Back in early October I posted about two parking spaces at a local synagogue designated for vehicles that are "environmentally friendly" or that "reduce America's dependence on foreign oil". The spaces were placed practically as close to the building as handicapped spaces, as incentive for congregants to purchase a hybrid or whatever.
Well, it's now the middle of February and I have to report that in the dozens of times I've been to this synagogue I have not seen one car occupy these spots. The spaces sit there empty like pathetic neglected wallflowers whom nobody asks to dance. All around them sit regular sedans, minivans, and SUVs.
That is, until last week. For the first time since keeping track, I spotted a Toyota Prius in the parking lot ... but it was not parked in a green space! It was simply interspersed in the regular part of the lot among all the gas guzzlers.
Maybe it was a visitor who parked before realizing there were these "green" spaces, I reasoned. But then this week I saw the same Prius ... again parked in a regular parking space!
The custodian happened to be doing some maintenance outside when I arrived so when I got out of my car I asked him if he's ever seen a car parked in the green spaces. He said no. "So why do they have them"? I asked incredulously. "I don't know," he casually answered. Then I pointed at the Prius halfway down the parking lot, yards away from the green spots. He just shrugged. What was he supposed to do? Wasn't his idea.
I wonder how many more months these empty berths will be taking up space in this parking lot. (Maybe the synagogue should offer free membership too.)
I also wonder how many other houses of worship that have installed these green spaces are faring.
Meanwhile, just this past month we've learned that the polar ice caps aren't melting anywhere nearly as quickly as the alarmists have warned, the Mt. Kilimanjaro's supposedly imperiled snowcap is growing, and Europe is undergoing such a deep freeze that Venice's waterways are icing up.
Just sayin'.
Here’s a real WTF moment I had earlier this week:
As I went to park in a synagogue parking lot I noticed the two closest spots to the building (other than the handicap spots) had been newly designated with green line paint and a sign. According to this sign, provided by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the spots were reserved for flex-fuel or hybrid cars that get 30+ MPG. It then said in smaller letters at the bottom: “Reduce America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil.”
Sure enough, when I got home later that day, I did a search on-line and lo and behold: This NJ Jewish News has this story on the Green Spaces campaign.
I was actually surprised to find out the article was dated June 29 of this year. That means for a good three months it passed under the radar; I do not recall anyone speaking of this on the news sites or blogosphere.
The piece reads in part:
Drive a hybrid? Shuls may have a space for you
by Robert Wiener
NJJN Staff WriterJune 29, 2011
The American Jewish Committee is asking houses of worship to reserve one or more spaces in their parking lots for fuel-efficient vehicles.
The Green Spaces initiative seeks to promote hybrid, flexfuel, electric, or any other cars that log 30 or more miles per gallon of gasoline.
“We want to reward people who drive cars that use less gas. We want to continue to keep this issue on everybody’s mind,” said Allyson Gall, director of the AJC’s New Jersey Area.
The program, launched last year at the AJC chapter in Cleveland, dispenses Green Space signs for parking lots and places explanatory brochures in building lobbies.
Great, it started in Cleveland. That means no matter where you live, look for this at a house of worship near you.
The initiative, said Gall, “educates people about the issue of our dependence on foreign oil, which affects national security, Israel, human rights, and the environment. Someone might come to a church event or a synagogue event and see that not just the handicapped get a good parking spot.”
It doesn’t educate people about anything. It takes a specific position on a far-from-settled political issue and then imposes it on everyone else by enacting policies that affect people’s behavior.
OK, I’m sorry, what kind of business does a house of worship have designating preferred parking spaces for “green” vehicles? What kind of political B.S. is this? Oh, don’t give that “saving the planet” and “keeping the earth clean” and “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” are not political issue but purely religious-moral concepts. That sound you hear is my Bravo–Sierra alarm going off.
Gall talked about the program when she appeared along with several hundred other activists at the Environmental Lobby Day rally in Trenton on June 20. …
Oh yeah, I’m sure that was an apolitical all-sides-represented kind of a gathering. Puh-leeease.
Let’s enumerate some of the problems with designating “green spaces” at a synagogue, shall we:
First and foremost, synagogues that have these parking spaces have made a value judgment on behalf of the entire congregation. That is undemocratic and exclusionary. As of this writing the synagogues listed at the NJJN article are mostly Reform. The key concept distinguishing Reform Judaism from other denominations is that it respects the individuality of its adherents and respects their ability to make informed choices about which Jewish rituals and practices reflect their lifestyle and worldview.
For this reason, I would surmise that to this day no synagogue has ever designated preferred parking spaces for congregants who keep kosher laws (you know, an actual Jewish practice). Or for congregants who donated the most tzedakah that week? Or for those who plan on observing the Sabbath by not using electric or other power (O.K., that one might be difficult logistically because even if you’re driving to synagogue, you’ve already broken that rule. But you get the jist). What kind of odd precedent does it set that of all the truly religious/moral reasons a synagogue could reward its congregants, it’s for driving a hybrid car???
Second, consider the unfairness of this policy. Hybrid cars and the like are only within reach of people whose lifestyle and budget (not to mention mere personal taste) allows them to have one. A carpooling parent transporting a half-dozen kids in their SUV or minivan can actually benefit from a close parking space, but are not going to be able to.
Finally, let’s look at this “reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Yours truly deliberately buys gas only from stations that sell only or mostly American oil, like Sunoco and Hess. (I also use BP, which is British and not from the Middle East.) So why can’t I park there, even if my car gets less than 30 mpg. I’ve been reducing my dependence on foreign oil for years.
Let’s not delude ourselves: This is just the latest example of a synagogue pushing left-wing policy preferences as Judaism. And I’m not alone in that assessment. Here are the comments of people who as of this writing also responded to the NJJN artice:
“Patti” (June 29, 2011):
Is the New Jersey News funded by or affiliated with the Hard Left AJC? Just wondering as it seems as though the point of view week after week is quite monolithic.
Does the New Jersey Jewish community get a chance to hear the other side? If not, why not? As you can see here, there are different points of view within the Democrat Party.
I understand that Conservative Jews like myself don’t seem welcome in your paper. but it would be nice if once in awhile your paper didn’t read like a series of press releases for the Hard Left Jewish organizations.
“Morris” (June 29, 2011):
So you would penalize the young family with 3 or more children or the soccer mom that carpools her children and their friends to after school activities requiring a larger vehicle? You would give parking preferences to the yuppy couple with 2 incomes at the expense of the family where there is one working parent supporting the family while mom takes care of the extracurricular activities of her family. Another short sighted liberal attempt to push an agenda at the expense of intelligence and logic.
“Phil” (July 6, 2011):
“We want to reward people who drive cars that use less gas. We want to continue to keep this issue on everybody’s mind,” said Allyson Gall,”
If rewards and reminders are key, how about adding a parking space in front of the synagogue that is too small for a car? That way, people will try to walk to services on Sabbath. (The reward might be of an Otherworldly variety.)
And this, my friends, is reason #47355 why I will never rejoin the Reform movement (although, I should note, some Conservative congregations can be just as environ-mental-ly active).
Did you ever see that bumper sticker that says, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
Think of the inanity of that statement. To the pro-abortion crowd, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is no different than whether or not to see a movie or whether or not to purchase an iPhone. Don't like a certain movie? Don't see it! Don't want an iPhone? Don't buy one! What logically follows, they believe, is: Don't like abortion? Don't have one! It's simply a personal choice (that five lawyers in black robes one day decided was a constitutional right) and no one has the authority to "force" a woman what to do with an unborn child.
But the main difference is that seeing a movie or buying a piece of electronics doesn't involve the destruction of an innocent tiny human. In fact, when those who are pro-abortion argue their position, the baby is the farthest thing from their mind, if it enters their mind at all. The baby necessarily doesn't factor in; it's just a dispensible clump of cells until the very second every inch of her body enters the world.
Not only does the pro-abortion crowd willfully ignore the inhumane gruesomeness of an abortion -- if you don't think it is willful, consider the hellstorm that ensues every time it is suggested young people actually be shown footage of an abortion being performed -- but they also mischaraterize the position of the anti-abortion position. They would have us believe that those who are anti-abortion are actually anti-woman, i.e., they want to control women in general and impose their rigid traditionalist "patriarchical" views on them. This is why those against abortion are also often called "anti-choice": such people supposedly don't want women to be able to make any choices for themselves, including abortion.
While these descriptions might be politically advantageous, they are wholly inaccurate. If people who were anti-abortion were anti-woman or anti-choice, why is there no other area in which such people seek to restrict women's behavior? Where are those anti-choice types who are trying torestrict a woman's choice to have a career or stay "in the kitchen," for example? Where are all those Neanderthals attempting to restrict women's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.?
There aren't any. But when those who are pro-abortion call their opponents "anti-choice," that is the message they are trying to convey. When pro-abortion liberals call anti-abortion conservatives "anti-choice," it makes my skin crawl. Conservatives are not anti-choice, we're just anti-abortion. And for good reason. Abortion is murder, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how many lawyers in black robes declare it a constitutional right.
My purpose in bringing this all up was to try to give liberals a taste of their own medicine. Because if there is any group of people in this country that is truly anti-choice, it is the American liberal/Democrat. What if we took that abortion bumper sticker and fashioned it to defend conservative positions:
Don't like guns? Don't get one!
But liberals/Democrats generally hate guns, and because it is they who are truly anti-choice, they have done everything in their power, including ignore the Constitution, to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.
You know how liberals scoff at abstinence programs, claiming they're not effective? You know how hell-bent they are from keeping abstinence out of schools' sex ed curricula in favor of promoting "safe sex"? They're always telling us that young people are going to have sex anyway and that instead of making the unreasonable demand that they abstain, adults should instead teach them how to do it safely. Well, why then do liberals insist on "gun abstinence," i.e., gun bans and gun control laws? If they were consistent, they would favor "safe shooting"? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, people are going to shoot guns. Why not simply educate them as to how to properly and safely use them?
Oops, there I go looking for logic and consistency in liberalism!
How about these:
Don't like SUV's? Don't drive one!
Don't like incandescent light bulbs? Don't use them!
But most of the liberal/Democrat left are devout practitioners of the religion of environ-mental-ism. And while constantly decrying the creeping theocracy allegedly being foisted upon the American people by the "religious Christian right," the religious environ-mental-ist left gleefully foists upon us their religion. Thus, it's not enough for them merely to dislike certain types of cars, the incandescent light bulb, coal-powered electricity, toilets with enough water in them to actually flush correctly, (and if you live in California, the plasma T.V.!). Having bought into the hoax of man-made global warming climate change, the anti-choice left has succeeded in or is currently attempting to ban those items which allegedly contribute to it.
This one is for all the liberal/Democrat food fascists out there:
Don't like trans-fats / salt / sugar / soda / Happy Meals? Don't consume them!
Yet in cities like San Fran and NYC nanny state busybodies have not only made it a point to avoid these items, but they have made it illegal for you to decide whether or not to eat them. On food, these liberals/Democrats are anti-choice. They clearly never thought that what you eat is a "personal choice between you, your partner, and your doctor" like a certain other thing ...
And speaking of NYC, here's one more:
Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them!
O.K., I know what you're thinking. Smoking pollutes the air and makes it uncomfortable for people around them to breathe. Fair enough. That's what smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants used to be for. That's what outside is for. In other words, there are plenty of places where smokers can engage in their disgusting habit without disturbing others who want clean air.
But in many places around the country, all public establishments and even outside venues like parks are non-smoking. Even bars, where smoking is to be expected and tolerated? Yes, even bars. Even cigar clubs, whose raison d'être is to be a place where people come to ... um ... smoke! Yup. Some states even ban people from smoking in their own homes and cars if there are children close by.
On smoking, liberals are vehemently anti-choice. Restaurant and bar owners don't even have the choice whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments, if that's what their clientele prefers. The anti-choice left has made that decision for them.
There are plenty more examples out there but I think you get the point: When it comes to being anti-choice, liberals beat conservatives hands down. Want to choose your food, your toilet, your light bulb, your car, whether or not to bear arms or a place to smoke? To the anti-choice left the answer is: "Oh no, you don't. Those things are (or should be) illegal! Prohibited! Banned! Fined! Taxed!"
But suggest that there shouldn't be abortions and these very same people will rise up with their stupid clothes hanger in hand and shout, "How dare you impose your views on others, you fundamentalist anti-choice zealot!"
Then they'll drive away in their tin can of a hybrid car with a bumper sticker on the back that reads, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
You think they'll ever stop being blinded by their own self-righteousness to notice this hypocrisy?
Yes, you read that right: Eco-Hitler Youth. What else do you call 10,000 teenagers brought to D.C. rallying in the streets donning green helmets, gas masks, and ... what is that at 0:50? underwear? bathing suits? spandex?
What else do you call youths who make statements like these:
"[W]hat we need is a complete revolution -- social, economic, political, cultural ... The change becomes we force it. And I don't think that's about going to lobby politicians, to be honest. It's about blockading en masse."
"It's a revolution. It's a climate justice revolution."
"This is our revolution that we have take hold of."
And just who brought these mind-numbed robots to D.C. for this gathering? Why, members of our liberal America- and capitalism-hating leadership, of course. These instigators include the Obama White House via the EPA, former VP and world's first enviro-billionaire Al Gore, former disgraced whatever czar and avowed Marxist Van Jones, and sitting Congressperson and former House freaking Speaker. See:
"You need to know: the EPA is counting on Power Shift." -- EPA Speaker
"Hello, Power Shift, and thank you! ... Thank you for your leadership. I hope to see you again on Capitol Hill." -- Congresswoman and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, addressing the attendees of Power Shift on an enormous screen, eerily similar to Big Brother in 1984.
People, can you wake up, please?
Think about it: power shift = revolution. (It's slightly clearer than the faux cross hairs on Sarah Palin's obscure election map that supposedly caused a deranged stalker who most likely never even heard Palin to shoot at a Democrat Congresswoman in Tucson.)
Here's a three minute video [h/t Breitbart] of these young skulls full of mush displaying a level of stunning ignorance and dangerous stupidity that only decades of liberal "education" could produce:
This is truly the most frightening display of indoctrination of the stupid and easily malleable by dangerous radicals since the Hitler youth and Soviet pioneers. Hell, these teenagers are being encouraged to become this era's Hitler youth and Soviet pioneers. (But remember, it's the Tea Party that's "extremist", it's conservative Republicans that are "radical," it's the likes of Beck and Palin and Limbaugh that are poisining the public discourse. Riiiight.)
Oh, sorry, too vitrolic and mean-spirited? Tough! Get your head out your freaking tuchas and pay attention to what's going on for once.
Let me preface this post by emphasizing that I know URJ president Eric Yoffie personally. Although we are friends, we are quite aware of each other’s political differences. This post is in no way an attack on his character but merely a strong disagreement with his positions and, by extention, those of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). Likewise, although I do not know his presumptive successor Rabbi Jacobs personally—we might have met once a few years ago—I’m sure he is a decent human being and my issue is with his positions and not his character. That said …
From where I stand, the Reform Movement has been in need of a change. Even the NY Times admits that the movement was “facing a recent decline in numbers and an uncertain future despite its stature as the largest movement in American Jewry.”
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m sure some of that decline is due to the continuing secularization of today’s youth, as well as the long-standing problem of Jews marrying non-Jews and their subsequent abandonment of the faith. But I have a sinking suspicion that there is another reason membership in the Reform Movement is dwindling.
Ever since the URJ took a public stand opposing George W. Bush’s War in Iraq in 2005, I’ve been amazed how many right-leaning (and Bush-supporting) Reform Jews have come out of the closet to speak their mind. And ever since the new Moshiach was elected president in 2008, those numbers have climbed even more.
Then there’s the conservative Reform Jews who have “come out” to me personally, but not to the public. With still school-aged children needing religious education and the requirements to become a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (at age 13), they begrudgingly remain members, paying dues to a synagogue that in turn pays its own dues to a national organization that promotes positions 180 degrees opposed to your own.
Other Jewish righties I know have in fact left our local Reform synagogue, chosing to educate their children at a local Chabad, or keep Jewish learning in the home. Myself, I left the Reform Movement over a year ago, with no intention of returning anytime soon. Not a month goes by where I witness this and other Reform synagogues are awash with left-wing/Democrat programming and propaganda.
Oh, Reform clergy, educators, and committee-people will insist that they’re apolitical, open-minded, and tolerant of all views.
Really? Visited the website of the URJ’s Religious Action Center (RAC) lately? Pick an issue: environ-mental-ist issues, abortion (excuse me, “women’s rights”) environ-mental-ist issues, oil, environ-mental-ist issues, government-run health (s)care, environ-mental-ist issues, 2nd Amendment rights, environ-mental-ist issues, welfare and poverty programs, environ-mental-ist issues, radical Islamism (oh, did I mention environ-mental-ist issues?). Every one of these topics is—coincidence of coincidences—identical to that of any far-left Democrat Party member. If it didn’t threaten their 501c3 status, they probably could just link to the DNC’s website and get it overwith.
Start 'em young!
This is not what I signed up for. If I wanted to teach my children to be good little lefties and walk in unswerving lockstep with the Democrat Party agenda, then the nearest Reform congregation is for you. If you want to meet Al Gore, far-left Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [Would you believe the very day after I wrote this blog post, Wasserman Schultz was appointed by Obama as DNC chair!], and any liberal Jewish Hollywood celebrity, then the RAC is the place to be.
But if you want to hear from Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, David Horowitz, Aaron Klein, Caroline Glick, Congressmen Eric Cantor or Michelle Bachmann, forget it! At this Centre of tolerance and open-mindedness, non-lefties need not apply.
So, with more and more righty Reform Jews being bothered by the URJ’s political agenda, who do they choose to replace outgoing President Rabbi Eric Yoffie? Meet Rabbi Richard Jacobs from Westchester County, NY. I’m sure Rabbi Jacobs is a very nice, decent fellow. But what are the main priorities of the incoming president of the nation’s largest Jewish organization?
For Jacobs, that means embracing environmentalism, helping in places like Darfur and Haiti, and speaking out in support of the Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. He speaks with pride of his synagogue’s green initiatives, noting that its Ner Tamid, or Eternal Flame, is solar powered. He is chairman of the New Israel Fund’s pluralism grants committee, which promotes religious and social pluralism in Israel. He is a board member of the American Jewish World Service, with which he visited Darfur refugees in Chad in 2005. He wears a green Darfur bracelet on his wrist.
Darfur nad Haiti? Wonderful. Religious and social pluralism in Israel? Of course, I get it.
But environmentalism? Green initiatives? Going solar? (I actually know a Conservative temple that is going solar, so it’s not just the Reform movement). This is a priority? Oy vay. I’m all for conservation and recycling, but the man-made global warming climate change hoax has completely taken over this movement!
Supporting the mosque near Ground Zero? Oy! Why don’t we just surrender to all the world’s radical Muslims and cut off our own heads? Dhimmitude on display, brought to you by the URJ.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Recent Comments