Thanks for saying this -- I wondered what had happened to the Michael Jackson I read about or saw on TV... but one hates to kick the dead, unless it becomes necessary.

Are you speaking on behalf of the entire Reform Jewish movement?

I am in disbelief that the President of the URJ would spend time writing a article of this nature, especially when his Union is in the midst of a crisis.

Thank you, Rabbi Yoffie, for the reminder that the celebrity was a pervert and a freak.

In response to Dan and to lower-case anonymous, I would hope that the president of the Union for Reform Judaism would use his pulpit to remind the Reform movement and the general community that the message of Reform Judaism incorporates ethics and morality -- and we need not revere the memory of one who flouted them so publicly.

This becomes particularly important if your headline-grabbing colleague is trying to make excuses for his creepy friend. I haven't read the article in the Jerusalem Post, but I wonder if Rabbi (?) Boteach wants to use Jackson as an exemplar of kosher sex.

Personally I could care less about MJ.
But, I do think the head of the URJ has much more serious things to be discussing than what Shmuley Boteach says in the Jerusalem Post.

Dan's analogy is interesting. The point seems to be that the president shouldn't have questioned Rabbi Yoffie's smicha, and thus that I shouldn't have questioned Rabbi Boteach's.

I don't doubt that both men received valid smichot, and were told, You shall truly teach, you shall truly judge. The president, whose position is supposed to place him outside of politics, made a political judgment, in not accepting the validity of the Reform movement, and thus of its right to confer the title of rabbi. .

Rabbi Boteach, whose position is supposed to qualify him to teach and make judgments about Torah, made a judgment that I find inconsistent with the teachings of Judaism. It may be that I should have honored his title even if I don't honor his teaching.

Meanwhile, since we don't know who Dan is, I can't judge whether it is appropriate for him to call the president of the Union by his first name, rather than according him his title of Rabbi.

If I may quote from another religious figure, to whom some give the title Rabbi, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

If not for the press deluge over the past 3 decades, I probably wouldn't even know who Michael Jackson is -- he is from a segment of pop culture to which I am rarely exposed.

But of course I do know who Michael Jackson is and what he has been accused of. I found many of his antics distasteful, as is my right. If he was anti-semitic (or anti-gay or anti-hispanic or bigoted in any other way), that would be similarly distasteful.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your right to voice your opinions. But with all due respect, Rabbi Yoffie, the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to that same Constitution embody a "presumption of innocence." While I am not a scholar, I believe this is consistent with Jewish law, where every person who cannot be proven by bais din to be a rasha (evil person) is granted by the Torah
הנחה של תמימות (assumption of innocence).

I agree with Angie's comment and expound on it: if the prosecution failed to bear its burden of proving that Mr. Jackson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is not for any one of us to draw conclusions or judge him to be otherwise "guilty."

I am not a Michael Jackson fan. But I am a huge fan of Constitutional rights. All of them.

I have read the column of Rabbi Boteach, and am afraid that Rabbi Yoffie's account of it is unfair.

Nowhere does Rabbi Boteach say, as Rabbi Yoffie claims, that Jackson had "no responsibility for his actions." On the contrary, Rabbi Boteach in several places in the column does say that Jackson failed to do what he should have done, and that others failed to "save him from himself." That phrase clearly indicates, as is indeed fundamental in Jewish tradition, that like all human beings Jackson was ultimately responsible his own sins, and his own good deeds.

It is true that Rabbi Boteach does not in this essay excoriate Jackson for his more egregious actions. But after all, this was in the immediate aftermath of Jackson's death, when a gentler approach is arguably more appropriate.

I believe I remember Rabbi Boteach on television, while Jackson was alive, unequivocally condemning Jackson's bringing young boys into his bed.

In contrast to Rabbi Boteach, Dr. Deepak Chopra, speaking on "Anderson Cooper 360" explicitly said that he did not blame Jackson for anything, and that all the bad things were due to hangers on. This to me is indeed outrageous, and contrary to Jewish tradition, but it is not Rabbi Boteach who said it.

Unlike Elvis, who was under the thumb of one person, "Colonel" Parker, Jackson was constantly firing those who worked for him, so there was a continually churning cast of characters in his entourage. So it was clearly Jackson who as calling the shots, and Dr. Chopra is way out of line however you look at it.

Rabbi Akiva said that God judges us according to "the preponderance of deeds"--weighing good against bad deeds. So if we feel called upon to judge a person after death, it seems to me we could be a bit more charitable than Rabbi Yoffie, and mention some of the person's good deeds, along with the bad.

I'd like to ask everyone here if they've started a Heal The World foundation lately. Just wondering. How many of you have donated half your earnings to victims of famine and war?

...I understand that Michael was not perfect, but I feel that he tried to do a lot of good for the world and had pure loving intentions for all, Jews, Arabs, everyone. I've watched a lot of interviews of his and know the lyrics to many of his songs. I understand the background on the con artists who took advantage of his kindness for their own personal gain, ruining the highly sensitive Michael in the process.

I have a feeling that Michael is not against Jews but is against Zionism. I wish he would have been more sensitive to the impact that those words would have on innocent Jews who have nothing to do with the substantially less innocent Jews who are in power right now (who are making us all look bad and encouraging people to use those words in frustration). Perhaps we should take a look at who is really making us look bad; Michael Jackson, or the people who inspired him to use those words in the first place?

I watched that song on Youtube. I love the song and the video very much. I noticed how he took those two words out of the video. I've accepted that mistake and apology. I think it's useless to bash him for it.

I'm choosing to celebrate the positive things he stood for like love, cherishing children as society's future, and world peace. His "Heal The World" performance at the Superbowl was the most personally inspiring thing I've ever seen. I don't know anyone else who has ever made a football stadium stand up and cheer for World Peace.

For some reason unfathomable to me, but appareenty clear to others, the death of Michael Jackson has created a media frenzy. I would find it disturbing indeed if the president of the URJ were not asserting his moral voice on issues of concern to the society in which we live. To repeat, I don't understand why this is an issue of concern, but since it clearly is, Rabbi Yoffie, right on!

Regardless of context, I shudder to think of the virulent reaction that would likely have ensued had a Jew used comparable demeaning terminology to make even a sympathetic point about African-Americans.

We've seen efforts to have Huckleberry Finn removed from library shelves because of its use, in another time, of the "N-word."

I will concede there was probably no political or social animus behind Jackson's gutter anti-Semitism -- nor do I attribute any racial explanation to the accusations of deviant behavior for which he is so well remembered.

Nata's special pleading is at best anive.

As a lawyer, I am continually irritated by the misuse of the concept "presumption of innocence." All it means is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; if it fails to meet that high standard, the accused is acquitted. It does NOT mean everyone must close their eyes to the obvious and deny the strong probability that the charge against the accused was well-founded in truth.
I have always pitied MJ because I believe he was given medications as a child that kept him from maturing normally. May he rest in peace.

I was disappointed to read Rabbi Yoffie's negative portrayal of Michael Jackson. Frankly, many artists and other creative individuals are plagued by inner demons that paradoxically enable them to produce amazing works of artistic expression. No where in Rabbi Yoffie's post is there any mention of the whippings, beatings and sexual trauma visited upon Mr. Jackson by his father--the abhorrent Joe Jackson. Let's admit that Michael suffered pain and indignities at the hands of his father. His mother was too scared to speak up. The result--someone with body dysmorphic disorder, a closeted sexual identity, and a lot of self hatred. Let's try not to be so judgemental Rabbi.