By Rabbi David Eidensohn

I thank the kind person who e-mailed me the text of U.S. Senator Zell Miller’s (D-GA) very important speech about American law and American values. This is an historical speech, despite the talented style and fast-paced rhetoric about the half-time lewdness at the Super Bowl. Senator Miller quotes the prophet Amos in challenging America to restore its biblical heritage.

The speech is to introduce two important pieces of legislation. One, is a bill about marriage, affirming biblical values and not homosexual marriage. Two, the Liberties Restoration Act, to bring back the Ten Commandments, etc. The speech excoriates our country’s slide away from its biblical foundations. Here lies a problem.

I don’t want to spoil the party, but this speech, as warming and as courageous as it is, is precisely an example of the challenges in restoring biblical values.

In a previous piece, I attacked family-value people because they fail with families, and thus they do not support a true family culture. They don’t like gays or immorality, but they also don’t want the burdens of families. This, and not radicals, is why the gays achieve so much.

In Zell Miller’s speech, as powerful and as important as it is, there is another problem. Probably, nobody noticed it. But it is there. And I am going to expose it. Until we notice this problem, and similar ones, we will not defeat the radicals. We can pontificate all day about Janet Jackson, but we have to do even better. What is the real problem?

The speech begins by talking about the Jewish prophet Amos. Miller is quite an orator, and he does a fine job of building up to his point, utilizing some background on Amos and his prophecy. But then, he adds these words, "Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal G-d and not just some tribal deity." This sentence almost blew my yarmulka head covering off. I groaned. And this is why.

First of all, it just isn’t true. Amos did not invent the concept of G-d being a universal G-d, and not just the G-d of a tribe, meaning the Israelites. The bible in Genesis tells us that G-d created the world and brought the Flood to punish the world for being immoral. Thus, the concept of being a universal G-d is at the very beginning of the bible. This, however, is a small problem.

The big problem is that Senator Miller indicates that G-d was just a small tribal deity until Amos promoted Him. When Amos got up and spoke about G-d punishing the nations all of a sudden the small Jewish deity got a promotion and ruled the world! This makes a joke of religion. And with such an introduction, we launch a defense of religion!

If any inspired individual can just redefine G-d, then the bible is a plastic morass that anyone can bend and twist. If the gays bend and twist it to accept gay marriage, and they do, how can we argue with them? We, if you are Senator Miller, give every prophet control over the definition, not only of the bible, but also of the deity!

If we want to defend morality with the bible, we have to know the bible. We can’t begin an address with a blatant error about the bible and then invoke the bible to support important and crucial legislation. This is not only an insult to the bible, it is also bound to fail with people who have some intelligence.

I have taught the bible for fifty years. And yet, I tremble when I teach it again. I fear that I will say something that will appear unconvincing to the listener. If that happens, they will say, "This is the word of G-d? This is a joke."

It is fine to wave the bible for the converted. We have to reach other people. We have to speak to those who minds are bent from being in public school and watching television. For those people, we must invoke science, with its Anthropic Principle, essentially saying that modern physics embraces the biblical story of Creation. We must inspire people with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which teaches of a creation of unnatural and supernatural physics, when nothing produced something, and a tiny drop, the ultimate black hole, did not implode, but exploded.

We have to point out that modern young people are losing interest in sex, precisely because at halftime we see too much of it. I am a grandfather, but when I read the Newsweek article "We’re Not in the Mood," I just shook my head. I will never get old, until I watch television at halftime.

I used to work with pedophiles. There is only one treatment for them. It involves stopping an addiction by giving too much enjoyment to the person and perverting the pleasure. In other words, if you like soda, and have to stop, you are told to drink gallons of it and finally you will never look at soda again. That, at any rate, is the basic idea, (but it needs a professional touch from a trained therapist in practice.)
When our system is bombarded with arousal, it eventually gives up. This is how diabetes is developed. We eat some junk food. Sugar enters our system too quickly to be properly absorbed. The body sees a large increase in glucose and the pancreas signals a release of insulin. Insulin ushers the sugar into the cells, thus sweeping the blood clean. The sugar drops, the insulin retreats, and the body senses a sudden drop of sugar, and demands more sugar. We have to drink some more sugar, or soda. So, we drink some more soda, and the sugar shoots quickly up. We are high. Insulin rushes in a sweeps away the sugar. Then we are low. Then, etc. Eventually, the body can’t take it, and we have diabetes.

Sexual appetite is the same. If you have a true family life, and a good sexual diet, you will never get old. But if you get "turned on" constantly by television, movies, and people dressed for arousal, eventually, you have the situation where the sexual arousals fail. One study showed eighty percent of couples having trouble with intercourse. The system can’t take this immoral arousal process.

Another problem. A woman who is a thing is not really interesting. She is like a cookie when you want a steak. Freud taught that the biological sexual energies have to have proper release with a full-throated orgasm and intimacy. Otherwise, he said, toxins poison the emotional system, until a person cannot have proper sex, and indeed, suffers emotional difficulties.

A full-throated orgasm and intimacy is not derived from cheap arousals. Only a deep love and commitment can release it. The woman who lives for "fun" hates the man who gives her pleasure and she hates herself. The man has no idea what he is doing, but he does it anyway. This is "fun," and ultimately, people like that "are not in the mood."

This is how I would express it.

It is not easy to have a large family.

It is not easy to know the bible and present it properly.

If we are not up to the challenge, make way for Janet today, and her brother tomorrow.