Galois

Shabbat Hagadol

This upcoming Sabbath is Aharei Mot, which refers to the section of the Torah that is read which among other things contains the verse Leviticus 18:22.  I used this occasion last year to write a series of posts discussing some interpretations of that verse and the views of Conservative Judaism on homosexuality in general.  I thought I would start this year by providing a quick update on the situation.  As I mentioned then:

The Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards (the central halakhic authority of the Conservative movement) is revisiting this issue as we speak.

Those words are still true today.  Most recently the CJLS met a few weeks ago in Baltimore to present draft teshuvot.  I have herad that it will probably be in October when they will actually take votes on them, but the Rabbinical Assembly did issue a press release (.doc)  The main body of it reads as follows:

The Conservative movement is concerned with maintaining its bonds to Jewish tradition and halakhic integrity even as it undertakes a topic of great social relevance and controversy. While the committee has met several times over the past two years in consideration of this matter, this week’s meeting is the first in which the teshuvot, responsa on various aspects of the issue, were presented.

“It was an intense and constructive meeting,” commented Rabbi Kassel Abelson of Minneapolis, chair of the CJLS, in the aftermath of the gathering. “We are involved in the very process which will lead us to important decisions. Because it is an halakhic process, it requires careful study and will therefore extend into the coming months.”

Although there are a range of views currently held by members of the Committee, the spirit of the latest discussions was one that seeks to involve gay and lesbian Jews in Conservative Jewish communities in much fuller ways, obliging them to religious and communal responsibilities, and extending to them membership and leadership rights to the greatest extent permitted by halakhah (Jewish law).

At the conclusion of its meeting, the CJLS drafted a four-point Statement for the Conservative Community. It reads as follows: 

• At the heart of the Torah is the concept of holiness (kedushah) expressed in its command, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord am holy.” Flowing from this declaration are policies regulating the spiritual, ritual, social and sexual lives of Jews. Kiddushin, the sanctification of love in heterosexual marriage, is a centerpiece of Jewish life.

• For a variety of reasons, the Jewish ideal of heterosexual marriage is unrealistic for many Jews. We emphatically recognize the human dignity (k’vod habriot) of all such individuals, and invite them to participate within our religious communities. 

• Recalling the Torah’s command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord,” we rededicate our movement to making its congregations and educational institutions inclusive and welcoming of all Jews regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.

• The parameters of sexual conduct for gay and lesbian Jews, their eligibility for admission to rabbinical and cantorial school, and commitment ceremonies remain the subject of a lively debate within the ongoing deliberations of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.

I was particulary heartened by the second point.  Once we recognize that heterosexual marraige is unrealistic for some Jews the question is raised how should they be guided to live their lives.  Alone?  In a committed, but celibate relationship?  Or in a committed monogamous, but not necessarily celibate relationship?  These are some of the questions with which the committee is wrestling.

So that's a summary of what has happened with regards to last year's post on Aharei Mot.  I thought I should write something this year as well.  This year Aharei Mot falls on a special Sabbath, Shabbat Hagadol (The Great Sabbath).  This is a day which commemorates the great miracle that happened as the Jews were preparing to leave Egypt.  They were able to sacrifice a lamb (the Paschal Lamb or Karbon Pesach) without being hindered by their Egyptian masters for whom the lamb was sacred.  We were instructed to partake of this sacrificial meal as a family (see Exodus 12:3), and even today when the sacrifice is no longer made we still view the Seder meal as the centerpiece of the holiday and still find it important to celebrate it as a family.

Family is extremely important to Judaism, and marriage is extremely important to family.  A marriage changes three families.  Each spouse, at that point, joins the other's family while togther they start a new family of their own.  Among other things marriage does, it marks and celebrates this definite point at which one becomes a part of a new family.  There is a big difference between a "boyfriend" and a "husband" and "son-in-law".  Certainly not every family is always so welcoming when someone comes out, but fortunately more and more are.  It is important for these families to be able to mark and celebrate the moment in time when they welcome someone new into the Mishpacha.

I won't be posting or commenting for several days because of the upcoming holiday.  Over this week when we think of family, I ask that we not only "rededicate our movement to making its congregations and educational institutions inclusive and welcoming" but also our families.  Please check out the Keshet web site for more information on the issue of homosexuality in the Conservative movement as well as guides for making our synagogues more welcoming to gays and lesbians.  Hag Sameach.

 

Aharei Mot-Kedoshim: Reinterpret (4 of 4)

(Thread Starts Here)

There is another option that I think might find favor with the CJLS.  This is one described by Rabbi Steven Greenberg in his new book Wrestling With God & Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition.  Rabbi Greenberg has been described as the world's only openly gay Orthodox rabbi.  He first wrote about his situation under the pseudonym Rabbi Yaakov Levado in the fall of 1993, and later came out openly in March of 1999.  I can't do justice to a 300 page book in a single post (nor did I do justice to the teshuvot of the Rabbis Roth in the last two posts), but again I want to try to give a broad outline of the position.

Let us return to the text of our verse, and once again look at that mysterious phrase mishkeve ishah, "lyings of a woman".  The word mishkeve is a different grammatical form of the same verb earlier in the verse tishkav (which means "do not bed").  Interestingly the word mishkeve is only used one other time in all of the Hebrew Bible.  In Genesis 49:4 we see the phrase mishkeve avikha, "lyings of your father".  The context is Jacob blessing his sons upon his deathbed.  In blessing Reuven he takes away his birthright as first born because Reuven had slept with Jacob's concunbine, Bilhah (see Genesis 35:22).  This was an act not of love, or lust, but rather an act by Reuven designed to humiliate Jacob and assert power over him.  Rabbi Greenberg thus suggests that the verse should be interpreted as prohibiting specifically an act of intercourse designed to humiliate and/or assert power over another male.  Again, if the verse just prohibited male homosexual activity in general the phrase mishkeve ishah would not have been necessary.  Now this comparison of how mishkeve is used  is not the only evidence Rabbi Greenberg brings forth to support this contention.  He also looks at other sources from the Torah, from the rabbis, and from the Greek and Roman cultures in which the rabbis wrote.  As I said, it's a 300 page book.  In any case this is Rabbi Greenberg's basic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, and up to this point it's not original.  I have seen others with similar interpretations.  In fact the impetus for the CJLS to look at the issue in the early 90's was a teshuvah by Rabbi Brad Artson which I believe followed along these lines, although I have not been able to find a copy of it. 

Rabbi Greenberg adds something that I had not seen to this interpretation, though.  As I noted before, we believe that every word in the Torah has some meaning.  The verse begins with the phrase ve'et zachar, "and (with) a male".  The word et is a grammatical word that has no translatable meaning, but is used to mark a transfer of action usually before a direct object.  Whereas in modern Hebrew the grammatical laws are quite fixed, the Torah sometimes includes an et before an object, and sometimes not.  Thus a tradition evolved that when the word et was used it referred to extra hidden elements not directly stated.  Thus for example, in one of the ten commandments (Exodus Chapter 20) we have the phrase, kaved et avikha v'et imekha, "honor your father and your mother".  The rabbis interpreted the two et's as including one's stepfather and stepmother as well.  Leviticus 18:22 is the only sexual prohibiton in that chapter that begins with the phrase ve'et.  If that et is adding something missing, then the verse translates as "And (a blank or a) male you shall not bed in order to humiliate or assert power; it is abhorrent."  Rabbi Greenberg suggests a natural candidate to fill in the blank, "a female".  The Torah is thus teaching us that it is wrong to use sex as a means to humiliate or assert power whether it is with a man or a woman.  Thus while Rabbi Greenberg's interpretation limits how the verse has been traditionally understood in some ways, in other ways he expands it.  As he writes in his book (p. 209):

In an amazing and paradoxical fashion the very verse that was for centuries read as requiring the ongoing demotion of women through the marking of intercourse as humiliation and thus femininity as degraded could be read as a full-fledged critique of the male-dominated social hierarchy!  The only way to redeem intercourse from its inevitable dominations is to press  for gender equality on the deepest of emotional planes, to work formally toward ending the gender hierarchy, and to heal the ugly misogyny at its foundation.

As I said before, I am not qualified to make halakhic decisions, nor is there any need for me to do so.  Still, Rabbi Greenberg's analysis resonates with me.  I have expressed my belief on this blog a number of times that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a form of gender discrimination.  I have noted how the laws against same-sex marriage use gender impermissibly as a classification in much the same way that the laws against interracial marriage used race impermissibly.  A common reply is that the laws against interracial marriage were based on a belief of white supremacy, whereas the laws against same-sex marriage are not based on misogyny.  Although, I believe such assumptions are not very relevant legally, I also believe they are not entirely correct either.  While I am not saying that anybody who opposes SSM is either a homophobe or a misogynist, I do believe that homophobia and misogyny are very much connected and are themselves very much connected to laws against same-sex marriage and against same-sex sodomy.    In any case, I highly recommend Rabbi Greenberg's book on a number of levels.  It gives an insight into taboos against homosexuality as well as a glimpse at the general Jewish tradition of law-making and biblical interpretation.  It also gives suggestions for approaches to constructive dialogue filled with respect for one another. 

And thus ends my rather lengthy discussion on this weeks Torah reading.  I hope have given all my readers something to think about.  Shabbat Shalom. 

Aharei Mot-Kedoshim: Modify (3 of 4)

(Thread Starts Here)

One position that I think might find favor with the CJLS was one suggested by my own rabbi in a sermon on this parsha last year.  As I noted in the last post, it is very difficult to uproot a bibilical prohibition, but easier to overturn the opinion of a Rabbi, even one as greatly respected as Maimonides.  Don't get me wrong.  It would not be done lightly, but with sufficient cause it perhaps should be done, and would be preferable to uprooting biblical law.  Before getting to the impetus for such a change let us look at the effect of such a change.  Homosexual behavior is not prohibited in general, but just the one act referred to in the Torah.  No lesbian relationship will involve such an act, and a gay relationship does not necessarily involve it.  In fact my understanding is that many gay men do not engage in such behavior.  In any case, what goes on behind bedroom doors of gay or straight couples is not a public issue.  Thus one can acknowledge and bless same-sex relationships without commenting on what might or might not be occurring behind closed doors.   Male-male couples would be halakhically required to abstain from anal intercourse, but nobody would inquire as to whether or not they actually do.  That would be between them and God. 

In fact there's quite a precedent for this type of arrangement.  In this week's reading, just three lines away from the verse we've been focusing on is another verse, Leviticus 18:19.  It reads "V'el ishah b'niddat tumatah lo tikrav l'galot ervata"" which can be translated [JPS 2000] as "Do not come near a woman during her period of impurity to uncover her nakedness."  This has traditionally been interpreted as forbidding sexual intercourse with a woman from the time her menstruation begins until she immerses in a ritual bath a week after it ends.  There are no stats on how many Conservative Jewish couples observe this practice (it is a private matter), but it is strongly suspected that the percentage is very low.  We leave it as a private matter and do not enquire of couples their practices on this matter.  It makes sense to follow a similar policy with a similar sexual transgression.

What might be the justification for this change in policy?  For one thing, we know things now that Maimonides did not know in the twelth century.  The consensus opinion of our medical experts is that some people are homosexual, and that trying to change people of their sexual orientation can do a lot of harm, even leading to suicide.  Likewise trying to remain closeted is not healthy, and the problem of suicides of gay youth is a very real one that our Rabbis must face.  Nobody is left outside of halakha.  There must be sexual ethics for gays and lesbians as well.  Promiscuity is a danger both physically and spiritually.  Jewish tradition also recognizes that it is "not good for man to be alone". (Genesis 2:18)  In fact in the story of creation that was the only thing that God saw that wasn't good.  We all need companionship.  For these and many other reasons gays and lesbians should be encouraged to enter into monogamous committed relationships.  Such concerns have not only been expressed by Rabbi Dorff, but also play heavily in this teshuva of Rabbi Simchah Roth.   He actually doesn't discard Maimonides codifications, but deals with them in a slightly different manner.  In any case, there is certainly nothing wrong in the Jewish tradition with making a covenant of love with somebody of the same sex.  (See I Samuel Chapter 18).   

Aharei Mot-Kedoshim: Tradition (2 of 4)

(Thread Starts Here)

Let's start by looking at the traditional position as elaborated by Rabbi J. Roth's teshuva.  In the Jewish interpretive tradition every word of the Torah is important and there for a reason.  So one of the first thing that jumped out at the Rabbis from the verse ve'et zakhar lo tishkav mishkeve ishah toevah hi was the phrase mishkeve ishah or "lyings of a woman".  First of all, why was it even necessary?  Why not just say "you shall not bed a male".  The Rabbis interpreted the added phrase as meaning that the commandment referred specifically to anal intercourse and not any other type of sexual relationship.  That is not to say that the Rabbis were fine with other male-male sexual relationships or with lesbianism.  Rather it was only anal intercourse referred to in that specific verse, and only that merited the death penalty. 

Prohibitions against lesbianism and homosexual activity in general were derived from other verses in the same chapter.  In particular Leviticus 18:3 translates [JPS 2000] as "You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws."   A fourth centruy collection of oral tradition says that the one of the practices referred to in this verse was same-sex marriage.  The twelth century halakhic authority Maimonides took this to mean that lesbianism ("women who rub together") and male homosexual activity in general were forbidden practices, although they did not warrant the death penalty.  This has been the traditional view ever since.  Maimonides also interpreted Leviticus 18:6, "None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover Nakedness:  I am the Lord." as implying that one should not come even close to committing any forbidden sexual intercourse, not just the forbidden incestuous relations described in Chapter 18. 

Rabbi Roth delves deeper into the verse by looking at the word toevah, which we have translated as abhorrence.  He asks whether this means that anybody should be able to see that homosexuality should naturally be forbidden, or rather is it only an abhorrence because God declares it so.  In looking at how and where the word is used elsewhere in the Torah, he concludes it is the latter.  In particular the Egyptians viewed eating with the Israelites as a toevah.  Using dishonest weights and measures is a toevah.  And most telling, eating unkosher animals is a toevah. 

Rabbi Roth declared that therefore the proper halakhic path for a homosexual was a lifetime of celibacy.  He points out that homosexuals are not  the only people asked in the Jewish tradition to commit to celibacy. While it is understandable that this a very difficult burdern to put upon someone, that is what halakha requires, and this position says there is not enough justification to change this.  The burden of changing the tradition is always very heavy to begin with, and in the case of a direct biblical command is even heavier (which is not to say it has never occurred). 

There is another issue, and that is men (but not women) are obligated by halakha at some point in their life to have children.  Rabbi Roth does not seem to address the issue directly in his teshuvah, but based on some of what he wrote and what others have written, I would guess his position is something to this effect.  Nobody is capable of fulfilling every positive commandment.  In fact most of them nobody can fulfill because of the destruction of the Temple.  Pushing a homosexual into an opposite-sex marriage does far more harm than good both to the individual and his or her family.  There are instead other ways one can fulfill this obligation, for example by teaching.  I know Rabbi Dorff and othes have explicitly said homosexuals should be encouraged to adopt, but I don't know that those ascribing to this more traditional position would necessarily advocate that as under this view that would involve single parenting.  In any case, I believe the vast majority, if not every, Conservative Rabbi would say that a man who has no sexual attraction to a woman is excused from the direct obligation of procreation, in the same way as a man who married an infertile woman.

As I noted earlier this is just a very brief outline of a general position.  There is much more nuance and detail there including a lengthy discussion of scientific theories of homosexuality.  Also Rabbi Roth notes the immense difficulty in reaching what he believes is a necessary conclusion.  He makes it clear that homosexuals should be welcomed into our congregations.   Only nothing should be done to give the impression that their sexual relationships are halakhically vaild even while they may be loving, caring, and valuable.    
 

Aharei Mot-Kedoshim: Intro (1 of 4)

As I write quite a bit on the subject of same-sex marriage, I thought it might be of interest to write a little bit about my views on the separate but very much related issue of homosexuality.  In a moment you'll see why this is the opportune time to do so.  You see my views are shaped a great deal by my religious beliefs.  I am Jewish, and in particular a Conservative Jew.  My views therefore derive from the Torah (the five books of Moses) as intrepreted by the Rabbis throughout the ages.  This process of interpretation and the ethical system resulting from it is called halakha.  One thing that distinguishes Conservative Judaism from Orthodox Judaism tends to be views on how much and under what circumstances the halakha can change.   

In any case, the starting point for any discussion on Judaism and homosexuality has to be two specific verses in the Torah.  Those two verses are normally read on two consecutive Sabbaths around this time of year, but this year the two readings get doubled-up into one Sabbath called Aharei Mot-Kedoshim which occurs this week.  (The names of the Sabbaths generally come from one of the first (Hebrew) word(s) read from the Torah that week) .  The first, and most relevant, verse is  Leviticus 18:22.  In (transliterated) Hebrew it reads "ve'et zakhar lo tishkav mishkeve ishah toevah hi" which may be translated [JPS 2000] as "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence".   The second verse, Leviticus 20:13 elaborates on this by noting that both the active and passive participant in this crime are equally liable and the penalty is death. 

So how do Conservative Rabbis interpret this verse and more generally what is their view on homosexuality?  The Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards (the central halakhic authority of the Conservative movement) is revisiting this issue as we speak.  In 1991-1992 the CJLS fiercely debated this question and four different teshuvot (literally "answers", but think legal opinions, they are also called responsa)  emerged with at least six votes and hence became "acceptable" positions.  (The ultimate authority on halakhic questions is the local Rabbi who is expected to be greatly influenced by the positions of the CJLS, but is not bound by them unless they become "standards" which is rare and did not occur with any of the issues involved here).  Notably one of the teshuvot, written by Rabbi Elliot Dorff,  stated that the issue should be studied further and decided in a few years.  Those few years passed and Rabbi Dorff headed a commission which looked at issues of sexual ethics in general.  He has since pressed for the CJLS to revisit the issue which it is now doing.  The most influential teshuva, written by Rabbi Joel Roth, was of the opinion that the halakha on this matter should not change.  I will go into more detail about this traditional view in just a moment. 

So how might the CJLS rule on these matters this year?  I will broadly outline three views in the following posts.  I suspect the committee will adopt something similar to at least two of them as acceptable positions.  Please bear in mind a few things.  This is just my opinion on what the CJLS might adopt.  I am not a halakhic authority by any stretch of the imagination.  Please do not rely on these opinions for halakhic purposes.  Consult your rabbi.  I'm also outlining the positions quite broadly.  The actual responsa are likely to be much more detailed and nuanced.  Finally, there are certainly other possible views.  I'm providing these views more to show some of the types of thought going on in this subject right now.  For more on the subject check out the site of Keshet, the student group at the Jewish Theological Seminary advocating for religious and social equality for Jews of all sexual orientations within the Conservative movement.  [The dates on that site of Shabbat Acharei Mot and Shabbat Kedoshim are from last year.  This year they are combined (April 30-May 1)]. 

Religion and the Pluralistic Society

I have been meaning for some time now to write about my views on the role of religious belief in setting public policy.  The short version of my view is that we all have beliefs on what the goals of our society should be and how to balance competing values in certain situations.  Like many others my beliefs on these subjects are shaped by my religious tradition.  One of things I value, though, is a pluralistic society that gives individuals who possess different and even conflicting beliefs as much freedom as possible in making decisions with regards to their own lives.  When it comes to setting societal priorities, though, I will push for what I hold to be right.  In trying to convince others that a certain goal is right, though, it does little use to appeal to my religious tradition unless that person shares a similar religious outlook.  Likewise appeals from others based on their own religious tradition does nothing to influence my thinking.  Instead we must look, if possible, for common values as a basis of discussion.  Some people attempt to do this by referring to "Judeo-Chritstian" values.  I generally find that such people are attempting to attach some sort of stamp to their own beliefs, and that my religion does not share such beliefs.  (Bryan Collinsworth at Political Aims wrote a nice piece on Judeo-Christians awhile back).  That is the short version.  I got bogged down in the long version over such issues as when is something a personal decision and when is it societal?  I also kept sinking into a metaethical mire.  These are, after all, my views of the role religion should play in society.  These views are themselves shaped by my religion.

Fortunately,  Ampersand leads us to a speech delivered by Mario Cuomo in 1984 at Notre Dame on the subject of "Religious Belief in Public Morality".  There is a reason--actually many reasons--that he was elected governor of New York and I was not.  For one, he is a much better writer. In the speech he naturally focuses on his position as a Catholic politician, but I think what he says enlightens the subject as a whole.  A few excerpts will be helpful, but I encourage you to read the whole speech.

The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.  I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose.  We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.  This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experience in government.  In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a persuasive and dominant concern.

Coming from a religious minority, I found this line line of thinking very appealing.  I think that is one reason why Jews tend to value religious freedom highly.  Thus, for example, even though Judaism has much to say over when an abortion is ethically permissible, most Jewish organizations support legal access to abortions. 

But insistence on freedom is easier to accept as a general proposition than in its applications to specific situations.  There are other valid general principles firmly embedded in our Constitution, which, operating at the same time, create interesting and occasionally troubling problems.  Thus the same amendment of the Constitution that forbids the establishment of a state church affirms my legal right to argue that my religious belief would serve well as an article of our universal public morality.  I may use the prescribed processes of government—the legislative and executive and judicial processes—to convince my fellow citizens, Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and nonbelievers, that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context.

Cuomo elaborates on this, basically noting what I tried to say eariler.  In trying to convince people that a certain policy is right it will generally not be enough just to rely on his own religious tradition, but rather he must seek to convince people that it is a universal good.  And sometimes the best policy is not to seek a narrow majority to enforce one view, but rather to build consensus.  As he goes on to say:

Almost all Americans accept some religious values as a part of our public life.  We are a religious people, many of us descended from ancestors who came here expressly to live their religious faith free from coercion or repression.  But we are also a people of many religions, with no established church, who hold different beliefs on many matters.  Our public morality, then—the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives—depends on a consensus view of right and wrong.  The values derived from religious belief will not—and should not—be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus.  That values happen to be religious values do not deny them acceptability as a part of this consensus.  But it does not require their acceptability, either.

I think there is an important distinction here between consensus and majority.  Sometimes a uniform policy is necessary, and it must be decided according to our democratic system.  On some issues, though, when there is no consensus, it is often helpful to seek a way to accomodate multiple positions.  This is I believe the essence of pluralism.  In Conservative Judaism, difficult matters of Jewish Law are sent to a committe of twenty-five rabbis.  If six agree on a response it becomes an "acceptable" position.  Thus there are frequently two, three, or even four acceptable positions to one question.  This of course leads to questions of when is a uniform policy necessary, and what forms a consensus.  I will carefully avoid such questions for now and return to Cuomo...

Ultimately, therefore, the question whether or not we admit religious values into our public affairs is too broad to yield a single answer.  Yes, we create our public morality through consensus and in this country that consensus reflects to some extent religious values of a great majority of Americans.  But no, all religiously based values don’t have an a priori place in our public morality.  The community must decide if what is being proposed would be better left to private discretion than to public policy, whether it restricts freedom, and if so to what end, to whose benefit, whether it will produce a good or bad result, whether overall it will help the community or merely divide it.  The right answers to these questions can be elusive.  Some of the wrong answers, on the other hand, are quite clear.  For example, there are those who say there is a simple answer to all these questions; they say that by history and practice of our people we were intended to be—and should be—a Christian country in law.  But where would that leave the nonbelievers?  And whose Christianity would be law, yours or mine?  This “Christian nation” argument should concern—even frighten—two groups: non-Christians and thinking Christians.  I believe it does.... Apart from constitutional law and religious doctrine, there is a sense that tells us it’s wrong to presume to speak for God or to claim God’s sanction of our particular legislation and his rejection of all other positions.  Most of us are offended when we see religion being trivialized by its appearance in political throwaway pamphlets.  The American people need no course in philosophy or political science or church history to know that God should not be made into a celestial party chairman.  To most of us, the manipulative invoking of religion to advance a politician or a party is frightening and divisive.

So not only is trying to persuade others by an appeal to divine will probably  an ineffective tool in a political argument, it tends to be counterproductive.  I found Cuomo's whole speech to be quite impressive.  All the more so because he comes from a dogmatic religious tradition.  I am used to a religious tradition that embraces plurality and ambiguity.  As I said, my views on this subject are themselves shaped by my relgious education and upbringing.  I will write more on that later.