The author again. I love your thoughtful response, here're my replies:

"First, thanks for the article. I'm offering criticism here but it obviously made me think since I'm writing about it. Things that make me think are always appreciated."

That's great.

"Perhaps my pop culture laden life is showing but are we talking Dana Carvey’s 'Church Lady'?"

Indeed!

"And if so is this referring to Lieberman as a Church Lady type? I’m confused if this is the case. The Church Lady was a self-righteous scold but not a hypocrite. This piece is unarguably a scold and given that the author’s own knowledge and practice of his religion is the basis of the points on which Lieberman is being faulted, how is this not self-righteous too? I came away from the piece feeling like it was a bit hypocritical and this part of the author’s defense against criticism reinforces that -- scolding someone self-righteously for being a self-righteous scold."

It was a difficult line to follow. I tried my best, but it's a much better article with the new title.

"In the original piece though I think the hypocritical vibe is because the author doesn’t make clear what he or his religion considers “self-interest.” It would be difficult to convince me that writing for any publication, particularly one as widely read as Salon, isn’t self-promotion. (The issue of payment I can’t know nor am I implying the readers have any right to that sort of disclosure but payment in my opinion would qualify as “self-interest” by any definition.)

My own definition of self-interest includes most anything I say or do. I am serving some sort of need I have no matter what the action or speech. Whether it’s ultimately for my benefit or not isn’t the point. In that moment I’m doing something that’s satisfying something inside myself. Even acts that are commonly considered self-less are not to me. If I apologize to someone because I’ve caused harm, somehow the motivation to apologize comes from a need to feel like I’m the type of person who does right. This is an extreme sense of self-interest so it’s not as if I expect others to view it that way but it’s such a curious notion to me."

As far as I know, there's no strict Halakhic definition of self-interest. It doesn't mean something trivial, or de minimis.

"Perhaps I missed something fundamental in the article but if this means to suggest the Jewish faith is an ignored part of American life then I’m dumbfounded. It is a near-constant component in political debate and is commonly referred to in pop culture or entertainment products and “news” of each (America’s one true religion). I’m going to assume the author meant that substantive information about the actual practices of his faith is what’s ignored. That I can buy because that applies to most religions here, including any form of Christianity."

Actually, secular America knows very little on how we live our lives. We're these weird looking guys who look like ZZ Top (actually, ZZ Top took our style, but that's another story). We don't proselytize, we really just want to be left alone for the most part. We hide in plain sight.

"I’m actually surprised I read it since I’m exhausted of religion. The constant public contest of who is a better Christian or Jew or Muslim or whatever seems to rely on but a single measure: who can be the most hateful, mean and repressive toward a some group of people. Gay folks like me have been the favored group for awhile now. No doubt it will shift to some other group, as so many have taken their turn as punching bag (I don't think I need to point out that Jews have had more than a turn or two as punching bag), but I’ve reached the limit of my patience and am becoming as intolerable of any talk about religion as those who decry my existence as a danger, threat, abomination, unnatural..."

I understand totally. You are my target audience. I'm not trying to proselytize you. I just ask that you eat your own cooking, that you tolerate me as I tolerate you.

Wonderfully bizarre, words of the church. Was so surprised when I found out that 'sti was hosti, the Host.

When I speak French with French people, they think I'm Canadian. I'm American--I'm so proud (:=).

B'en, voyons donc, please translate Attache ta tuque... On s'en va à caban' à suc', don't remember it

You haven't shown me any errors, just ad hominem attacks. I stand by what I wrote. Punkt.

"So, according to his standards, it should only take one person with more experience than he has to confirm that he is wrong. Right?"

Wrong. Anybody can, Jewish, not Jewish, regardless of experience. Like I said previously, show me an error of fact, I'll correct it.

That said, I don't understand this mocking of authors who defend their work. The whole original author publish, readers write in, author responds, turn article into a handbag is an artifact of paper-based publishing. The back and forth that publishing electronically makes economical is a good thing. I have no apologies for treating this as a blog.

Funny, the previous article I wrote for Salon, I received thanks for responding to readers.

My Rabbi was his roommate in Yeshiva, R'Boteach comes from a broken home which thoroughly traumatized him. Agree or disagree with him, that and only that is his ostensible motivation.

Whether the Frum world hypermodesty would translate well into the secular world is doubtful. R'Boteach's idea is basically that there is only so much passion in a marriage, if you use it all up to begin with you'll be left wanting later.

That said, his wording wasn't very good, and he thoroughly misjudged the audience.