Letters

Teach Hebrew

William Schwartz complains (May 13 j.) that young adults do not attend religious services at Reform temples because they do not know enough Hebrew to appreciate the services. His naive solution is simply to have the services in English, thus separating the Reform movement even further from traditional Jewish practice.

Perhaps he should focus instead on the quality of the education provided by Reform temples. Virtually all young adults spend at least three years in Hebrew school prior to their bar or bat mitzvah. Why are they not taught basic Hebrew during that period? This is plenty of time to learn how to recite the prayers in Hebrew and understand their meaning.

Indeed, if attending services every Shabbat is made a requirement for becoming a bar or bat mitzvah, this exposure should allow any reasonably intelligent child to master the essential synagogue skills. In this way, congregants who attend services will not be forced to relinquish the beauty of Hebrew prayers and Schwartz will have to find some other excuse why Reform young adults do not attend services.

Reuven Barzel | Oakland




English needed

Attendance at Reform services can be increased if the Reform movement would take heed of William Schwartz's article (May 13 j.). Services should be in English with a limited amount of Hebrew so it can be understood. Many of our youngsters are reared in homes at this time in history when much stress is put on self. Therefore the gift of Judaism is needed more than ever.

Our youth must understand Judaism so they can build a strong character and be made to realize they are members of a great and noble religion. Judaism, in every age and generation, has provided the leadership that has guided mankind from ignorance to knowledge, from despair to hope and from slavery to liberty.

Let us give them information in English so we can give them the inspiration to continue this great work.

Marvin Greenwald | Millbrae




A 'total derision'

The question you posed on the cover of the May 20 issue of j., "Should Jews Back Bolton? U.N. nominee touted as Israel advocate" reminds me of the invocation we Jews received before the last presidential election — Jews had to vote for Bush because he was good for Israel. Well, that didn't work; he's turned out to be abysmal, despite his support of Israel. His contribution to the stabilization of the Middle East has been minimal at best.

As far as John Bolton is concerned, how can he be a positive force in correcting the ills of the United Nations when he doesn't even believe in its legitimacy? Statements like "remove 10 stories from the U.N. building and nobody would know the difference," or "there should only be only one permanent Security Council member, the United States because we're the only world power." He's made other public statements that convey his total derision of the U.N. How can he be expected to cooperate with our so-called U.N. partners like Britain, France, Germany, and Italy when he dismisses their legitimacy unless they accept secondary roles on the Security Council and knuckle under to our hegemony. The question should first be raised: "Is John Bolton good for our country and the U.N.?" before we ask "is he an advocate for Israel?" and in that order.

David Negrin | Menlo Park




Wrong message

I was outraged to read "A Tough Customer like Bolton may be what the U.N. needs" (May 20 j.). Where was the opposing argument that you usually present when discussing controversial issues?

Many in the Jewish community are becoming increasingly parochial and only concerned with "Is it good for the Jews?" This kind of thinking is dangerous and can only lead to uncritical acceptance of policies and support for politicians who will use it to further their own agendas.

At a time when the U.N. is needed more than ever, we must look to the larger picture and examine why the U.S. is almost universally hated for its actions and look for changes in our foreign policy. Appointing John Bolton as our representative to the U.N. says to the world that the U.S. is really not interested in supporting the U.N. except when it goes along with our actions.

Lorraine Honig | San Francisco




It was funny

Contrary to H. Levine (May 27 j.), I found the Goldberg joke (May 20 j.) to be enjoyable and funny. The assumption that all races should mix is typical left-wing nonsense. A famous liberal, Robert F. Kennedy, wrote that he opposed America becoming a muddy brown by race mixing, saying he preferred America like a tapestry with strong different colors. Kennedy pointed out how unfunny would be the famous comedy "Abie's Irish Rose" if Abie were Jewish in name only, and Rose were Catholic in name only.

Left-wingers do not care that American black children very quickly become aware that, due to their race, they will be preferenced by government-ordered racist quotas in jobs, admissions, scholarships, etc. and reasonably decide that therefore blacks must be dumb. Logically, they say to themselves, why study? What a handicap for a black student! Despicable racist preferences are awarded to all black children of wealthy parents and to any new black immigrant, ahead of a bright, very poor, white American kid from a hovel in Appalachia! The first major action when the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933 was to pass the evil, notorious racist Nuremberg Laws. Hitler's Nazi Party would heartily endorse the 35-year-old practice in America of racist preferences in principle. Only Nazis would quibble that white, Aryan, pure-blooded Germans should be in the top quota, and Jews put in the bottom quota.

Howard Greyber | San Jose




It wasn't funny

Your 'Marriage Malaise' joke in the May 20 issue was not only too long and unfunny, it was blatantly racist!

Given the long history of problems between Jews and blacks, a little sensitivity would go a long way. Personally, I'd like to see the 'Jokes' column replaced with something constructive. It's never been funny, and no, I didn't read it. A friend alerted me to the racist joke.

Sandy Tate | Sebastopol




Practice tolerance

Rabbi Hillel was asked by a gentile to "explain the Jewish law (Torah) while standing on one leg." His response: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole of Torah. The rest is commentary. Now, go and learn".

If we accept that as the core of the Hebrew Bible then we see how far the current so-called religious right have strayed from the proper purpose of religion.

Have they raised their voices to protest the pollution of air and water that afflicts their neighbors? No, they have voted for a pro-polluter administration. Have they opposed measures which hurt the poor and penalize the weak? No again. Do they listen to other's perspectives as they would wish their own to be heard? No a final time.

It is time for believers in an open, tolerant America to retrieve power from those who are misusing religious convictions for purely political ends.

Ed Taub | Mountain View




letters policy

j. the Jewish news weekly welcomes letters to the editor, preferably typewritten. Letters must not exceed 200 words and must be dated and signed with current address and daytime telephone number. j. also reserves the right to edit letters. The deadline is noon Monday for any given week's publication. Letters should be sent by e-mail to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or by mail to j., 225 Bush St., Suite 1480, San Francisco, CA 94104.