Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

Since the first indications that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, following a leaked draft opinion on May 2, 2022, religious leaders from many denominations have been working to preserve access to abortion care, even as others prayed for Roe to indeed be overruled. A minister in Texas was among those working on coordinating abortion care, including flying women to New Mexico to get abortions.

Religious communities in the U.S. have long been divided over the issue of abortion. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 57% of Americans were supportive of legal abortion. A majority of those who identified as evangelical were opposed to abortion.

Before June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, The Conversation asked several scholars to explain the multiple views across faith groups and also the differences within denominations. Here are five articles from our archives:

Steven K. Green, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University, explained why restricting abortion interferes with religious freedom.

The strong opposition of some Christian churches, such as the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention, is based on their views about the time of ensoulment, the moment at which the soul is believed to enter the fetus. Conservative Christians believe this happens at the moment of conception.

Not all Christian denominations agree. As Green wrote, the United Church of Christ, for example, passed a resolution in 1981 that said every woman must have the freedom of choice to follow her personal and religious convictions concerning the completion or termination of a pregnancy.

Additionally, other faith groups such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism have differing beliefs about ensoulment.

Read more: Religious beliefs give strength to the anti-abortion movement but not all religions agree

Judaism allows for abortion and even requires it when a womans health is endangered, according to Rachel Mikva, professor of Jewish studies at Chicago Theological Seminary. The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

There is some difference of opinion among Orthodox rabbis, but there is room to consider diverse perspectives.

Overall, according to a 2017 Pew survey, 83% of American Jews believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Even ultra-Orthodox leaders, as Mikva found, have resisted anti-abortion measures that do not allow religious exceptions.

Read more: There is more than one religious view on abortion - here's what Jewish texts say

Beliefs from other faith traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam also show that religions place ensoulment at different moments and give it varying degrees of importance, according to Samira Mehta, assistant professor of women and gender studies and Jewish studies at University of Colorado, Boulder.

Muslim scholars and clerics, for example, have a range of positions on abortion. Some believe abortion is never permitted, and many allow it until ensoulment, which is often placed at 120 days gestation, just shy of 18 weeks, according to Mehta. In general, classical Islamic law sees legal personhood as beginning at birth, and many Muslim religious leaders therefore permit abortion to save the life of the mother.

Views in Hinduism and Buddhism are diverse. Most Hindus believe in reincarnation, which means that while one may enter bodies with birth and leave with death, life itself does not, precisely, begin or end. Rather, any given moment in a human body is seen as part of an unending cycle of life making the question of when life begins quite different than in Abrahamic religions, wrote Mehta. For Buddhists, a decision about abortion is treated with compassion and considered to be a moral choice, depending on the circumstances.

Read more: There is no one 'religious view' on abortion: A scholar of religion, gender and sexuality explains

Scholars have also pointed out how in conservative faith groups, beliefs have shifted over time. Scholar Susan M. Shaw, who has long studied the Southern Baptists, explained that they have not always been opposed to abortion.

According to Shaw, the change in Southern Baptist views started in the 1980s, when a more conservative group took charge of the denomination. At that time a resolution on abortion was drafted that declared that abortion ends the life of a developing human being and called for legal measures prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Additionally, as Shaw found, another interesting shift happened in that resolution instead of referring to fetal life, as earlier resolutions did, the 1980 resolution called fetuses unborn or pre-born human life or persons. The fetus, as she wrote, was no longer a developing organism dependent on a womans body, but rather it was a full human being with the same status and human rights as the women.

Read more: The history of Southern Baptists shows they have not always opposed abortion

Scholars have pointed out that among premodern Christians, too, views on abortion were more complex. According to religion scholar Luis Josu Sals, pregnancy prevention and termination methods thrived in premodern Christian societies, especially in the medieval Roman Empire.

Indeed, premodern Christians may have actively developed reproductive options for women, Sals found. Sixth-century Christian physician Aetios of Amida and Paulos of Aigina, who came a century later, were said to have provided instructions for performing abortions and making contraceptives.

Read more: Christian attitudes surrounding abortion have a more nuanced history than current events suggest

In the U.S., the first abortion restrictions were enacted only in the 1820s. As Mehta aptly put it, We tend to think of the religious response to abortion as one of opposition, but the reality is much more complicated.

See the original post here:

America's religious communities are divided over the issue of abortion: 5 essential reads - The Conversation

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on America’s religious communities are divided over the issue of abortion: 5 essential reads – The Conversation
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) Oftentimes, anti-abortion ideology is associated with religion. However, not all religions have found abortion to be as hot a topic as is often seen within, for example, evangelical Christianity or Catholicism.

One such alternate point of view is found in Reform Judaism.

Reform Judaism is one branch of the faith, distinct from orthodox, conservative or reconstructivist. We are part of the progressive arm of Judaism, where we welcome our LGBTQ community members; women are able to be rabbis and read from the Torah and lead services, said Jen Dreiske, a member of the Mt. Zion congregation in Sioux Falls.

Reform Judaism is a proponent of access to abortion, said Dreiske. As a Jew, I have a responsibility for the well-being of all humans for their health care.

To Dreiske and other followers of Reform Judaism, reproductive health decisions are deeply personal ones.

Its our responsibility to trust others in knowing how they should proceed with the care that they need, Dreiske said. Its not my place to make a decision on what is the best care for somebody else.

That decision is effected with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is one which raises an interesting first amendment issue.

Our government is telling us that I as a Jewish woman cant be trusted in making a decision for my health care, said Dreiske. That violates my religious freedoms as a Jew who believes that I should have access to abortion care.

This is not just a personal choice for those within Reform Judaism, but one they trace back to the book of Genesis.

In Judaism, the beginning of life is when we take our first breath, Dreiske explained. If you go back to the book of Genesis, at the very beginning after God has created the world, he starts forming Adam out of the clay, and then he breaths life into him Adam wasnt alive when he was being formed in the clay, he was breathed to life by God after he was done.

Dreiske says the focus of Reform Jews is on the life here and now, not on the potentiality of life. Ultimately, the choice of whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy is up to the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Despite this interpretation of the holy text, you will not likely hear those of the Jewish faith advocating for aborting 9-month old babies. This is in part due to the fact that the issue of abortion is not a fixation within the Reform Jewish faith.

Abortion is left up to the woman and her choice, Dreiske said simply. Theres no need to have a conversation about it because were not trying to change anybodys mind, and were not dangling an afterlife in front of people for making a decision about their health care.

Abortion is not discussed during services within the congregation, Dreiske said. We trust the women.

Visit link:

A Reform Jewish perspective on abortion - KELOLAND.com

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on A Reform Jewish perspective on abortion – KELOLAND.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

The Western Wall is the holiest site in Judaism today holy, because it was one of the retaining walls of the Second Jewish Temple.

That temple was destroyed nearly two thousand years so the wall is pretty much the closest you can get to its site without climbing up to the plaza on top, but that for centuries has been the location of Muslim holy sites.

So the Western Wall and its accompanying plaza is the place to go to pray if youre Jewish or if you just happen to be in the area.

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

The plaza is gender-segregated. Men and women are not allowed to pray alongside each other there, which is what youd expect if you follow Orthodox traditions of Judaism.

Thats the flavour of Judaism practiced by the Israeli state and the authorities who operate the Western Wall, but it can be quite jarring if you come from a progressive denomination and millions of Jews do.

So whats the solution?

Watch this episode of The Sunday View for the full story.

See the article here:

The Sunday View: Can Jews ever learn to share the Western Wall? - Jewish News

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on The Sunday View: Can Jews ever learn to share the Western Wall? – Jewish News
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

Is Christianity built upon a myth? One of the enduring claims of atheists and skeptics is that Christianity rehashes the ancient worlds stories of gods dying and rising.

In this work, I will discuss the subject of mythology and examine the stories of dying and resurrecting gods in pagan thought. I will then explore what relationship the biblical world had to myth. Finally, I will juxtapose Catholicism with mythology.

Stories of kings and gods dying and being resurrected, while not common, were not entirely unknown in the ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman world. These included stories of figures such as Mithra, Dionysus, and Osiris, dying and being resurrected.

Significantly, some have suggested that Christianity has borrowed or expanded on these ancient myths. One of those who took this view was the anthropologist James Frazier. In his book on comparative religion, The Golden Bough, Frazier suggests that the Ressurection of Jesus is a retelling of the fertility myths of the ancient pagan world. Fertility myths were often centered on crop cycles.

To properly address this question, it is beneficial to understand that a myth can be used in one of two ways. In a first way, myth is simply another way of stating that something is false. In a second way, myth refers to stories that explain various aspects of life. The comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell defined myth as Clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life. In this sense, myths are symbolic of a deeper meaning.

Of course, when one argues that Christianity has copied a myth from the ancient pagan world, they are arguing that a key principle of Christianity the death and Resurrection of Christ is a retelling of a tale that has no basis in reality.

To adequately address this issue, it is beneficial to examine what the Biblical peoples believed about mythology.

The question of whether Christianity is another myth of a dying and resurrecting god must, ironically, begin with Judaism. This is because Catholicism should be understood as the fulfillment of Judaism. When Catholicism is placed in this context, one begins to see what Jesus means when He says that He has come to fulfill the law, that is, the Torah. (See Matthew 5:17). Understood inclusively, the Torah is the whole of the Old Testament. Exclusively interpreted, the Torah is restricted to the first five books of the Old Testament. Therefore, when Jesus says that He has come to fulfill the law, He is saying that He is the fulfillment of Judaism.

Therefore, we must begin with Judaism. It is evident from Scripture that Judaism was aware of the various gods of the pagan world. More significantly, the Jews were admonished to reject the pagan myths. The Shema begins with a rejection of polytheism so prevalent in the ancient world. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

It is also noteworthy that Judaism was aware of and rejected the pagan concept of gods as forces of nature. In Isaiah, we read, I am the first and I am the last; apart from me, there is no God. This statement is a direct refutation of the pantheon of gods in paganism.

More significantly, at least from the perspective of Catholicism, is the historicity of the Bible.

Put simply, the stories and events of the Bible are stories and events that occurred in history. The same cannot be said of the various pagan myths.

Of course, many would like to dismiss the historicity of the Bible, but to do so is illogical and poor scholarship. The vast number of manuscripts, the dating of the texts, and the archaeological evidence are highly persuasive. So much so that the Smithsonian Institutions Department of Anthropology concluded that The historical books [of the Bible] are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are, in fact, more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.

That same historicity cannot be found in pagan mythology, particularly as they relate to the death and resurrection of individuals. Edwin Yamauchi, a Professor Emeritus of History, puts it this way, All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of vegetation. These are not historical figures.

That is to say that the various gods of paganism were not historical figures. Whatever one believes about the divinity of Christ, the record is clear that He was a historical figure.

Still, is it not conceivable that these pagan stories in some way influenced the Gospel authors? Put differently, did the Gospel authors project the stories of death and resurrection in pagan mythology onto the events surrounding the death of Jesus?

The rebuttal to such a claim lies in the fact that Christianity persists. There are no followers of Mithra, Dionysus, or Osiris, but there are billions of followers of Christ. Furthermore, there is no reliable record of Mithra dying, Dionysus being crucified, or Osiris coming back from the dead (Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. University of Chicago Press, 1948).

For this reason, philosophy professor Ronald Nash writes, Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirthat least during its early stages. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.

Moreover, the stories of gods dying and being resurrected do not appear until after the Christian era had begun. (See the work of Tryggve Mettinger of Lund University). Perhaps it is more accurate to charge paganism with copying Christianity rather than Christianity with copying paganism.

Finally, every apostle of Christ suffered and died proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. It is highly illogical that twelve men allowed themselves to be tortured and murdered for something that they personally knew was a lie.

Here, I echo the Biblical scholar N.T. Wright, that the only explanation from a historical perspective for the pervasiveness of the Christian faith is the resurrection.

In the preceding work, I have endeavored to address the claims that Catholicism is a rehashing of pagan myths. I have shown that there is no basis for these claims. Where pagan mythology is predicated upon nonhistorical tales, Catholicism is very much a religion steeped in history.

The French polymath Rene Girard once referred to Catholicism as the myth that happened. In a sense, Catholicism destroys mythology. Where the various stories of pagan mythology were symbolic but literally false, Catholicism is the great story that happened and continues to happen.

Continue reading here:

The Myth That Happened | The Myth That Happened - Patheos

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on The Myth That Happened | The Myth That Happened – Patheos
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

Israeli officials indicated on Monday that the government of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett would be dissolved in the coming weeks and new elections would be held in October or November. This will potentially allow Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu to reclaim his position as prime minister after one year out of power.

Bennetts eight-party alliance, which spanned Israels traditional left-right political divide and included an Arab party for the first time in the countrys seventy-four-year history, was largely formed as an ad hoc coalition to remove Netanyahu from power following his indictment on corruption charges. However, the parties within the alliance have continued to clash over domestic political issues, including the Israeli governments response to violence at the Al-Aqsa mosque earlier in the spring and the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, possibly by Israeli security forces. The decision to dissolve the government came after two lawmakers defected from Bennetts coalition, leaving him with a minority of 59 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

Bennetts office announced that the prime minister, along with coalition partner and Israeli foreign minister Yair Lapid, would present a vote to dissolve parliament in the Knesset, a formality that is almost certain to pass. After the government is dissolved, Lapid, who was originally slated to take Bennetts office in 2023, will serve as caretaker prime minister until the fall elections.

If held as scheduled, the upcoming elections will be Israels fifth in three years, showcasing the deep divisions within Israeli politics and society. In addition to Israels traditional left-right divide, the country is split between secular parties and religious Zionist parties that seek to enshrine Orthodox Judaism within Israeli law and society. These parties, including Shas and United Torah Judaism, are traditionally regarded as allies of Netanyahu and make up most of Israels current political opposition, alongside Netanyahus Likud party. A smaller faction consists of the Arab parties of the Joint List, which hold varying political stances but largely remain opposed to both Netanyahu and Bennett.

No party or alliance of parties is likely to secure a majority following the next elections, complicating the ability of any faction to form a government. If a prospective prime minister does not secure the support of sixty-one lawmakers within a set period of time, the Knesset is dissolved and another election is helda process that took place three times before the formation of the Bennett government in June 2021.

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for the National Interest.

Image: Reuters.

View original post here:

Israeli Government to Dissolve: New Elections Expected in Fall - The National Interest Online

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on Israeli Government to Dissolve: New Elections Expected in Fall – The National Interest Online
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

It is a truism among many observers of the current socio-political scene that politics has become a substitute religion for large numbers of Americans. Writing about the sacralization of politics, Shadi Hamid, for example,stated that on the left, the woke take religious notions such as original sin, atonement, ritual, and excommunication and repurpose them for secular ends; [while] on the right, adherents of a Trump-centric ethno-nationalism still drape themselves in some of the trappings of organized religion, but the result is a movement that often looks like a tent revival stripped of Christian witness. All this has led, some claim, to the high levels of ideological intensity, social division, and demonization in the realm of politics that once were the preserve of religious zealots. And this intensification of passions and commitmentsboth political and religiousis an important dimension of social sorting and polarization, with more Americans taking more uniformly left-leaning or right-leaning positions in both politics and religion.

The relationship of politics and religion also has shifted in an additional way. Until sometime in the last third of the 20th century, adherents of certain religious denominations gravitated to the Republican party and others to the Democrats. But both partiesand their respective political campsattracted people seriously committed to their religion. That pattern has changed in recent decades with the opening of a God gap or religiosity gap. As early as the 1980s, many in the Bible Belt and those associated with the evangelical movement went from being relatively neutral on political matters to becoming highly engaged, generally with the Republican party and conservative political positions.Recent research indicates that partially in reaction, people who were less religious gravitated toward the left side of the political spectrum.

In brief, a revolution has transformed the political allegiances of large swaths of Americans: levels of religious conviction, denominational identities, worship service attendance, and other expressions and measures of religiosity correlate with how most Americans vote in elections and identify politically in surveys. Broadly speaking, religious peoplehowever measuredtend tolean Republican politically and conservative in their ideology. Their opposite numbersthe non-religious or secularoftenfavor Democrats and are ideologically liberal. To take just one of many research studies, thePew Religious Landscape Study finds numerous links between measures of religiosity and political ideology (conservative-moderate-liberal). As a general phenomenon, conservatives, far more than liberals, believe in God, see religions as important, attend religious services weekly, pray daily, see religion as a guide to morality, read scripture, and believe in heaven and in hell. Any way you slice it, conservatives today are more religious, liberals are more secular, and moderates are in-between.

This emerging political reality has occasioned debates about cause and effect: Have Americans changed their political views because of their religious outlook, or has political partisanship driven how American think about their religion? For years, conventional wisdom favored the former explanation: religion, it was widely assumed, is the driver of political allegiances. More recently, that assumption is being questioned.

Mounting evidence suggests that social networksthe people with whom a person associatescoupled with the political outlook widely shared in those networks, influence how large numbers of Americans relate to religion. To take one piece of research that may well be indicative of larger trends, a recentPewstudy found thatwhite Americans who viewed Trump favorably and didnotidentify as evangelicals in 2016 were much more likely than white Trump skeptics tobegin identifying asborn-again or evangelical Protestants by 2020. Another straw in the wind is the drop in church membership and service attendance, alongside a decline in religious identity, due to several factors, though more concentrated on the left than the right: Over the last decade, anotherreportfound, The decline in organized religion is indeed much bigger among Democrats (-17 points) than Republicans (-7 points).

Have Americans changed their political views because of their religious outlook, or has political partisanship driven how American think about their religion?

Given these seismic developments in the wider society, has there been a corresponding shift in how the politics of American Jews has aligned with their religious and ethnic commitments? Complicating this question is the knotty relationship between Jewish identity, religious commitment, and ethnic solidarity. To be a Jew, after all, is not solely about identification with a religious tradition, but also with a people, its history, culture, and values, and, since 1948, with the Jewish State of Israel. Political identities may influence Jewish religiosity or Jewish collectivity or Israel commitments, or all three. Thus the typical, political cleavages present in American society in general may not necessarily tightly map on to the many variations of Jewish commitment.

To probe these relationships, we examined survey data from the most recent national study of American Jews produced by the Pew Research Center titled Jewish Americans in 2020. Respondents were asked to identify with a political label on a spectrum ranging from very conservative to very liberal. (Though Pew offers five ideological options, we have consolidated them into three for the sake of clarity.) It quickly emerged that the familiar sorting patterns evident in American politics at large characterize a good many Jews. Jewish political liberals and conservatives have moved into two camps with distinct and exclusive ideas, behaviors, and packages of attitudes and practices, resembling and reflecting the same socio-political phenomena in the larger society, a development with serious ramifications for American Jewish life.

Consider the relationship between political ideology and Jewish religious commitments. Consistent with the larger trends in American society, on measure after measure, politically conservative Jews as a group are far more engaged with their religion than political liberals. For example, Jewish political conservatives are more than three times as likely as liberals to say that religion is very important to them (41% vs. 12%), with moderates situated between them (at 23%). This political gradienthigh-scoring conservatives, middle-range-scoring moderates, and low-scoring liberalsrecurs when we examine several other critical measures of religiosity. Almost twice as many conservatives as liberals are synagogue members (45% vs. 25%). More than three times as many attend religious services monthly (42% vs. 13%). Conservatives are far more likely than liberals to mark Shabbat in a way that makes it meaningful to you (53% vs. 33%).

Political ideology also correlates with how Jews think about the role of faith in todays society. In the2022 American National Family Life survey, a significant gap emerged when Jews were asked whether religion causes more problems in society than it solves. Fully 69% of politically liberal Jews believe that religion is more problematic than helpful, compared to just 15% of Jewish political conservatives and 54% of political moderates. In that same survey, sharp differences emerged when respondents were asked about the role religion can play in teaching good values. Just one-third of liberal Jews (34%) believe that it is important for children to be brought up in a religion so they can learn good values. In sharp contrast, 59% of moderate Jews and 85% of politically conservative Jews feel the same way. The survey also asked if individuals must free their minds from old traditions and beliefs to understand the world today. A majority of Jewish liberals (68%) was open to rejecting tradition for the sake of modernity, compared to just a little more than one-third of Jewish conservatives (37%), with moderates once again situated in the middle at 46%.

Turning now to the other dimension of Jewishness, we will use the shorthand of peoplehood to denote the responsibility Jews feel to one another, meaning ethnic solidarity, a sense of family connection or some other form of collective identity and caring when Jews anywhere are facing adversity. That commitment to mutual responsibility, even more than religion, has been a glue binding Jews together, as we may infer from the fact that twice as many Jews say that being Jewish is very important to them compared to the importance they ascribe to religion (42% vs. 21%).

When asked whether being Jewish is very important to them, the majority of political conservatives answered yes, followed by a minority of moderates, and then even fewer liberals (59%, 42%, 36%). On other measures of Jewish peoplehood connections, we see even more pronounced patterns. About twice as many conservatives as liberals have mostly Jewish close friends (48% vs. 20%). Almost twice as many conservatives as liberals regard Jewish community as essential to their being Jewish (49% vs. 26%). Far larger proportions of political conservatives as compared to liberals highly value belonging to the Jewish people (67% vs. 41%), and the gap between right and left is even more pronounced with respect to feeling a great deal of responsibility to help Jews in need (50% vs. 20%). Consistent with these patterns, conservatives also do more to enact their connections. They lead liberals in making donations to Jewish charitable causes (64% report having done so in the prior year, compared to only 41% of liberals). Conservatives also are more likely to consume Jewish news (62% vs. 35%).

Given all the differences in how these political factions relate to the Jewish people, it should come as no surprise that conservatives are considerably more attached to Israel than liberals are. They are twice as likely as liberals to regard caring about Israel as essential to their being Jewish (67% vs. 33%). And the gap is even larger when respondents indicated they feltvery attached to Israel (45% of conservatives and just 14% of liberals claim such a strong attachment). An even larger ratiomore than four to oneseparates conservatives and liberals when they are asked about whether they feel they have a lot in common with Israeli Jews (44% vs. 10%). Not only are conservative/liberal differences pronounced in regard to emotional connections to Israel and Israeli Jews, they surface also on questions of policy. Hardly any conservativesor moderates for that matterregard the U.S. as too supportive of Israel (6% and 8% respectively). But six times as many liberals do (40% find the U.S. too supportive of Israel).

These large gaps even appear when adherents of different political ideologies contemplate the future Jewishness of their own families. Asked about their hopes for their descendants, Jewish political conservatives are more than twice as likely as liberals to feel its very important that their current or future grandchildren identify as Jews (59% vs. 25%), and they are four times as likely to say its very important for their grandchildren to marry Jews (46% vs. 12%).

To be sure, ideology alone does not explain these pronounced patterns. Family circumstances also play a large role. Far more conservatives have Jewish family members than do liberals. More of them have two Jewish parents (77% vs. 65%). And the gap with respect to intermarriage is even wider: Just 25% of Jewish political conservatives are intermarried compared to 52% of liberals. To take one more related measure, conservatives have about three times as many Jewish children in their homes as liberals.

In sum, a large gap has opened between Jewish political conservatives and liberals (and even more so among those who identify as very liberal) on a broad range of questions measuring Jewish commitments. The question this raises is why are so many politically liberal Jews indifferent to Judaism and Jewish group solidarity?

By posing this question, it is not our intention to besmirch liberals as hopelessly lost to the Jewish people or to valorize conservatives as the saving remnant. For one thing, significant numbers of liberals continue to be committed to Judaism and Jewish collective life. For another, fully half of American Jews identify as liberals, with ever higher proportions of Jews identifying as liberal among the younger age cohorts. Writing them off makes little sense. Yet ignoring the widening chasm we have traced is counterproductive. For those concerned about the vitality of Jewish religious and communal life, the gap between adherents of the left and right is central to what we may describe as the great American Jewish resignation from identification and affiliation. And that resignation is far more prevalent on the liberal side of the spectrum than on the conservative one, hence our sharp focus on the former.

In point of fact, the liberal-conservative gap we have delineated can be traced back at least to the late 1980s, if not earlier, though it has grown steadily wider. The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey and Pews Jewish Americans in 2020 both show the same patterns in regard to varieties of Jewish involvement (as does the 2013 Pew study). Political conservatives out-score liberals on almost every measure of religious and peoplehood involvement appearing in these three surveys. Taking nine measures that appear in the 1990, 2013, and 2020 surveys, we find that levels of Jewish engagement among conservatives held steady at around 60%. In sharp contrast, the average score for liberals dropped over 30 years, going from 44% to 40% to 36% by 2020. To cite a few examples of declining participation by liberals, Yom Kippur fasting dropped from 50% in 1990 to 41% in 2020. Donating to Jewish causes went from 52% down to 41%. And when asked about having mostly Jewish close friends, nearly a third (31%) of liberals had them in 1990, whereas only one-fifth did in 2020. In other words, the conservative/liberal gap widened, not because conservatives become more Jewishly engagedthey held steadybut because liberals experienced notable drops in Jewish engagement over the years.

Consistent with this longer-term trend, the age of survey respondents in 2020 makes a great deal of difference. Among liberals 65 and over, 50% say they feel strongly about belonging to the Jewish people. The number drops with age, reaching a mere 27% among those 18-29. We see similar age-related declines among liberals on other measures, including donating to Jewish charities (57% vs. 21%), having mostly Jewish close friends (36% vs. 12%), feeling very attached to Israel (19% vs. 10%), and feeling that being Jewish is very important in ones life (42% vs. 26%). Todays older liberals are much more engaged in Jewish life than their younger ideological allies, consistent with our finding that liberals in our time are less Jewishly engaged than those 30 years ago.

The data we have at present are insufficient to determine causal order. We do not know if liberals became more distant from Judaism and the Jewish people, or whether those who are Jewishly distant migrated to the liberal camp. But we do know that liberals identify less with Jewish religious and communal life than conservatives todayand that this process has been underway for over 30 years. The widening of the gap is not due to recent events, such as the Trump presidency or Israels decreasing popularity with Democrats and liberals. Rather, other factors have been at work, undoubtedly resembling similar patterns in American society at large.

To shed some light on these developments, we turn to some of those broader trends and the fact that as Americans have sorted and polarized, political conservatives have tended to embrace religious and communal commitments, while liberals have increasingly shied away from religious institutions, with many proclaiming themselves to be agnostic or atheist. In a recent survey (2021), Pew found that three quarters (73%) of those in the GOP believe that religious institutions are good for society, compared to only 49% of Democrats. In fact, looking at the trend data since 2010, we see stability in the positive attitudes of Republicans toward religious institutions, but a notable increase in negativity among those who identify as Democrats. Put somewhat differently, thePew Research Center has found that the percentage of liberals who believe that churches and religious organizations positively contribute to society dropped from nearly half (49%) in 2010 to only one-third (33%) by 2019.

These current attitudes stand in marked contrast to the scene in the middle of the 20th century: America then had an abundance of religiously committed liberals and liberally inclined theologians, such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Luther King, William Sloane Coffin, and Abraham Joshua Heschel, to name but a few who typified the nexus of liberalism with religiosity. Certainly liberal churches still existand some thrive, but many church-goers preferideological homogeneity. Its hard to think of more thana handful of national leaders in the politically liberal camptoday who identify strongly with their religion. Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia is an exception and both President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are Catholic and takeCommunion but are less overtly religious than leaders in earlier generations. Here, then, is the broader context in which politically liberal American Jews find themselves, an ideological environment not warmly disposed to religion, to put it mildly, and one that regards particularistic allegiances to white ethnic groups as anachronistic, if not a form of white supremacy. Little wonder that many Jewish liberals are distancing themselves from Jewish religiosity and communal needs.

Put somewhat differently, thePew Research Center has found that the percentage of liberals who believe that churches and religious organizations positively contribute to society dropped from nearly half (49%) in 2010 to only one-third (33%) by 2019.

Beyond this context, we might ask whether there are aspects ofcurrentliberal attitudes that are undermining Jewish commitments. We identify four such elements that are considerably more characteristic of liberals and, by extension, Jewish liberals, than conservatives.

1.The elevation of the autonomous self and its wants.AsRobert Bellah and associates richly explained nearly 40 years ago, Americans have a long history of balancing rugged individualism with community commitments. Over the past decades, the latter have faded while the former has strengthened. Wherever one turns today, we are confronted with the assertion of individual autonomy, withdemandsthat we attend to each individuals version of truth. On the Jewish scene already two decades ago, Steven M. Cohen and Arnold Eisen in their book,The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in America, identified the impact of the sovereign self on the ways moderately engaged Jews enact their Jewishness. Since then, Jewish institutional life has contended with ever more insistence on the part of many that it must change to accommodate their needsor else they will leave. Jewish institutions are widely decried as insufficiently nimble to satisfy the disparateandcontradictorywants of the many autonomous selves now demanding that they get their way. AndpaceThe Jew Within, much of Jewish life for many has become privatized, enacted only in the confines of peoples minds, homes, and families. Liberals, it seems, are far more inclined than conservatives to favor unfettered autonomy.

2.The triumph of the DIY lifestyle. An outgrowth of radical autonomy, Do It Yourself Jewishness now adopts and abandons, mixes and matches. Jews are encouraged to create their own understanding of Jewishness, consistent with what they find personally meaningful. Inherited Jewish traditions are deemed outmoded. Not only is Judaism no longer seen as a package of obligations and commandments; it now is treated as endlessly plastic. While suitable for liberals, this approach does not work well for conservatives who continue to embrace tradition, law, and institutional norms. In general, conservatives (more than liberals) hold that faith and belief cannot be cherry-picked and followed only when convenient or personally meaningful.

3.The rise of identity politics. Liberal culture has come to valorize group identities based on what may be called victim status. Sexual orientation, minority group identity, gender, and disability are seen as legitimate bases for social identity and for claiming respect, if not privilege. In contrast, group identities based on ancestral culturessuch as being Jewish or of white European ethnicitiesare not similarly valued. Undoing victimization and privileging the once marginalized are the primary goals of group identification, according to current liberal thinking. By contrast, maintaining religious communities, ethnic solidarity, and Jewish group continuity appeal to conservatives but not liberals. Not surprisingly, Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, once lauded by Democrats (and Socialists),now finds far more favor among Republicans.

4.The prioritization of universalism over particularism.Perhaps, most famously expressed by John Lennons famous song, the world is imagined to be a far better place without religion, countries, and possessions. Within American Jewry this orientation undergirds much of the talk aboutrepairing the world (tikkun olam). For growing numbers of American Jews, especially those on the cultural and political left, social action is central to their self-understanding as Jews. In the Pew 2020 Pew study, just shy of two-thirds of liberals viewed social justice engagement as essential to their Jewishness, while only one-quarter viewed belonging to a Jewish community as equally important and only one-third said support of Israel is essential to their Jewishness. (Conservatives ranked belonging to a Jewish community and caring about Israel higher than social justice.) Differences in priorities are unmistakable but our point here is that many in the Jewish community todayespecially among the rank-and-filetreattikkun olam as the most important commandment of Judaism. The view is endorsed and encouraged by some rabbis to the near exclusion of other Jewish values, such as caring for fellow Jews, observing the rituals of Judaism, and supporting Jewish communal institutions. For a significant sector of the liberal Jewish population, non-sectarian and global concerns take priority over Jewish needs.

The disengagement from Jewish life by some on the left is neither novel nor especially surprising. After all, theres a long history of Jews identified with thefar leftwho have rejected religion and feeling responsible for the Jewish people. But the masses of American Jews who identified with political liberalism thought differently. They saw no tension between their commitments to aid fellow Jews while also supporting non-sectarian causes. Nor did they indict their religion as the source of human failings. Twentieth century Jewish liberals often were leaders of federations of Jewish philanthropy, defense organizations, social service agencies, and Jewish educational and religious institutions. During the 1960s, baby boomers seeking to make their mark on American Jewish life were committed to anti-war protests and the Civil Rights movement, as well as labor unionseven as they marched to free Soviet Jewry and defend the embattled State of Israel. While in our time it is not uncommon for Jewish progressives to ridicule efforts to ensure Jewish continuity, youthful activists in the early 1970s critiqued Jewish organizations for investingtoo littlein Jewish education andtoo much in Jewish health care facilities that no longer served a primarily Jewish clientele. In that era, too, the Jewish left produced the Havurah fellowships, the turn to neo-Hasidism, significant aliyah to Israel, Jewish feminism, and mass demonstrations in support of Jewish causes. Undoubtedly, some on todays Jewish left passionately share similar Jewish commitments. But the data we have cited point to the indifference of many Jewish liberals todayparticularly younger adultsto most forms of Jewish particularism, religious life, and positive identification with Israel as a Jewish state.

How might this situation change in the direction of greater involvement by political liberals in Jewish life? Its possible that American society, including political liberals, will re-embrace religious commitment and a more positive approach to cultural heritage. The pendulum may swing back: Americans may come to place more value on association, cooperative work, and volunteering. Just as trends in the wider society have pushed liberal Jews in the past to distance themselves from their religious and collective needs, a broader shift in attitudes may make Jewish particularism more attractive. Not least, rising levels of antisemitism may accelerate these changes.

There also are possibilities for some rebalancing of priorities within the American Jewish community. Reform, we expect, would have to come from inside the camp of Jewish liberals. Sobered by findings such as those we report, liberal-minded leaders may take up the challenge of rebuffing ideas and influencers undermining participation in Jewish religious and communal activities. In all likelihood, only highly respected and credible liberals committed to Jewish lifeand there still are tens of thousands of themhave a reasonable chance to reverse the Jewish commitment gap we have highlighted. They are best-positioned to make the case to their ideological allies for the compatibility of liberalism with active participation in Jewish communal and religious endeavors and reject those aspects of left-leaning thinking inimical to Jewish life.

Read more:

Whatever Happened to the 'Pro-Jewish' Left? | AEI - American Enterprise Institute

Category: Judaism | Comments Off on Whatever Happened to the ‘Pro-Jewish’ Left? | AEI – American Enterprise Institute
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which was unthinkable just a few years ago, sent shockwaves across the nation Friday morning -- a ruling that has ended the constitutional protections for abortions that have been in place for nearly half a century.

The decision, impulsed by a conservative majority, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that was fortified by former President Donald Trump's three appointees.

The ruling came more than a month after the stunningleak of a draft opinionby Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

Friday's outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

Here is what local, state and national leaders, as well as organizations and local residents said following the Court's ruling:

President Joe Biden said Friday that is a solemn moment for the United States after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

"The Supreme Court expressly took away a Constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized. They simply took it away. That's never been done to a right," he said in a tweet.

He also said from the White House that now with Roe gone, lets be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk."

Earlier this month, Daily Update 2020 for people seeking and providingabortionsin the state under legislation signed by Gov.Kathy Hochul.

Following the Court's ruling Friday, Hochul shared her immediate reaction in a tweet, saying access to abortion "is a fundamental human right."

In a subsequent statement, Hochul called the decision "a grave injustice" and stressed that abortion remains "safe, accessible, and legal" in the state.

In her statement, Hochul said:

"Today,the Supreme Court took away the right of millions of Americans to make decisions about their own bodies. This decision is a grave injustice.

"I want everyone to know that abortion remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York. Just last month, in anticipation of this decision, I made an historic $35 million investment to support our state's network of abortion providers.Last week, thanks to the partnership of Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and Speaker Heastie, I signed a landmark, nation-leading package of legislation that furtherprotects the rights of patients and empowers reproductive healthcare providers.

"The right to reproductive healthcare is afundamental human right.History shows us that when abortion is banned, abortion becomes unsafe for women. Low-income individuals and people of colorwill be harmed the most.

"New York has always been a beacon for those yearning to be free.Our state will always be a safe harbor for those seeking access to abortion care.To anyone who is working to deny abortion access, our message is clear: not here, not now, not ever."

Meanwhile, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy referenced the draft opinions leaked earlier last month on the topic, saying that Friday's ruling was "appalling"

No number of leaked draft opinions nor any amount of speculation could have prepared American women for todays backwards and appalling Supreme Court decision to strip away the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom," Murphy said. "While New Jersey planned for this eventuality by codifying a womans right to an abortion under state law, it is incumbent that we do more to fully secure reproductive rights and ensure access to reproductive health care without delay. Until we do, my Administration will take the necessary steps to fully protect both New Jerseys women and those who come to our state to access the freedom which may no longer exist in their home state. In New Jersey, women will always have full autonomy over their own bodies and the right to make their own medical decisions."

Another tri-state leader, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said he was "grateful to live in Connecticut, where our laws make it clear that women have a right to choose."

Todays Supreme Court decision drastically oversteps the constitutional right for Americans to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions without government interference," Lamont's statement said. "Decisions on reproductive healthcare should only be made between a patient and their doctor without the interference of politicians. This ruling will not only result in a patchwork of unequal laws among the states, but more importantly it will result in dangerous and life-threatening situations similar to what this country witnessed countless times in the era prior to the landmarkRoecase in which women died or were left severely injured because they could not access the medical care that they should have every right to access on their own."

He went on to say: "As long as I am governor, reproductive rights will be protected in Connecticut and I will do everything in my power to block laws from being passed that restrict those rights.

"Make no mistake: this fight is far from over," Andrea Miller, President of the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NIRH Action Fund, an abortion rights advocacy group said in a statement following the SCOTUS' decision.

The Supreme Courtsmajority decision to overturnRoe v. Wadeis a devastating and unprecedented assault on our most cherished freedoms, which puts our bodies, our families, and our futures on the line," Miller said in a statement. "The ruling inDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organizationwill upend the lives and jeopardize the health and well-being of millions of people across this country those seeking abortion care, those who will need abortion care in the future, and the families and loved ones of those who will be denied the abortion care they need. And while this burden will cross every race, class, and zip code, we know that it will fall the hardest on Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other communities of color; those working to make ends meet; young people; and people living in rural communities.

Calling the day one that "will live infamy" as one when the justices "turned their backs on the people of this nation."

"Todays pernicious decision was not unexpected, but that does not make it any less appalling," Miller said. "This date will live in infamy, as the day when an unaccountable cabal of extreme conservative Justices turned precedent on its head and turned their backs on the people of this nation. It will usher in an era where every pregnancy that ends and every person involved may be suspect. And it will give government officials in roughly half the states wide-ranging power to surveil, prosecute, and punish those who end their pregnancies and those who help them do so.

But make no mistake: this fight is far from over. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, affordable, and available in all communities."

Joy D. Calloway, Interim President & CEO, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York Action Fund, said in a statement:

This is personal. The U.S. Supreme Court has robbed millions of people of their right to control their bodies and personal health care decisions. This cruel decision provokes a dangerous health crisis. People will be forced to overcome unjust barriers to access abortion or carry pregnancies against their will at the risk of their health and lives.

"This is a profoundly dismal day for our country, but the fight is far from over."

In a statement, NYC Health + Hospitals, the largest public health care system in the United States, said they "will continue to provide safe, legal, accessible abortion services to all who make this deeply personal choice" saying they will "welcome patients near and far."

President and CEO Dr. Mitchell Katz, said in a statement that the decision is a threat to public health.

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting the reproductive rights of millions of Americans is a step backwards and a threat to public health," Katz said, continuing:

"Soon we will bear witness to the enormous consequences of this ruling and we must brace ourselves for the disproportionate impact it will have on disadvantaged communities, people of color, and people already experiencing barriers to accessing health care.

"The potential for unsafe abortions, unwanted childbearing, and unmet health needs will also lead to lack of economic freedom and obstacles for young people trying to excel or pull themselves out of poverty.

"But here in New York, NYC Health + Hospitals will continue to provide safe, legal, accessible abortion services to all who make this deeply personal choice.

"We will do whatever it takes to accommodate patients from near and far. And we will take the necessary steps to protect the safety and security of our patients and the health care professionals who provide these services.

"We are fortunate to live in a city and state that are equally committed to abortion rights and are strengthening protections for abortion providers.

"As disappointed as I am in the Court's ruling today, I also feel more determined than ever to fulfill the mission of our great public health system to care for all, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, and protect the fundamental rights and health of the people we serve.

Two days in a row, politics came before people at the highest court in the land, and, as a result, the health of our nation now hangs in jeopardy. What the court has done today ignores the opinions of the majority of Americans, as it helps states control womens bodies, their choices, and their freedoms," New York City Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement.

There is nothing to call this Supreme Court opinion but an affront to basic human rights and one that aims to shackle women and others in reproductive bondage.

Reproductive care is health care, but, put simply, this decision puts lives at risk."

Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, "a vicious, dangerous, and deliberate attack on our most basic freedom as human beings."

James entire statement reads: Todays ruling is a vicious, dangerous, and deliberate attack on our most basic freedom as humans. Every single person in this country should have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. But make no mistake: We will not go back to the inhumane and restrictive pre-Roe era. Regardless of the situation at the national level, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion. I will work tirelessly to ensure that low-income New Yorkers and people from hostile states have access to the care they need and deserve. I will always fight to protect our right to make decisions about our own bodies and expand access to this critical and lifesaving care.

Former President Barack Obama said that the court "it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologuesattacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans."

Former First Lady Michelle Obama said she was "heartbroken."

"Our hearts may be broken today, but tomorrow, we've got to get up and find the courage to keep working towards creating the more just America we all deserve," she said.

Former President Donald Trump took credit for the Supreme Court decision that overturned a landmark ruling that made abortion legal across the United States nearly 50 years ago.

In a statement, Trump called the sentence "the greatest WIN for LIFE in a generation."

Meanwhile, in a Twitter thread, former Vice President Mike Pence, praised the decision saying, "Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land."

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) described the decision as "not only is this ruling an insult to women everywhere, but it is an affront to the 6 in 10 Americans who support womens reproductive freedom."

"This ruling proves that our judicial system no longer represents the will of the American people and no longer represents logic, science, or equal justice under the law," Gillibrand said in her statement."But while todays ruling is a terrible setback in the fight for womens equality, it does not diminish our resolve. In fact, it is time to get to work and fight for our rights."

She concludes her statement by saying: "We cannot allow nearly 50 years of progress for womens rights to be erased in one fell swoop. We have simply come too far to turn back now."

In a tweet, Gillibrand also said that "when you take away someone's ability to make their own decisions about their own body, they are no longer a citizen. They no longer have freedom, bodily autonomy, or basic civil rights."

New York State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a democrat, said the decisions has resulted in "two Americas, where states must decide if they'll serve as bastians of freedoms, or not."

"Todays abhorrent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade marks a stark new chapter in our American story," Stewart-Cousins said. "We cannot understate the life-altering effect this will have not only on millions of women today, but on the safety and freedom of those for generations to come. We are now living in two Americas, where states must decide if theyll serve as bastions of freedom, or not. In anticipation of this ruling, we took action to further protect womens rights to access reproductive healthcare and protect out of state visitors seekingabortioncare. Abortioncare is healthcare and it will remain accessible to all who need it in New York.Our safe harbor is ready to welcome those seeking refuge, with the promise that your choices will never be taken away in New York."

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said in her tweet that overturning Roe v. Wade "will never make [abortions] go away," but rather, "only makes them more dangerous."

This is a dark day for women, a dark day for freedom, and a dark day in the history of our country," Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) said.

Coleman also referenced Thursday's ruling, in which the Court struck down New York State's concealed carry gun law saying in a tweet that "in less than 24-hours the Supreme Court has shown that it cares more about controlling women than guns."

Coleman also went on to address those who are concerned in New Jersey, reminding the public that New Jersey has abortion rights.

Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) also released the following statement in response to the Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which has been in place for decades, calling it a "dark day in American history." Adding, "We knew it was coming, but that doesn't make it any less devastating."

Bowman went on to say that New York welcomes anyone who lives in a state that lost the right to an abortion.

Our country today failed the millions of Americans who will suffer from this inhumane, dangerous, and deadly ruling especially the poor and people of color who will suffer and die the most," Bowman said.

This was not merely a court ruling, this was an attack one that was planned by far-right extremists and carried out by the United States Supreme Court. This ruling is about controlling women and robbing them of their right to make decisions about their own bodies and healthcare. This is an outright attack on the overall freedoms of women across this country," his statement went on to say.

Bowman then focused his attention on the Supreme Court, who he said "lost its legitimacy."

Lets be clear: between sham appointments, stolen seats, and extreme verdicts like this one today, the United States Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy. For our democracy and governance to work, we must restore the legitimacy of the Court. The best way to do that is to expand the Supreme Court and restore a level of balance that has eroded over the years," he said.

This is a dark day, but today the fight begins the fight to restore abortion and reproductive rights in every state in the country . We must prevail,and I believe we will.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the decision "a massive attack on reproductive rights and freedom."

U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) shared his frustration over the "devastating and disastrous" ruling, saying in a statement:

After years of crusading, Republicans have succeeded in plunging our nation back to the dark days where women lived without bodily autonomy and access to safe reproductive care. The Supreme Courts failure to uphold Roe v. Wade is a devastating and disastrous decision that will impact millions of American women and will forever remain a stain on our countrys history.

With todays decision, the conservative majority on the Courthas thrown outnearly 50 years of precedent jeopardizing long-established progress on civil rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Make no mistake, the justices who struck down Roe havecallously turned their backs on women and families all across America. As a result, where a woman lives willnowdetermine her ability to access a full range of reproductive health options. The wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected will still have access to any and all care they choose. But lower-income women, especially of color, will not. This is more than just a health care issue, this is a human rights issue.

Today, I share your anger and disappointment. I share your frustration and your outrage. Tomorrow, and every day after until full reproductive health care access is fully restored, I stand ready to fight with you.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform said the decision "is about taking away our right to bodily autonomy" and was not about protecting public health or safety.

This disgraceful decision will eliminate access to abortion care for millions of people in the United States and will disproportionately harm communities that are already marginalized and more likely to experience health disparities, including people of color and people with less income," Maloney's statement read in part.

Todays decision undermines decades of precedent protecting fundamental freedoms for all people living in the United States and is a direct threat to other essential rights based on a persons right to privacy, including the right to contraception and the right to same sex marriage.It will be recorded as one of the most misguided, ideologically-driven, and deeply flawed decisions in our countrys history."

In a tweet, Maloney said she was "infuriated" by the decision and was going to join the crowd protesting in front of SCOTUS.

Citing a Marist Poll published last month, the New York Civil Liberties Union said the decision will trigger bans in half of U.S. states overnight, despite a vast majority of Americans believing that abortion is a fundamental right.

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman went on to issue a statement calling the decision " a full-scale assault."

This is an attack on women and anyone in need of abortion care," Lieberman said. "This is a full-scale assault on pregnant people,their health care providers, andtheir support systems. This is a racial, gender and economic justice catastrophe.As half of the states in this country shamefully make forced pregnancy the law of their land, we will not stand for it in New York. We will affirm the right to abortion care and ensure access to it, no matter what."

Lieberman's statement goes on to say: As federal reproductive rights vanish, New York will again be a beacon for people who need abortion care, including women, young people, transgender and gender non-conforming people. In New York today, the Reproductive Health Act protects access to abortion in our public health law. People from Mississippi to Texas are welcome here and have the right to get the vital care they need.

Our state first opened its doors to abortion care five decades ago, and three years before the Court decided Roe. But there is more work to do to expand access for women, girls, people of color, and low-income people across the country. For New York to be a leader and an abortion access state, Albany leadership must convene a special session to pass constitutional protections through an Equality Amendment. Failing to pass these critical measures this summer is unconscionable we must protect abortion care and ensure that anyone needing care can get it right here in New York.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said in a statement that the "ruling makes us proud to be Catholic."

"Honest abortion-rights legal scholars have long said that while abortion should be legal, it is not the business of the courts to settle such matters. [Justice Samuel] Alito picked up on this admission, saying, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....

"Aside from the legal matters, abortion involves a host of biological and moral issues. The DNA that makes us all unique human beings is present at conception, and not a day later. It is a credit to the Catholic Church that it led the discussion on the morality of abortion for all these years," his statement read in part.

Meanwhile, the Legal Aid Society said in part that the decision was not not "pro-life" but "pro-oppression."

"Stripping people of their reproductive rights isnt pro-life its pro-oppression. This ruling will exacerbate racial inequities and disproportionately harm the most vulnerable and marginalized communities of color who already face obstacles to healthcare. Forcing people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term will push families deeper into poverty and put the lives of pregnant people, many of whom are BIPOC women, at risk," the Legal Aid Society's statement read in part, adding: "We know the devastating impact that a lack of access to reproductive healthcare and abortion has on our clients and their families."

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), who is also running for New York governor, issued a statement saying in part that "the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a womans right to make their own reproductive health decisions. American women today will have less freedom than their mothers."

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called the ruling "a historic victory" that was both "courageous" and "correct."

Andrew Giuliani, Republican candidate for New York governor and son of former New York City Rudy Giuliani, a Trump ally, said in a statement he celebrated the decision and "is the enduring legacy of President Donald J. Trump."

"As a pro-life New Yorker,I celebrate the Supreme Courts reversal of Roe vs Wade. Its avictory for states rights but more importantly, the sanctity of life. This protection for our most vulnerable New Yorkers is the enduring legacy of President Donald J. Trump," he said.

Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY)said the decision of the "radical, far-right majority on the Supreme Court" will have "lethal consequences for people."

Jones statement reads in part: "Today, the radical, far-right majority on the Supreme Court imposed their unpopular, legally unsupported view on the American people overturning Roe v. Wade and ending the right to an abortion for millions in this country. This is the culmination of a decades-long assault waged by the Republican Party against reproductive freedom, and our democracy. Make no mistake: the Supreme Courts decision will have lethal consequences for people who need live-saving abortions and will compound cycles of poverty and marginalization for Black and brown people whove had their constitutional right to choose stripped away.

While abortion will remain legal in New York State, state legislatures across this country have already passed laws to ban abortion and criminalize providers and people who are seeking the health care they need. No matter what state you live in, this assault on abortion rights is an assault on all Americans."

The Catholic Bishops of New York State called the day "historic," saying that the "just decision will save countless innocent children simply waiting to be born."

In a statement, the group said in part: "With the entire pro-life community, we are overjoyed with this outcome of the Court. However, we acknowledge the wide range of emotions associated with this decision...We must remember that this is a judicial victory, not a cultural one. The culture remains deeply divided on the issue, which will be evidenced by the patchwork of state statutes pertaining to abortion across the country."

In a tweet, New York Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan said "we give thanks to God" in reference to the Court's decision.

Meanwhile, the Concerned Clergy for Choice and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Clergy Advisory Board oppose the Court's decision, saying:

As people of faith and deep moral conviction, we unequivocally oppose bans or medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion. These restrictions undermine individual moral agency and the ability to make personal health decisions according to ones conscience, including whether and when to become parents. We affirm the moral agency of people seeking abortions, their bodily autonomy, and their moral authority to make reproductive decisions.

National Council of Jewish Women CEO Sheila Katzcalled the decision "a moral failure" that "will put lives at risk."

By overturning 50 years of precedent, safe and vital abortion care is now virtually inaccessible to millions of people who need it. In the weeks and months ahead, we will see the devastating impact this ruling will have on human lives," Katz said.

Follow this link:
Date Will Live in Infamy': Tri-State Leaders, Public React to SCOTUS Abortion Ruling - NBC New York

Category: Jewish American Heritage Month | Comments Off on Date Will Live in Infamy’: Tri-State Leaders, Public React to SCOTUS Abortion Ruling – NBC New York
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

n');document.write('n nn');}

TWO Malaga restaurants have positioned themselves in the European ranking for top eating establishments.

Malaga has always been home to great cuisine and special produce, and this year, 2022, it can proudly boast to have two restaurants to be among the most outstanding in Europe.

According to the Opinionated About Dining (OAD) ranking, which has just published a list of the 150 Best Casual Restaurants in Europe of 2022, based on reviews submitted by some of the worlds most experienced diners, the Fuengirola seafood restaurant Los Marinos Jos, considered the temple of seafood on the Costa del Sol for more than 30 years, is in third position.

In addition to the Best Casual Restaurants in Europe the OAD has also published a list of the 30 Best New European Restaurants of the year. Topping this list is Desde 1911 located in Madrid and is the latest project of the Grupo Pescaderias Coruesas.

In second place is the modern grill Smoked Room located in the Hyatt Regency Hotel (Madrid), with the signature of Malaga-born chef Dani Garcia and in 16th place is the Malaga establishment Kaleja.

Kaleja, owned by chef Dani Carnero, sits in an exclusive part of the Jewish quarter in Malaga, and its cuisine uses only the finest seasonal produce to create exceptional dishes. The restaurant also has two sun distinction from the Repsol Guide, a respected authority on Spanish cuisine

OADs list of the Best European Restaurants more focused on haute cuisine will be announced on June 27.

Read more from the original source:

Two restaurants from Malaga among best in Europe - The Olive Press

Category: Jewish Cuisine | Comments Off on Two restaurants from Malaga among best in Europe – The Olive Press
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

The long, slow decline of the Jewish delicatessen has been bemoaned and lamented for many years.

In the early 1930s, there were more than 1,500 kosher delis and many more non-kosher ones in the five boroughs of New York alone, according to city records.

In recent years, the estimate fell to 150 in all of North America.

Thats why it is a cause for celebration that Langers delicatessen, the venerable pastrami emporium on 7th and Alvarado near MacArthur Park, marked another milestone birthday this weekend. The restaurant, which opened with space for 12 customers in June 1947, is now 75 years old.

Opinion Columnist

Nicholas Goldberg

Nicholas Goldberg served 11 years as editor of the editorial page and is a former editor of the Op-Ed page and Sunday Opinion section.

Langers is, of course, a Los Angeles institution.

In 1991, Jonathan Gold wrote in The Times: The fact is inescapable: Langers probably serves the best pastrami sandwich in America.

In 2002, Nora Ephron went farther, declaring unequivocally in the New Yorker that Langers made the finest hot pastrami sandwich in the world. She described it as soft but crispy, tender but chewy, peppery but sour, smoky but tangy.

And, if I may be so bold, my recent lunch of matzo ball soup and hot pastrami on rye with sauerkraut confirmed to my satisfaction, anyway that those assessments still hold.

Of course, if you dont want pastrami, there are alternatives. You can have the corned beef (Mimi Sheraton called it excellent in a 42-year-old review that still hangs, fading now, in the restaurants window). Or blintzes, kasha varnishkes, latkes, a bowl of borscht or a knish with gravy. For dessert, noodle kugel. I guess you could also order the hamburger or even dont tell the ancestors, please a ham and cheese sandwich. But that would be foolish.

Ephron was snide about the decor. It is decorated, although decorated is probably not the word that applies, in tufted brown vinyl, she wrote. That was 20 years ago, and thats pretty much how it still looks today.

She noted that Langers always seems to be just barely hanging on. Thats also still true.

The sufferings of Jewish delis over the years have been legion, the challenges monumental: Theres the passing of the shtetl generation and its children. The assimilation of its grandchildren. The dispersal of the Jewish population from the cities to suburbs (and, in the case of Langers, from Westlake-MacArthur Park to the San Fernando Valley and the Westside).

Rising rents. The climbing costs of ingredients. The tut-tutting of cardiologists everywhere, what with all the fat, carbohydrates and salt.

More recently, the COVID closures. And now, a new burst of inflation.

The price of a pastrami sandwich at Langers rose recently to $22, a number that even its owner, Norm Langer, concedes is meshuga.

Is half a pound of meat, two slices of rye bread and a pickle worth $22? he asks. I dont know. But Ive got to make ends meet.

When the restaurant first opened, a pastrami sandwich cost about 35 cents. When The Times mentioned the deli in 1973, the price had risen to $1.75. In 2002, it was $8.50.

Langer is 77 years old. He says he has no plans to retire. I get up in the morning, Ive got to go somewhere, he says. Everybody needs a place to go.

The restaurant was opened by his father, Al Langer of Newark, N.J., whod gotten his start in delis years earlier when his mother sent him to work to raise money to help pay for his $35 bar mitzvah. In 1947, Al was living in L.A., was recently out of the service and had saved $500. He borrowed a few thousand more.

In those days, the Westlake-MacArthur Park neighborhood had a big, middle-class Jewish population. At one point the restaurant had so much business it stayed open nights until 3 a.m. Now it closes at 4 p.m.

In the 1980s, The Times wrote endless stories about the troubles facing the deli because of the changing neighborhood, including one histrionic article about MacArthur Park headlined Winos, Dopers, Crime Overrun City Landmark. But Langers hung on.

The restaurant got a needed boost in 1993 when Metros Red Line opened, with a subway station just a block and a half away. Crowds flocked in from downtown.

I saw 500 people lined up to get into Langers and I told Norm, It was worth spending $1.2 billion to keep you in business, said then-County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a regular.

In L.A. today the delis that still exist include Canters, which opened in 1931 in Boyle Heights and only later moved to its location on Fairfax. Also Arts Deli, Nate n Als and Wexlers. Theres Brents Deli. To name just a few.

But they keep closing down. Izzies in Santa Monica shut its doors in May. Greenblatts in West Hollywood closed in 2021 after 95 years.

New delis have opened, in some cases with modern, sustainable or health-conscious twists on the classic cuisine. Less shabby, less irascible, theyre gambling that deli food can be gentrified and rejuvenated.

But pastrami, lets face it, is an acquired taste. So are creamed herring, chicken liver, tongue, whitefish salad and other old country staples. The bagel may be firmly embedded in the American food pantheon, but traditional Ashkenazi deli fare of the sort that flourished in the years after the great Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe is unquestionably endangered.

And with it a tangible link to the culinary past. A connection to the forefathers. A piece of the collective culture.

The good news is that reports of its extinction have proved premature so far, as Langers demonstrates. So rather than rend my garments, Ill make the most of it while I can (and hope my heart holds out).

@Nick_Goldberg

Read the original post:

Column: Theyve been making the worlds best pastrami sandwiches for 75 years. Can they keep it up? - Los Angeles Times

Category: Jewish Cuisine | Comments Off on Column: Theyve been making the worlds best pastrami sandwiches for 75 years. Can they keep it up? – Los Angeles Times
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 26, 2022

Darom By Yatir

(New York, NY/Israel, JUNE 20, 2022) If Israel is the land of milk and honey, the Negev (desert) region should rightly be called the land of milk, honey, and wine. Many people dont know that wine grapes were grown in the southern region by Nabatean tribes as early as the second century BCE. Unlike other regions of the country, the Negevs climate and conditions have always made cultivation a particular challenge.

Today, however, the Negev region is a famously intriguing location for the production of unique, superb wines, and the new DAROM wine brand showcases the Israeli desert wine region in all its glory. DAROM wines are created from quality grape varieties grown in selected vineyards in the south of Israel, where intense desert conditions result in unique and distinctive blends.

DAROM is a new brand from the renowned Yatir Winery, developed by its respected and talented winemaker Eran Goldwasser. He has been producing award winning and coveted wines for Yatir for more than 20 years. DAROM holds its own, with distinct flavors, characterized by refreshing, accessible grapes based on beloved and familiar varieties from select vineyards in the south. These vineyards enjoy a dry, cold desert climate at night, which creates a unique terroir. Growing and cultivation conditions are perfect for the grape varieties from which Darom wines are produced.

Darom by YATIR addresses wine consumers who want to invest in affordable quality wines, and who enjoy wine on a frequent basisnot just on special occasionsand are open to exploring new and exciting varietals.

TheDarom LOGO represents the anemone flower that blooms in the Negev and covers a significantly wide area, with a beautiful red blossom from mid-January to the end of February, as the red anemones blossoms are at their peak during this period.

The south is an integral part of the history of the Jewish people and their connection to vineyards there have bloomed and flourished in the region since the dawn of history. It is a wonderful natural habitat in terms of climate and soil, and many high-quality local varieties can be cultivated here. We are proud to lead Israels southern wine trend with the Yatir, and now with the new Darom brand, says Yacov Ben Dor, CEO of Yatir Winery.

The launch of the Darom by YATIR is a milestone. After Yatir boutique wines of the south were launched 20 years ago, the brand grew into a coveted line of wines in Israel, with international recognition as well. Ben Dor describes Darom as the younger brother of Yatir.

Winemaker Eran Goldwasser of Yatir Winery says, DAROM by YATIRs wines are connected to the dynamic history of the soil, and the unpretentiousness accompanying them is felt in every sip. The tasting notes offer a lighter character, with fresh fruit flavors.

Harvest in southern vineyards began in the second week of August and ended at the end of September. According to Goldwasser, The season was preceded by a cold winter with average rainfall for the region, except for March, which was unusually cold and rainy. Spring was intensea combination of cold and frequent spellsand the summer was pleasant without extreme heat waves. The ripening was continuous and flawless.

In the first stage of the launch, DAROM will include a series of boutique wines including three wines:

DAROM WHITE 2021:

This is a dry white wine derived from 100% Sauvignon Blanc grapes from the vineyards in Mitzpe Ramon and Ramat Arad located in the southern desert of the Negev. The wine was fermented in stainless steel vats and matured for 4 months in concrete vats.

Its an elegant white wine whose distinct fruit flavors are cool and fresh. The wine displays a bright, golden color, and possesses fruity, fresh, and juicy flavors, with slightly herbaceous aromas.It is expected to continue to mature well in the bottle over the next decade. DaromWhite is a wine with a distinct presence that pairs well with food but can also stand on its own, serving as an aperitif.

Alcohol percentage is 12%. To enjoy the wine to the maximum, it is recommended to serve it at a temperature of 10-12C (50-54F).

DAROM ROS 2021:

This dry ros wine is produced from 34% Grenache, 33% Zinfandel, and 33% Red Muscat grapes from vineyards in the southern Judean Hills and Ramat Arad. The wine was fermented and matured in stainless steel vats for 4 months.

The result is an elegant ros whose distinct fruit flavors maintain tasty freshness. It has a bright pink color with fruity, fresh, balanced, and slightly tart flavors. The wine presents refreshing aromas of strawberries and rose blossoms.

Darom Ros 2021 merges wonderfully with a variety of Mediterranean cuisines, a combination that creates a real celebration for the palate. It is suitable for serving as an aperitif and is a perfect accompaniment to Mediterranean-style first course dishes.

Alcohol percentage is 11.5%. To enjoy the wine to the maximum it is recommended to serve it at a temperature of 8-10 degrees 8-10C (46-50F).

DAROM RED 2020

This dry red wine produced from 61% Shiraz, 20% Zinfandel, 12% Marselan, and 7% Grenache grapes grown in regions of the south and the southern Judean Hills.

The varieties were gently fermented for a short period, mostly in stainless steel vats as well as concrete and large open wood containers. The wines were then aged in concrete and large wooden vats (foudres) for a further 9 months.

With its distinct garnet color, blackberry, plum, and pepper aromas, and juicy ripe fruit flavors, this medium-bodied wine displays fruity and balanced acidity with rounded tannins and a long finish. It makes a perfect accompaniment to light meat dishes and Mediterranean cuisine.

Alcohol percentage is 14% Alcohol. To enjoy the wine to the maximum it is recommended to serve it at a temperature of 8-10 degrees 8-10C (46-50F).

Original post:

Yatir Winery Launches a New Independent Brand That Comes Straight from the Israeli Desert Wine Region - wineindustryadvisor.com

Category: Jewish Cuisine | Comments Off on Yatir Winery Launches a New Independent Brand That Comes Straight from the Israeli Desert Wine Region – wineindustryadvisor.com
Tags: