Flashback 2003: Religion will ban everything, as long as we allow it to

     It's clear why I've never re-printed this before — a queasy glimpse at booze boy in action, perhaps best forgotten. But on June 16, I'll reprise a Bloomsday column written a week later that makes reference to this column. So I thought I would swallow hard and post it, in order to be able to link to it later. This column got me invited on, and then thrown off, Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."  Members of the synagogue also wrote, suggesting that I never to come back. It must be a success, to piss off both Orthodox Jews AND right wing Christians. Though my in-laws, God bless them, never complained, as was their fashion.

     Most Saturday mornings do not find me in a synagogue, never mind an Orthodox synagogue. Not my table, as the waiters say. But my in-laws were marking their 59th anniversary, and my in-laws hold a place in my heart that God would envy. So there I was last Saturday, in a suit and tie, standing and sitting at the proper moments. I felt, as I always do, that vague sense of jealousy toward the tallis-wrapped men around me, who actually believe this stuff and weren't just marking time until the Kiddush — the festive spread when the service is done.

Cholent (By Gilabrand; CC BY-SA 3.0) 

   After a few hours, it ended. Whatever your opinions about the Orthodox, they do drink hard liquor at noon on Saturdays, and that's a brand of faith that makes perfect sense to me. I allowed myself to be swept over to the Crown Royal cart for a "broucha" — a blessing — and after enjoying a few blessings with a group of like-minded men, I elbowed my way to the buffet table, piling my plate with herring and cholent — a kind of meat-and-bean stew. As I began to dig in, someone tapped me on the shoulder, gestured to my plate, and said, "You can't do that."
     "Do what?" I said.
     "Mix meat and fish," he said. "I hope you don't mind my pointing it out."
     "No," I said. "But since when?"
     I knew pigs were forbidden, and mixing milk and meat was out. I knew about shellfish. Yet this was news to me. I almost added, "You're joking, right?" (I could just see one guy goad the other, "Hey, Nacham, go over there and tell that outlander he can't mix fish and meat. I bet he buys it.")
     I hastily grabbed another plate to separate the two foodstuffs. When in Rome. . . . Still, I was curious. The rabbi was at the end of the table, and I hurried over. In my best, humble-seeker-of-knowledge tone, I asked: Why, Rebbe, is it wrong to mix meat and fish?
     His answer, to summarize, was that there is a law regarding not doing things that are harmful to one's health. Meat and fish have different oils, he said, and affect the digestion in such a way that they shouldn't be combined.
     "It's the same reason you aren't allowed to smoke," he said. That made no sense to me, and I almost pointed out the incongruity of banning the mixing of fish and meat when the whiskey is flowing nearby. But why let quibbles spoil a happy occasion? And I admired the tremendous attention to detail. Religions are famous for that. They'll dictate the buttons on your coat, the shine on your shoe, if you let them. And we did.
     But for the past 200 years, the miracle of democratic government has been slowly stuffing religion back into its box. Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on anti-sodomy laws is another step. I found it highly amusing to see the parade on TV of Religious Right sorts decrying the decision — all Christians since, though Orthodox Jews officially hold the same beliefs regarding gays, Jews have enough trouble without going on TV to fight this losing battle.
     There are a dozen dissertations' worth of analysis in Thursday's TV coverage. Someone could note how the media — despite the fact that many of these laws banned practices that you and your wife may engage in — focused on gays. Or how gay lifestyle has become so ingrained in our society that opponents had to resort to extrapolation; that this was bad because it would lead to acceptance of bigamy, or incest. In the past, this would have been bad because it would have led to gay sex.
      Having read the Bible, in my youth, sometimes in Hebrew, I can tell you that it bans lots of stuff. Almost anything you can imagine is forbidden, and lots you can't. God kills one of Noah's sons because the son spies Noah, naked and drunk, in his tent. Rather mean, really, but that's how the Old Testament God comes off.
     It is always interesting to me that of all the edicts in the Bible — filling your day nicely with sins to be avoided and obligations to embrace, after uttering the proper blessing — the lines about homosexuality make such an impact on the fundamentalist mind. It isn't given that kind of weight in the Bible. It isn't printed in big red letters. Why fixate on this, and not the ban against meat and fish?
     As important as the Supreme Court ruling is for getting the law in line with where society already is, I think equally significant is how obviously out-of-step and just plain nasty the supposed supporters of "family" seemed, explaining why "public health and morals" demand that homosexuals be persecuted just as they have been for the past 5,000 years (the pro-family sorts harp that this change will "encourage" homosexuality. Well, it being a Biblical sin, and against U.S. law, and a societal taboo that could get you kicked to death by your friends, doesn't seem to discourage it, so perhaps homosexuality is neither created nor prevented by society, but something people are born with. Just a thought).
     I don't muse about God much, obviously. But when I do, I can't conceive of Him caring an awful lot about the various practices consenting adults do back in their bedrooms. Awful childhood diseases don't bother Him, apparently. No reaction on the Congo to date. Is he really steamed that Brad and Tim are frolicking? Not only don't I believe it, but I have a hard time believing that anybody believes it.
     — Originally published in the Sun-Times, June 27, 2003