Dan - Please don't misinterpret what I wrote. Just because Judaism doesn't have social justice as its soul doesn't mean that one shouldn't engage in actions that will better humanity. One would have a very hard time finding a Talmudic source for doing something about Darfur, but that doesn't mean one's off the hook for it.

Now, you do make an interesting analogy to football. As someone who thought the ESPN series on USC's place in college football history was ridiculous for the way it compared 250-pound linemen of yesteryear to 350-pound linemen of today and declared the latter the obvious victor, I've got a lot of sympathy for this line of argument. However, as someone who acknowledges that "for me Judaism is either social justice or a weak combination of chicken soup and neurosis," you should show some more humility before you go bandying about the amazing, unique qualities of your religion/race.

You declare that "We were some of the the best wealth redistributers in the world." Based on what research? Have you done a comparison of Jewish charity as compared with that of contemporaries in the ancient near east? What was the wealth distribution in contemporary Asia, or the Americas?

You argue that "We realize now the importance of equality for gays and lesbians, when we didn't realize it before." Great, so society moves ahead, and eventually Judaism might figure out a way to catch up in part. That hardly shows Judaism as the spearhead of progressive change.

Even if I grant that Judaism was better at charity for a period of time, if a constant progressivism were at its core, it'd have remained so in perpetuity, and not lost that edge. Even if I grant that Judaism will have complete equality for gays and lesbians at some later date, if a constant progressivism were at its core, it'd have figured it out before other elements of society, not much later.

 And even if I grant every hubristic suggestion you make regarding Judaism's alleged superiority on social justice issues at one time, some millenia ago, that doesn't mean that Judaism had social justice on its agenda. It had a set of rules, laws, and norms that created a specific society that was not, in virtually any sense, socially just. At any point, any set of rules and laws can make its intent known, and Judaism did not declare social justice a goal.

 You suggest that the reason for the pursuit of learned juges is "a notion of both legal and ethical right and wrong." Except it was a Judaic right and wrong, which is its own morality, not an objective one, a modern one, or a socially just one.