The wife showed me a battle raging online, yesterday. I assume that it continues to rage as it has for many, many years. She posted my (brief) opinion but I didn't wade in fully as these debates are pointless and painful, and do more to create animosity then resolve it. I choose to weigh my complete position, craft it and word it precisely, and post it on my private corner of the internet, for all to ignore.
The question was about behavior. It was a post on some Facebook page, explaining to Jews how to behave. It was an online version of the speech we give students as we pull up to the museum for the class trip: "don't be jerks, in fact, be extra special nice, because everything you say and do will reflect on the school and your entire religion." No pressure.
The two sides go something like this (and I'm not indulging the extremes which inevitably invoke Godwin):
1. Don't be mean. Be extra nice. We can avoid the hatred of us as a group by being nicer as individuals. Don't act spoiled; don't whine and complain; don't try to game the system. Recognize any effort that others make and cultivate a positive relationship with the world around us by being proactively better than anyone can expect. Don't give the haters a reason to claim that their preconceived notions are at all valid.
2. Hate will always exist. Why don't we have the right to act like anyone else? Why should we live like our entire identity is being judged because we act like humans? Why is there an expectation of (and there an accommodation for) a collective punishment? Why do we accept that others are looking for reasons to hate and then why is it our job to overcompensate for their tendency to oppress and victimize us? Should we resign ourselves to having to be the angels all the time? Why blame us for being good at surviving and getting what everyone is struggling for? Success shouldn't be punished.
1. But does the opposite of that over-compensation necessarily involved pro-actively being a jerk? Doesn't Judaism teach about perception and the potential for desecrating God's name by doing things that, though "legal" or "accepted" would make Jews everywhere look bad?
2. Well, does the opposite of "not being difficult" necessarily involve kowtowing to everyone else, no matter how much everyone else is acting? Why is there a double standard, demanding more from me as a Jew than from anyone else?
1. Because that's a fact of life -- there is a double standard. Accepting that should drive us, as Jews, to correct for it in anticipation, making our behavior even further above reproach.
2. That buys into the double standard as a valid fact on the ground. We should be pointing it out and changing it. If we are to be "of" the world, and not in some ghetto-ized version of it, we should help change the world.
To quote the sage, "You're both right."
Personally, I err on the side of #1. I want to be judged as a kind and nice (or at least, kind OF nice) person. I over tip. I say please and thank you to machines. I make do with less, pay more and express appreciation so that no one can judge my group because of my shortcomings. But I also get annoyed, knowing that I (have to) do all of this.
There is no solution -- it is debates like this that keep the internet from being a vaster wasteland, I guess. Comments welcome.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
The right to offend vs. the right to be offended
Today, I am struggling with the notion of personal responsibility.
Well, to be honest, I’m struggling with reading tenth grade papers and am looking to procrastinate, so I let my mind wander and lo, and behold, it wandered to “personal responsibility.” I’m sure that there is some irony in there somewhere, but I won’t dwell on that.
I read in the news about some students who were in a confrontation with some other people. I’m not linking anything or taking a particular stand on the specifics because I neither know enough, nor care enough to stake a claim and engage anyone in a useless flame war about the issue. But one thing which I can concede is that some number of students (1 to 1 million, apparently) wore a red hat with the “Make America Great Again” slogan on it. Others seem to have responded to the hat and the political position it apparently invokes.
So then my question arises – to what level are we responsible for our own actions? It is easy for us to go all first amendment and say “they have a right to wear what they want – and though people have the right to be offended, their offense cannot stop the wearing of the hat.” If we defend those whose outrage was inspired by the hat, aren’t we blaming the victim? Is it acceptable to say to a woman who wears (next to) nothing in an area rife with men of a certain gender that she was asking for their catcalls and unwelcome approaches? Does my wearing ostentatious jewelry absolve a thief of his personal obligation not to break the law?
But on the other hand, do I have a responsibility not to be an idiot? Under the law, as far as I can glean from the little dabbling I have done, there is an idea when driving of “contributory negligence.” If I do something stupid then, while the blame might mostly lie with someone else for an accident, I bear some burden of guilt because I was not being careful. Is there, in life, a parallel idea of contributory insensitivity? If I walk into a minority community with a shirt emblazoned with “F___ minorities!” am I blameless if it elicits a response? Isn’t there an expected human response to this kind of incitement which is, to some degree, understandable? [I’m thinking of a scene in Die Hard 3]
In Jewish law, there is a concept of “you shall not but a stumbling block in front of a blind person.” If I know that my actions will entice another person towards a particular (inappropriate) behavior, then I have an obligation not to take that action. And we know that under American law, there is such a thing as hate speech, and that DIRECT incitement to violence is not protected under the 1st amendment, but what about inevitable but indirect incitement? How responsible am I for the behavior of others, especially when their response is foreseeable? Can I push all the buttons I want and then wash my hands of the result? Though legal, is that morally defensible? But, then must I monitor my every word and action because someone might be induced to respond by anything I do or say? Where do we mandate sensitivity and where do we expect self-control in the face of incitement? What lines can ever be drawn to protect us from ourselves while we are being protected from others?
The extremes make it sound obvious. Each person is responsible to control himself no matter how provocative the incitement. Sure, that’s easy – 100% on the self to stop the self. But is that reasonable and feasible? OK, let’s let the pendulum swing the other way – the individual has to consider the feelings of others and can’t offend others; the concept of forbidden hate speech becomes the absolute. But there goes my freedom of expression and we all become coddled snowflakes, triggered at every breath, unable to stand hearing an opinion which doesn’t comport with our worldview. So the extremes are not the answer. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in the middle, allowing everyone the right to be a jerk without fear of getting pummeled, but ensuring that no one’s jerkiness crosses some line into hatefulness because people are allowed to want to defend themselves from even non-physical attacks.
Yeah, I have no answers and (I just checked) those papers have yet to grade themselves. So I’ll err on the side of not being a jerk but defend to the pain the right of others to say what they want. At least until it really annoys me.
Well, to be honest, I’m struggling with reading tenth grade papers and am looking to procrastinate, so I let my mind wander and lo, and behold, it wandered to “personal responsibility.” I’m sure that there is some irony in there somewhere, but I won’t dwell on that.
I read in the news about some students who were in a confrontation with some other people. I’m not linking anything or taking a particular stand on the specifics because I neither know enough, nor care enough to stake a claim and engage anyone in a useless flame war about the issue. But one thing which I can concede is that some number of students (1 to 1 million, apparently) wore a red hat with the “Make America Great Again” slogan on it. Others seem to have responded to the hat and the political position it apparently invokes.
So then my question arises – to what level are we responsible for our own actions? It is easy for us to go all first amendment and say “they have a right to wear what they want – and though people have the right to be offended, their offense cannot stop the wearing of the hat.” If we defend those whose outrage was inspired by the hat, aren’t we blaming the victim? Is it acceptable to say to a woman who wears (next to) nothing in an area rife with men of a certain gender that she was asking for their catcalls and unwelcome approaches? Does my wearing ostentatious jewelry absolve a thief of his personal obligation not to break the law?
But on the other hand, do I have a responsibility not to be an idiot? Under the law, as far as I can glean from the little dabbling I have done, there is an idea when driving of “contributory negligence.” If I do something stupid then, while the blame might mostly lie with someone else for an accident, I bear some burden of guilt because I was not being careful. Is there, in life, a parallel idea of contributory insensitivity? If I walk into a minority community with a shirt emblazoned with “F___ minorities!” am I blameless if it elicits a response? Isn’t there an expected human response to this kind of incitement which is, to some degree, understandable? [I’m thinking of a scene in Die Hard 3]
In Jewish law, there is a concept of “you shall not but a stumbling block in front of a blind person.” If I know that my actions will entice another person towards a particular (inappropriate) behavior, then I have an obligation not to take that action. And we know that under American law, there is such a thing as hate speech, and that DIRECT incitement to violence is not protected under the 1st amendment, but what about inevitable but indirect incitement? How responsible am I for the behavior of others, especially when their response is foreseeable? Can I push all the buttons I want and then wash my hands of the result? Though legal, is that morally defensible? But, then must I monitor my every word and action because someone might be induced to respond by anything I do or say? Where do we mandate sensitivity and where do we expect self-control in the face of incitement? What lines can ever be drawn to protect us from ourselves while we are being protected from others?
The extremes make it sound obvious. Each person is responsible to control himself no matter how provocative the incitement. Sure, that’s easy – 100% on the self to stop the self. But is that reasonable and feasible? OK, let’s let the pendulum swing the other way – the individual has to consider the feelings of others and can’t offend others; the concept of forbidden hate speech becomes the absolute. But there goes my freedom of expression and we all become coddled snowflakes, triggered at every breath, unable to stand hearing an opinion which doesn’t comport with our worldview. So the extremes are not the answer. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in the middle, allowing everyone the right to be a jerk without fear of getting pummeled, but ensuring that no one’s jerkiness crosses some line into hatefulness because people are allowed to want to defend themselves from even non-physical attacks.
Yeah, I have no answers and (I just checked) those papers have yet to grade themselves. So I’ll err on the side of not being a jerk but defend to the pain the right of others to say what they want. At least until it really annoys me.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Sh'ma=fail
Jews teach that one of the most central declarations of faith, and a cornerstone of the religion is the “Sh’ma” prayer. The Sh’ma, when said as part of the morning and evening prayers is composed of an opening statement from Deut 6:4, and then 3 paragraphs (Deuteronomy 6:5–9, 11:13–21, and Numbers 15:37–41). While it forms that backbone of belief, I feel that it also is a singular statement of human failure and, as such, it makes a case for an even more important tenet of Judaism because of that failure.
In the first part of the Sh’ma, we read that statement of God’s unity and his dominion over us. Then we have an argument in favor of “loving” God (text copied from the Judaica Press edition found on the Chabad website):
“And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.”
We are to hear (through our ears, I would assume) and our reaction will be to love (which I would source in our hearts).
Then, Hashem points out that what he is commanding must go beyond our ears and actually be on our hearts:
“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.”
The next three verses include 4 verbs incumbent upon us, starting with “teach”:
“And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them” which is followed by “bind” and ”inscribe.” The details of the Sh’ma (and any other laws) has to be communicated so that others can learn. Sounds like an important charge, right? No. I think it is the nut of the problem. If, as stated a verse or two earlier, these words which God commanded are to be on our hearts, then why would we have to teach anyone, or make a public display so that others will learn? Was the law only placed on the heart of those in the desert, in that first generation? Weren’t we all, in a way, there at Sinai, hearing the law from God?
I think the answer can be found in a particular promise that acknowledges our current limitations. Hashem knows we are imperfect and that, as we are now, we can’t deal with things “on our hearts” and we need to use our other senses, and we must be taught and reminded of our laws and responsibilities. The law, as taught, doesn’t go automatically on our hearts and we don’t know how to put it there so we stick with our other modes of knowledge. The prayer is known by the word "Sh'ma" -- hear, a sensory experience and a function of our human body. We are then expected to "love" which is not part of hearing, but because that won't happen, we are commanded to teach. This is why we have a vision of the future in Jeremiah 31 (verses 31-34). The renewal of our relationship/covenant with God in the future will be signaled not by a change in content, but by a change in mode and actor:
“But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days—declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
The teaching (Torati, my Torah) is still the content, but instead of the law’s having to be “on your heart” (a requirement at which we will fail, thus requiring us to teach it) Hashem will PUT it into our being and INSCRIBE it into our hearts. Then as the next verse states, “No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, “Heed the LORD”; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me”.
In the Messianic era, God, himself, will place the law into our hearts so that the essential commandment of the Sh’ma, teaching others, will no longer be necessary! The Sh’ma, then, is attesting to what we have to do NOW, only because we are currently incapable of concretizing our belief in the more desirable/automatic (trans-human) way. It calls forth, though, the essential Messianic belief – why do we need a Moshiach? Because we need to rise above the limitations inherent in the Sh’ma and its teaching process, into a realm of universal understanding as explained in Jeremiah.
The Sh’ma, then, is about failure and making the best with what we are now. We say it twice daily because we have to, not as a matter of halacha and law, but as a function of our fallible humanity. But it is a reminder of what lies ahead and WHY we should be saying it, so that we can prepare the world for a time when we no longer have to.
In the first part of the Sh’ma, we read that statement of God’s unity and his dominion over us. Then we have an argument in favor of “loving” God (text copied from the Judaica Press edition found on the Chabad website):
“And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.”
We are to hear (through our ears, I would assume) and our reaction will be to love (which I would source in our hearts).
Then, Hashem points out that what he is commanding must go beyond our ears and actually be on our hearts:
“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.”
The next three verses include 4 verbs incumbent upon us, starting with “teach”:
“And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them” which is followed by “bind” and ”inscribe.” The details of the Sh’ma (and any other laws) has to be communicated so that others can learn. Sounds like an important charge, right? No. I think it is the nut of the problem. If, as stated a verse or two earlier, these words which God commanded are to be on our hearts, then why would we have to teach anyone, or make a public display so that others will learn? Was the law only placed on the heart of those in the desert, in that first generation? Weren’t we all, in a way, there at Sinai, hearing the law from God?
I think the answer can be found in a particular promise that acknowledges our current limitations. Hashem knows we are imperfect and that, as we are now, we can’t deal with things “on our hearts” and we need to use our other senses, and we must be taught and reminded of our laws and responsibilities. The law, as taught, doesn’t go automatically on our hearts and we don’t know how to put it there so we stick with our other modes of knowledge. The prayer is known by the word "Sh'ma" -- hear, a sensory experience and a function of our human body. We are then expected to "love" which is not part of hearing, but because that won't happen, we are commanded to teach. This is why we have a vision of the future in Jeremiah 31 (verses 31-34). The renewal of our relationship/covenant with God in the future will be signaled not by a change in content, but by a change in mode and actor:
“But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days—declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
The teaching (Torati, my Torah) is still the content, but instead of the law’s having to be “on your heart” (a requirement at which we will fail, thus requiring us to teach it) Hashem will PUT it into our being and INSCRIBE it into our hearts. Then as the next verse states, “No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, “Heed the LORD”; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me”.
In the Messianic era, God, himself, will place the law into our hearts so that the essential commandment of the Sh’ma, teaching others, will no longer be necessary! The Sh’ma, then, is attesting to what we have to do NOW, only because we are currently incapable of concretizing our belief in the more desirable/automatic (trans-human) way. It calls forth, though, the essential Messianic belief – why do we need a Moshiach? Because we need to rise above the limitations inherent in the Sh’ma and its teaching process, into a realm of universal understanding as explained in Jeremiah.
The Sh’ma, then, is about failure and making the best with what we are now. We say it twice daily because we have to, not as a matter of halacha and law, but as a function of our fallible humanity. But it is a reminder of what lies ahead and WHY we should be saying it, so that we can prepare the world for a time when we no longer have to.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
A retrospective
As I approach the half century mark (I have a bunch of months to go, but why wait?) I thought it proper to look back on all that has changed during my lifetime. The world is a very different place from what it was in 1969 and I think that we should be able to catalog those differences and assess the miraculous shifts that observable in the world around us. So I will now make a list of the changes which I have seen during only my lifetime (which will therefore not include the introduction of televisions and microwave ovens, but, if things develop the way they should within the next few months, include television/microwave ovens):
Back in 1969, it seemed that everyone I knew was taller than I was. Now, 50 years later, the population's general height has normalized and now everyone is around my height. Science!
In 1969, to get around, you had to crawl! Since then, there have been incredible advances and now, I find that to get places, I can use all sorts of different methods, and that people don't even really crawl all that much anymore. Incredible changes!
Over the last 50 years, food has gotten progressively more interesting. Way back when, it seemed that there were only drinks, and even those were pretty generic -- white and milky, but not really interesting. Clearly, mankind has worked hard to create new gustatory options -- good going, mankind!
I remember when I was a baby -- no one had 4 computers. Now, some people have 4 computers. Crazy, right?
This one is for all you coin collectors out there: in 1969, we could not imagine that there would be coins that said "2008" on them, but these days, I see so many coins with that number on them. Collections now are considered incomplete if they don't have one of those!
In 1969, the Mets were the champions of baseball. Now, in 2019, this is no longer the case. I should have seen this coming, I guess.
Diapers seemed to be de rigueur when I was a child but now, the only people who wear them seem babyish in their fashion choices.
We have taken incredible strides in the last 50 years and we should appreciate all of these advancements. I can't even begin to imagine what the world will be like in another 50 years. I wonder if diapers will make a comeback!
Back in 1969, it seemed that everyone I knew was taller than I was. Now, 50 years later, the population's general height has normalized and now everyone is around my height. Science!
In 1969, to get around, you had to crawl! Since then, there have been incredible advances and now, I find that to get places, I can use all sorts of different methods, and that people don't even really crawl all that much anymore. Incredible changes!
Over the last 50 years, food has gotten progressively more interesting. Way back when, it seemed that there were only drinks, and even those were pretty generic -- white and milky, but not really interesting. Clearly, mankind has worked hard to create new gustatory options -- good going, mankind!
I remember when I was a baby -- no one had 4 computers. Now, some people have 4 computers. Crazy, right?
This one is for all you coin collectors out there: in 1969, we could not imagine that there would be coins that said "2008" on them, but these days, I see so many coins with that number on them. Collections now are considered incomplete if they don't have one of those!
In 1969, the Mets were the champions of baseball. Now, in 2019, this is no longer the case. I should have seen this coming, I guess.
Diapers seemed to be de rigueur when I was a child but now, the only people who wear them seem babyish in their fashion choices.
We have taken incredible strides in the last 50 years and we should appreciate all of these advancements. I can't even begin to imagine what the world will be like in another 50 years. I wonder if diapers will make a comeback!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)