Shabbat Balak, July 23, 2016

When we consider the blessing offered by Bilaam, we immediately think of the verse: Mah Tovu Ohalecha Ya’akov, Mishkenotecha Yisrael: How beautiful are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel!

However, that is not the only thing that he said. In fact, Bilaam offers 3 blessings to the people, each quite lengthy. Balak keeps schlepping him from one place to the other in the hopes that he will eventually curse the people, something that he never does.

Some of the lines uttered by Bilaam are clear and could not be understood in any way but as a blessing. But, there is at least one line in his “blessings” which pose a difficulty for me. I hear in this line a negative rather than a positive.

Bilaam says: Kee mayrosh tzurim erenu umigivaot ashurenu: As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights. Hen am livadad yishkon uvagoyim lo yitchashav: There is a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations.

It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Bilaam intended by this statement but reading it as a blessing would lead one to, as the Etz Hayim hummash says, conclude that he meant that they were a people who lived in a secure place with a fate not subject to the whim of other nations.

The midrashic commentary in Etz Hayim delves into this verse a bit further and considers the relationship of the Jewish people with others in the world. The commentary points out that some Jews see our survival as a people stemming from our ability to set ourselves apart from those who were around us. In fact, there are those who believe that rejection of our equality in society is sometimes a positive development, keeping us separate from others. If we were to become too accepted, we would lose our uniqueness and our reason for existence.

The commentary then goes on to refer to Zionism and points out that many anti-Zionists based their opposition to a Jewish state on the idea that we would become too much like the other nations if we had to engage in politics on a world stage. The lack of a state enabled Jews to remain separate.

And yet, many Zionists believe exactly the opposite. Many believe the creation of a state in fact allows Jews to do what Bilaam suggested: to be a nation apart. Surrounding ourselves with other Jews and not having to be concerned about others is for some the goal of the state. I have on occasion shared with you my experience at Bet Hatefutsot, the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv in 1979 when I heard in a recording explaining one of the exhibits: “Here was a people who were redeemed from Egypt only wanting to be left alone”. I cringed at that because it wasn’t my experience growing up and not what I envision Judaism to be. I don’t see separation from the rest of the world as a blessing but rather as an inappropriate goal for our people. I still believe that without question.

The point is that what sounds like a blessing to one person: “a people remaining separate” can sound like a curse to another based upon his or her experience.

Words have power and they are not always heard the way we intend them to be heard.

In everyday conversation, we must try as diligently as possible to anticipate how others around us will hear our words and we must take care to be sensitive to how we speak. This isn’t a matter of being “politically correct”. It is a matter of proper, respectful behavior.

We don’t always get it right. God only knows how many times I have said things that were not heard the way I intended them because I was either insensitive to or ignorant of the way that people reacted to those words. We have to try but we can’t expect to be perfect.

But, in situations where the audience is larger than the average, when people are hanging on every word, and where words are considered far in advance, it is absolutely incumbent on an individual to do everything he or she can to choose words carefully. If the wrong words are used, words which are insensitive or divisive, it is legitimate to wonder whether that meaning was intentional.

What you heard on Thursday night is wrong. We absolutely can talk about political issues from the pulpit. We just can’t endorse a particular candidate.

We can’t endorse candidates but we can certainly talk about words that are said and there Were plenty of words said in Cleveland that beg to be commented on. I could speak about the exclusively Christian rhetoric of the invocation and how I, as a Jew felt excluded. I could speak about the excessive name calling which, while it has always been part of our presidential campaigns, seems to have gone far over the top.

Instead, I want to speak about one simple three word phrase which caused me to gasp when I heard it, and I thought I had heard it all over the past few months. It’s just one example to be sure but as it was emphasized over and over again on Thursday evening, I believe it is critical to point out the impact of these words.

In introducing his vice presidential choice and several times on Thursday evening, Donald Trump boasted that his campaign would be about law and order. Law and Order.

On the surface, these words are positive. We all want to live in a country where people observe the laws of the land and where there is order rather than chaos. And, we understand where this is coming from. The horrendous assaults on law enforcement officers in this country are unspeakably horrible and totally and completely unjustifiable. Those who protect our safety deserve our support, our protection and our concern. Yes, law and order sounds like a blessing.

But, when viewed in historical context, the words “law and order” carry ominous weight for many.

In her outstanding and groundbreaking book The New Jim Crow the author Michelle Alexander writes: ““The rhetoric of ‘law and order’ was first mobilized in the late 1950s as Southern governors and law enforcement officials attempted to generate and mobilize white opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. In the years following Brown v. Board of Education, civil rights activists used direct-action tactics in an effort to force reluctant Southern States to desegregate public facilities. Southern governors and law enforcement officials often characterized these tactics as criminal and argued that the rise of the Civil Rights Movement was indicative of a breakdown of law and order. Support of civil rights legislation was derided by Southern conservatives as merely ‘rewarding lawbreakers.’ For more than a decade – from the mid 1950s until the late 1960s – conservatives systematically and strategically linked opposition to civil rights legislation to calls for law and order, arguing that Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy of civil disobedience was a leading cause of crime.”

The author explains that these three words: law and order, are easily heard as an expression in opposition to those who have gathered, largely peacefully, to express justified concern about the shooting of African American men by police in so many instances in recent years and other examples of racism.

I hear these words not only as a call opposing such protests but as a dismissal of the legitimate concerns of so many.

These words have been used as code words for racism and division in our nation. Perhaps Mr. Trump did not intend to imply this just as perhaps he didn’t intend to imply anti-Semitism with his use of the phrase “America First” or the tweet featuring a 6 pointed star and lots of money. But, words have power and unlike in everyday conversation, there is no excuse for a presidential candidate to use words and images which are heard or seen by many in a negative light. And, when combined with other statements such as a call for a ban on Muslims entering the country or the statements about Mexican-Americans and immigrants, the choice of words seems more intentional.

Words have power. This past Thursday night, at a gathering at Eastern Michigan University, hundreds of community members stood shoulder to shoulder and face to face with law enforcement officials to reaffirm the commitment in this community to work together to address racial issues involved in law enforcement. It was a healthy, frank and productive gathering with many critical issues and many different points of view expressed. I was honored to speak at this program and to experience an open and honest discussion on the serious issues of race and law enforcement.

The words we use matter and are heard differently by different people.

We, as Americans, must make every effort to use words which inspire us to come together, not be inspired to live as a “people apart”, hiding behind walls as our divisions increase in our community and our world.

We must use words which unite not divide.

 

Chapter 7 of Bemidbar is the longest chapter in the entire Torah.
It goes on and on and on.
And, to add to that, it is so repetitive. Twelve of the Paragraphs present in detail the gifts brought by each of the tribal chieftains for the dedication of the tabernacle. These lengthy paragraphs are exactly the same except for the name of the chieftain and the tribe.
The chapter is so long and very quickly, we realize that we’ve heard these words already.
It is a challenge to listen to.
You wouldn’t think Torah commentators would have anything to say of interest about this repetitive portion. But, in fact, they do.
Let me share with you two commentaries.
First, from a commentary called otzar hamachshavah, a treasury of thoughts on the Torah from the Hasidic masters, we read the following thought: why is it that the Torah repeats these sacrificial gifts over and over again in all their detail even though they are all the same? After all, says the commentary, and rightly so, we believe that the Torah contains not even a superfluous, unnecessary letter. So, why would the Torah waste 11 paragraphs in such detail when it could have recorded the first gift and then just said the other chieftains brought the same gifts?
Dayenu, it would have been enough.
The commentary’s interesting answer to that question is that each of the chieftains was not looking at what was brought before them in order to know what to bring. Rather, each one brought what their heart told them to bring. Each was a personal gift that just looked the same but really was different because of the spiritual motivation each one felt. And that each was called: “the sacrifice of Nachshon” or “the sacrifice of Nitanel” supports that point. Each one really was a personal gift even though it was the same as the one before and that is why the Torah repeats each one.
Then we have another commentary from the 18th century rabbi Pinchas of Koretz. He notes that the entire list of sacrifices begins with the word Vayihee. “And it came to pass”. As in: “And it came to pass that the first one to bring a sacrifice was Nachshon ben Aminadav”
Rabbi Pinchas notes that there is an ancient rabbinic tradition that the word vayihee at the beginning of a section of the Tanach always means “trouble is coming” as in Vayihee biyamay Ahasveraus. And it came to pass in the days of Ahasveraus, the beginning of the story of the near annihilation of the Jews of Shushan at the hands of Haman.
So, asks Rabbi Pinchas, what is the trouble that is anticipated in this chapter of gifts to the sanctuary?
He says, the trouble is that Nachshon, the first one to make an offering didn’t really feel he was ready to be the first. “Mee Anee u’mah anee”, he says according to legend: “Who am I and what am I that I merit this responsibility”?
But Moses says: “God has chosen you”. We can picture Moses saying: “Your humility will help you. But, you must do your job.”
I had an idea to teach some Torah lishmah, some “Torah for its own sake this morning. There is a verse that is very moving to me regarding the importance and significance of studying Torah but that will have to wait for another year. We can’t just teach Torah for its own sake this morning. We have to learn something to help us through this horribly difficult time.
And so, on this first Shabbat after the terrible attack in Orlando, let us learn from each of these commentaries.
First, and permit me to take a positive commentary and use it to describe a horribly negative situation, we can use the commentary about the repetitive nature of this section to remind ourselves of a critical fact about the violent attacks we have seen all too often in our country.
They may seem the same. But they are not. Even if they appear similar, they are not.
Any attempt to lump all such attacks together is misleading, futile and wrong.
We need to accept the fact that there is no simple answer to stopping attacks that are really different, one from the next. First of all, the targets differ.
This time it was the LGBT community which was the target, a community which, despite significant and positive legal advances in recent years still suffers from bigotry and threats of violence. I only hope and pray that members of the LGBT community know that this and many synagogues and other house of worship are places not just of inclusion but places of safety and sanctuary for you. We recognize the threats and stand by you and with you.
But, on this very weekend last year, it was an African American church in Charleston, South Carolina which was targeted.
No group, it seems, is safe.
And the profiles of the perpetrators differ as well.
Yes, we need to confront the danger that supporters of ISIS or other extremist groups present. That danger is real and significant. But as these attacks are carried out by perpetrators with different horrific agendas, we can’t assume that responding to this particular threat will end violence.
There is, however, one as the Talmud would call it: “tzad hashaveh”, one aspect which links each of these tragic actions and that is, of course, the relatively easy availability of horrendous weapons of mass slaughter.
And, that brings us to the second commentary.
Our hearts are broken. Our pain is so great. We may wonder whether we are truly capable of doing what needs to be done to address this horrible plague in our society.
But, this is our job. We can not let fear get in the way. We can not let our pain paralyze us. We need to pray. We need to speak out. Most importantly, we need to act. And congress must act. And act now to address the access to weapons of mass slaughter in this nation.
This is not the time to be overly humble and to question whether we can make the changes that are necessary. We must.
Yet, some humility is necessary. We must not resort to generalizations and stereotypes, using bellicose words of hatred or suspicion. We need calm, reasoned, united, determined actions to seek sensible ways to prevent such tragedies and protect our citizens.
The problem is huge. The stakes are the highest they could be. Our responsibility is enormous.
Each and every one of us, in our own way, must do our part by raising our voices
And, even as we mourn the victims and pledge ourselves to action, we must do something else as well. We must embrace life, with concern but not fear. We need to show, as we discussed last Saturday evening at our tikkun leil Shavuot, gratitude for the blessings we have in this beautiful world. We need to teach our children who hear of these attacks that life is still a blessing and the world can be a place of beauty and joy.
In the words of a song which we will sing in a few moments, the world may be a narrow bridge but the essential part of life is that we not be afraid.
Let us do our work.
For the chapter before us is too long and we must stop allowing it to repeat itself on and on.
Please rise for a memorial prayer for the victims of the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and for all who victims of violence.

SERMON FOR PARASHAT VAYETZE NOVEMBER 21, 2015

This morning, I want to talk with you about angels. Then, we’ll turn to the real world.

Whether you regard angels in a literary or metaphoric or mythic sense, their role as messengers of God is worthy of serious consideration. And, angels play a major role in the life of Jacob, beginning in this parasha with the story of our patriarch’s dream of a ladder reaching up to the heavens with angels ascending and descending.

A prominent traditional rabbinic interpretation of Jacob’s dream is that he is witnessing the “changing of the guard”. The angels who have protected him within the land of Canaan are returning to the heavens while those who will protect him outside the land are taking their positions. The dream is seen as an assurance by God that Jacob will be protected in his travels outside of Canaan as he was inside the land.

In the dream, the angels are ascending and descending and this brings up a question: Was there any overlap? Was there ever any moment when both sets of angels were directly accompanying Jacob? I would assume that there would have to be such an overlap even for only a short moment as otherwise, there would have been the possibility that Jacob would have been left defenseless even only for a moment.

This question of “overlapping angels” may be reflected in the song Shalom Aleichem. This song is based on the tradition that angels accompany us in our homes on erev Shabbat and therefore we must greet them properly with words of greeting. But, it is odd that in the second verse we welcome the angles with boachem lishalom, “come in peace” and then, in the third verse, we say tzeitchem lishalom, “go in peace”. Why would we give the angels the traditional greeting of farewell when they have just arrived?

There are several answers to this question but the one that I prefer is that we are in fact saying goodbye to different angels: the angels who have been with us through the week who now are returning to the heavens after the long 6 days of work. We say, “go in peace”, have a good rest and come back after Shabbat. Note though that we do not say goodbye to them until we have welcomed the Shabbat angels. There is overlap. We are never left without angels. Messengers of God are always around us.

This idea of two different sets of angels is found in another rabbinic context as well. There is a lovely legend that when God sought to create the human being, two sets of angels argued about the plan. One group said that God should create the human being because we would be capable of doing acts of kindness and justice. The other group said God should not create human beings because of the evil that would arise from our actions. God, chooses to creat the human being in hopes that the good will outweigh the bad.

There is another piece to the argument of the angels against creating the human being. The role of the angel was to do on earth what God can not do: to be messengers of God on earth. Therefore, the angels did not want the human being to be created because they sensed their role would be diminished. And, they were correct. It has been diminished Whatever you believe about angles, the fact is that we are God’s angels. Human beings are the ones who are to do God’s work. We are God’s messengers on earth. But, as was pointed out in one of the recent lectures in our Hartman Institute series on Dilemmas of Faith, the difference between human beings and angels is that human beings can say “no”. We can refuse to do God’s work while angels had no choice.

The debate between the angels about whether God should or should not create human beings is a reflection of the tension between what we call the yetzer hatov, the good inclination, and the yetzer hara , the bad inclination, a struggle that our tradition believes goes on inside each of us. This struggle accompanies us always and the strong person, according to Pirke Avot, is the one who conquers his or her evil inclination.

But, according to at least one rabbinic text, the yetzer hara is not necessarily the inclination to do evil. It is rather seen as the self-centered inclination, the self-protecting inclination. We read in Bereshit Rabbah that even the yetzer hare has its place for it not for the yetzer hara, no one would build a home or choose a profession which would provide them their needs. Yetzer hatov becomes the altruistic inclination and yetzer hara becomes the self-protecting inclination and both are needed in a life. There needs to be overlap of altruism and concern for self.

And now let us turn away from angels and turn to the real world.

I am sympathetic to the persepctive that led Governor Snyder and many other governors, politicians and private citizens to decide that this is not the time to welcome Syrian refugees into our country. I understand their fears and I do not say that lightly. Their concern that our security structures are not proficient enough to weed out any individuals or groups capable of performing the kind of horrific terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris or Beirut or Turkey or so many other places in our world is worth consideration. It didn’t take the attacks in Paris to prove that adherents of this horribly perverse way of thinking and acting are a threat to our communities and our nation as well. And, it is natural and reasonable for a Governor to see his or her role as protecting our self-interest, to listen to his or her yetzer hara rather than the yetzer hatov.

But, while it may be reasonable to be concerned, the proposal to close the doors on Syrian refugees is shortsighted, inappropriate and wrong. It is based on misleading claims and exaggerated fears concerning the refugee population. And, as this proposal has gained momentum, the rhetoric has turned increasingly racist and cruel and that is shameful.

We should care about protecting ourselves but we need to listen to our yetzer hatov, to our good and altruistic inclination as well. We need to be God’s angels on earth, doing the work of saving and enhancing lives. We need to find a way, even given our fears, to respect and continue our commitment to those in need. We cannot look into the eyes of these people who have been so horribly victimized and just close our doors. It is wrong for a country which speaks of being a source of good in the world. And, here, I want to commend our local Jewish Family Service and HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society which has rescued so many people, Jews and non-Jews in the past for committing to continuing to support and welcome, after proper security checks, Syrian refugees to this country.

Our angels must overlap. We can honor the inclination to self-protection while not dismissing the inclination that inspires us to care for the huddled masses who have been through such horrors. We need to listen to our better angels and continue to find a way, despite our fears, to reach out our hand to those whom we can help.

We all have concerns about the state of the world but those fears can not undermine our basic sense of humanity.

We can not close our hearts. We can not close our doors.

 

As the controversy continues to rage about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s planned speech before Congress, I feel compelled to say it clearly. Despite Mr. Netanyahu’s claim that he speaks for the entire Jewish people; he does not speak for me. I say this for three reasons. First, I say it because I do not agree with many of the Prime Minister’s positions. I’m not going to argue that Iran’s nuclear capability is not a threat to Israel. It potentially is a threat and he may be correct that sanctions and more are needed to insure Israel’s survival. But, putting the Iran issue into the context of the entire set of positions which Prime Minister Netanyahu holds and the actions of his government concerning the settlements, the lack of movement on a peace process (for which blame also lies with the Palestinian leadership), the treatment of asylum seekers and other issues he does not speak for me. He also does not speak for me when he arranges, without clear communication with the President, to speak to Congress two weeks before the Israeli election. This was an insult to our political system and the office of the Presidency. As I see it, it was an attempt by Speaker Boehner to recast support for Israel as a partisan issue, pitting Republicans against Democrats and trying to pander to American Jews. In addition, the timing is inappropriate. I do not want the Israeli prime minister to speak before Congress so close to the election to attempt to impress Israeli votes and to sway congress to his position. And, certainly not in the case where the invitation came from one political party. Finally, I do not believe that any one individual, not even the Prime Minister of Israel,  can speak for the Jewish people. When I stand up to speak before a non-Jewish audience, I always say that I’m not speaking for all Jews, nor for all conservative Jews, nor for all the members of my congregation. I am sharing one particular perspective: my perspective. That is what Judaism is as a religious faith. No one speaks for all Jews. And, what is true in our religious life ought to be true in our political life as well. We should all proudly identify with the state of Israel and passionately work for its survival and security. We should be profoundly thankful that we have a state. But, the prime minister of Israel is not the Chief Rabbi for all Jews. He is an elected official who will either be reelected or voted out of office next month. He is to be respected for his position and the difficulty of his task. But, he doesn’t speak for every Jew. And, in this case, he certainly does not speak for me.

I delivered the following sermon this morning at Beth Israel. Please note, as I explained to the Congregation, that I wrote this sermon on Thursday evening before the horrendous attack at the kosher supermarket in Paris. On two occasions this morning, we expressed solidarity, concern and hope for the Jews of Paris and all who are in danger. This sermon was a reaction to the attack in Paris on Thursday.

SERMON FOR PARASHAT SHMOT 2015  AM I CHARLIE?

The terrorist attack in Paris this week was a horrendous, uncivilized, evil act. And, the fact that it was done in the name of a religious faith makes it even more of a hillul hashem, a desecration of God’s name.

But, there is another side to this story that I want to explore this morning. For the past few days I have been thinking seriously about the issue of satirizing religious leaders or religions. I certainly am not in favor of censorship nor do I think religions or religious leaders are above reproach or should be given a free pass to escape the critical spotlight shown upon other institutions. But, it still bothers me deeply to see such caricatures of religious faiths that the French newspaper Charlie Hedbo published.

To feel that one’s religious faith has been demeaned or insulted is an experience that most of us who consider ourselves religious have experienced in one way or another during the course of our lives. It is a heartbreaking experience to have one’s faith tradition or one’s religious leaders or teachers mocked. Of course, it is horrendous and completely unjustifiable to respond to such mockery with murder or acts of violence but it is painful nonetheless.

What bothers me most deeply about the caricatures is that while religious leaders and thinkers who preach violence or hatred deserve to be publicly condemned and I have no hesitation doing that or seeing it done, there are many religious leaders and thinkers who reject violence and hatred and are trying desperately to bring our world closer to redemption. They tend not to get as much attention and I despise and refute the idea that religion only brings pain to the world. I feel that caricatures or any type of “art” which paint with a broad brush hurt all of us.

So, amidst the legitimate concern about censorship and free speech and the horrible example of hatred and violence demonstrated by the extremist Muslims who perpetrated these acts, let us take a moment to look at some positive religious examples around us. Let me refer to two local organizations and three individuals who epitomize a different, constructive approach to what religion can and should be.

I have spoken on several occasions at programs sponsored by the Niagara Foundation, a group dedicated to bringing understanding between the Abrahamic faiths. Those programs have highlighted Jewish, Christian and Moslem leaders who have reached out in concern and love and clearly, publicly and forcefully condemned all acts of violence. Gathered in a room with people who truly seek mutual respect for religious faiths is refreshing indeed.

While I obviously don’t endorse some of the philosophical positions of the Catholic Church, I continue to be so deeply impressed by the kindness, the sincerity, sensitivity and the humility of Pope Francis. He represents in so many ways what religion can be for the world and stands as a shining example for all of us.

And, when I think of our own faith, I think of leaders and teachers such as Abraham Joshua Heschel whose 42^nd yahrzeit was observed yesterday. He was a man who personified what religious faith can be: teaching us to be humble, to never accept violence or hatred as “the way it should be” but to be truly surprised and dismayed at every act of violence. He stood for civil rights, for an end to war, even for environmental justice before it was popular to do so and begged us to make our lives a work of art.

And, a few weeks ago, we learned of the death of one of the most honored teachers of our movement, Rabbi Harold Schulweis. Rabbi Schulweis built a vibrant and visionary synagogue in Los Angeles. He founded organizations to bring recognition to non-Jews who performed acts of courage and heroism to save Jews during the Shoah and joined with Leonard Fein, Zichrono livracha, to form MAZON: a Jewish response to Hunger.

But to me Rabbi Schulweis will always be known first and foremost as the author of one my favorite books: For Those Who Can’t Believe. This book is a gem, helping to show how Jewish faith can be fulfilling even for those who think critically and don’t buy pat answers. It is a marvelous book and I can’t recommend it strongly enough.

One of the points Rabbi Schulweis makes in this book is that many people make assumptions about what religions teach and assume therefore they can’t believe in the faith in which they were raised. Regarding a young man who is cynical about Judaism, Schulweis writes; “Paradoxically, the only religious notions he considers authentic are those he cannot believe; the only ones he can believe are those he thinks to be inauthentic.” This is similar to that old line they used to say, and maybe still do, about secular Israelis who would object to non-Orthodox synagogues because “the shul I don’t go to is Orthodox”. Offering alternatives which challenge assumptions and preconceived notions about faith often fail because it is easier to reject religion based on what you think religions teach than to engage in serious spiritual consideration of what a faith has to offer.

So, while those who demonize religious faiths have unfortunately some very legitimate grounds to criticize and extremist terror is certainly the most blatant, painting with a broad brush is insulting.There are just too many who still do good work in the name of religions and I believe in the power of religious faith to bring this world to a better place. I haven’t given up yet despite what I read in the papers.

I am pleased and honored to once again welcome Reverend George Lambrides, co-director of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County to Beth Israel today. The Round Table seeks to educate, to bring people together and to demonstrate that learning about each other’s faith will help us to understand each other and to encourage us to work together to improve our community and our world.

Tomorrow, at Zion Lutheran Church, the Round Table will present this year’s Faces of Faith program in which members of different religious community from Washtenaw County will introduce their faith to others in a fascinating and inspiring format of small group discussions. The program takes place from 2-4 Sunday afternoon and I encourage all of you to attend.

There are many who are using the expression: “Je Suis Charlie” to make a stand in favor of free expression of ideas. In terms of standing against censorship, courageously standing against those who seek to silence others and standing in solidarity with those who have been victimized by terror, I also say: Je Suis Charlie.

But, that doesn’t mean I admire the way the newspaper has characterized Jews, Christians and Moslems. I don’t. I find these cartoons to be offensive to all.

So, in addition to standing for freedom of expression, those of us who believe religious faith can be a constructive aspect of our world and deserves respect must be willing to say- and I’ll say it in English because my French is not good enough- “I am a religious individual and I work for good in the world”. In that way we will be following in the tradition of our teachers whom we remember today and honoring those throughout the world who continue to truly do God’s work.

They are the ones who deserve to be on the front pages.