Rabbi Lerner was full of praise for what Cindy Sheehan allegedly said at her appearance at the Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco. Allegedly, because no independent sources were allowed to cover the appearance, or even take notes:

Cindy Sheehan's presence caused a bit of a stir in the Jewish community and I had demands from the local Jewish newspaper to be able to cover the event and take notes and photographs. I refused. Our synagogue is on the traditional/hallakhic end of the Jewish Renewal spectrum, and we do not allow people to write or in other ways violate Jewish law with regard to the observance of the holiday. The Jewish newspaper reporter seemed outraged, apparently unfamiliar with Jewish religious practice.

I haven't been able to find where this is banned by Jewish law or tradition, so maybe someone can help me out.

But Rabbi Lerner took notes, or has a very good memory, and tells us what happened.

With regards to the email:

The reason for the stir is that Cindy was accused of having said in an email (the authorship of which she denies) that her son had died for Israel. The implication was that because some Jewish neo-cons in the Defense Department had been big advocates for this war, along with Ariel Sharon and his supporters in AIPAC in this country, that this was somehow a Jewish war.

The very first thing Cindy said was that she had heard about these accusations and that they were false. She does not blame the Jewish people and she does not blame Israel for the war in Iraq. Instead, she said, it would be ludicrous to do that, just as it would be ludicrous, she said, to blame the English people for the war just because their leader Tony Blair had been a big advocate for it. Cindy told me privately that she was aware that 78% of Jews had voted for Gore in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004, and that if the rest of the country had voted the way the Jews vote that there never would have been a war in Iraq.

So the war in Iraq was not the fault of terrorist attacks on 9/11 or of Saddam's intransigence with inspectors, but the fault of the American voter. If they had only voted for Gore and Kerry. This despite the fact that Gore voted for the 1991 war resolution, and Kerry voted in support of the war resolution in 2002.

About her political aspirations:

She was asked if she would consider running against Diane Feinstein, the California U.S. Senator who had cheered the day that Bush landed troops in Iraq, has been part of the faction of Democrats who talk about increasing troops as a solution to the problems the US faces there now, and who consistently votes for every new appropriation for the war. Cindy acknowledged that it would be important for the anti-war movement to run a candidate against Feinstein. But she said she would not do it because, as she put it, "I don't know enough about a lot of issues, like social security or tax codes-what I know about is the war in Iraq, and I know that that is wrong and that Democrats who support it by voting for appropriations are doing something wrong. But I don't know enough about other things to be a good U.S. Senator." I do not remember ever hearing any political person acknowledge their own limitations so clearly and forthrightly. Her humility was stunning and moving.

Well, Rabbi Lerner is easily stunned and moved. I'll give Cindy Sheehan credit for being honest, but stunning?

Michael Lerner is clearly a fan:

We ended up feeling very proud that we had given Cindy Sheehan a venue on Yom Kippur, but also deeply saddened that our government is playing such a destructive and even self-destructive role in the world today, so we had yet more issues to focus on as we concluded the services that day.

Uh-oh. Destruction and self-destruction. This is starting to sound like a hate-America-first speech.

From Michael Lerner, that should come as no surprise. He is a radical with questionable rabbinical credentials. His Tikkun following is vaguely Jewish. From Moobat Central:

Tikkun magazine is the hippy-dippy magazine for fossilized 60s "dudes," edited by Michael Lerner, creator of the "Politics of Meaning" back in the early days of the Clintons.

Lerner is a "Rabbi" in precisely the same sense that Ward Churchill is an Indian.

Lerner is not ordained by any Rabbinic seminary nor did he have any Rabbinic training. He was basically proclaimed a "Rabbi" by three other people, each of whom might or might not have been Jewish himself, who put their hands on Mikey's head and said, "Domini Domini youse a Rabbi."

This has never stopped Mikey from representing himself as a Rabbi, an Orthodox one to boot.

Now the post at Moonbat Central has a mocking tone, so you would be forgiven for being a bit skeptical. Here is a bit more reasoned criticism of the movement Lerner leads:

Critics of Jewish Renewal claim that the movement emphasizes individual spiritual experience and subjective opinion over communal norms and Jewish textual literacy; the above-mentioned formalization of the ALEPH rabbinic program may be a response to such criticism. Many find fault with what they consider to be excessive borrowing from non-Jewish traditions; such large amounts of non-Jewish practices and ideas have been borrowed that non-Renewal Jews see the Renewal movement as moving outside the boundaries of Judaism altogether. They hold that just as Jews cannot adopt Christian beliefs and practices and still consider themselves to be followers of Judaism, one cannot adopt Buddhist, Sufi, and polytheistic beliefs and practices and still consider themselves to be part of Judaism.

And Michael Lerner's credentials?

I decided I had to learn more about Lerner, much more. However, before I could do much investigation, fate stepped in and lent a generous helping hand. Several days ago a rather lengthy article about Michael Lerner appeared on the Internet, written by Steven Plaut. In the story, Plaut set forth the claim that Lerner is not really a Rabbi, at least not a properly ordained Rabbi. And that contrary to implication, Lerner's congregation and particular sect of Judaism is far outside any of the conventional denominations. If accurate, I felt that this would help explain the radical nature of Lerner's opinions.

I thought I should go right to the horse's mouth, so I perused Lerner's website at Tikkun.org in search of the pertinent biographical data. Not finding an answer to my questions, I wrote an email to Lerner personally, inquiring about the truth of Plaut's allegation and asking for information regarding the place and date of his ordination.

I received no reply.

My next step was to contact the radio show host and to inform him of Plaut's allegations and seek any information that he may have regarding Lerner (commonly, talk show guests provide detailed biographies to the producer of the show). I sent Lerner a copy of this message. Well, I guess this message found its way to Lerner, because a short time later I received a terse response. But instead of providing the requested information, Lerner threatened to sue me for libel. I replied and good-naturedly suggested that he had no case, since I was merely asking a question. I further suggested that he should simply respond to the question.

Later that evening, I received a second email from Lerner imagine that, two emails in one day from a man described as a confidant to Hillary Clinton: yes, that Hillary Clinton! Again, he avoided the question and reiterated his threat of a libel suit. However, this time, the terseness of his first message was replaced by what seemed like an even harsher tone. I reminded him that he was a public figure, who had expended enormous effort to create such public awareness. And as such, he couldn't stop or object to people asking about his credentials.

Perhaps he finally understood my position, because bright and early the next morning I received a third message from Hillary's Rasputin, and it contained no threats. It had a simple two line message that read: "I am a member of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, having been accepted there in the same manner as every other rabbi, after my credentials were carefully examined. I don't appreciate lies being spread about me."

A bit defensive. What about this "Rabbis of Northern California"?

I found the organization's membership requirements interesting: "Eligibility for membership in the Board of Rabbis of Northern California requires that an individual possess a proper rabbinic ordination."

I wrote to the president of the organization and asked if the "proper rabbinic ordination" qualification was always required or if other circumstances could satisfy an application for membership. The reply I received stated that each application is considered on its own merits. There must be rabbinic ordination of some kind and the rabbi must belong to a recognized national rabbinic association.

Unfortunately, the reply merely opened up more questions regarding Lerner's credentials. "Some kind of rabbinic ordination" is quite a bit different than "proper rabbinic ordination." Plaut's article about Lerner suggests that Lerner underwent some sort of hocus-pocus ordination years after first calling himself a Rabbi. Does a hocus-pocus ordination qualify as "some kind of ordination"? Perhaps it does. Since Lerner failed to provide a date for any kind of ordination, it appears to confirm Plaut's statement that Lerner used the "Rabbi" title for many years before any kind of ordination. But the second part of the reply was even more mystifying. Lerner only told me that he was a member of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, and I could find no other reference to membership in any other "recognized national rabbinic association." It's as though Lerner was somehow able to use his membership in the BRNC as a way to meet the requirements of joining the BRNC. I know it doesn't make sense, but by comparing this information with the irrational nature of Lerner's political opinions and associations, it makes perfect sense!

So Cindy Sheehan gets approval from the Jewish community, but a community on the fringes of Judaism, led by an ex-hippie with questionable religious credentials.

Some would say that sounds like a cult. Certainly Michael Lerner has the monomaniacal fixations you'd find in a cult leader, up to and including abandoning his family for the cause:

Few of my radical colleagues had much connection to family or real community. A friend with a Freudian bent observed of Ramparts editor Bob Scheer that he "projected onto the socialist future the human connection he had failed to achieve in his own life." I had the same intuition about Tom Hayden, who was not on speaking terms with his father, and seemed to have no fixed home address. But it was the radical Michael Lerner—later famous for his "politics of meaning" which attracted the Clintons’ admiration during their first term in the White House—who illustrated the syndrome best. The cake at his first wedding was inscribed with a Weatherman slogan: Smash Monogamy. Soon he and his wife had a child, and the young family went east. When the couple separated shortly thereafter, mother and son went to live in Boston. Lerner, however, returned to Berkeley. "Michael," I said, "how can you leave your son in the east to come to Berkeley? He needs you." Without hesitation, Lerner answered: "David, you don’t understand. I have to be here. Berkeley is the center of the world-historical spirit."

Lerner also made me understand that drugs were central to the consciousness of the Movement. On discovering that I had never taken lsd, he was incredulous: "You have to take lsd. Until you’ve dropped acid, you don’t know what socialism is."

To give Lerner credit, I think he's right on that last point. I also think socialism makes sense only to the reality-impaired.

There you go. Quite the endorsement for Cindy Sheehan.

Does she know anyone, well, normal, who will say nice things about her?