It has been interesting to read the responses to The Jewish Week’s article on Al Franken (June 24). I’m surprised they have all been so negative, seeing that only about 22 percent of Jewish voters backed Franken’s chief target, President Bush, in the 2004 elections.

One letter writer commented that Mr. Franken’s show is a “flop.” By what unit of measure? Nearly every week Air America announces one or two new affiliates, and his local ratings have been better than his conservative rival Bill O’Reilly’s radio show. For a radio talk show host who has only been on the air for a year and a half, it seems Franken is doing pretty well.

Perhaps having Franken on page 1 of a Jewish newspaper was overdoing his Judaic credentials, but that doesn’t lessen his importance as an interesting, popular and influential New Yorker who also happens to be Jewish.

I have been fortunate to serve as a Jewish chaplain for many years in both hospital and nursing home settings, and I have never experienced confusion about our roles (“New Roles For Cantors Sparking Debate,” June 17).

In both Calvary Hospital and The Jewish Home and Hospital, I have been privileged to share duties with cantors who were also serving as chaplains. Together we have been able to meet the various needs of the Jews and people of other faiths whom we serve. I believe that in the military, rabbis and cantors could effectively serve together, as well.

“Is My Prom Date Kosher?” (June 17) missed some of the nuances concerning my daughter Karla’s position, but that’s understandable given the article’s emphasis on other issues. However, the offensive smugness of some recent letters (e.g., “Prom Irony,” July 8) has moved me to reply.

First, Karla’s boyfriend at the time was not a non-Jew. He was Jewish by Reform standards, raised Jewishly and was a bar mitzvah. Part of Karla’s question at the time was whether anyone would stand at the door of her prom and turn away her boyfriend as not being Jewish enough to dance with her at her prom.

Second, our home does not encourage interfaith marriage. Though I was raised Catholic, 30 years ago I vowed to my father-in-law (of blessed memory) that I would raise our children as Jews, and that vow has been one of the central commitments of my life. We have raised our children in an exclusively Jewish environment and given them a Jewish day school education. After living Jewishly for 18 years, I formally converted to Judaism 12 years ago, in part because I realized I could best keep that vow by providing a home in which both parents were Jewish.

Third, the issue Karla raised with Schechter was not whether the school should encourage interfaith dating. It was an internal dispute about how the school should treat young adults who had 11 years of religious day school education. One of Karla’s points was that authority figures discredit themselves when they make rules that cannot realistically be enforced except by making racist assumptions. She in fact urged the administration to issue a strong statement of principle on the issue rather than promulgating an unenforceable rule.

Those who know Karla know her as a deeply committed Jew, knowledgeable and proud of her tradition, steeped in family values and Jewish observance. The fact that she felt strongly enough to speak out so forcefully on an issue of Jewish continuity shows how much she cares about these issues.

It is disheartening to learn of the resolutions of certain Protestant denominations calling for divestment from companies doing business with Israel (“Liberal Churches Approve Divestment,” July 8). These resolutions are not only misguided and unhelpful, they are morally repugnant in that they reward the terrorist policies of the Palestinian Authority and vilify the democratic and compassionate State of Israel. Since these Protestant leaders claim to believe in God, they should realize that one day they will be called to judgment in the Divine Court for their hateful resolutions.

Moral people can and should respond to these anti-Israel resolutions. We need to know the names of all those who voted for divestment; we need to know what companies they own and which companies support their churches; we need to start an international policy of divestment from those companies associated with these Protestant denominations.

We cannot sit idly while these self-righteous committees slander Israel and strive to weaken Israel’s economy. It would be a great service if The Jewish Week would print a list of the names of those Protestant “leaders” who voted for divestment from Israel, as well as the companies that support them. This information should be conveyed worldwide to Jews and non-Jews alike, so a world protest can be mounted.

I write with appreciation for the focus on new programs to enhance Hebrew language teaching at day schools (“The New Look of Hebrew Instruction,” July 8). I want to elaborate on one point related to the role of Hebrew College in the NETA program. Over the last three years Hebrew College, which has a longstanding dedication to Hebrew language instruction, has worked cooperatively with Avi Chai to nurture the NETA project and provide optimal conditions for the professional education of current and new Hebrew language teachers for middle and high schools.

As funder of the program, Avi Chai is grateful to the Hebrew College leadership, as well as to the specific Hebrew College and NETA personnel who so admirably manage the program.

The report of renewed efforts to teach Hebrew in U.S. schools could have mentioned one of the more successful efforts in that cause — Hebrew-speaking summer camps (“The New Look Of Hebrew Instruction,” July 8).

The death last year in Jerusalem of the founder of Massad Camps, Dr. Shlomo Shulsinger, is a reminder of that effort. Such camps were perhaps the most successful in language immersion and informal educational techniques in teaching thousands of young people to speak Hebrew comfortably. Perhaps it is time to renew such an effort today.

While Reform and Orthodoxy are growing, Conservative Judaism is shrinking (“The Challenge Facing the Conservative Movement,” July 8). If Professor Hauptman insists upon denying its traditionalists the right to be different by viewing morality, modesty and rabbinic legislation differently than she does, Conservative Judaism will lose its most intensely committed adherents, with little evidence that it will be embraced by non-observant feminists. This policy will also undermine Conservative Judaism’s claim that unlike Orthodox Judaism, it accepts religious pluralism. The issues on which Conservative Judaism compromises and the issues where it draws lines in the sand will determine its actual rather than professed identity.

Professor Hauptman is a learned Talmudist and very accomplished scholar who deserves to be taken seriously. She inhabits both feminist and Jewish worlds. However, if she wishes to be taken seriously by Jews who consider Talmudic law to be very important in their lives, she would not treat as morally relative the very canon that is the source of her moral authority.

Gary Rosenblatt correctly points out the unfortunate potential conflict between birthright israel and The Jewish Agency’s new Masa initiative — both extremely important tools in Jewish education (“Birthright II, Or Israel’s Folly?” July 8).

Having served as director of the birthright israel planning process, I can attest to the fact that the success of birthright israel goes way beyond anything we planners ever imagined. As international president of Hillel, I am witness each day to the amazing gift birthright israel provided Hillel — a new, exciting, successful engagement tool with which to reach out to the thousands of students on campus we had difficulty engaging in the past. I only wish the funds were available to increase the number of students we could send on this program.

On the other hand, research shows that a year in Israel provides depth of commitment, potential leadership and long-lasting involvement that a 10-day trip cannot provide on its own. It is for this reason that a central part of Hillel’s follow-up activities with birthright israel alumni is to encourage them to return to Israel for a semester or year of study at a university of their choice or participate in a long-term voluntary or other program. Birthright israel has succeeded in enabling Hillel to extend the breadth of Jewish students it engages. A year in Israel will create the depth that Jewish student leadership in this country desperately needs.

The approach to philanthropists and federations should be for one package, well coordinated and efficiently implemented, which includes both programs and so complement each other. Competition is most likely to kill both undertakings.

I am thrilled that the Israeli government has stepped forward to help fund these initiatives, but every precaution must be taken to ensure that the new Masa funding not be spent on funding those programs that would already take place. Concentrating the Masa effort on birthright israel alumni as a joint venture of The Jewish Agency and birthright israel with Hillel’s full support and infrastructure on the campus would be the wise way to go.