Passover Seder 2005 (5765)

Last night I had the pleasure of attending, along with about 20 other guests, a Passover Seder at a friend’s house. Included in this group were not only my friend’s immediate and extended family, but a Rabbi, a Roman Catholic Priest, and a Methodist Minister. It was a wonderful, congenial group, who all took part in the Seder service, read from the Passover Haggadah, and enjoyed the meal that followed. The giving thanks prayers and songs that followed the sumptuous meal were enjoyed by all. All in all it was an ecumenical group that came to celebrate the freedom of the Jewish people in ancient times.

This freedom from the tyranny of slavery, put upon them by their Egyptian masters, was God’s first covenant with the Jews as a people, as opposed to the individual covenants given to the patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible. The Supreme Being confirmed this important freedom when granting the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, and gave the first commandment to read, “I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” That covenant and that commandment continue to exist today, thousands of years later, and are at the basic core of the celebration of Passover.

Each year Jews throughout the world celebrate this freedom and retell the story of the Exodus as commanded by the rabbis of ancient times. It is not meant to be an historic telling of slavery and freedom that happened to our forebearers, but rather a retelling of what happened to “us.” The Haggadah says, “For ‘we’ were slaves in Egypt, but the Lord our God took ‘us’ out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” That ‘we’ is the key that ties us together as a people that has lived through the atrocities of destruction of the Temple by the Romans; the killings of Jews throughout Europe and the Holy Land by the Crusades; the Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal, and Italy; the expulsions of Jews at one time or the other from just about all European countries, the opening and restrictions of ghettos (the first being in Italy); the burning of Torahs and Talmuds by order of the Church; the murder of 6,000,000 Jews in Nazi German concentration camps; and on and on and on. It didn’t happen to ‘them’ but rather to ‘us’ and it binds ‘us’ down to the depth of our souls.

But ‘we’ don’t forget, and never will forget, the freedom granted by God to ‘us’ and people of all races, nationalities and religions who celebrate that freedom with us. That was the beauty of last night’s Seder. You could not help but feel the warmth, understanding, and respect that filled the air, from people of good will, who go forward without a feeling of prejudice.

I guess that’s why ‘we’, the Jewish people, are still around after thousands of years. Not only because ‘we’ won’t forget slavery, but also because you can always find people of all faiths who are part of that ‘we’, and celebrate freedom.

Republican Energy Bill for Oil Companies

Dear editor:

Republicans in the House of Representatives have just passed a sweeping energy bill, and claim that this is a major part of the future solution for rising energy costs. It gives billions in tax breaks to oil and gas industries, and in addition, opens the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve to drilling, supposedly to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, speaking in front of a gas station in Washington, hailed this bill as a big step forward for America, and accused the Democrats of being responsible for the high prices for gas that exist today. The sad part is that he and his associates expect thinking Americans believe this baloney. The really sad part is that so many citizens do.

The cost of gas has absolutely nothing to do with whether oil comes from imports or from domestic sources, such as our off-shore oil wells. If it did, gas stations would charge one price for domestic fuel and another for imported fuel. The price of oil is determined by supply and demand; which is growing greatly thanks to huge industrial growth in China and India; with available backup stocks; America’s overwhelming trade and budget deficits which have caused a huge drop in the value of the dollar; and most importantly with the trading market for oil which responds to world political conditions, fear, and overwhelmingly….greed. Introducing additional oil from the Alaskan Wildlife would be a drop in the bucket and not change any of those conditions. It would only mean more profits for the oil companies at our expense.

Add to this mix the top to bottom Republican buying of support and financial campaign backing by giving energy companies billions in tax breaks to supposedly encourage oil and gas exploration. It would seem to me that the billions of excess profits being made by these companies at the present time, the need that obviously already exists, the opportunity for more profit, and the cash to do that on their own, would be enough without more tax breaks. Obviously, this bill is just a payoff to them from grateful Republicans who have received financial help in the past and will continue to do so in the future. One hand washes the other.

The only way out of this mire is to cut consumption of gas and oil. How? By using other energy sources and by instituting realistic mileage goals on vehicles. Of course that would mean our leaders passing laws that auto makers and oil companies will fight and beat down. But then again, maybe that’s what the President calls “moral leadership” and “compassionate conservatism.” Morality and compassion for who?

No Comparison to Nazi Germany

(Letter to the Lake Charles American Press in answer to a letter printed responding to my letter on Terri Schiavo)

Dear editor:

While I can understand the viewpoint and personal feelings of Tommy Curtis about the Terri Schiavo case in his April 18 letter to the editor, I must disagree with some of his methodology and conclusions.

I feel very strongly that the action by our representatives in Washington, who rushed to judgment with a religious fervor and their own misleading diagnosis, had no interest in faith, fairness, or constitutional authority, but rather for political advantage. Mr. Delay’s after the fact rantings and threats against our highest judiciary only confirms that suspicion. It definitely was a last minute (after 15 years of inactivity) rush to judgment. In addition, our Congress is a national body and is not allowed to pass a law that benefits or detracts from a single individual. (Yes, I know there is always the Congressional Medal of Honor that benefits an individual.)

To be exact Mrs. Schiavo, whether we like it or not, was in an irreversible vegetative state, as attested to by many specialists who had personally examined and tested her over that 15 year period. I feel that the moral correctness and profound view of life that you speak of, and I respect whole heartedly, had long since left Mrs. Schiavo without what we call “life” or “soul,” and was now just a human shell that happened to still be there. No one murdered Mrs. Schiavo.

Your drawing a parallel between Mrs. Schiavo’s case and Bishop, later Cardinal, Clemons August Graf von Galen, I feel is completely unwarranted and in error. The brave Bishop who spoke out against the terrors of National Socialism, not only in 1941 but throughout the war, did so against a system that butchered its citizens with castrations, unnecessary operations, and even killings of those who did not “measure up” due to so called physical infirmities, mental illness, sexual orientation, etc. These were done in coordination between the governing body and the judiciary of Nazi Germany. Medical knowledge, life, and a “worldview” had nothing to do with these decisions, and were done on people who had both life and soul. They were not like Mrs. Schiavo. In addition, if you are trying to compare this case, which I hope you are not, with the horrors perpetrated by Nazism that massacred 6,000,000 because of their religion, then you are way off base. Bishop von Galen spoke out about these also and it is amazing that he lived through the war. I personally have studied and traveled to these many killing sites, Auschweitz, Birkenau, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek, and the Warsaw Ghetto fields, and there is absolutely no comparison of “worldview.”

Mrs. Schiavo is a very sad case, but the politicization of her death is even sadder. May she rest in peace.

Destroying the U.S. Senate

Dear Editor:

It looks like Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn), Majority Leader of the Senate will try to change the rules of that August body, and do away with the ability of the minority party to filibuster a matter before the Senate. His stated reason for doing so is so that there could be “a reasonable up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees that come to the floor,” of which there are a total of only seven outstanding. His true reason is to pander to the so called ‘moral,’ extreme, fanatical, religious right that he hopes to have as backers for a potential run for the presidency in 2008. Perhaps Dr. Frist, who I hope was a more reasonable doctor than he is senator, needs a lesson in the history of the United States.

A bicameral (two houses) legislative body was specified in the Constitution of the United States so that one house (House of Representatives) would represent a majority of the voters whether they were from small or large states. It was (and is) meant to be the most active of the two bodies and therefore have representative terms of only two years. The upper chamber (Senate) was set up with only two representatives from each state and was to be more of a balance to the active House of Representatives, as it would be more deliberative, slow to act, and thought provoking assembly. By having six year terms they would be less prone to the whims of the majority and could be more deliberative, almost like a debating society. Hence the ‘filibuster’ that would not allow the majority to take advantage of its position (as in the House), and force its will on the minority. If Dr. Frist would study the Constitutional Convention he will find this to be true. To do away with the right of filibuster would go 100% against the plan and wishes of our founding fathers, who wanted to protect the rights of all Americans, majority or minority. That was their desire whether dealing with politics or religion, which Dr. Frist wishes to mix together. Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has stated “I will vote against the nuclear option (doing away with the filibuster) because we won’t always be in the majority.” Good thinking.

Perhaps Dr. Frist, a self proclaimed religious man, should look to ancient times when the majority Romans killed the deliberative, thought provoking, filibustering, minority Jesus in his efforts to do the right thing. But then again, Dr. Frist would rather be president than be right.

It's Really So Simple

(Letter to the Lake Charles American Press)

Dear editor:

I have read, re-read, and re-read your excellent front page story of Sunday, April 10, 2005, dealing with the Social Security “problem”, and it has left me completely at odds with our representatives in Washington, the President, Congressmen, Senators, both Republican and Democratic. What in the world is the problem?

The present Social Security payroll withholding is a regressive tax, and represents a larger portion of taxed income for those making under $90,000 than those making over that comfortable amount. If that was corrected, as pointed out in your article, and those making over $90,000 would continue to be taxed at the 6.2% rate, making it a progressive tax (as is income tax), then the problem would be solved, making the system solvent for 75 years and plugging 116% of the hole. No one would have to wait till a later age to receive their benefits and those same benefits could continue to offer a safety net for the elderly. (And oh yes, no more loans to the general fund.) It is that simple.

But is it? By doing so, big earners, who donate to election campaigns, would have to continue shelling out 6.2% of their income. In addition, companies would have to increase their 6.2% portion of Social Security payments for every employee making over $90,000. Let’s face it, no one wants to anger these corporations that shell out millions and millions to campaigns.

So, as usual, our congressmen, senators and president hide behind those huge donations and buckle under to the money givers. Isn’t it amazing that they have yet to offer up this simple solution to the center piece of President Bush’s second term agenda? Power sure does corrupt.

Share The Burden

Dear Editor:

It has been reported in the news that Sen. Charles Grassley (Rep), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, brought forth a proposal by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) that reduces guaranteed benefit levels for future retirees, based upon income received over a person’s career. This has been brought forward as a possible solution for the “imminent danger” faced by the Social Security fund, a key part of President Bush’s second term agenda.

Why is it that Congressmen and Senators are always ready and willing to cut back on the wage earner, but not on themselves? Perhaps this “solution” would make more sense if our representatives in Washington would be willing to cut their fat-cat, general fund, non-contributory, self serving, over the top, retirement program by an equal percentage. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it? Or, are the rulers better than the ruled, and above sharing the load?