Rabbi Jon's Website and Blog

Kickoff: 1000 Conversations Across Political Difference

This is a version of the piece that ran in the Nashua Telegraph on Sunday, Nov. 12. It's by me; Michael Reinke, Executive Director of the Nashua Soup Kitchen and Shelter, and Rev. Alanna Van Antwerpen, Chief Priest of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd.

Last week's local elections were a breath of fresh air. For the most part, they were contested on the issues, and many of us saw more qualified, engaged people on the ballot than we could vote for.

National political debate – not so positive. We don't have to tell you how hard it has become for people of different political affiliations to trust each other. Real hate directed against groups has seeped into “regular” political disagreement between conservatives and liberals. It's become all about which offensive figure the other side seems to tolerate or excuse.Is this the best way to go about improving our society and building our community? Sure, the First Amendment absolutely guarantees that we will all hear things that offend us and drive us crazy. But it's not enough for people to be in their own corners, respecting the right of others to hold different views, ready to compete in the next round of elections. It's not good enough, even if you think you are right – even if you know you are right.

A number of us within the Nashua Area Interfaith Council have challenged ourselves to spark in our community 1000 conversations between people with different political perspectives. We are convinced that by flooding the zone between now and the new year with a different kind of conversation and disagreement, we can drive the rawness and the hate to the sidelines.

The kind of conversations we are talking about are between people who are passionate about their different political outlooks, and also curious about others. It's going to take both ingredients. Two people have to agree, for an hour, to set aside the goal of persuading and debating. Instead, the focus is on understanding what the other person values in society, and where they learned the political values they hold.

We did not invent this idea. Speakers like Elizabeth Lesser and Celeste Headlee have been promoting this kind of conversation for individuals and families. What's unique is our goal: a tipping point in our local community. This being New Hampshire, what happens here could even resonate through our nation.

A short and simple guide to these conversations is at 1000conversations.us. Essentially, two of you would find a comfortable place to talk, and give yourselves an hour. Ask each other questions like: What experiences when you were younger had an influence on your political outlook? On your morality, how you view the world?

Who is a person who influenced your views early on? What is an issue you really care about, and how have you come to care about it? What is the best community you have ever lived in, and what made it so?

Maybe you'll discover common ground, or maybe not. But the first step, what we need right now, is to break down stereotypes and create trust. People have interesting stories behind their beliefs. We need to hear how we sound when we slow down and explain our beliefs – to hear the questions someone else has, to figure out what's incomplete in our own picture or to help someone else figure out the same.

We came to this as two Christians and a Jew. Our religions are committed in an absolute way to principles about society – compassion, justice, and freedom. But our faiths also recognize that there is more than one way to interpret these values and to implement them in the world. And our spirituality is grounded in the imperative of relationships, with those who are like us and those who are unlike us.

You certainly don't have to be religious to recognize or share this perspective.

These conversations are not a substitute for acting on your political convictions. In fact, we are persuaded that you will become a better partisan. You'll hear where your arguments don't resonate – and where, to your surprise, they do. You'll learn about concerns you have been overlooking, or groups you have been neglecting to consider.

And you'll find yourself enjoying political conversation a lot more.

Find someone you know and like, who is your political opposite – or go on our website and ask us to make you a match. If you're willing, after you talk drop us a note via our website. Post something about the conversation in social media, with the hashtag #1000conversations.

Our kickoff is this coming Thursday, November 16, at the Riverwalk Cafe. If you come between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m., mention that you're having one of the 1000 conversations, and you'll each get $2 off your order. Stay tuned on the web and on Facebook for more meetups and “deals.”

We already have pledges of nearly 200 conversations encouraged by organizations in our community – congregations, nonprofits, Rotary organizations.

As the next year of campaigning for Federal office begins, let's make this the political story of the hour. One thousand conversations, leading to more and better ones.

 

Ki Tetze -- Learning from a Vigil at ICE

These are fairly unprocessed reflections, on a day when I went up to the Federal office building in Manchester, NH, to be part of an interfaith prayer vigil. Today, as on many days, people are being summoned to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to show they have plane tickets to leave the country, or they will be detained. My understanding is that the first family we saw this morning got a reprieve until March. Otherwise today, the parents would have had to leave and their children would have been taken home by someone else. They were in tears when they came out of the building, after a harrowing experience no doubt.

The Torah portion opens: Ki tetze lamilchama al oy'vecha... "When you go out to war on your enemies." Today it strikes me why the Torah uses wording that seems extraneous. Who else would you war against, if not your enemies? What else should you do against your enemies, but go to war? The Torah says -- war and fighting is for enemies, and enemies alone.

But in fact, today we get confused about who our enemies are. Immigration politics for over a century has been about turning groups of people into enemies. That happened to Jews, as in the 1940s during and after World War II, when the arrival of Eastern European Jews was resisted because we were accused of being not refugees but Nazi (!?) or communist infiltrators.

But when people in any group actually adapt to America, contribute not just economically but by becoming part of the community, become grateful patriots of this country -- those people are not our enemies. One person drove by our vigil and a car, a young man in his late 20s, and asked us why we want to commit suicide by bringing in people who want to destroy our faith. He doesn't know that the family in the Federal office building is not our enemy. There is a real issue of law, and people are working to reform our laws and figure out how to enforce existing laws. But we have to distinguish between who is our enemy and who is not.

This week I have been reading a book that I have mentioned almost annually on the High Holy Days the past few years, called Countrymen, by Bo Lidegaard. The book is about the safe escape of the Jews of Denmark during World War II after the Nazi authorities called for their deportations to camp. I'm only about a third of the way through. The part of the story that current grabs me is the specific day when Danes generally and Danish Jews particularly began to process the Nazi charge that Jews were enemies and not Danes.

For both Jews and non-Jewish Danes, there had been through the 1930s and early 1940s no language to even talk about "the Jewish problem", no language of separation even though Jews were Jews and other Danes weren't. It's heartbreaking to see Jews facing this question about themselves, and wondering about what other Danes would think and do under pressure. It's also illuminating, and inspiring, to see how many Danes rose to the occasion, and not just the infrequent "righteous gentile." Something was going on that enabled a whole society to refuse to see Jews as the enemy, despite being told so by propaganda backed by force.

This same society was clear about the difference between citizens and war refugees, or between patriotic citizens and totalitarians, whether Nazi or communist. It's possible to define your enemies, and fight specifically against them.

I know the language of enemies is harsh, but the Torah uses it. It's not a language of hate. Most of what we did this morning was a "Jericho Walk" around the block of the Norris Cotton Federal Building, seven times around the block in silence. This gave me the chance to take in everything -- the families we were there for, the flags of the USA and the state of New Hampshire and what they stand for, the fire station nearby, the ICE agents trying to do their jobs and enforce the law. The people who talked to us with encouragement, or honked horns. The people who laughed and jeered at us casually, who aren't neo-Nazi activists. There is nothing to hate here. There are some battles to fight, and some specific enemies.

May we have the wisdom to know the difference between enemies and not. May we have the courage to fight the right wars.

 

A Quick Idea For How To Get People To Talk at Your Seder

Here are my freedom quotes, including the ones in the video and more. It's a Word doc so you can edit it with more that you find. I printed it on cardstock so it would be a bit more like playing cards!

Crowdsourcing a Sermon on Integrity and Community

After the inauguration of President Trump and the nationwide protest marches, I am planning what I think will be a series of Shabbat morning sermons. I want to attack from various directions the question of how to weigh or integrate pursuing one's convictions with creating and sustaining a broad political community where there is fundamental disagreement.

For my first one, I am hoping to use the following text from the Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 13b. I am looking for any comments or insights you have on the text and its lesson -- please post comments! Two questions that are calling out to me right now: Is Beit Hillel's way of listening to Beit Shammai's opinions is inherently good, or just a good solid tactic for winning people over in an argument? What is the best translation for the way Beit Hillel conducted themselves?

Anyway, here is the text. The full text with Hebrew/Aramaic and context is here at Sefaria. I look forward to your ideas, which will help me frame my teaching next Shabbat.

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: For three years, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai were engaged in a dispute. One said, "The halakha (law) is like us," and the other said, "The halakha is like us."

A heavenly voice came out and said: "These and these are the words of the living God, and the halavah follows Beit Hillel." 

 

A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "These and those are the words of the Living God," why does the halakha follow the opinion of Beit Hillel? It is because they were calm and submissive/ humble/patient [it's not clear how to translate the Hebrew 'aluvin], they taught their own words and the words of Beit Shammai, and not only that but presented the words of Beit Shammai before their own words.

Bones and Muscles: How We Share Inauguration Day

Rabbi Josh Feigelson, of Ask Big Questions, recently exhorted us in this new era of politics and media “to keep thinking in complete sentences, whole paragraphs, and long essays.” I want to take some space to lay out a case around the issue of attending/watching vs. boycotting President Trump's inauguration.

Where I've arrived: I would like all the officials who represent me and for whom it is traditional to attend an inauguration to be there on Friday. And to stand when it is appropriate to stand. It's up to them whether to smile or not, or applaud or not. And I urge all of us as citizens to watch the inauguration, however we regard the new president. I am hoping to do that with other people.

There are certain shared civic norms and rituals that don't belong to any party or political philosophy or program. They are the bones of our shared government, our social contract. Inauguration ceremonies, the Fourth of July, the American flag. The Capitol and the White House. These aren't owned by any individual or subgroup, ever. The fireworks don't belong to the committee that puts on the show, and the Capitol and the flag and the inauguration don't belong to the people who are elected temporarily to govern.

Bones, in and of themselves, don't do anything. Bones don't kick you in the shins, and they don't carry your neighbor's sofa up five levels of stairs when you want to be helpful. Bones just want to be strong. No matter what we're doing on a given day, we need the same recommended daily amount of calcium.

The muscles of our politics are how we debate, influence, pressure, protest, govern. Muscles most definitely do things, and they most definitely have owners. We use them to operate our bones. Muscles want to push on things which push back. You want your muscles to be stronger than what they push on, or stronger than the muscles that are trying to push you. We want to influence better, legislate better, effect better changes in our world. My political muscle definitely belongs to me and my group, and yours belongs to you and yours.

We need the bones of America to be strong. We need to believe in our institutions, and to continue to be inspired by our symbols to believe in freedom, democracy, and the potential of our union to be more perfect. Even if, at a given moment, someone else's muscles are moving the bones.

Without good bones to attach to, all our great muscles wither away. Boycotting the inauguration doesn't strengthen anyone's muscles, but it does weaken everyone's bones.

President and Secretary Clinton are attending the inauguration because that's part of keeping the bones strong. Nobody expects them to be delighted to be there. Nobody mistakes their presence for an endorsement of even a single executive order or legislative proposal that might become effective that very day.

They will be there because the presidency itself is one of our bones. They want it to be strong so it will be worth controlling with muscle, when a vision for society more like theirs wins out one day down the road.

I give their due to the 63 million people who voted for the new president, the pluralities in sufficient states. I can watch the president they voted for, the chief executive of my country, and stand when appropriate. And I think they will understand the times when I don't applaud. Most of President-elect Trump's voters are people I have something in common with, and this is how I will show it. I need and hope and even expect to have their muscles pushing with mine during these coming years some or a lot of the time.

I do not want to make our justified fears into self-fulfilling prophecies about the decay of our bones. And at the same time, I am committed to building up my muscles. I have hope for persuading others, so that they will use their muscles with me and not against me.

And I believe there is something special in the bones of our American democracy. In our Shabbat prayers, we quote this from the psalms: “All my bones say: Adonai, who is like You, rescuing the poor from the stronger one, the poor and lowly from the one robbing him.” The bones know, even when the muscles are weary.

So watch the inauguration, and applaud or not. Protest Saturday if you aren't applauding Friday. But let's somehow be there all together Friday. Just as Election Day brings us all together, win or lose, so does Inauguration Day.

 

MLK Day 2017 -- Dr King Teaches Us What Religion Ought to Be

While we all know 'I Have a Dream,' it is MLK's 1963 letter in response to clergy from jail in Birmingham that speaks most powerfully and timelessly about the meaning of religion. He wrote about churches, but I know the same words apply to synagogues as well.

"On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: 'What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?....'

"There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society...

"But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century."

Any of us who call ourselves religious should reread the whole letter, year after year. It is still addressed to us.

The U.S., The U.N., Sec. Kerry and Israel This Past Week

Last Friday, the UN Security Council approved a resolution declaring that Israeli communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are the primary impediments to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It passed 14-0-1, with the United States abstaining rather than vetoing the resolution. Then yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a long speech outlining his views of the conflict and focusing in great depth on how the Israeli occupation of the West Bank impairs an eventual two-state solution and imperils Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

It is hard to say something new about the conflict or to bring a new perspective for those who have thought about it and are knowledgeable. I am writing for a few reasons. One, whenever something this major happens that affects Israel and Jews, it is important to stand up, even to repeat things that I have said or written, or that others are also saying. Two, there are among the readers here people who could learn something new or be sparked to go and learn more. Third, even though what I am writing is interpretation and evaluation, rather than adding new facts, there is a value for people in hearing what things sound like from a particular perspective. I think if you know me, you know that even when I am in my own voice, I try to speak or write with respect for people who don't share my perspective.

It's important to start by reading the two documents themselves: UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and Secretary Kerry's speech at the State Department.

This has all been about the time and place of these statements, since there is nothing new in them. And my reaction is that the resolution and the speech are careless, ineffective, and to some degree insulting attempts to advance peace. I say this as a rabbi who declared on Rosh Hashanah 2014 from the pulpit that Palestinian life and freedom have become part of the Jewish story, and that I hope one day that we will see ourselves as Jews as among of the agents of Palestinian freedom.

Careless -- because the language of the UN resolution continues the trend of lumping together historic Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, with the small settlements in the middle of Palestinian areas that have no specific relation to Israeli security. The resolution enshrines the practice of BDS (boycott-divestment-sanctions), the primary tactic of western anti-Israel groups. Though the language distinguishes between economic boycotting of pre-1967 Israel and the territories, BDS groups claim for instance that all Israeli defense activities are intertwined with Palestinian suffering.

Ineffective -- because the moves only strengthen hard-liners on all sides – Israeli, Palestinian, BDS activists. Those are the only groups that have gained something this week. There is no group supporting a two-state solution, or some other imaginative solution, that is stronger because of the American acts and words than they were a week ago. There is no group in that category that has more resources, power, or influence so far as I can see. From a cost-benefit analysis, the U.S. moves are counterproductive.

And I say that the resolution, and Secretary Kerry's speech, are insulting, because of the particular haughty tone. I have been trying to put my finger on it, and what I came up with is that Secretary Kerry in particular sounds like a father or an older brother. President Obama has often spoken in a similar tone. Here's the experiment: Read Secretary Kerry's speech and imagine an American leader or diplomatic speaking in parallel terms about France, Great Britain, India, or even Russia. This sounds like family talk. You never hear an American leader rhapsodizing about his or her many experiences in France as preface to a policy speech, or invoking Churchill in the way that Secretary Kerry and President Obama speak about Shimon Peres. (This isn't a recent thing – President Clinton was the same about Prime Minister Rabin, and many American politicians on the right and to some extent on the left talk about Israel in this way.)

And so Secretary Kerry declared with indignation that Israel has to choose between being a Jewish state and a democracy... as though no Israeli has thought of this, and as though that is not the present debate within the State of Israel! At one point in his speech, he actually stated that most Israelis don't know what he knows about the extent of Israel's system of control in the West Bank. This is ludicrous.

The six principles that Secretary Kerry outlined for an Israeli-Palestinian peace are squarely within the consensus for those who do believe that Palestinians have national rights. They aren't new in any way either. If Secretary Kerry were serious about doing something to advance peace, he would also lay out thoughts just as meticulous and well-informed about the other obstacles to peace right now. Again, the fireworks here about Israel are in the way of an actual strategy for bringing peace closer.

I do realize that the familiar, family relationship of the United States and Israel of course is the source of the unique alliance, and that Israel benefits in many concrete and consequential ways. This is part of a broader theme about Jews' place in this country, which I plan to write and speak more about, especially after the inauguration at some point. 

Within my own Jewish world, I do believe that Zionism is about Jews' taking responsibility for our own power and decisions. The debate over the West Bank, which has intensified since Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection, is a real one in Israel right now, even within the governing coalition. For those of us who are Jews not living in Israel, we have responsibilities both in solidarity with Israel and vis-a-vis the Palestinians who live under Jewish-majority jurisdiction. That's why I take the role of both fighting back against unfair and counterproductive moves against Israel, and facing the moral responsibilities of governing another people against their will. In the latter vein, I encourage you to follow Rabbi Donniel Hartman, an Orthodox-Zionist teacher in Jerusalem -- here are thoughts regarding this week.

If you are anywhere near us in New Hampshire, I urge you to come on Sunday morning, February 12, to a presentation about the Six-Day War by Michael Harris, cosponsored by the Southern New Hampshire Jewish Men's Club and Temple Beth Abraham's Lifelong Learning Committee. As we roll out more programs, toward the 50^th anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, I hope you will both attend and help us plan. This is only the beginning of a year that will see both that anniversary, and the 100^th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the first official international recognition of the idea of a “Jewish National Home.” We have much to learn and to do.

Chag urim sameach – may you all have a joyful rest of this holiday, filled with light in all ways.

 

Torah Reflection on Truth and Peace as of Right after Thanksgiving

I just wanted to get on record some reflections on what it's like as a rabbi and leader right now, a snapshot in time.

I have spoken previously about the prophetic verse Ha-emet v'ha-shalom ehavu -- "Love truth and peace." In the Talmud, the verse is quoted in the course of an exploration of a debate between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. They had some major, nontheoretical and nontrivial disagreements about the laws of marriage. And yet they allowed their children to marry each other. After trying without success to imagine scenarios when the disagreements didn't matter, the Talmud says that both schools of thoughts were loving both truth and peace. Yet they remain in tension, or at least in some cases truth seems to take a backseat.

I have certainly been living this tension for the past month. I am spending time, deliberately, with people who voted both for President-Elect Trump and Secretary Clinton. (The Talmud says that the School of Hillel is followed because they mention their opponents' arguments and positions before their own. That's why I am making it a habit to refer to the president-elect first.) I am trying, without straying from the truth about bigotries and sexism, to be a bridge of peace. It is not easy, but I am committed to it.

In the Torah this week, Rivka experiences twins fighting in her belly. She says, "If so, why is this that I am?" and goes to explore the issue with God. God tells her, "two peoples are in your belly, and two nations from your innards will separate." I read Rivka's question to be -- what is the meaning of "I", the unity of myself, my integrity, in a situation where two opposing forces are jousting, and they are both so connected to me that I feel the struggle in my body?

I have felt most days since Election Day this tension in my body. I seek not to lose my integrity, my I-ness, even as I listen carefully to the two or more perspectives that are vying with great energy.

I am grateful to the many congregants who have talked to me individually, in my office and on the phone and in coffee shops, and to the groups who have gathered with me too and let me structure some conversations. More to come. I will shortly post on a separate page a number of resources and ideas, to work against hate and division.

Three Things I Did As Soon As I Got To The Office

I made three phone calls this morning, in an attempt to do something to head off the hate crimes and discriminatory actions suggested by people connected to the incoming Trump administration, to call for the un-appointment of Stephen Bannon, and to show some solidarity with the local Muslim community.

I called and left messages for:

• the Islamic Society of Greater Nashua -- (603) 786-7586
• Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Kehillath Jeshurun in Manhattan, who is Ivanka Trump's rabbi -- (212) 774-5650
• the Republican Jewish Coalition -- (202) 638-6688

The more such calls the better. Phone calls are better than e-mails if you can. You'll find the words.

An Open Letter to Speaker Paul Ryan

This is a letter that I am mailing and publishing, prompted by the appointment of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist for President-Elect Trump. It reflects my personal political perspective and my own read on what Mr. Bannon represents, which overlap but are not the same as many of my friends and readers. I will also be sending a version of this to other officials, Ms. Ivanka Trump, and Mr. Jared Kushner.

An Open Letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan

Dear Speaker Ryan:

I write you as an independent voter from New Hampshire, a religious person, a Jew, and a rabbi.

First of all, congratulations on your re-election to Congress, and your selection once again as Speaker of the House. Thank you for your service to this country. My hopes are with you, your colleagues on Capitol Hill, and President-Elect Trump, that you will all conduct the business of government in a way that addresses our overarching needs, restores the most vulnerable to the center of our community, and brings us honor in our own eyes and in eyes of the world.

This letter is prompted by the appointment of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist in President-Elect Trump's White House. I am asking you, as the respected leader of your party in Congress, to call on the President-Elect to rescind this appointment.

I can't know whether all the views often expressed through Breitbart News are Mr. Bannon's own or not, or those of the President-Elect or not. It's enough to know that Mr. Bannon has proudly taken on the role of giving a megaphone to hate groups, and his prominence has emboldened such groups to attack and harm other people with impunity. People I know and care about are afraid in ways I have never seen before. Mr. Bannon's appointment is a disgrace to our country and the office of the President. I hope you will do everything you can to reverse it.

I am writing you more broadly as someone who has had hopes about the direction of the Republican Party that you, Speaker Ryan, have been sketching out over the past few years. As a religious person and a Jew, I have committed myself to make Torah the measure of my political allegiance, and not vice versa. I know that you, like me, have been engaged by the social teachings of your religious tradition. I am in other words one of your potential followers.

One reason I am not a registered Democrat is that I believe our social welfare policies often settle for approaches that separate and stigmatize people in need, and do not build enduring relationships of partnership and dignity – true equality. Whenever I vote for Democrats, I do so to try to make sure that there is funding so that people are not punished for being poor, do not starve or go without basic medical care. But I have been hoping that you in particular would flesh out and explain a more robust version of your own health care and anti-poverty plans.

Many of us are looking to you as the national leader who can present a new option for us to consider -- combining a vision of an inclusive American community, conservative economic principles, and strategies that address the specific obstacles that the most vulnerable among us face. Real plans backed by sufficient resources, designed to lift up individuals and make possible a true community that spans socioeconomic class.

In this past election year I was open during the New Hampshire primary to any candidate in either party who had such a vision of justice through community. I took every last moment to decide which party's primary to vote in and which candidate to support.

What I am telling you is that if your party follows through with an alliance with or a tolerance of hate at the highest levels, then you will forfeit your claim on my attention or the attention of people like me. It will be harder, and sometimes impossible, for you to ask me to take a careful look at your proposals, as against those of the Democrats which, despite their flaws, fund a certain level of services and care. You won't be able to ask me to trust your compassion overall, if you institutionalize voices and forces of bigotry and abuse at the highest levels of your party's power.

Now is the time for you to present your case. But you will have to make clear who you are, Speaker Ryan, and who you want your party to be and what you want this country to be.

There's nothing you can do to prevent people like Stephen Bannon and his alt-right followers from hanging on with your party. I don't hold you to that standard. But you can certainly avoid installing them in positions of power. And you can do more than react to statements of bigotry, which you have often done during this past year to your great credit. You can get out front and proclaim a vision of conservatism that begins with: We are all of us Americans. You can, with each new proposal you make, make a point of explaining to us how it will bring us all together. There is no easier start than to make clear that Stephen Bannon has a right to free speech and freedom of the press, but he does not belong in the Republican White House.

Our own community of Nashua, New Hampshire, has many people trying to model the country as it should be. In September, in the middle of the contentious national election, our Board of Aldermen debated and approved a proposal to make Nashua an official “welcoming city”, in support of the work that is being done here by a wide coalition to welcome and integrate immigrants and people of different backgrounds.

Just watching the parade of speakers and supporters was an incredible cause for hope, on our small scale. The Democratic mayor and the Republican head of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chief of Police, who talked about work being done with communities of different colors – and a black man who told of nearly being beaten when he tried to register to vote down south in the 1950s. Two refugees, speaking in their brand-new, incomplete English. Ministers, social workers, educators, community organizers.

As a local leader, I am committed to that kind of work and coalition building. I am attaching for you a sermon about faith and politics, liberalism and conservatism, that I gave a year ago on Yom Kippur. I think it will speak to your mind and your heart.

Thank you for your time and consideration. May you find guidance and strength through the One Whose life-giving energy and wisdom flows through all.

 

L'shalom – Toward Peace and Wholeness,

Rabbi Jonathan Spira-Savett

Nashua, New Hampshire