation and divestment.”
The vote on the divestment proposal is due to take place on Friday.
Named in Jacobs’ invitation, which earned applause from the assembly, were Heath Rada and Gradye Parsons, respectively lay and religious leaders of the church.
Jacobs said he shared the Presbyterians’ concerned about settlement policy.
“We are against settlements,” he said. “We are for a two-state solution, but we can’t fight alone. We need each other, and if you choose partnership over divestment and BDS, together we can change the world.”
The proposed divestment resolution had been modified to explicitly distance itself from BDS, or the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which many in the Jewish community see as advocating for the dismantling of Israel. However, Jacobs said this was not enough, especially in light of an anti-Zionist tract published this year by a church committee.
“The document, which is being sold through your online church store, is a vicious attack on Judaism, the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” he said. Jacobs, who is scheduled to meet next week with Netanyahu, has not yet received a response from the church leaders.






Saturday, June 7, 2014

Here is the newspaper article on our commemoration.

http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/06/05/3148746/70-years-after-d-day-veterans.html

This is the correct article on our congregation's commemoration as reported in the newspaper article.
Sorry for the confusion.
Brad

My recent newspaper column on the 70th Anniversary of D-Day

http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/06/06/3150308/among-d-day-stories-are-those.html

In addition to the newspaper article written on our congregation's special service, I am posting my newspaper column on the same subject with special emphasis on the role of chaplains.
Thanks for reading the piece and for any comments.
shalom
Brad

D-Day 70th Anniversary Newspaper article

http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/06/06/3150308/among-d-day-stories-are-those.html



This past Shabbat our congregation held a 70th anniversary commemoration. It was awesome. The local newspaper did this article and it includes several of my congregants including my Dad. Enjoy the read and comments are appreciated.
Shalom,
Brad

Monday, June 2, 2014

the Supreme Court Weighs in on Prayer in public meetings.

www.bethyam.orgMay 23, 2014 
Supreme Court Town Board Prayer
People walk on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on April 26.
JACQUELYN MARTIN — File, The Associated Press
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on whether clergy's speech should be restricted when delivering invocations at government meetings that are open to the public.
In the case of the Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, the town can continue its practice of invocations without establishing any rules in regard to being sensitive to minority faith traditions.
The majority decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explained, "To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech.
"A rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town's current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact," he wrote.
In other words, the government has no business telling clergy what their prayers could or couldn't say. If government has to establish rules for giving an invocation at a council meeting, then that could potentially represent a government encroachment in the expression of freedom of religion.
Kennedy concluded that the only way the court might have ruled for the plaintiff is if there was "a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize or betray an impermissible government purpose." Those kinds of criterion could very well violate the Constitution.
After the court handed down its decision, I was invited to deliver the invocation and benediction during commencement exercises at University of South Carolina Beaufort. As I prepared both prayers, I sensed that almost all in attendance would not belong to my faith tradition.
There might have been some there who might have preferred a prayer leader closer to their own faith tradition. Likewise, there could have been others who would have chosen not to have any religious prayers. Yet, we are a nation that reveres God, and by having clergy deliver an opening prayer one hopes the right tone is struck, one that says the event is sacred as well as secular.
The underlying issue with the Supreme Court case was not about stopping the grand American tradition of clergy giving prayers to open meetings. Rather, it was to establish an ethos that clergy should be less concerned about representing their own beliefs and more concerned that their language strikes a balance between the duty to create a sacred moment and saying a prayer on behalf of others who might not share their beliefs.
The problem should not be about restricting freedom of religious speech, rather, the challenge should be to encourage and expect clergy to be sensitive and exercise responsible religious speech.
Whatever happened to being ecumenical? Don't clergy have a responsibility to stretch themselves when they are asked to participate in a prayer occasion like a town council meeting or the board of education? Why can't government bodies issue a simple guideline for inclusiveness?
Let's not forget that the podium at a city council meeting, for example, is not a pulpit.
So who is it all about? Isn't this about the meeting attendees who are supposed to be embraced by the heartfelt words that create an ecumenical tent through the prayer?
This issue belongs to the longstanding and ongoing conflict in American culture regarding how high the wall separating religion from the state should be. Some Supreme Courts will build up that wall while other courts, for example, such as the current one, choose to lower it.
The issue is not freedom of speech, but responsible speech. Public institutions should send the message that being ecumenical is a good value and that clergy at public or state-sponsored events are expected to step outside the box when they are praying on behalf of people who belong to many different religions.
I urge clergy to ask themselves, "Am I betraying my own faith tradition if I write an invocation in a way that does not make reference to the particular beliefs of my faith?"
Answering this question will demonstrate just how far we have come and how far we need to progress. Yes, clergy always represent their own faith tradition no matter what they do, but adapting their prayers into a broader framework to deliver an invocation at a state-sponsored meeting does not automatically mean diminishing their own integrity or that of the faith they hold dearly. On the contrary, it may at the end of the day, garner even more respect for them and their faith tradition.
Columnist Rabbi Brad L. Bloom is the rabbi at Congregation Beth Yam on Hilton Head Island. He can be reached at 843-689-2178. Read his blog at www.fusion613.blogspot.com and follow him attwitter.com/rabbibloom

The Supreme Court weighs in on prayer in public meetings.

http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/05/23/3126061/supreme-court-ruling-doesnt-lessen.html



This a link to my most recent newspaper column on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding prayer in public meetings. Thanks for taking the time to read it. Your comments are always welcome.
Shalom,
Brad