precisely what today succeeds so well, forrnthose for whom it works? The sociologist’srnanswer is, because the synagoguernworks for those for whom it works, wernshould make it work better by attractingrnthose presently not engaged by the practicernof Judaism. This we do by practicingrnless Judaism and more community—rnless religious celebration, prayer, andrnstudy, and more joshing and noshing.rnSo here we are back to Christmasrnagain: a good thing, so let’s remake it sorneveryone can enjoy it, let’s make it an occasionrnfor the utterly secular world. Andrnthat brings us to the question: Is the synagoguern(or Christmas, or religiouslyrnbased ethics, or any other absolute goodrnof faith) a means or an end? Should wernJews recite prayers because we want tornlove and serve God, or because we wantrnour children to see us praying so thatrnthey will produce Jewish grandchildren?rnShould we celebrate the rhythm of naturernand the eternal paradigm of holy Israel’srnlife through the shifting patterns ofrnthe synagogue’s liturgical year becauserntherein we meet God in nature and in sacredrnhistory, or should we practice “ourrnpeople’s customs and ceremonies” tornplease outsiders?rnThe Torah makes its judgment clear.rnFor the Torah, meaning the religion, Judaism,rna.k.a., what Tobin calls “community”rn—^Jewish Peoplehood, in the secularrnparlance—defines no valid end in itself.rnFor proof-texts for his proposition thatrnJewish Peoplehood is an end in itself,rnTobin will search in vain in Scripture,rnthe Talmuds, Midrash-compilations,rnphilosophies, mystical writings, or indeedrneven in any of the authoritativernstatements of Judaism, down to and includingrnthe creeds adopted by Reformrnand Conservative Judaism in our ownrntimes. The life of holy Israel, God’s firstrnlove (a theological category, not to bernconfused with the State of Israel, a politicalrnentity) is contingent and conditional.rnOur being is not a given but a gift,rnwhich is ours so long as we merit it. Butrnthen that is the conviction of the synagogue,rnin particular. That is why we arernnot going to surrender the synagogue tornthe forces of militant secularism the wayrnChristians have given up Christmas.rn]acob Neusner is Distinguished ResearchrnProfessor of Religious Studies at thernUniversity of South Florida and Professorrnof Religion at Bard College. His latestrnbook is The Book of Jewish Wisdomrn(Continuum).rnLetter FromrnCincinnatirnbyD.K. BrainardrnThe War on Marge SchottrnAnd . . . she’s outta there. On June 12,rnMarge Schott, the embattled majorityrnowner of the Cincinnati Reds, was givenrnthe heave-ho by baseball’s powers-thatbe,rnforced to relinquish day-to-day controlrnof her ball club through the 1998rnseason. In an ongoing effort to polishrnMajor League Baseball’s tarnished veneer,rnthe august guardians of our nationalrnpastime sent Marge Schott to thernshowers for the second time in four years.rnThe catalyst behind Schott’s latestrnyanking was her comment in a May 5rnESPN interview that Hitler was “OK atrnthe beginning, but then he went too far.”rnBut Schott, who seems incapable ofrnkeeping her feet out of her mouth, hasrnbeen steadily working the corners of thernpolitically correct strike zone since herrn1993 suspension for a string of ethnicallyrnchallenged public statements, includingrnallegedly referring to two of her star playersrnas “my million dollar niggers.”rnTaken separately, Schott’s recent assertionsrnthat “only fruits wear earrings”rnand that “some of the biggest problemsrnin this city come from women wanting tornleave the home to work” are not that outrageousrnin the conte:ict of Cincinnati,rnOhio—or most of Middle America, forrnthat matter. But the obstreperous Redsrnowner went on a tear last spring, even byrnher own standards. Schott got the 1996rnseason off to a controversial start with herrnwell-publicized unwillingness to call offrnthe Reds opener after umpire John Mc-rnSherry collapsed on the field and died ofrna heart attack. By mid-June the Redsrnhad fallen ten games under .500 andrnSchott had gone on record slammingrnjust about everyone from working womenrnto Asian-American immigrants. If, asrnSchott believes, baseball’s all-male owners’rnclub is out to get her, she certainlyrndid her best in 1996 to aid them in portrayingrnher as the poison apple spoilingrnbaseball’s American pie.rnSchott is notoriously unrepentantrnabout her public displays of stupidity,rnbut for a few weeks last summer it appearedrnMajor League Baseball’s latestrncorrective action would stick, unlike Mrs.rnSchott’s 1993 suspension and forcedrn”sensitivity training.” Banned from talkingrnto the press, Schott contented herselfrnwith passing out NO COMMENT cardsrnat the All-Star game and even managedrnto meet baseball’s August deadline tornchoose a suitable replacement as clubrnCEO, reluctantly naming Reds controllerrnJohn Allen to the job. (Allen hadrnreportedly angered Schott during his 60-rnday interim stint as Reds chief by his effortsrnto bring fans back to Riverfront Stadium,rnincluding three-dollar ticketrnnights and “Diversity Day,” in which thernteam made available 10,000 tickets to inner-rncity minorities at a dollar apiece.)rnBut Marge Schott has never been onernto go quietly. In July, Schott was bannedrnfrom her own ballpark for refusing tornabide by a rather nebulous agreementrnwith the National League under whichrnshe would take no part in club management.rnAnd by Labor Day weekend,rnMarge was behind in the count again,rnhaving broken her silence to talk to reportersrnabout the new stadium HamiltonrnCounty taxpayers have agreed to buildrnfor her on the Ohio River. Like her ubiquitousrncanine namesakes, Schottziern(now-deceased) and Schottzie 02, itrnseems Marge has been allowed to piddlernaround the field of dreams for too long tornlearn to play dead.rnAt first glance, Marge Schott wouldrnseem an unlikely cultural barometer ofrnI990’s America. But Schott’s penchantrnfor boneheaded social commentary isrnreally only as interesting as the reaction itrnprovokes. And the division between thernmoralizing of Major League Baseballrnand the news media on one hand, andrnthe widespread popular sentiment thatrnbaseball should leave Schott alone,rnseems indicative of the widening rift inrnthis country between the media “elite”rnand the American middle class.rnClearly Schott’s public outbursts betrayrna stunning lack of media savvy onrnthe part of a public figure. Baseball’s argumentrnthat Schott is a recurring embarrassmentrnto the game is a valid one. Butrndoes Marge Schott really constitute thernmenace to baseball—and the Great Societyrn—that baseball commissioner BudrnSelig and the media would have us believe?rnIn fact, Schott’s disjointed ramblingsrnhardly seem to justify the swiftrnand merciless judgments of the press, asrnexemplified by a New York Times piece inrnwhich reporter Claire Smith quotes Mrs.rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn