Sunday, January 13, 2008
We are Going to Do Feminism Like It Is 1895: A Review of the Gemma Doyle Trilogy (Part I)
This past summer a girl, that I was going out with, recommended that, since I, like her, was a Twilight fan, I should try Libba Bray’s A Great and Terrible Beauty (GTB). The date proved to be lousy, but the book proved to be a wonderful suggestion. Captured by its sharp, tongue and cheek wit and its parade of references to classical literature and poetry, I quickly read A Great and Terrible Beauty along with its sequel, Rebel Angels, and waited until the end of December for the final book in the series, A Sweet Far Thing, to come out. The lesson from this, I think, is that a good book is worth a bad date.
The Gemma Doyle Trilogy is a work of historical fiction/fantasy about a nineteenth century English girl who attends a girl’s finishing school near London called Spence Academy. Gemma grew up in India as the daughter of an English official but is sent to Spence soon after her mother, Virginia Doyle, dies under mysterious circumstances. While the official story, which is put out, is that she died of cholera, Gemma saw her, in a vision, stab herself in order not to be captured by a dark creature, sent by someone named Circe in order to capture her. (I do love a book that is not afraid to kill of characters.) Gemma has to balance her visions, her attempts to come to terms with them and their implications with life at Spence. At Spence girls are fashioned into young ladies fit to play their role in high society, which is to marry well, run a household and bear children who can carry on the glory of the British Empire. This is the world of upper class Victorian England; a place in which absolute conformity is demanded and even the slightest act of deviance can destroy one’s reputation. Not that everyone actually plays by the rules; what matters is the appearance of conformity.
Gemma quickly befriends Ann Bradshaw, a poor scholarship student, who is an even bigger misfit in this school than Gemma. The two of them have to take on Felicity Worthington and her followers, Pippa Cross, Cecily Temple and Elizabeth Pool. One of the things that I really loved about this series though is that despite Felicity’s Draco Malfoy like character, Bray does not simply keep her as an antagonist. Felicity and Pippa actually end up, by the middle of GTB, becoming good friends with Gemma and Ann. Not that Felicity really reforms; she remains her arrogant, cruel manipulative self, but she is quite lovable in her own way. She may be a vicious snake, but she is our vicious snake. Pippa also is a great character. Not to give anything away, but Bray does some very interesting things with her.
One of the weaknesses of the Harry Potter series was that, up until the Half-Blood Prince, Rowling never tried to make Draco Malfoy likable or particularly effective as an antagonist to Harry. There could have been something very attractive about Draco. He has Crabbe and Goyle to protect him from any of the students. He has Severus Snape to protect him from any of the teachers. And if he gets into some real trouble he always has his father, Lucius Malfoy, to protect him from the Ministry of Magic. This boy is untouchable and he can do whatever he wants; who would not want to be him.
Gemma, Ann, Felicity and Pippa form a club centered on a diary, which Gemma discovered by following one of her visions. This diary was written by a former student at Spence named Mary Dowd. From the diary the girls learn about a magical world, the Realms, and a group of powerful women, the Order, which maintained order within the realms. Gemma soon discovers that, in addition to her visions, she also has the ability to enter the Realms and even bring people with her. Here Gemma and her friends experience a world unlike the Victorian England they know, a world in which they have power.
Needless to say, with the discovery of the Realms Gemma and her friends have far more to worry about than tea and dances. Particularly once Circe and the forces of the Winterlands come after them.
(To be continued …)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance IV
I agree with that assessment. I would agree that calling a government sponsored Christmas tree persecution is going rather far, into the absurd range. But while I would not say it is persecution, I would call it unfair.
As you say, the difference between us is more about where to draw the line and how prevalent religious intolerance is than on any fundamental difference of opinion I think. That may be due to differences between the areas we grew up. I spent much of my life in areas that many people spoke of tolerance but acted on intolerance. There are too many places in the south that are very friendly only so long as you agree with them (not having spent much time outside of the south I can't say how widespread it is elsewhere). Ironically,
I have seen an interesting dichotomy (broadly generalizing here) along southern blacks and whites (discounting some of the vociferous and attention-getting blacks) wherein the poor blacks as a whole tend to be more charitable and tolerant than the whites as a whole (I say as a whole because this distinction does not hold for many people on both sides). This could be due to the fact that blacks often had to be tolerant to get by whereas the whites did not.
Certainly your point about the historical instances of religious persecution being far more blatant and severe than the current situation in the US is completely valid. The issue as I see it is that there are those, particularly in the south, that would like to see the situation get much more intolerant than it is now, such that illegal but in areas accepted acts of hatred become legal and I think we must guard against that. So I would accept that my position may be on the "liberal" side as a defense against the extreme "conservative" side. Although I really hate those terms because liberal and conservative are very poor descriptors and lump complex intertwined issues together, but that is another tirade against the imprecision of current labels. Most people really don't like to think about issues in more than a superficial way, sadly enough.
My response: I have never lived in the South so I cannot comment about southern tolerance. Maryland technically speaking is below the Mason-Dixon Line, but last I checked it still does not really count.
While we both want to draw the line between church and state in different places, there is an important difference between us. The founding fathers would have been far more likely to agree with my line, that the government cannot directly coerce people into following a given belief or give any special status to a given belief, than with your line, that the government cannot do anything that might make members of minority religions feel marginalized. (This is leaving out the fact that the first amendment does not apply to states in the first place; remember the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ...". The idea that the first amendment applies to states was an invention of the Supreme Court.) So I have the Constitutional high ground. You can make all the moral pleas so want but you cannot say that the Constitution supports you. That being said, you do seem to have the Supreme Court on your side.
To get back to an earlier issue, why do you assume that whenever anyone tries to go after a group, which holds unpopular beliefs, that religion is to blame? You do not need religion to persecute people. Furthermore, what connection is there between the government putting up a Christmas tree and someone throwing a brick through my storefront window? As I see it people who want to engage in violence are going to find an excuse to justify it. Religion is a good excuse. If you do not have that than there is always race. If you are really desperate you can always start a fight over rival sports teams. (Here at Ohio State we have a history of sporting events turning violent, particularly if it involves Michigan.)
Why would the government putting up a Christmas tree on state property be unfair to me? There is nothing unfair with putting something up to a democratic vote. In Columbus OH the government can put up a Christmas tree, in Brooklyn NY the government put up a menorah and in suburban Detroit MI the government can put up a Crescent. Look, if I really felt a need to have a government that played to my religious sensibilities, I could always run off to Israel. I am a part of the liberal tradition. I value living with people who do not share my values. The government is therefore doing me a favor by putting up a Christmas tree; they are forcing me to be more open minded. I think my life is richer because I learned to sing Christmas carols from listening to the radio. I would not have had that opportunity if I did not live in a Christian society that was open with its Christianity.
As you say, the difference between us is more about where to draw the line and how prevalent religious intolerance is than on any fundamental difference of opinion I think. That may be due to differences between the areas we grew up. I spent much of my life in areas that many people spoke of tolerance but acted on intolerance. There are too many places in the south that are very friendly only so long as you agree with them (not having spent much time outside of the south I can't say how widespread it is elsewhere). Ironically,
I have seen an interesting dichotomy (broadly generalizing here) along southern blacks and whites (discounting some of the vociferous and attention-getting blacks) wherein the poor blacks as a whole tend to be more charitable and tolerant than the whites as a whole (I say as a whole because this distinction does not hold for many people on both sides). This could be due to the fact that blacks often had to be tolerant to get by whereas the whites did not.
Certainly your point about the historical instances of religious persecution being far more blatant and severe than the current situation in the US is completely valid. The issue as I see it is that there are those, particularly in the south, that would like to see the situation get much more intolerant than it is now, such that illegal but in areas accepted acts of hatred become legal and I think we must guard against that. So I would accept that my position may be on the "liberal" side as a defense against the extreme "conservative" side. Although I really hate those terms because liberal and conservative are very poor descriptors and lump complex intertwined issues together, but that is another tirade against the imprecision of current labels. Most people really don't like to think about issues in more than a superficial way, sadly enough.
My response: I have never lived in the South so I cannot comment about southern tolerance. Maryland technically speaking is below the Mason-Dixon Line, but last I checked it still does not really count.
While we both want to draw the line between church and state in different places, there is an important difference between us. The founding fathers would have been far more likely to agree with my line, that the government cannot directly coerce people into following a given belief or give any special status to a given belief, than with your line, that the government cannot do anything that might make members of minority religions feel marginalized. (This is leaving out the fact that the first amendment does not apply to states in the first place; remember the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ...". The idea that the first amendment applies to states was an invention of the Supreme Court.) So I have the Constitutional high ground. You can make all the moral pleas so want but you cannot say that the Constitution supports you. That being said, you do seem to have the Supreme Court on your side.
To get back to an earlier issue, why do you assume that whenever anyone tries to go after a group, which holds unpopular beliefs, that religion is to blame? You do not need religion to persecute people. Furthermore, what connection is there between the government putting up a Christmas tree and someone throwing a brick through my storefront window? As I see it people who want to engage in violence are going to find an excuse to justify it. Religion is a good excuse. If you do not have that than there is always race. If you are really desperate you can always start a fight over rival sports teams. (Here at Ohio State we have a history of sporting events turning violent, particularly if it involves Michigan.)
Why would the government putting up a Christmas tree on state property be unfair to me? There is nothing unfair with putting something up to a democratic vote. In Columbus OH the government can put up a Christmas tree, in Brooklyn NY the government put up a menorah and in suburban Detroit MI the government can put up a Crescent. Look, if I really felt a need to have a government that played to my religious sensibilities, I could always run off to Israel. I am a part of the liberal tradition. I value living with people who do not share my values. The government is therefore doing me a favor by putting up a Christmas tree; they are forcing me to be more open minded. I think my life is richer because I learned to sing Christmas carols from listening to the radio. I would not have had that opportunity if I did not live in a Christian society that was open with its Christianity.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance III
This is part of an ongoing discussion that I have been having. For the earlier parts see Some Good Christmas Tolerance, Joe’s Response I and Joe’s Response II.
You raise some good points. You are quite right in that we must be careful about our assumptions of other people's actions, it is not a bad thing to be reminded of that from time to time. The following is a bit long and delves into personal experiences I have witnessed, but it may help to understand how I came to have a different opinion of this matter than you. Not saying I'm right, I just have different experiences which have given me a different perspective, but it has been refreshing and thoughtful to consider my own views more deeply by reading your thoughts on the subject, so thanks for the discussion!
To address your point about failing to catch a person and the police's feelings: the particular incident that I was thinking of was a case in which two Wiccans opened a store in Russelville, AR for those that practiced "Pagan" beliefs. In that area, most Wiccans were very secretive about their faith because many in the town were vehemently opposed to them, having the misapprehension that Wiccans were Devil worshippers. Nevertheless, these two bold people refused to cowtail to local intolerance and opened a legally operated store. The police repeatedly tried to close them down due to trumped up drug charges (the claim was that they were selling drug paraphernalia, no illegal drugs were ever found). That failed in the courts. The police ignored several complaints by the store owners of people smashing their windows with bricks and making threats. The store was torched and the people who did it were amazingly quite open about the whole affair. Concerning the obvious criminal behavior, the police did nothing. The police were also quite open about their opinion that Pagans should not be allowed in their town. In this instance, it is difficult to ascribe the actions of the police as anything other than a willful disregard for the rights of the Wiccans based on the intolerant religious views of the police and surrounding population. Many Wiccans have seen similar acts of abuse and have reason to not trust the authorities. Thankfully, this attitude is not universal and there are many places Wiccans and others can live in the US without the constant fear of violent assaults.
Thus, I should say more correctly that while freedom of religion is a US legal right, it is not upheld in all parts of the country. It is also my opinion from reading numerous articles by others that there are many in the country who feel that we should only have freedom of religion for their beliefs, but not for those who disagree, which I think is a dangerous attitude.
I agree that the concept of freedom for all is certainly not the only way, nor even the historically most popular way to run a society. But I think we can agree that most people would accept the statement that they would rather be free than a slave. I would disagree with your definition of slavery. It is not just about having a legal power over someone else. Would not we all qualify as slaves under that definition? You are quite right in that objecting to slavery a moral judgment. I have no moral outrage to past societies. They were what they were and serves me no good to attempt to judge them for how they were set up. I agree it is unfair to judge past cultures for not having our modern views. But that is no reason to accept past behaviors as acceptable today. We cannot simply say that because slavery existed in the past that it is acceptable for slavery to exist today.
I think what makes the crucial difference between a hired worker and a slave is choice. A hired worker can always quit and find a new job elsewhere. A slave has no choice. They cannot simply leave if they want. It is my belief (mind you, only my opinion), that any society that tolerates slavery like this harms everyone because if they tolerate for one group of people, there is nothing that prevents the society from tolerating for any other group of people. All that needs happen to have a society expand its acceptance of slavery to other groups is for people to not complain about the injustices to others. People will continue to transgress against others until they are stopped.So, is the concept of freedom as good and slavery bad a moral judgment? Absolutely. But then, if given the choice, which would you prefer? As a free person, you have this choice, as a slave you do not.
So, how is the government hurting you by putting up a Christmas tree. Well, they are not, right now. But then, it doesn't sound like you have been the victim of religious discrimination. Would you have the same opinion if you had bricks thrown through your window for putting up a manora? I doubt it. Allowing the government to sponsor a specific religion gives an implicit acceptance for religious zealots to impose their beliefs on others. You should feel fortunate (which it seems apparent that you do) that you have not grown up in a place where people are forced to say a pledge to a god they did not belief or were punished for believing differently than the mainstream. I however, have known too many people in the US that were not so fortunate. I think they would disagree that they have not been hurt. Since we as a society are not of one faith, I think it is wrong for our government to favor one over the other.
I should say that, as a Christian, I have not been seriously harmed by religious intolerance. But I have had several friends that have. I have known people that took the fact that since God is mentioned on our money and is mentioned in our pledge of allegiance that the government openly supports Christianity as the "right" faith and so feel emboldened to commit acts against those of other faiths. I have actually had an acquaintance tell me that since the US is Christian and that all Muslims want to kill us, that we should exterminate all Muslims. She amazingly enough thought that was still in keeping with her Christian faith. I personally think that is an incredibly twisted anti-Christian belief, but that attitude is surprisingly more popular than I used to think, judging by the many times I have heard that recently. This is why I think that the government putting up a Christmas tree while not also doing similar acts for other religions is a dangerous thing.
What I would like to see is a government sponsored highly publicized event that welcomed people of all faiths to freely celebrate together. There are privately sponsored events, but thus far I have only seen Christian-dominated government events. I think we could get over some of these culture wars by having a government that openly said it was ok to belief whatever religion you like rather than a government that said you can technically believe whatever you want, but you should really be Christian, which is how our government seems to me. But then, I have often been told that I am an idealist. :)
I say better to have ideals to strive for than condone a broken reality. Accept what is, but don't let acceptance of reality stop efforts to change it.
My Response: At the end of the day we both agree that not all policemen follow the law. The police are taken from the general population and like the general population they are capable of committing crimes. I suspect we differ in that you assume that it happens more often than I would assume. The question becomes how does this relate to the issue of how far you want to go to keep the government out of religion? This is not a question of whether or not there should be a separation between church and state. This is about what that separation should be. To give you an example from Judaism. On Passover, I do not eat unleavened bread (chametz). My stepmom's family also does not eat unleavened bread on Passover. On Passover, I eat in the same dining room in which I have eaten unleavened bread during the year. My stepmom's family is so careful to avoid any unleavened bread that they do not eat in their regular dining room but instead eat in the basement. They would say that I lack due diligence in keeping Passover and I would say that they have left the practice of Judaism behind and have taken on insanity. (They happen to be really nice people though.)
Another thing you have to consider is where do you draw the line? Considering the nature of our political discourse, it is very tempting for groups to call wolf and say they are being persecuted anytime someone does something they do not like. I am a student of Medieval and Early Modern History. When I talk about the use of state power to promote religion what I have in mind are things like the Spanish Inquisition and the religion wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. I assume this is also what the founding fathers had in mind to avoid when they created the first amendment. Coming from this perspective it seems to me to bad joke to say that putting up a Christmas tree or a baby Jesus, on state property, is an act of persecution.
For an example of the government sponsoring a Jewish event see Micah Halpern’s recent column, Eating Latkes at the White House.
There actually was a recent incident in which the governor of Florida, who is a Christian, got in trouble with the ACLU for putting a mezuzah, a Jewish ritual object put on doorposts, given to him by a Jewish supporter on his office doorpost. The ACLU charged that he was in violation of the first amendment. (See here) Explain this one to me a Christian puts up a Jewish ritual object and is accused of trying to create an established religion.
You raise some good points. You are quite right in that we must be careful about our assumptions of other people's actions, it is not a bad thing to be reminded of that from time to time. The following is a bit long and delves into personal experiences I have witnessed, but it may help to understand how I came to have a different opinion of this matter than you. Not saying I'm right, I just have different experiences which have given me a different perspective, but it has been refreshing and thoughtful to consider my own views more deeply by reading your thoughts on the subject, so thanks for the discussion!
To address your point about failing to catch a person and the police's feelings: the particular incident that I was thinking of was a case in which two Wiccans opened a store in Russelville, AR for those that practiced "Pagan" beliefs. In that area, most Wiccans were very secretive about their faith because many in the town were vehemently opposed to them, having the misapprehension that Wiccans were Devil worshippers. Nevertheless, these two bold people refused to cowtail to local intolerance and opened a legally operated store. The police repeatedly tried to close them down due to trumped up drug charges (the claim was that they were selling drug paraphernalia, no illegal drugs were ever found). That failed in the courts. The police ignored several complaints by the store owners of people smashing their windows with bricks and making threats. The store was torched and the people who did it were amazingly quite open about the whole affair. Concerning the obvious criminal behavior, the police did nothing. The police were also quite open about their opinion that Pagans should not be allowed in their town. In this instance, it is difficult to ascribe the actions of the police as anything other than a willful disregard for the rights of the Wiccans based on the intolerant religious views of the police and surrounding population. Many Wiccans have seen similar acts of abuse and have reason to not trust the authorities. Thankfully, this attitude is not universal and there are many places Wiccans and others can live in the US without the constant fear of violent assaults.
Thus, I should say more correctly that while freedom of religion is a US legal right, it is not upheld in all parts of the country. It is also my opinion from reading numerous articles by others that there are many in the country who feel that we should only have freedom of religion for their beliefs, but not for those who disagree, which I think is a dangerous attitude.
I agree that the concept of freedom for all is certainly not the only way, nor even the historically most popular way to run a society. But I think we can agree that most people would accept the statement that they would rather be free than a slave. I would disagree with your definition of slavery. It is not just about having a legal power over someone else. Would not we all qualify as slaves under that definition? You are quite right in that objecting to slavery a moral judgment. I have no moral outrage to past societies. They were what they were and serves me no good to attempt to judge them for how they were set up. I agree it is unfair to judge past cultures for not having our modern views. But that is no reason to accept past behaviors as acceptable today. We cannot simply say that because slavery existed in the past that it is acceptable for slavery to exist today.
I think what makes the crucial difference between a hired worker and a slave is choice. A hired worker can always quit and find a new job elsewhere. A slave has no choice. They cannot simply leave if they want. It is my belief (mind you, only my opinion), that any society that tolerates slavery like this harms everyone because if they tolerate for one group of people, there is nothing that prevents the society from tolerating for any other group of people. All that needs happen to have a society expand its acceptance of slavery to other groups is for people to not complain about the injustices to others. People will continue to transgress against others until they are stopped.So, is the concept of freedom as good and slavery bad a moral judgment? Absolutely. But then, if given the choice, which would you prefer? As a free person, you have this choice, as a slave you do not.
So, how is the government hurting you by putting up a Christmas tree. Well, they are not, right now. But then, it doesn't sound like you have been the victim of religious discrimination. Would you have the same opinion if you had bricks thrown through your window for putting up a manora? I doubt it. Allowing the government to sponsor a specific religion gives an implicit acceptance for religious zealots to impose their beliefs on others. You should feel fortunate (which it seems apparent that you do) that you have not grown up in a place where people are forced to say a pledge to a god they did not belief or were punished for believing differently than the mainstream. I however, have known too many people in the US that were not so fortunate. I think they would disagree that they have not been hurt. Since we as a society are not of one faith, I think it is wrong for our government to favor one over the other.
I should say that, as a Christian, I have not been seriously harmed by religious intolerance. But I have had several friends that have. I have known people that took the fact that since God is mentioned on our money and is mentioned in our pledge of allegiance that the government openly supports Christianity as the "right" faith and so feel emboldened to commit acts against those of other faiths. I have actually had an acquaintance tell me that since the US is Christian and that all Muslims want to kill us, that we should exterminate all Muslims. She amazingly enough thought that was still in keeping with her Christian faith. I personally think that is an incredibly twisted anti-Christian belief, but that attitude is surprisingly more popular than I used to think, judging by the many times I have heard that recently. This is why I think that the government putting up a Christmas tree while not also doing similar acts for other religions is a dangerous thing.
What I would like to see is a government sponsored highly publicized event that welcomed people of all faiths to freely celebrate together. There are privately sponsored events, but thus far I have only seen Christian-dominated government events. I think we could get over some of these culture wars by having a government that openly said it was ok to belief whatever religion you like rather than a government that said you can technically believe whatever you want, but you should really be Christian, which is how our government seems to me. But then, I have often been told that I am an idealist. :)
I say better to have ideals to strive for than condone a broken reality. Accept what is, but don't let acceptance of reality stop efforts to change it.
My Response: At the end of the day we both agree that not all policemen follow the law. The police are taken from the general population and like the general population they are capable of committing crimes. I suspect we differ in that you assume that it happens more often than I would assume. The question becomes how does this relate to the issue of how far you want to go to keep the government out of religion? This is not a question of whether or not there should be a separation between church and state. This is about what that separation should be. To give you an example from Judaism. On Passover, I do not eat unleavened bread (chametz). My stepmom's family also does not eat unleavened bread on Passover. On Passover, I eat in the same dining room in which I have eaten unleavened bread during the year. My stepmom's family is so careful to avoid any unleavened bread that they do not eat in their regular dining room but instead eat in the basement. They would say that I lack due diligence in keeping Passover and I would say that they have left the practice of Judaism behind and have taken on insanity. (They happen to be really nice people though.)
Another thing you have to consider is where do you draw the line? Considering the nature of our political discourse, it is very tempting for groups to call wolf and say they are being persecuted anytime someone does something they do not like. I am a student of Medieval and Early Modern History. When I talk about the use of state power to promote religion what I have in mind are things like the Spanish Inquisition and the religion wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. I assume this is also what the founding fathers had in mind to avoid when they created the first amendment. Coming from this perspective it seems to me to bad joke to say that putting up a Christmas tree or a baby Jesus, on state property, is an act of persecution.
For an example of the government sponsoring a Jewish event see Micah Halpern’s recent column, Eating Latkes at the White House.
There actually was a recent incident in which the governor of Florida, who is a Christian, got in trouble with the ACLU for putting a mezuzah, a Jewish ritual object put on doorposts, given to him by a Jewish supporter on his office doorpost. The ACLU charged that he was in violation of the first amendment. (See here) Explain this one to me a Christian puts up a Jewish ritual object and is accused of trying to create an established religion.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Girls Who Love Murderous Barbers (or at least those played by Johnny Depp)
My friend, Dragon, recently saw the Sweeney Todd film and has now been converted into a fan of the musical. For those of you who are not familiar with Steven Sondheim’s masterpiece. It is about a nineteenth-century London barber named Sweeney Todd and his downstairs neighbor Mrs. Lovett, who runs a pie shop. Todd likes to murder his customers as his way of taking revenge against the world and Mrs. Lovett, ever the practical one, helps dispose of the bodies by grinding them up into her delicious meat pies. What can I say; Dragon is a very cool person and she has excellent taste.
What befuddles me though is that her favorite song from this musical is Green Finch and Linnet Bird. The song introduces Johanna, Todd’s lost teenage daughter. This is a run-of-the-mill song about a young girl coming into her womanhood and wanting to be free to experience the world. It is a pretty song but there are much more interesting versions of this type of song. I would point to Cosette’s In My Life in Les Miserables or Luisa’s Much More in Fantasticks. Much More is the source for my most fervent prayer: “Please God please don’t let me be normal.”
To me going to Sweeney Todd for a song like Green Finch completely defeats the purpose. It lacks Sondheim’s trademark complexity and furthermore, the song contains not a single reference to blood, guts, or anyone getting murdered. Green Finch is not My Friends, in which consists of Todd singing to his razor blades and demonstrating a truly remarkable ability to transition up and down the music scale. What about Todd singing Johanna, which is him slitting the throats of his customers, and singing how he no longer needs to get his daughter back as he now has something else to live for? And then there is Priest in which Todd and Lovett sing a duet about how various people might taste as pies.
Mrs. Lovett: It’s priest. Have a little priest.
Todd: Is it really good?
Mrs. Lovett: Sir, it’s too good at least. Then again, they don’t commit sins of the flesh, so it’s pretty fresh.
Todd: Awful lot of fat.
Mrs. Lovett: Only where it sat.
Todd: Haven’t you got poet or something like that?
Mrs. Lovett: No, you see the trouble with poet is, how do you know it’s deceased? Try the priest.
Todd: Heavenly. Not as hearty as bishop, perhaps, but then not as bland as curate either.
Mrs. Lovett: And good for business – always leaves you wanting more. Trouble is we only get it on Sundays.
I must confess that the musical tastes of women lie outside of my field of comprehension. My musical sensibilities are rather simple. I like powerful heroic songs with loud bangs, like what you get in Richard Wagner. If it has some really dark humor and blood to go along with it, then I am all the merrier.
What befuddles me though is that her favorite song from this musical is Green Finch and Linnet Bird. The song introduces Johanna, Todd’s lost teenage daughter. This is a run-of-the-mill song about a young girl coming into her womanhood and wanting to be free to experience the world. It is a pretty song but there are much more interesting versions of this type of song. I would point to Cosette’s In My Life in Les Miserables or Luisa’s Much More in Fantasticks. Much More is the source for my most fervent prayer: “Please God please don’t let me be normal.”
To me going to Sweeney Todd for a song like Green Finch completely defeats the purpose. It lacks Sondheim’s trademark complexity and furthermore, the song contains not a single reference to blood, guts, or anyone getting murdered. Green Finch is not My Friends, in which consists of Todd singing to his razor blades and demonstrating a truly remarkable ability to transition up and down the music scale. What about Todd singing Johanna, which is him slitting the throats of his customers, and singing how he no longer needs to get his daughter back as he now has something else to live for? And then there is Priest in which Todd and Lovett sing a duet about how various people might taste as pies.
Mrs. Lovett: It’s priest. Have a little priest.
Todd: Is it really good?
Mrs. Lovett: Sir, it’s too good at least. Then again, they don’t commit sins of the flesh, so it’s pretty fresh.
Todd: Awful lot of fat.
Mrs. Lovett: Only where it sat.
Todd: Haven’t you got poet or something like that?
Mrs. Lovett: No, you see the trouble with poet is, how do you know it’s deceased? Try the priest.
Todd: Heavenly. Not as hearty as bishop, perhaps, but then not as bland as curate either.
Mrs. Lovett: And good for business – always leaves you wanting more. Trouble is we only get it on Sundays.
I must confess that the musical tastes of women lie outside of my field of comprehension. My musical sensibilities are rather simple. I like powerful heroic songs with loud bangs, like what you get in Richard Wagner. If it has some really dark humor and blood to go along with it, then I am all the merrier.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
On the Dangers of Having Unprotected Conversations with Guests You Meet at Your Aunt’s Sabbath Table: A Review of Unprotected
During my recent trip to Los Angeles, I stayed at my aunt and uncle. For the Sabbath meals, my aunt had a friend of her's over, Dr. Miriam Grossman. Dr. Grossman is a psychiatrist at UCLA. She and I got into a discussion about university life and political correctness and I mentioned a book that I had heard about called Unprotected, which attacked university health departments for allowing the cause of political correctness to get in the way of protecting the physical and mental health of their students. I had not read the book, but I had heard about it, as this book had become a hit in conservative circles. As it turns out Dr. Grossman happens to be the author of this book. I later got to see the Clare Booth Luce calendar, which featured her two spots away from Ann Coulter. A dubious honor I admit, but all the same not bad.
After the Sabbath was over, I ordered the book on Amazon and I got it soon after I got back from Los Angeles. It is a short book, at only 151 pages plus footnotes, and an easy read. The book is built around cases that Dr. Grossman has dealt with, working at UCLA, of students, who found themselves in various difficult situations, which Dr. Grossman believes came about as the result of less than medically sound advice given to these students from UCLA’s Student Health Services. For example, there is the case of Stacey, who got a Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) even though her boyfriend used a condom. There is also Heather, who shows symptoms of depression and had recently gotten into a “friends with benefits” relationship with a boy. Grossman argues that the people running Student Health Services purposely played down the potential physical and mental health risks to students such as these as part of their advocacy of “Safe-Sex.”
Besides for campus Student Health Services, Dr. Grossman lashes out against campus websites that dispense advice about sex. Her main target in this is Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice. I had actually been shown this site before, by a friend. Believe me, this is not a site for the prudish or squeamish. Ask Alice seems designed to be hauled out by conservatives in front of a congressional committee discussing whether or not to cut funding for public education. I do wish to point out that Ohio State’s sex-education website is, considering the world in which we live in, relatively responsible. It does a good job at keeping itself within the realm of medicine and out of our culture war.
There seem to be two parts to Dr. Grossman’s argument. The first is that Student Health Services are failing to properly educate students about the risks of sexual intercourse. In essence, Dr. Grossman is rehashing the abstinence movement’s case. I do not have a degree in modern medicine; I deal with people who lived in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and their ideas about the natural world. I, therefore, am not in a position to comment as to the level of risk involved in protected sex.
The second part to Dr. Grossman’s argument, and probably the most important, is that the Student Health Services across the country are being run by radical leftists who use their position, not to help students, but to refashion society according to their own agenda. If we do not accept this second part then there is little point to the book. If this was merely a matter of bad medical advice being distributed to students then one could simply deal with it as an internal professional matter, without going public and denouncing one’s own profession. In essence, for this book to work, one would have to prove there was a conspiracy at hand. The book comes up short on this front; there is no real damning evidence unearthed. The closest Dr. Grossman comes to this with a case in which the campus Student Health Services refused to give a Mormon woman, wishing to get pregnant for the sixth time, an appointment, in the near future, so she could get a prescription for the fertility drugs she wanted. This woman though was able to get an appointment by claiming that she wanted birth control pills. In defense of Dr. Grossman, I would point out that trying to make a case for a conspiracy would have taken this book down a far more polemical path. She clearly has tried to moderate her rhetoric and keep from sounding too shrill, i.e. like Ann Coulter.
There is a certain irony in this whole matter. If my understanding of the Health Services establishment is correct, their counter-argument against Dr. Grossman and the entire abstinence movement is that they, the Health Services establishment, are being forced to face down a conspiracy to promote a religious agenda. One of the main complaints against abstinence sex-education curriculums is that they contain faulty information. Recently there was a study finding serious flaws in two-thirds of the abstinence curriculums. Now, from the perspective of the opponents of the teaching of abstinence, these are not simply flaws. If they were they could simply be addressed as an internal matter. The real issue at hand is whether abstinence programs deliberately engage in misinformation in order to promote their religious agenda. In essence, their concerns mirror Dr. Grossman’s.
I would like to conclude with some questions for Dr. Grossman.
1) Do casual sexual encounters lead to depression or is it simply that people struggling with depression are more likely to seek out casual sexual encounters in order to relieve their symptoms? What evidence do you have for the former?
2) Is it possible that the reason why casual sexual encounters lead to depression in some people is that these people came from religious backgrounds, which taught them to believe that such actions are sinful and that these people still hold onto these beliefs or that these beliefs are still active within their subconsciouses? Could it be that it is guilt and not sex that is responsible for their depression? What evidence do you have to refute this argument?
3) If homosexuals really are at a much greater risk of being infected with HIV then why, if you look at the global spread of HIV, does it appear to “not discriminate” between heterosexuals and homosexuals?
What I am interested in is not a claim or a sound bite, but in some hard arguments and evidence that make sense to my academic, though not particularly scientific, frame of mind.
After the Sabbath was over, I ordered the book on Amazon and I got it soon after I got back from Los Angeles. It is a short book, at only 151 pages plus footnotes, and an easy read. The book is built around cases that Dr. Grossman has dealt with, working at UCLA, of students, who found themselves in various difficult situations, which Dr. Grossman believes came about as the result of less than medically sound advice given to these students from UCLA’s Student Health Services. For example, there is the case of Stacey, who got a Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) even though her boyfriend used a condom. There is also Heather, who shows symptoms of depression and had recently gotten into a “friends with benefits” relationship with a boy. Grossman argues that the people running Student Health Services purposely played down the potential physical and mental health risks to students such as these as part of their advocacy of “Safe-Sex.”
Besides for campus Student Health Services, Dr. Grossman lashes out against campus websites that dispense advice about sex. Her main target in this is Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice. I had actually been shown this site before, by a friend. Believe me, this is not a site for the prudish or squeamish. Ask Alice seems designed to be hauled out by conservatives in front of a congressional committee discussing whether or not to cut funding for public education. I do wish to point out that Ohio State’s sex-education website is, considering the world in which we live in, relatively responsible. It does a good job at keeping itself within the realm of medicine and out of our culture war.
There seem to be two parts to Dr. Grossman’s argument. The first is that Student Health Services are failing to properly educate students about the risks of sexual intercourse. In essence, Dr. Grossman is rehashing the abstinence movement’s case. I do not have a degree in modern medicine; I deal with people who lived in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and their ideas about the natural world. I, therefore, am not in a position to comment as to the level of risk involved in protected sex.
The second part to Dr. Grossman’s argument, and probably the most important, is that the Student Health Services across the country are being run by radical leftists who use their position, not to help students, but to refashion society according to their own agenda. If we do not accept this second part then there is little point to the book. If this was merely a matter of bad medical advice being distributed to students then one could simply deal with it as an internal professional matter, without going public and denouncing one’s own profession. In essence, for this book to work, one would have to prove there was a conspiracy at hand. The book comes up short on this front; there is no real damning evidence unearthed. The closest Dr. Grossman comes to this with a case in which the campus Student Health Services refused to give a Mormon woman, wishing to get pregnant for the sixth time, an appointment, in the near future, so she could get a prescription for the fertility drugs she wanted. This woman though was able to get an appointment by claiming that she wanted birth control pills. In defense of Dr. Grossman, I would point out that trying to make a case for a conspiracy would have taken this book down a far more polemical path. She clearly has tried to moderate her rhetoric and keep from sounding too shrill, i.e. like Ann Coulter.
There is a certain irony in this whole matter. If my understanding of the Health Services establishment is correct, their counter-argument against Dr. Grossman and the entire abstinence movement is that they, the Health Services establishment, are being forced to face down a conspiracy to promote a religious agenda. One of the main complaints against abstinence sex-education curriculums is that they contain faulty information. Recently there was a study finding serious flaws in two-thirds of the abstinence curriculums. Now, from the perspective of the opponents of the teaching of abstinence, these are not simply flaws. If they were they could simply be addressed as an internal matter. The real issue at hand is whether abstinence programs deliberately engage in misinformation in order to promote their religious agenda. In essence, their concerns mirror Dr. Grossman’s.
I would like to conclude with some questions for Dr. Grossman.
1) Do casual sexual encounters lead to depression or is it simply that people struggling with depression are more likely to seek out casual sexual encounters in order to relieve their symptoms? What evidence do you have for the former?
2) Is it possible that the reason why casual sexual encounters lead to depression in some people is that these people came from religious backgrounds, which taught them to believe that such actions are sinful and that these people still hold onto these beliefs or that these beliefs are still active within their subconsciouses? Could it be that it is guilt and not sex that is responsible for their depression? What evidence do you have to refute this argument?
3) If homosexuals really are at a much greater risk of being infected with HIV then why, if you look at the global spread of HIV, does it appear to “not discriminate” between heterosexuals and homosexuals?
What I am interested in is not a claim or a sound bite, but in some hard arguments and evidence that make sense to my academic, though not particularly scientific, frame of mind.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance II
I am glad to see someone else use the term albeit. I love that word and constantly get criticized for using such an "archaic" term. :) And if only I could write this much on my papers to be published for my dissertation, I'd get out on time. :)
I should say out the outset that much of the following could be dismissed as isolated incidents and not indicative of the culture at large. But there are numerous individuals at work that are attempting to change that. So I think it important to pay attention to the isolated incidents and see the patterns it represents.
To answer your question, no, I would not call them truly free because if slaves are permitted, there is always the possibility that a free person could lose their freedom and become a slave. This was the situation in Greece then as I recall (admittedly, it has been a number of years since I looked at that literature) and it was certainly the case in the south. There were many white slaves, although they generally weren't called that (and they certainly don't make it into the common school history texts). They were called indentured servants or sharecroppers, but a serious look into what was going on easily sees that many were in effect slaves with no real hope of earning their freedom. Thus, that does not count as real freedom because of that potentiality to become that which one kept. But more importantly, to claim freedom for oneself but to claim the right to hold slaves at the same time is hypocrisy. How can one argue that they have the right to be free when they are holding others as slaves?
Additionally, did you know that slaves are still being kept in the US today? They are not called slaves as that is illegal, but what else do you call it when people are forced to work without pay and not allowed to leave? This is the situation in many orange orchards in Florida. The owners "pay" the workers a minimal wage, but charge for all their necessities and require the workers to buy from them, but the amount they charge is over what they are paid, so then they are not allowed to leave until they have paid what they owe, which is impossible. This is highly illegal, but the police have thus far neglected to shut the places down even after being handed solid evidence of the criminal acts. Why? Because the police are paid off. Every once in a while a new police chief or other legal person comes in and cleans it up and makes arrests, but it never seems to stay that way for long. There are other examples, but they are equally or more illegal and generally do not have as much police blindness turned toward it, so can be dismissed as not counting as much since they are not government approved. But can we truly call ourselves a free society when we permit this sort of behavior to continue?
In the USA, it is not actually always permissible for everyone to believe what they want and practice what they want. I personally know people that have had their shops and homes destroyed because they did not follow the Christian faith of their neighbors. It is not unknown for people to be killed because they did not follow accepted religious practices or because they were gay. While technically the people that committed those offenses are criminals and did not have the legal authority to commit those acts, since the local police were sympathetic to the religious criminals, no charges were brought even when the perpetrators were openly known. I have even known police to be involved. Hard to believe? Maybe, but I have personally seen it happen (chalk it up to my bitter southern upbringing:) ). That is why I support actions taken by groups such as the ACLU to enforce the separation of church and state.
Whenever religion and government mix, I find it a bad situation. Perhaps you have heard of the "faith-based initiatives" the current US administration has funded? Did you know that all of that money has gone to Christian organizations (although I must say that my information is only valid for the first two years of the program, I do not know about the rest).
Finally, to paraphrase an anonymous line by someone in Hitler's Germany (at least I don't know where it came from): "I did not complain when they came for the Gypsies, for they were thieves, nor for the Jews because they were little better. I did not complain when they took the Catholics because they did not believe as I did. But when they came for me and I asked for help, there was no one left to complain." Not exactly a quote as I don't really remember it exactly, but I think it says the point eloquently. When a people allow an injustice to some, it risks injustice to all.
That last bit could be thought of as going a bit far afield and could be seen as offensive when speaking to a Jew. If so, I did not mean to cause offense.
But it does point out I think quite effectively what ends can be reached when a populace decides that the freedoms of some people are not as important as their own. I think it important we guard against this as I do not think human nature has changed to the point that it could not happen again.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Sure wish I knew who said that, at least before Picard on Star Trek. :)
My response: I am not familiar with the incidents you describe so I really cannot comment on them. I would point out that you have to be careful in your assumptions about people’s actions. Just because the police fail to catch someone it does not mean that the police are siding with the criminals. Also it is difficult to categorize something as a hate crime. For example, let us say someone were to come up to me, call me a dirty Jew, smack me with a baseball bat and steal my wallet. Do we assume that this is a hate crime and that I was attacked because I am a Jew or do we assume that the person wanted to steal my wallet and since he was already beating me up and stealing my wallet he decided to call me a dirty Jew for good measure. Alternatively, even if he did not take my wallet, we could say that the person who attacked me was angry and looking for a fight and so he latched on to the fact that I am a Jew, without really being anti-Semitic. This is one of the reasons why I do not support hate crime legislation.
As to the freedom issue, the fact they you may end up a slave does not change the fact that you are free know. Keep in mind this whole category of a free person came about within the context of slavery. A free person was someone who was not a slave. The democratic revolution, which has occurred over the past few hundred years, has declared that everyone is free, but that is not the only way to organize society.
Let me ask you a question. Why is slavery worse than being a hired worker? In theory slavery is simply taking the reality that one person has power over another and enshrining it into law. The ancients and many of the founding fathers would have told you that it is inevitable that some people have power over other people. Slavery simply makes it official which has the advantage of making the master responsible. Now, one could point to the abuses that happen in a slave system, but that is not an argument against slavery; that is simply a reason to reform the system and make laws to protect slaves. The only reason to object to the existence of slavery is if you are going to say that freedom has an innate moral value, but that is a very modernist view. We cannot criticize the ancients for not having our value system. Their value system makes as much internal sense, if not more so, than ours.
You still have not answered my initial question. How am I harmed by the government putting up a Christmas tree? Is such an action really more harmful to me than the government sponsoring gay marriage?
I should say out the outset that much of the following could be dismissed as isolated incidents and not indicative of the culture at large. But there are numerous individuals at work that are attempting to change that. So I think it important to pay attention to the isolated incidents and see the patterns it represents.
To answer your question, no, I would not call them truly free because if slaves are permitted, there is always the possibility that a free person could lose their freedom and become a slave. This was the situation in Greece then as I recall (admittedly, it has been a number of years since I looked at that literature) and it was certainly the case in the south. There were many white slaves, although they generally weren't called that (and they certainly don't make it into the common school history texts). They were called indentured servants or sharecroppers, but a serious look into what was going on easily sees that many were in effect slaves with no real hope of earning their freedom. Thus, that does not count as real freedom because of that potentiality to become that which one kept. But more importantly, to claim freedom for oneself but to claim the right to hold slaves at the same time is hypocrisy. How can one argue that they have the right to be free when they are holding others as slaves?
Additionally, did you know that slaves are still being kept in the US today? They are not called slaves as that is illegal, but what else do you call it when people are forced to work without pay and not allowed to leave? This is the situation in many orange orchards in Florida. The owners "pay" the workers a minimal wage, but charge for all their necessities and require the workers to buy from them, but the amount they charge is over what they are paid, so then they are not allowed to leave until they have paid what they owe, which is impossible. This is highly illegal, but the police have thus far neglected to shut the places down even after being handed solid evidence of the criminal acts. Why? Because the police are paid off. Every once in a while a new police chief or other legal person comes in and cleans it up and makes arrests, but it never seems to stay that way for long. There are other examples, but they are equally or more illegal and generally do not have as much police blindness turned toward it, so can be dismissed as not counting as much since they are not government approved. But can we truly call ourselves a free society when we permit this sort of behavior to continue?
In the USA, it is not actually always permissible for everyone to believe what they want and practice what they want. I personally know people that have had their shops and homes destroyed because they did not follow the Christian faith of their neighbors. It is not unknown for people to be killed because they did not follow accepted religious practices or because they were gay. While technically the people that committed those offenses are criminals and did not have the legal authority to commit those acts, since the local police were sympathetic to the religious criminals, no charges were brought even when the perpetrators were openly known. I have even known police to be involved. Hard to believe? Maybe, but I have personally seen it happen (chalk it up to my bitter southern upbringing:) ). That is why I support actions taken by groups such as the ACLU to enforce the separation of church and state.
Whenever religion and government mix, I find it a bad situation. Perhaps you have heard of the "faith-based initiatives" the current US administration has funded? Did you know that all of that money has gone to Christian organizations (although I must say that my information is only valid for the first two years of the program, I do not know about the rest).
Finally, to paraphrase an anonymous line by someone in Hitler's Germany (at least I don't know where it came from): "I did not complain when they came for the Gypsies, for they were thieves, nor for the Jews because they were little better. I did not complain when they took the Catholics because they did not believe as I did. But when they came for me and I asked for help, there was no one left to complain." Not exactly a quote as I don't really remember it exactly, but I think it says the point eloquently. When a people allow an injustice to some, it risks injustice to all.
That last bit could be thought of as going a bit far afield and could be seen as offensive when speaking to a Jew. If so, I did not mean to cause offense.
But it does point out I think quite effectively what ends can be reached when a populace decides that the freedoms of some people are not as important as their own. I think it important we guard against this as I do not think human nature has changed to the point that it could not happen again.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Sure wish I knew who said that, at least before Picard on Star Trek. :)
My response: I am not familiar with the incidents you describe so I really cannot comment on them. I would point out that you have to be careful in your assumptions about people’s actions. Just because the police fail to catch someone it does not mean that the police are siding with the criminals. Also it is difficult to categorize something as a hate crime. For example, let us say someone were to come up to me, call me a dirty Jew, smack me with a baseball bat and steal my wallet. Do we assume that this is a hate crime and that I was attacked because I am a Jew or do we assume that the person wanted to steal my wallet and since he was already beating me up and stealing my wallet he decided to call me a dirty Jew for good measure. Alternatively, even if he did not take my wallet, we could say that the person who attacked me was angry and looking for a fight and so he latched on to the fact that I am a Jew, without really being anti-Semitic. This is one of the reasons why I do not support hate crime legislation.
As to the freedom issue, the fact they you may end up a slave does not change the fact that you are free know. Keep in mind this whole category of a free person came about within the context of slavery. A free person was someone who was not a slave. The democratic revolution, which has occurred over the past few hundred years, has declared that everyone is free, but that is not the only way to organize society.
Let me ask you a question. Why is slavery worse than being a hired worker? In theory slavery is simply taking the reality that one person has power over another and enshrining it into law. The ancients and many of the founding fathers would have told you that it is inevitable that some people have power over other people. Slavery simply makes it official which has the advantage of making the master responsible. Now, one could point to the abuses that happen in a slave system, but that is not an argument against slavery; that is simply a reason to reform the system and make laws to protect slaves. The only reason to object to the existence of slavery is if you are going to say that freedom has an innate moral value, but that is a very modernist view. We cannot criticize the ancients for not having our value system. Their value system makes as much internal sense, if not more so, than ours.
You still have not answered my initial question. How am I harmed by the government putting up a Christmas tree? Is such an action really more harmful to me than the government sponsoring gay marriage?
Monday, December 31, 2007
Great Books That Do Not Have Harry Potter as Part of Their Titles
This year will forever be remembered by fantasy readers as the year in which the final Harry Potter came out. I do not expect, in my lifetime, to see the Potter phenomenon repeated. I suspect that, for better or for worse Potter will remain the pink elephant in the room whenever people talk about fantasy. In this spirit, here are some other notable pieces of fantasy literature that came out this past year. Some of these books have been discussed before on this blog, others have not.
Lady Friday: This is the fifth book in Garth Nix’s Keys to the Kingdom series. This series is, without doubt, the greatest work of allegorical fiction in modern times. And when I say this I am including Narnia. Nix has completely reinvented the traditional morality play. You will never think of the Seven Deadly Sins the same way again.
Eclipse: This is the third book in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series. I have already devoted several long posts to these books. (See here and here) These books have, deservedly, become major bestsellers. More than any other series of books being printed right now, these have the ability to repeat Potter’s success. Meyer has not said how many books she intends to write. She is set to come out with a fourth book in the series, Breaking Dawn, this summer. Let us see what kind of publicity gets generated.
The Sweet Far Thing: This is the third and final book of Libba Bray’s Reader’s Circle series. It just came out last week. I am actually in middle of it right now. I read the first two books at the end of the summer. I had decided to wait until I have finished this one in order to write a post on the series as a whole. Stay tuned.
Fatal Revenant: This is the second book of the Final Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and the eighth book overall of the Covenant series. (See here and here for my review)
Name of the Wind: This is the first book of Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicles. I saved this one for last. Fantasy, unlike science fiction, does not have a Hugo or a Nebula award for best book of the year. If it did, Name of the Wind would certainly have my vote. (See here for my review) I feel a need to say more about this work. I will probably simply wait until book two, Wiseman’s Fear, comes out.
Well I am looking forward to a wonderful year of fantasy. Considering that all but one of these books have sequels coming out, there definitely is much to be waiting in giddy anticipation for.
Lady Friday: This is the fifth book in Garth Nix’s Keys to the Kingdom series. This series is, without doubt, the greatest work of allegorical fiction in modern times. And when I say this I am including Narnia. Nix has completely reinvented the traditional morality play. You will never think of the Seven Deadly Sins the same way again.
Eclipse: This is the third book in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series. I have already devoted several long posts to these books. (See here and here) These books have, deservedly, become major bestsellers. More than any other series of books being printed right now, these have the ability to repeat Potter’s success. Meyer has not said how many books she intends to write. She is set to come out with a fourth book in the series, Breaking Dawn, this summer. Let us see what kind of publicity gets generated.
The Sweet Far Thing: This is the third and final book of Libba Bray’s Reader’s Circle series. It just came out last week. I am actually in middle of it right now. I read the first two books at the end of the summer. I had decided to wait until I have finished this one in order to write a post on the series as a whole. Stay tuned.
Fatal Revenant: This is the second book of the Final Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and the eighth book overall of the Covenant series. (See here and here for my review)
Name of the Wind: This is the first book of Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicles. I saved this one for last. Fantasy, unlike science fiction, does not have a Hugo or a Nebula award for best book of the year. If it did, Name of the Wind would certainly have my vote. (See here for my review) I feel a need to say more about this work. I will probably simply wait until book two, Wiseman’s Fear, comes out.
Well I am looking forward to a wonderful year of fantasy. Considering that all but one of these books have sequels coming out, there definitely is much to be waiting in giddy anticipation for.
Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance I
Here is another response to my post, Some Good Christmas Tolerance. As with Tobie, Joe makes some good points and at the end of the day I, for the most part, agree with him. That being said, he is still is unable to think outside of the basic liberal talking points. He just assumes that they are self evidently true.
Your Christmas blog struck me as interesting. You expressed some interesting views that I have heard in very few places. I would quibble with your descriptions of liberals, though. You use a very large brush to paint them and come off to me as missing the mark for a great many of us that call ourselves liberal. Some liberals do think as you suggest, but a great many have a more nuanced and thoughtful view than you portray.
For instance, in many cases, the argument that the majority should be tolerant of minorities has nothing to do with needing a free exchange of ideas. It does have a very great deal to do with the idealized concept of freedom. Our country is founded upon the principle of freedom for all (I realize this concept is rather abstract and not completely held in truth by our founders in that they wanted freedom for themselves and not so much for others oftentimes, but bear with me in the idealized version). To wit, there can be no true freedom for anyone so long as some are not free. Part of that freedom means being able to hold various religious beliefs without the government putting forth its own interpretation of the correct religion. As such, having the government support Christian displays of Christmas without also equally supporting other religious displays is hypocrisy and inhibiting the freedom of all of us.
I am a Christian, yet I do not support government sponsored religious statements as that infringes on the freedoms of all Americans. Now, if a government sponsored an event welcoming input from all religions, I would support that, but thus far, I have yet to see an event that did more than give lip service to tolerance of other faiths in this country by our government and that to me, is against the very principles upon which we as Americans should stand.
My Response: I do not see myself as attacking liberalism. I see myself as a liberal, albeit a 19th century one. As to your statement that "can be no true freedom for anyone so long as some are not free." In ancient Greece and in the ante-bellum south there existed free people and slaves. Are you suggesting that those so called “free people” were not free? I am a Jew. Seeing a Christmas tree on state property does not in any way bother me and in no way gets in the way of my freedom of religion. My father is a rabbi and I grew up studying Jewish law. I have yet to come across a single Jewish practice that is violated by gentile officials of a gentile government putting up a Christmas tree.
We live in a democracy. We vote, either directly or through our elected representatives, on all sorts of things. When Democrats or Republicans lose, the government does things that they do not support but they can still go home and believe what they want. Why can't we vote on holiday decorations? So what if Christians win, I can still go home and live my life as I want.
(To be continued ...)
Your Christmas blog struck me as interesting. You expressed some interesting views that I have heard in very few places. I would quibble with your descriptions of liberals, though. You use a very large brush to paint them and come off to me as missing the mark for a great many of us that call ourselves liberal. Some liberals do think as you suggest, but a great many have a more nuanced and thoughtful view than you portray.
For instance, in many cases, the argument that the majority should be tolerant of minorities has nothing to do with needing a free exchange of ideas. It does have a very great deal to do with the idealized concept of freedom. Our country is founded upon the principle of freedom for all (I realize this concept is rather abstract and not completely held in truth by our founders in that they wanted freedom for themselves and not so much for others oftentimes, but bear with me in the idealized version). To wit, there can be no true freedom for anyone so long as some are not free. Part of that freedom means being able to hold various religious beliefs without the government putting forth its own interpretation of the correct religion. As such, having the government support Christian displays of Christmas without also equally supporting other religious displays is hypocrisy and inhibiting the freedom of all of us.
I am a Christian, yet I do not support government sponsored religious statements as that infringes on the freedoms of all Americans. Now, if a government sponsored an event welcoming input from all religions, I would support that, but thus far, I have yet to see an event that did more than give lip service to tolerance of other faiths in this country by our government and that to me, is against the very principles upon which we as Americans should stand.
My Response: I do not see myself as attacking liberalism. I see myself as a liberal, albeit a 19th century one. As to your statement that "can be no true freedom for anyone so long as some are not free." In ancient Greece and in the ante-bellum south there existed free people and slaves. Are you suggesting that those so called “free people” were not free? I am a Jew. Seeing a Christmas tree on state property does not in any way bother me and in no way gets in the way of my freedom of religion. My father is a rabbi and I grew up studying Jewish law. I have yet to come across a single Jewish practice that is violated by gentile officials of a gentile government putting up a Christmas tree.
We live in a democracy. We vote, either directly or through our elected representatives, on all sorts of things. When Democrats or Republicans lose, the government does things that they do not support but they can still go home and believe what they want. Why can't we vote on holiday decorations? So what if Christians win, I can still go home and live my life as I want.
(To be continued ...)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
SB's Response to Haredi Generation Gap
SB, who was one of the people I talked about in my post, Haredi Generation Gap, responded to me via email, which he was kind enough to allow me to publish here. I think it demonstrates my point wonderfully. Last I checked Yeshiva Torah Vodaath has no interest in producing graduates who have read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.
First, the nomenclature … of the word “haredi.” I don’t believe I heard the word until my late adolescence. The word is an Israeli term and indicates Israeli influence. We referred to ourselves as “yeshivish” or “litvish.” There was no term encompassing Chasidim and yeshivish people. This is not just a nitpicking point, since arguably yeshivish people moved to the right because it became de rigueur for guys to learn in Israel after high school.
When you stayed with us, I tried to expose you to the ideas of Rodney Stark regarding the sociology of religion. (I know that he has written several bad books recently, but that doesn’t negate the quality of his good works.) I believe that Stark has dealt only briefly with changes in Jewish life and not at all with changes in the orthodox community, but I believe that you have to take an “economic approach,” i.e., thinking about changes by looking at the alternatives available at the time. For instance, the orthodox world was much smaller then. Yeshivos were more tolerant because they were expected to take everyone. In contrast, in the current world, yeshivas can exclude anyone who has a tv at home.
Another change involves the economic concept of making tradeoffs. In my day, people went to Brooklyn College; now they go to Touro. I cannot comment much about the education at Touro, but I had several professors who were radical Marxists; I don’t think a Touro student is likely to have that exposure. Assume that a parent who went to Brooklyn is choosing a college for his son. He is very likely to be aware of the advantages of sending the son to Brooklyn, yet choose Touro because it will be easier for him to learn in yeshiva while going to Touro.
I don’t want to go through many examples, but in each case we can look at individual choices based on the “market,” i.e., the options available. In any case, what I want to stress is that rather than blaming my generation, you might want to consider how we got from the situation, say in 1969, when I started Torah Vodaath high school. You may not agree with my economic approach. That is ok. You may want to use Toqueville’s concept of the Unlimited Power of the Majority. But the point is, as an aspiring historian, you should try to understand historical changes, not bemoan them. While I threw out a few ideas, I cannot give you a complete explanation of the changes. That would require a book length treatment that I have no desire to complete, but I certainly would appreciate reading if you were to do so.
Lastly, the Unlimited Power of the Majority usually is not manifested by tarring and feathering, but by simple disapproval. The only negative consequence that I have experienced personally is that my daughter Dasi was rejected by Bais Yaakov of Brooklyn. However, that probably was the result of her behavior, not mine.
I hope that this email does not offend you, but encourages you to study contemporary Judaism as a historian. After all, Haym Soloveitchik did write a seminal article about contemporary orthodoxy, although as you know, I disagree with his interpretation.
My response: I use the world Haredi because unlike ultra-orthodox it has no negative connotations. I admit that, as with all human categories, it is flawed.I don't think we are disagreeing here. I was describing the situation that we have gotten ourselves into. You deal with how we have gotten there. Your economic explanation makes a lot of sense. I would love to hear you elaborate on it. (I guess I have to come visit you next time I am in New York.) Personally, I tend to look at history more through the lens of intellectual history but that is just my personal taste. If I had to explain how we got here I would focus on 60's multiculturalism. Something for a future post, I guess.
First, the nomenclature … of the word “haredi.” I don’t believe I heard the word until my late adolescence. The word is an Israeli term and indicates Israeli influence. We referred to ourselves as “yeshivish” or “litvish.” There was no term encompassing Chasidim and yeshivish people. This is not just a nitpicking point, since arguably yeshivish people moved to the right because it became de rigueur for guys to learn in Israel after high school.
When you stayed with us, I tried to expose you to the ideas of Rodney Stark regarding the sociology of religion. (I know that he has written several bad books recently, but that doesn’t negate the quality of his good works.) I believe that Stark has dealt only briefly with changes in Jewish life and not at all with changes in the orthodox community, but I believe that you have to take an “economic approach,” i.e., thinking about changes by looking at the alternatives available at the time. For instance, the orthodox world was much smaller then. Yeshivos were more tolerant because they were expected to take everyone. In contrast, in the current world, yeshivas can exclude anyone who has a tv at home.
Another change involves the economic concept of making tradeoffs. In my day, people went to Brooklyn College; now they go to Touro. I cannot comment much about the education at Touro, but I had several professors who were radical Marxists; I don’t think a Touro student is likely to have that exposure. Assume that a parent who went to Brooklyn is choosing a college for his son. He is very likely to be aware of the advantages of sending the son to Brooklyn, yet choose Touro because it will be easier for him to learn in yeshiva while going to Touro.
I don’t want to go through many examples, but in each case we can look at individual choices based on the “market,” i.e., the options available. In any case, what I want to stress is that rather than blaming my generation, you might want to consider how we got from the situation, say in 1969, when I started Torah Vodaath high school. You may not agree with my economic approach. That is ok. You may want to use Toqueville’s concept of the Unlimited Power of the Majority. But the point is, as an aspiring historian, you should try to understand historical changes, not bemoan them. While I threw out a few ideas, I cannot give you a complete explanation of the changes. That would require a book length treatment that I have no desire to complete, but I certainly would appreciate reading if you were to do so.
Lastly, the Unlimited Power of the Majority usually is not manifested by tarring and feathering, but by simple disapproval. The only negative consequence that I have experienced personally is that my daughter Dasi was rejected by Bais Yaakov of Brooklyn. However, that probably was the result of her behavior, not mine.
I hope that this email does not offend you, but encourages you to study contemporary Judaism as a historian. After all, Haym Soloveitchik did write a seminal article about contemporary orthodoxy, although as you know, I disagree with his interpretation.
My response: I use the world Haredi because unlike ultra-orthodox it has no negative connotations. I admit that, as with all human categories, it is flawed.I don't think we are disagreeing here. I was describing the situation that we have gotten ourselves into. You deal with how we have gotten there. Your economic explanation makes a lot of sense. I would love to hear you elaborate on it. (I guess I have to come visit you next time I am in New York.) Personally, I tend to look at history more through the lens of intellectual history but that is just my personal taste. If I had to explain how we got here I would focus on 60's multiculturalism. Something for a future post, I guess.
Confessions of a Doubting Liberal
I have been having a discussion with my friend Tobie, a law student attending Bar Ilan University in Israel, on my recent post Some Good Christmas Tolerance. Tobie has strongly objected to my suggestion that minorities owe a debt to the society around them for putting up with them. Tobie’s essential argument, and it is one that most readers of this blog would probably agree with, is that one does not owe someone something merely for doing the right thing.
I thought that it would be useful to take this opportunity to explain something that underlies much of my thinking and that often leads me into lines of thinking, such as in this case, that may, at times, perplex and even disturb people. Ultimately, you are probably still not going to agree with me, but hopefully you will understand where I am coming from.
Despite what many people might think of me, I consider myself a liberal, or at the very least a part of the liberal tradition. My liberalism though is something that I actively came to through a process of doubting that closely parallels my journey through Judaism. I was interested in politics ever since I was a nine year old kid watching, from the comfort of my grandmother’s kitchen, Governor Bill Clinton run for president in the summer of 1992. Like my most people growing up in western society I believed absolutely in liberalism in its best sense, in freedom, democracy, equality, and tolerance. It was not just that I believed in these things, I saw them as self-evident truths that all people, not insane, stupid or just downright wicked, must accept.
In high school, I read a book that changed my life. I am sure many of you have had, in your lives, such books. For me, that book was J.S Mill’s On Liberty. Mill did two things to my thinking. The first is that, for the first time in my life I was exposed to an intelligent, well thought out attack on liberalism. For example, Mill raised the issue that democracy was not the same thing as liberty and in fact is likely to be a mortal threat to it. More important than any actual argument he offered was that he got me to doubt the tenants of liberalism. For the first time in my life I had to ask myself the question: maybe we would be better under an authoritarian form of government. The second thing was that Mill made me a believer in liberalism; specifically, that for all of its flaws, liberalism held out the best hope of building an intellectually open society. While it is this belief in a liberal society that has the most direct effect on my day to day political views, my thoughts on politics come out of this act of doubting liberalism and my struggle to overcome this doubt.
This struggle with doubting the tenants of liberalism has been made more acute by the nature of my field of historical inquiry. The thinkers that I deal with on a daily basis, such as Maimonides or Isaac Abarbanel, operated outside of the liberal framework, to say nothing of the modern liberal framework. As much as I may want to, I can’t take any of the easy ways out. I respect them too much to simply dismiss them as being closed minded, prejudiced and irrational or to patronize them by saying that they simply lived in less enlightened times and did not know better. I have too much intellectual integrity to try to whitewash them and make them into something that my liberal sensibilities could be comfortable with. That leaves one option, to deal with them as they were and to come to terms with their political thought as they understood it. This means I spend much of my time exploring systems of thought that do not operate on liberal assumptions and in fact assume things that fly in the face of liberalism. I do not have the luxury of simply dismissing such thought; I have no other choice but take such views as serious intellectual options.
Because of this, I am constantly forced to confront the issue of what do I believe, why I believe it and am I justified in my beliefs. It is not that Mill made me doubt and then offered some nice clean solution to save me from doubt, like what one might expect from some religious outreach professional; I continue to doubt. Amongst many other things, I struggle with Mill himself. Was he himself too dismissive of his own questions? Do his answers really hold? While I believe in tolerance and all the other major tenants of traditional liberal thought, for me these are not givens. I follow these tenants for very specific reasons and that there is a price to be paid for those liberal beliefs; not everything is neat and clean. Other people, upon examining the issues, are likely to find that price to be too high and seek alternatives to liberalism. By doing this they are not being close-minded, prejudiced and irrational any more than the many great thinkers of the past, who also did not accept the basic tenants of liberalism.
To bring this all back to Tobie and my Christmas post, for me Jews being tolerated by American society is not something to be taken for granted as a basic level of morality. I recognize that there can be sane, rational and decent people that want a different sort of society than the one offered by liberalism. Furthermore, I recognize that it is possible that such a society might have little use for someone like me. At times I even suspect that such people might be correct in their rejection of liberalism. For me, this is not an attack on liberalism but a reason why it is all the more urgent to defend it.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Horseshoe
This past week I took myself on a vacation to Los Angeles. I had never been to the west coast so I figured it counted as me expanding my horizons in ways that do not involve going to church or anything else that would raise my grandparent’s blood pressure. On both trips, I had a stopover in Phoenix for an hour, another city that I had never been to. So I also got to see Phoenix, or at least the inside of the airport. Now you might say to me that it is only rational that someone living in Columbus OH would want to escape the Midwest December weather and head to Los Angeles.
Truth is that the weather in Los Angeles was horrible for the entire week I was there except for Sunday, when I went to Disneyland. That was an interesting experience. It was the day before Christmas and they had a Christmas themed parade through the park complete with ice skating; all this in weather that, according to my Midwestern mind, should only exist in the summer. I have an idea; you should only be allowed to celebrate your version of the Judeo-Christian-Atheistic-Capitalistic-Gift Giving Season if you are in a place that actually has legitimate December weather. Otherwise it is not really the holiday season.
Well considering the nature of the weather one would have imagined that it would only be people from Columbus touring the west coast and not the other way around. But then again, I was just coming back to my apartment when a well-dressed man stopped me and asked me if I could take a picture of him by the Ohio State sign. Turns out that this man was from Phoenix and he was here on a business trip. As a boy growing up on the west coast he used to watch OSU football; he was a big fan of Archie Griffen. To those of you who do not live in Columbus or who are not college football fans, Archie Griffen won two Heisman trophies, playing Running Back for OSU back in the 70s. So this man, as he was here, had decided to tour the campus. After getting his picture at the sign he then asked me for directions to the Horseshoe, our football stadium. I gave him the directions. Of course, considering that the Horseshoe seats about 105,000 people (and it gets filled on game day particularly if the opponent is Michigan) it is pretty difficult to miss.
So to all of you who think that Columbus is just some dull Midwestern town. You see that even people on the west coast have heard of us and come to tour our city even in December.
Truth is that the weather in Los Angeles was horrible for the entire week I was there except for Sunday, when I went to Disneyland. That was an interesting experience. It was the day before Christmas and they had a Christmas themed parade through the park complete with ice skating; all this in weather that, according to my Midwestern mind, should only exist in the summer. I have an idea; you should only be allowed to celebrate your version of the Judeo-Christian-Atheistic-Capitalistic-Gift Giving Season if you are in a place that actually has legitimate December weather. Otherwise it is not really the holiday season.
Well considering the nature of the weather one would have imagined that it would only be people from Columbus touring the west coast and not the other way around. But then again, I was just coming back to my apartment when a well-dressed man stopped me and asked me if I could take a picture of him by the Ohio State sign. Turns out that this man was from Phoenix and he was here on a business trip. As a boy growing up on the west coast he used to watch OSU football; he was a big fan of Archie Griffen. To those of you who do not live in Columbus or who are not college football fans, Archie Griffen won two Heisman trophies, playing Running Back for OSU back in the 70s. So this man, as he was here, had decided to tour the campus. After getting his picture at the sign he then asked me for directions to the Horseshoe, our football stadium. I gave him the directions. Of course, considering that the Horseshoe seats about 105,000 people (and it gets filled on game day particularly if the opponent is Michigan) it is pretty difficult to miss.
So to all of you who think that Columbus is just some dull Midwestern town. You see that even people on the west coast have heard of us and come to tour our city even in December.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Some Good Christmas Tolerance
It is Christmas again. To those of you who are unfamiliar with the holiday, Christmas is when Americans, across the political spectrum, get together to celebrate the cultural war and fight about the meaning of Church and State and tolerance. For me, the yearly attempt by the ACLU to ban crèches from state property and public schools and to replace Christmas trees with holiday trees is a perfect example of how modern liberals do not understand the concept of tolerance. Of course, liberals will tell you that they are the tolerant ones and that their campaign is being waged in the name of tolerance. Our majority Christian culture needs to take into account the fact that not everyone in this country is a Christian; there are Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, not to mention deists, agnostics, and atheists here in this country and they are good and loyal citizens. Therefore Christians have to be sensitive to the feelings of other groups and not do anything that might make them feel left out.
When it comes down to it, the liberal notion of tolerance is that the dominant culture/the culture that lacks favored minority status in the eyes of liberals must accommodate itself to “minority” cultures/cultures that possess favored minority status in the eyes of liberals. Read the material on tolerance put out by liberal groups such as the ACLU, NOW, the NAACP or People for the American Way. Their narrative of tolerance is one in which the dominant culture makes accommodations to minority cultures, it is never the other way around. When do you ever hear it discussed as to what blacks owe white culture, what women owe men, or what homosexuals owe heterosexual society?
For me, tolerance is about the dominant culture making allowances for minorities, but it is also about the debt owed by minorities to that dominant culture. I am a Jew who lives in the Christian country of the United States of America. Christians have no reason to tolerate me and every reason to resent me. American Christians do not owe Jews anything nor do we Jews have anything that they need. This is not the Middle-Ages; we are not needed as money lenders, tradesmen or doctors. I have no reason to doubt that, if the United States expelled its Jews, the country could continue to function without a hitch. In fact, Christians pay a price for tolerating us. By tolerating us, Christians give up on having a Christian society. Now liberals would argue that society does benefit from tolerating minorities in that it allows for an open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that you can get an open exchange of ideas simply through books, without the aid of people at all. If the United States were to expel its Jewish population, Americans would still have access to Jewish ideas. An American Christian could sit down and study the Talmud, Maimonides or Sigmund Freud without ever meeting an actual Jew. If he really felt the need to meet Jews first hand then he could always travel to a foreign country, such as Canada or Israel, to see them. He does not need to tolerate their presence in his own country.
American Christians have no reason to tolerate the presence of Jews yet they do it anyway and for that we Jews should be incredibly grateful. We owe American Christians a debt we could never repay. All we can do is to say thank you for the gift and try not to abuse it. For a Jew to raise his voice and complain about the public celebration of Christmas is to be ungrateful. Any Jew that tries, in any way, to stop or alter the celebration of the holiday needs to be smacked. The same thing applies to all minority groups living here. Tolerance is not a right that one can demand; it is a gift that a dominant culture gives.
I use Christmas as a time to reflect on how much I owe American Christians. As an expression of my appreciation, I make it a point to wish people a Merry Christmas. Here is my modest proposal. Instead of using Christmas season as the High Holidays of our cultural wars, let Christmas be a time that Jews and all other minority groups learn a lesson in tolerance and give our dominant Christian culture an earnest thank you.
Merry Christmas.
When it comes down to it, the liberal notion of tolerance is that the dominant culture/the culture that lacks favored minority status in the eyes of liberals must accommodate itself to “minority” cultures/cultures that possess favored minority status in the eyes of liberals. Read the material on tolerance put out by liberal groups such as the ACLU, NOW, the NAACP or People for the American Way. Their narrative of tolerance is one in which the dominant culture makes accommodations to minority cultures, it is never the other way around. When do you ever hear it discussed as to what blacks owe white culture, what women owe men, or what homosexuals owe heterosexual society?
For me, tolerance is about the dominant culture making allowances for minorities, but it is also about the debt owed by minorities to that dominant culture. I am a Jew who lives in the Christian country of the United States of America. Christians have no reason to tolerate me and every reason to resent me. American Christians do not owe Jews anything nor do we Jews have anything that they need. This is not the Middle-Ages; we are not needed as money lenders, tradesmen or doctors. I have no reason to doubt that, if the United States expelled its Jews, the country could continue to function without a hitch. In fact, Christians pay a price for tolerating us. By tolerating us, Christians give up on having a Christian society. Now liberals would argue that society does benefit from tolerating minorities in that it allows for an open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that you can get an open exchange of ideas simply through books, without the aid of people at all. If the United States were to expel its Jewish population, Americans would still have access to Jewish ideas. An American Christian could sit down and study the Talmud, Maimonides or Sigmund Freud without ever meeting an actual Jew. If he really felt the need to meet Jews first hand then he could always travel to a foreign country, such as Canada or Israel, to see them. He does not need to tolerate their presence in his own country.
American Christians have no reason to tolerate the presence of Jews yet they do it anyway and for that we Jews should be incredibly grateful. We owe American Christians a debt we could never repay. All we can do is to say thank you for the gift and try not to abuse it. For a Jew to raise his voice and complain about the public celebration of Christmas is to be ungrateful. Any Jew that tries, in any way, to stop or alter the celebration of the holiday needs to be smacked. The same thing applies to all minority groups living here. Tolerance is not a right that one can demand; it is a gift that a dominant culture gives.
I use Christmas as a time to reflect on how much I owe American Christians. As an expression of my appreciation, I make it a point to wish people a Merry Christmas. Here is my modest proposal. Instead of using Christmas season as the High Holidays of our cultural wars, let Christmas be a time that Jews and all other minority groups learn a lesson in tolerance and give our dominant Christian culture an earnest thank you.
Merry Christmas.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Haredi Generation Gap
In my last post I raised the question as to how someone like Rabbi Horowitz could justify remaining in the Haredi world considering his views on the internet. Rabbi Horowitz is not the only person in this predicament of viewing himself as Haredi depite being open to the world. My father sees himself as part of the Haredi world, despite the fact that many of his closest friends are reform and conservative rabbis. My cousin’s father-in-law has a PHD in history and teaches gemara at Bar-Ilan, but lives in Bnai Brak. SB, the father of a good friend of mine, strongly indentifies with his Torah V’daat education despite the fact that he has an apartment full of books on philosophy, politics and history.
Because of my father, I identified myself as being part of the Haredi world through high school. Growing up in Columbus OH, I assumed that Haredi meant people like my father; someone who meticulously kept Jewish Law. It was very easy to make this mistake since, as I was growing up in Columbus OH as the rabbi’s kid, my family was the most religious family that I knew. It never occured to me, for example, that there were Yeshivot out there who would have rejected me because my family owned a television.
I believe that what separates me from my father is the generation gap. My father and all the other people I mentioned were born before the late 1960s. Back then the Haredi world was much more of a big tent. Being part of the Haredi world meant you were deeply committed to practicing Jewish Law. It has nothing to do with not seriously studying secular subjects, banning television and banning the internet. Haredim before the late 1960s were still raised as relatively normal American kids, albeit with tzitzit and kipput. They followed sports, watched television and movies and got an education. In my experience when dealing with Haredim from that generation, even those who support not having anything to do with the secular world, if you scratch below the surface you will find that they do have a background in secular culture and that they got it honestly. The interesting thing is when you talk to their kids. The kids have no such background, at least not any that they got honestly. Do kids raised in Haredi homes know about secular things? Quite often yes. The thing is that they have gained it, usually from movies, by breaking the rules and engaging in behavior that they themselves see as wrong.
So my father was not deceiving me when he raised me to believe that being Haredi meant being meticulous with Jewish Law; that was the Haredi world he was raised in. The problem, though, is that my father’s Haredi Judaism has disappeared. What is left are eccentric intellectuals or, as in my father’s case, people who live outside of New York and therefore failed to get the message.
I have no such option available to me and it is my father's generation's fault. They failed to preserve a big tent for Orthodox Jews and my generation has to pay the price.
Because of my father, I identified myself as being part of the Haredi world through high school. Growing up in Columbus OH, I assumed that Haredi meant people like my father; someone who meticulously kept Jewish Law. It was very easy to make this mistake since, as I was growing up in Columbus OH as the rabbi’s kid, my family was the most religious family that I knew. It never occured to me, for example, that there were Yeshivot out there who would have rejected me because my family owned a television.
I believe that what separates me from my father is the generation gap. My father and all the other people I mentioned were born before the late 1960s. Back then the Haredi world was much more of a big tent. Being part of the Haredi world meant you were deeply committed to practicing Jewish Law. It has nothing to do with not seriously studying secular subjects, banning television and banning the internet. Haredim before the late 1960s were still raised as relatively normal American kids, albeit with tzitzit and kipput. They followed sports, watched television and movies and got an education. In my experience when dealing with Haredim from that generation, even those who support not having anything to do with the secular world, if you scratch below the surface you will find that they do have a background in secular culture and that they got it honestly. The interesting thing is when you talk to their kids. The kids have no such background, at least not any that they got honestly. Do kids raised in Haredi homes know about secular things? Quite often yes. The thing is that they have gained it, usually from movies, by breaking the rules and engaging in behavior that they themselves see as wrong.
So my father was not deceiving me when he raised me to believe that being Haredi meant being meticulous with Jewish Law; that was the Haredi world he was raised in. The problem, though, is that my father’s Haredi Judaism has disappeared. What is left are eccentric intellectuals or, as in my father’s case, people who live outside of New York and therefore failed to get the message.
I have no such option available to me and it is my father's generation's fault. They failed to preserve a big tent for Orthodox Jews and my generation has to pay the price.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)