THE MOST UNDERRATED STORY EVER TOLD

Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like to leave the Beltway and move near a college town somewhere in the hinterland of the country, where my commute would be benign, the traffic would be almost non-existent, and my neighbors (to the extent I had any) would be more down-to-earth and spontaneous. Then, periodically, something happens to remind me of why I feel so tied to the Washington, D.C. area.

The latest reminder comes via our local Jewish playhouse – Theatre J. First of all, I don’t know how many American cities other than New York even have a Jewish playhouse. But I do know for a fact that D.C.’s Jewish theatre is the first one outside of New York to offer David Ives tremendous play, New Jerusalem. Actually, the full title of the play is much longer and gives a clear sense of what the play is about, at least on the surface: “New Jerusalem: The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza at Talmud Torah Congregation: Amsterdam, July 27, 1656.” So yes, a well known and well respected playwright has written a tale about my favorite philosopher and how he was excommunicated by the Sephardic Jewish community in Amsterdam when he was 23 years old – a fate that befell him because he refused to renounced his “heretical” philosophy.

It’s a subject we’ve all encountered before – the forces of religious Orthodoxy strike out against the solitary genius, who sees truths that they are afraid to acknowledge. Yet there is something particularly compelling about the episode of Spinoza, and it stems from the identity of the persecutors. This isn’t just another case of the Catholic Church enforcing the official faith. Modern Jews have for a while taken incredible pride at the idea that theirs is NOT a religion of dogma, but rather one of deeds. And for this reason, Spinoza, who was a law-abiding citizen who still kept some attachment to the rituals of the synagogue, should by rights have been treated as a good Jew. In reality, however, he was cursed and cast out, and the members of the Jewish community were forbidden from reading his work and even standing within six feet of his body. All of this happened because he dared to teach doctrines about God and humankind that threatened the security of a so-called “non-dogmatic,” intellectual people.

The story of Spinoza’s excommunication is most fascinating not because of what it reveals about Spinoza’s philosophy – which wasn’t fully developed until many years later – than by what it reveals about the hypocrisy and limitations of Judaism. I don’t mean to say that Judaism is inferior to the other great organized faiths but only that it claims to be something that it is not. What the story of Spinoza shows is that Jewish traditionalists, for all their passion for learning, simply cannot afford to open their minds too far. They are vested in a particular conception of God, a particular conception of the origins of the Torah, and a particular conception of what it means to have a human soul. This applies even to the rabbis who are able to think philosophically – when push comes to shove, they prefer “their truth” to “the” truth, even when they recognize a conflict between the two.

Typically, philosophy/science vs. faith dramas are presented in a historical context. This one is no different – Spinoza lived and died in the middle of the 17th century. But again, to think of this tale primarily in terms of its historical context is to miss its fundamental point. Stated simply, the SAME battle that Spinoza fought about God, immortality and scripture is being played out today in churches and universities all over the country and in much of the world. This isn’t like the Catholic Church forcing Galileo to recant his heliocentric views – which is of lesser interest to a world in which everyone, including the priests, is now a heliocentrist. Nor is this a simple case of a philosopher whose views are contrary to those of fundamentalist rabbis, priests and imams, but otherwise coincide with the views of the masses. Quite the contrary – even the so-called “liberal” clerics have striven to marginalize and trivialize Spinoza’s teachings, lest these teachings undermine the basis for perhaps the fundamental principle of Western religion, liberal and conservative: that the God we worship is the human ideal personified.

Spinoza viewed that attitude as disrespectful to the true God – whose largely-elusive nature was his primary object of interest. Spinoza recognized that human beings are severely limited in what we can know about the world, or of God. But this much we can know: that if we were triangles, we would think of God as triangular, and if we were circles, we would think of God as circular, so it only stands to reason that since we are people, we think of God in the way we would ourselves like people to be if we had all the power in the world. Merciful, kind, loving, wise, compassionate … just call it “omni-excellent,” based on a human standard of excellence. And of course, if we were God, we would bestow on each member of our favorite species (homo sapiens) immortal souls, and we’d reward these souls for virtue and punish them for vice. You all know the drill. We’ve heard it ever since we were all children. And so did Spinoza. He simply couldn’t sit back and watch as human beings elevated themselves to idol status. Like all the great spiritual leaders, he felt the need to speak out against conventional wisdom in the name of truth.

To a large degree, Spinoza is the patron saint of modern secularism. His criticism of organized religion has become adopted and absorbed by millions upon millions of so-called non-believers. But the tragedy of this story is that because the clerics of his day and ours have done such a fine job of silencing him, they have prevented most people from seeing that Spinoza was anything but a non-believer. He was a devout lover of God. He simply re-defined that term so that we stopped fashioning it in our own image.

Spinoza’s disciples among the greatest thinkers of modern history are legion. Deleuze, Einstein, Santayana, Nietzsche, Heine, Hegel, Schelling, Herder, Goethe, Lessing. Paradoxically, though, his is one of those names pseudo-intellectuals love to drop at cocktail parties to show that they appreciate obscure dead sages. Recently, one of our local papers, the Washington Express, drummed in this point in its brief statement about Ives’ play. The blurb was entitled “Beloved Esoterica,” and it went as follows:

“Baruch de Spinoza? Who? Oh, be quiet: This is the nerdiest city ever. You probably read Spinoza in third grade. So, when we tell you that there’s a play about Spinoza (a 17th century philosopher, not that you didn’t know), you’ll probably jump up and down with joy. Right? Right?”

Sure it’s funny. Nerds are funny, even if you’re one of them. And when it comes to Spinoza, I’m definitely a nerd. But what isn’t funny is the gulf between our spiritual potential as human beings and the extent to which the leaders of organized religions are willing to keep us from realizing that potential, particularly when it comes to examining the ultimate questions of religious philosophy. And what also isn’t funny is how much we could develop that potential if only we could come to better grips with the teachings of Spinoza, rather than treating those teachings as not-so-beloved esoterica.

New Jerusalem will continue to be playing in Washington through July 25th. And on Thursday, July 18th, one week from today, I am privileged to be leading the discussion right after the play, based on my having coordinated the Washington Spinoza Society for nearly nine years.

So please, if you live in the DC area, come! It’s never too late to open your mind to what this capacious and courageous mind had to offer. It’s a message that’s perfectly suited to building a bridge between the secular and the spiritual, the atheist and the theist, and the heart and the mind. Moreover, this production is both well written and well acted. So call 1-800-494-8497 to order tickets. And if you don’t live in DC and can’t see the play, check out the Spinoza Society page on my website (www.danielspiro.com) – and such essays as "Spinoza and Unitarian-Universalism" – to get a general overview of what this man taught.

If it was good enough for Einstein, I dare say it’s worthy of your time.

FOURTH OF JULY IN THE HEARTLAND

This weekend, your humble scribe will be on the road and unable to provide a lengthy blog. I'll be in Indianapolis, Indiana, a state that actually voted for Obama two years ago but is still recognized by Sarah Palin as part of the United States of America (as opposed to my Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C., which Palin sees as some kind of alien territory filled with unpatriotic socialists).

Do I resent the idea peddled by certain politicians and talking heads that some parts of this country are more truly "American" than others? Your damned right I do.

Anyway, I want to wish each of you a Happy Independence Day this Sunday. Even if you are reading this from another country, presumably you still appreciate the values that reigned supreme in Independence Hall on July 4, 1776. If only we could find again the kind of folks who lined that building on that fateful day and sprinkle them throughout the leadership of Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and the other spots where people seem to have lost their way. Maybe even the U.S. should be included in that group. We all need another dose of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and company ... and no time too soon.

Take care, and have a blast on Sunday.

THE ARROGANT GENERAL HAS GOT TO GO

McChrystal and his staff have insulted the President, the Vice President, other leaders of the Administration, and most importantly, the millions upon millions of Americans who support the Administration but do not share its faith in a never-ending war in Afghanistan. When this egomaniac referred to the "real enemy" as the "wimps in the White House," that was his way of sticking it to a large segment of the American population, and perhaps the clear majority of the Democratic Party, who have grown tired of trusting our leaders that surges and/or wars of choice are always in the national interest. It can be argued that we were wrong in opposing this latest surge, but there's no argument that we deserve to be kicked in the teeth simply because of our position.

McChrystal has since apologized for his comments, but at the time he made them, he knew exactly what he was doing. After all, the statements were made to representatives of a magazine who clearly intended to print what they heard. McCrystal hasn't denied that he understood these comments would be printed or that he made the comments that are attributed to him. Frankly, I don't even know why he is bothering to apologize -- it would appear that his comments served their intended purpose, to rip apart anyone and everyone who isn't clamoring for war.

I say send him back home and let him spew his macho rhetoric to a more sympathetic audience, like perhaps on Fox News. We don't need people like that representing a Democratic Administration.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

On this Father’s Day weekend, it seems suitable to talk about the walk of life that brings the most joy to the most men – other than sex, of course. I’m referring to spectator sports. And if you can’t tell, there’s plenty of it going on these days.

First and foremost, we have the World Cup. Every four years, even non-soccer fans like me turn out and watch what is a truly beautiful spectacle. The World Cup is the world’s most widely watched sporting event. Four years ago, the estimated viewing audience for the event’s final exceeded 700 million people – nearly seven times the viewership of the Super Bowl. Soccer (or football, as it is called elsewhere) is the international spectator sport, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Nor do I see a change in the United States’ relative lack of interest in soccer once the World Cup is over. Then, we will return to our own sports, most of which are afterthoughts in such soccer hotbeds as Brazil, Argentina, England, Germany and Spain. I’m referring to sports like baseball, where once again no team has a better record than the Yankees (yawn) and where the Red Sox (the team with the second largest payroll in the sport) is poised to give the Yanks a serious challenge down the stretch. So yes, in sports, some things never change. But recently, other things have.

Let’s start with basketball. In 1979, when Magic Johnson and Larry Bird first faced each other to end their brilliant college careers, there was no doubt which pro basketball team had dominated the record books. The Celtics had won 13 world championships and Lakers a “mere” 6. Those numbers would both go up rather swiftly in the 1980s, once Bird joined the Celtics and Magic the Lakers, but still, they retired with the tally at 16 and 11 – not nearly as lopsided as before, and yet hardly debatable as to who was on top and who was looking up. At that point, the Celtics had a single player, Bill Russell, who won as many rings as the Laker franchise had won in its history (11), and the Celtics had a coach, Red Auerbach, who had won almost as many titles (9). Plus, in head-to-head matchups, the Celtics were 8-2 against the Lakers and 4-0 in game 7 battles. While it’s true that Magic’s Lakers had won their last two matchups against Bird’s Celtics, the first time Magic faced Bird in an NBA final, the Celtics came out on top. And the series could best be remembered for a single play: the Lakers Kirt Rambis going up for a layup, only to have the Celtics Keven McHale “clothesline” him – i.e., stick out his arm while Rambis was in the air and smack him in the neck, knocking him to the ground. The TV announcer, Celtics legend Tom Heinsohn, spoke as if the play was entirely acceptable and the referees gave McHale but a slap on the wrist, but Laker fans were incensed. That play completely turned the series in the Celtics favor, as the Lakers didn’t retaliate with an equally “physical” response. So even though Magic and his Lakers went on to win three more championships in later years, the Celtics continued to be known as the tougher, and ultimately the more accomplished, franchise.

However, in the last two decades, culminating in Thursday night’s battle, the worm has turned. Finally, the Lakers have beaten the Celtics in a seven game series. What’s more, the Lakers won despite a terrible shooting night by their best player, Kobe Bryant. The victory has been explained by many as a difference in will ¬– the Lakers simply wanted it more, and they got fresher in the fourth quarter, whereas the Celtics wilted. The motivation is clear: the Lakers are now but a single win behind the Celtics in overall NBA titles (17-16), and in terms of overall appearances in the NBA finals, the Lakers trounce the Celtics, 31-21. When it comes to consistent excellence, there is no longer a contest.

Sports is all about “what have you done for me lately,” and lately, the Lakers are by far the better franchise. Since 1980, the Lakers have won ten titles. The Bulls six. Two teams have won four – the Spurs and the Celtics, and three of those four Celtics titles were well over 20 years ago.

What’s more, the two franchises that battled it out this past week seem to be headed in different directions. The Lakers’ best players seem to have plenty of great basketball left, whereas the Celtics “Big Three” are old. Right now, the Lakers are no longer looking up at the Celtics in the pride department, and yet they will continue to be the hungrier franchise, motivated by the desire to finally surpass their rivals in overall titles. In short, if these were companies, it’s pretty clear which stock would be rising and which would be falling. “I Love LA” would be the slogan of every stockbroker in America.

It’s something you couldn’t say about one of LA’s favorite sons, the golfer formerly known as Tiger Woods. Talk about a changing of the guard – nothing in basketball even remotely resembles what is happening now in golf. In case you can’t tell, Tiger has figuratively passed the baton, and by the end of this weekend, he seems poised to make the passage official. If Phil Michelson continues to play even half as well as he did yesterday at the U.S. open, he will be listed as number one in the Official World Golf Rankings by the end of the weekend. As for Tiger Woods, he seems to have thoroughly lost his way as a golfer. Not only is his driving accuracy among the worst on the PGA tour, but he hasn’t even been willing to hire a coach to fix the problem. Tiger’s plan is allegedly to be his own coach – which is kind of like being your own lawyer. I guess that means that Tiger, the coach, has a “fool for a client.” Then again, that hardly needed to be said. Calling Tiger “foolish” would probably be the nicest thing anyone has said about him since Thanksgiving.

Lest it sound like I’m piling on “poor” Tiger, the fact remains that I continue to root for the guy and not for his rival, Michelson. But as a would-be Empathic Rationalist, I have to call it as a I see it: Michelson’s revival has been nearly as remarkable as Tiger’s downfall. It’s as if the “Golfing Gods” wanted a superstar to continue to reign over the other members of the PGA tour, and have simply replaced Tiger with Phil.

Middle America couldn’t be happier – in place of a steely competitor who never signs autographs and loves to cuss after a bad shot, we have a happy-go-lucky, fan-friendly gentleman who has the capacity for magic whenever he’s wielding an iron. Personally, though, I never change loyalties when it comes to sports. I pick a team or an athlete and stay with them, through all the scandals (Tiger), all the torturous defeats (Vikings), and even the threats of going out of business (Twins). I have neither the time nor the energy to alter my allegiance.
The irony of talking about sports on Father’s Day is that even for those of us men who have lived for decades and fathered multiple children, when it comes to sports, we’ll always remain small boys – not fathers, but sons. That’s the joy of it – spectator sports are a way for people of any age to forget all the stresses of the world and cheer mindlessly for whatever side they’ve arbitrarily decided to live or die with.

I often tell people that I named my dog after Kirby Puckett, the baseball player. When the dog was born in 1996, Kirby the Minnesota Twin was one of the most beloved athletes in his sport. Five years later, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in his first try. But around that time, Puckett the Man also became a controversial character, who among other things, was alleged to have tried to strangle his wife with an electrical cord, and to have yanked another woman into a public bathroom before fondling her. The allegations were awful, and based on what I’ve surmised, there must have been plenty of truth to at least some of them. Yet whenever I see old films of a younger Puckett rounding the bases, jumping over the center field wall to snag a fly ball, or yanking a hanging curve out of the park, I forget all about the other side of his personality.

Young boys don’t need to think about that stuff – certainly not on Father’s Day.

EXPOSED, PART II

It’s now been a couple of weeks since the flotilla incident shined a nice red light on Israel’s Gazan policy, and as I pointed out last week, it also brought into the open what zealots on both sides have been thinking but have not been willing to say publicly. Helen Thomas was the first celebrity to speak her mind in the wake of the incident. Sadly, she will now be known in the future as an anti-Semitic journalist, rather than simply as a journalist. There’s no other way to construe the idea that the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to such places as Poland and Germany.

But Thomas was not alone in revealing her deepest thoughts. This week, observers of the Middle East were privileged to hear from New York Senator Charles Schumer. Here are some of his words, as delivered to the Orthodox Union: “"The Palestinian people still don't believe in a Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them 'OUR' land - this is Palestinian thinking.”

So far, I have to say that Schumer was accurate. Looking at the Palestinians I know who claim to believe in a two-state solution, not one believes that either state should be a “Jewish state” with any special privileges for Jews. Nor would any dispute that the land belonged to the Palestinians, and the Europeans inappropriately seized it away from them and gave it to the Jews.

Unfortunately, Schumer didn’t stop at that. In speaking about the Palestinians, Schumer said that “they don’t believe in the Torah, in David.” Schumer added that “you have to force them to say Israel is here to stay.” And speaking specifically about the Gazans, he stressed the need "to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go, makes sense."

It’s not exactly the kind of diplomatic words you’d expect from a politician. Yet in the polarized climate that now characterizes Israeli-Palestinian relations, you can pretty much get as extreme as you want and find audience after audience to say “amen.” In the so-called “peace movement,” otherwise known as the Palestinians-are-the-victims crowd, Israel is assigned 90+ percent of the blame. By contrast, in mainstream Zionist organizations, otherwise known as the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd, everyone may claim to believe in peace, but they don’t really believe it’s possible and they’re not doing much to make it possible. And so it goes, the war that never ends.

I saved my final barbs last week for Thomas because the kind of anti-Semitism she spewed strikes a particular chord with me as a Jew. I don’t care if she’s 89, or for that matter 109; only a Jew hater would speak such trash.

Still, if I am going to hold Thomas to task, can I sit back and say nothing about Schumer’s words? To begin, I am mystified by the part about the Palestinians not believing in the Torah or David. Does he realize the irony of that statement? The Muslims deeply respect the Torah and consider the main figures in that book to be Prophets of God – including David. By contrast, most of my fellow Jews have little appreciation for what’s in the Qur’an and frequently refer to it mockingly, as if it encourages suicide bombings (which is absolutely false). If anyone should be apologizing for “not believing” in the other group’s holy texts, it’s us Jews.

Moreover, what really rankled me about Schumer’s statement is the idea that Israel needs to strangle the Gazan economy. Surely he’s echoing the views of the Israeli Government. Why else do you deprive your neighboring people of food, hygiene products and medicine? The idea would have to be to destroy the Gazans and bring them to their knees, when they will finally have no choice but to send Hamas packing and embrace peace with the ones who have tortured them.

Those words don’t even pass the laugh test. You can strangle the Gazan economy, but you can’t strangle the will of the Gazan people to fight the ones who oppress them. And don’t fool yourself: Israel is oppressing them. I cannot envision a more counterproductive strategy than the one Senator Schumer is advocating.

That said, Schumer and I agree that the Gazans haven’t exactly made things easy on Israel. In fact, even if Israel were to take their advice from Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, they still might not have peace – many Palestinians would continue to threaten Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and I can’t see those men advising Israel to destroy itself. The truth is that BOTH sides must together take the steps to embrace peace. And at present, neither side trusts the other enough to see any point in taking such steps.

It’s called a stalemate. It has lasted for six decades. And it will take the Israelis, the Palestinians, other Arab states, and those of us in America and Europe to fight together to make sure it doesn’t last for another six decades.

For now, all we can do is listen to the Chuck Schumers and the Helen Thomases and keep taking notes. At least the truth is coming out. At least we’re learning exactly how much disdain is out there, and how difficult it will be for the peacemakers to take control. Stated simply, the two sides have dug two pretty deep holes. There’s no better time than now to cover them up with love and respect. We must have no more insensitivity about the Holocaust. We must have no more calls for strangulation. Love and respect sound like obvious principles, but apparently, people have forgotten about them. It’s time to cut the macho crap and embrace the “other” before our grandchildren inherit the same war that we did. And wherever you live, be it Hebron, Haifa, Hamburg or Houston, if you care about the “peoples of the book,” this is YOUR war. Let’s end it together.