I spent Shabbos at the Chabad at Oxford and was hosted by Rabbi Eli Brackman. Since I regularly go to the Chabad at Ohio State, I figured that it would make for a fun comparison. Small Jewish world, Rabbi Brackman knows Rabbi Zalman Deitsch of Ohio State. (I wonder if they are, even now, exchanging notes on me. “So who exactly is this Chinn guy and what is his deal?”) There was a guest speaker, Dr. Aharon Giamani of Bar Ilan University in Israel. Dr. Giamani’s field, which he spoke to us about, is in the history of Yemenite Jewry. I was fortunate to be able to speak to him over Shabbos and I am grateful to him for allowing me to hold the conversation in my rather poor conversational Hebrew.
Due to a conversation about Jewish philosophy with one of the Chabad people about, I was presented with the tenth chapter Sha'ar ha-Yichud ve'ha'Emunah in the Tanya, the foundational text of Chabad thought. The essential point of this chapter is that God is one with the sephirot. The analogy used is that of the relationship between the sun and the rays of light it gives off. This may be the medievalist in me, but when I hear the analogy of the unity of the sun and sunlight I think of the classical apology for the Trinity that uses this same analogy. I raised this issue with Rabbi Brackman and he was remarkably non-pulsed about it. He agreed that there was a parallel here and that it was probably written like that on purpose. Rabbi Brackman went on to argue that the difference would be that the Tanya does not take any of this literally. Rabbi Brackman went on point out the basic tenant of Chabad theology that God literally includes everything and that individuality is simply an illusion. I had a similar experience with another Lubavitch person a few years ago who, when I asked him what the difference between the Chabad belief that human souls are literally part of God and the Christians doctrine of the Incarnation beyond the fact that Chabad would multiply the problem billions of times over by turning every human being into their own Jesus Christ. My Lubavitch friend responded that he did not know, but that anyway it was not a problem.
If we are going to go with the classical understandings of Jewish thought as found in Saadiah Gaon, the Kuzari, Maimonides and medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemics, the rejection of the Trinity and the Incarnation are critical parts of Judaism. A Judaism in which one cannot give a coherent reason for rejecting the Trinity and the Incarnation is one in which Jews might as well start lining up to the baptismal font. Yet we have Chabad rabbis nonchalantly throwing around arguments that are almost identical. Put it this way, if what Chabad believes about the nature of God and him being one unified entity with the sephirot and all human souls is not heresy then I do not know of any coherent argument against the acceptance of a classical Christian understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation that will hold water for more than five minutes.
I know people who have or are in middle of converting to Judaism. Last I checked, unless you can give a straightforward NO to the question of whether you believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation with no equivocations or scholastic discourses, you will not be accepted for conversion. This applies equally to the most conservative Satmar court as it does to the Reform movement, making this one of the few things that the entire spectrum of Judaism actually agrees on. Prof. David Berger wishes to argue that Chabad is heresy because of the messianic beliefs held by many in the movement. In truth, it goes much further, into the fundamental doctrines of the movement found in Tanya.
The Lubavitchers that I know, I like and respect for the most part. Considering that I have been living outside of a major Jewish community, dealing with Lubavitch is sort of a practical necessity. I find the implications of Berger’s proposed ban too frightening to seriously consider. That being said, I must admit that it is a real problem.
Shabbos did not end here in the southern part of England until a quarter to eleven at night, so much for doing something on Saturday night. It must strange trying to raise children in such a situation. “Alright kids, go to bed now. Shabbos will be over when you get up in the morning.”
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
My Censored Comment at Cross Currents
There is a certain honor in being censored, if honestly earned. It is very easy to be offensive and purposefully antagonize people and then claim the status of martyr when shut down; such actions do not count as being censored. What is meaningful is when one says something rather innocuous that still manages to get under people’s skin, causing them to react. This issue enters the blogosphere usually in the form of comments, which are then taken down by the host blogger because of some offense. As the rabbis knew, you can tell a lot about a person when they are drunk, spend money or get angry. What sort of idea can so enrage a person as to cause a reaction, particularly such an extreme reaction as taking a comment down? Granted, there is a time and place for such things. For example, if anyone were to attempt to use my comment section as a sounding board for White Supremacy, I would, once I stopped finding it funny, erase those comments.
Today I take pride at such a feat, earned at the hand of Yaakov Menken of Cross Currents. Menken posted a short piece titled “Creative Mistranslation,” in which he attacked the Jerusalem Post for its article on Haredi Shabbat protesters. Menken’s objection was that the article translated signs that quoted the biblical phrase “Mot Tamot” as “must die” instead of the more common “surely die.” While, to the best of my understanding, the Post’s translation is technically accurate; I agree that they should have used the more charitable translation. As such there are valid grounds for criticizing them. I wrote a comment that went along a slightly different path:
Considering some of the extremists at work, it is not unreasonable that many of them would take the biblical “he shall surely die” as meaning that someone should kill them. This would still be a step away from actual murder. One has to go from saying “in theory it would be right for me to kill someone” to actually doing it, particularly as this would mean going up against the legal system.
As a parallel example, when I see Muslims waving signs saying “death to the enemies of Islam,” I do not assume that they mean that Allah, in his own good time, will cause them to die. Rather they are making the ideological statement that Muslims have the theological right and even the duty to carry out acts of murder against those perceived as enemies of Islam.
I got a very nice email from Menken, saying:
I have to bounce your comment, because to say there are 'extremists' in Me'ah Shearim who believe all non-Orthodox Jews should die (a la the Muslim model) simply defies the reality. It's not what reciting the posuk (verse) means, and not what they intended. These are people who regularly have non-Orthodox Jews, people they've never met before, as guests in their homes for Shabbos meals.
Yours,
Yaakov Menken
Yes Menken has every right to take my comment down; we live in a free country. In my defense, it should be noted that I do not accuse any Haredim of actually engaging in violence. I specifically noted that what I was talking about was “step away from actual murder.” I also did not compare Haredim to terrorists. I compared relatively peaceful Haredi protesters saying potentially dangerous things with relatively peaceful Muslim protesters saying potentially dangerous things. The issue at hand is not some vague “Muslim” model of kill all irreligious people. What is at stake is what, if any, practical role does the fact that the Torah has the death penalty listed for people who break Shabbos play in our world today, particularly in how we deal with Jews who do not keep Shabbos?
I do not know what those protesters, waving the signs, believe or what sort of conversations they are having behind closed doors. The moment you bring in words like “surely die” into play, it raises certain questions. If someone commits a sin carrying the threat that God will cause that person to die, does it mean that the person deserves to die or that it is a good thing that the person dies? If we assume the affirmative than are we allowed to play some sort of role in bringing this about or in allowing it to happen? Is it alright if someone saw a Shabbos desecrator injured in a car crash and left them to bleed to death on the pavement? If you were in a sealed room with a leading promoter of Shabbos desecration, someone who sins and causes others to sin, and you knew that no one would ever find out, could you put a bullet in that person’s head?
These are not simple issues and intelligent people will likely come down on different sides of this issue. (It should be noted that the Torah portion this coming week in Israel, gives me some pretty solid grounds to pull that trigger.) I hope that the Haredim with those signs are having this conversation. If they are not then they are just throwing around empty words. I have utter contempt for people who simply throw around open ended words without considering what they might mean and without having the moral spine to pay the full consequences for those words. I also fear such words, viewing them as ricocheting bullets. It was not that long ago when the National Religious community was burnt by throwing around a term like “Rodef,” someone whose continued existence is a physical threat to others. One of their own took this word to its literal conclusion and murdered a Prime Minister.
I think Menken’s rather peculiar argument at the end is telling. He argues that because many of the people at the protest gladly bring irreligious Jews into their homes for Shabbos, no one at the protest could have intended physical harm to irreligious Jews. Menken repeats this argument in the comments section when responding to someone else, saying:”I don’t need to do a survey, since I know how many of these protesters open their homes on Shabbos to guests they’ve never met, with or without the ability to even speak the same language.”Clearly Menken believes that this is some sort of trump cad argument and it essentially amounts to: “How dare anyone believe that Haredim are capable of violence, even when they clearly do engage in violence. Haredim invite people into their homes so they must all be kind and decent people.” To state the obvious, there can be people who invite irreligious Jews over for Shabbos and fanatics, who believe in violence, at the same rally and even standing side by side. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in the same person believing, in theory, that Jews who break the Shabbos should be killed and the willingness, in practice, to host an individual non Shabbos observing Jew in one’s home. Considering that Muslims have a reputation for hospitality, that they would never harm, even their enemy, while that person is their guest, this defense is ironic.
I am not arguing that Haredim are violent people; I know too many, who are some of the most wonderful people in the world. Some of these people are even relatives of mine. I am not even arguing that anyone at the protest is guilty of violence. What I am suggesting is that, just as “peaceful” “moderate” Muslims cannot play innocent when they throw around words like “death to the enemies of Islam,” we should not play innocent with such words as “surely die.” Words do mean things and, like bombs, they can explode and kill. We should respect ourselves enough not to hide behind petty apologetics.
The fact that Menken found what I said so troubling as to cause him to erase my comment (and then accuse me of saying things that I did not say) says something about him and what sort of line he has drawn as to what is acceptable. For him, that line is anyone who fails to simply engage in Haredi apologetics and dares to attempt to raise the tough questions. It does not matter if that person moderates what they say and is clearly not out to get the Haredi community as a whole. For Menken there is no such thing, anyone who does raise questions is, by definition, out to get Haredim.
Today I take pride at such a feat, earned at the hand of Yaakov Menken of Cross Currents. Menken posted a short piece titled “Creative Mistranslation,” in which he attacked the Jerusalem Post for its article on Haredi Shabbat protesters. Menken’s objection was that the article translated signs that quoted the biblical phrase “Mot Tamot” as “must die” instead of the more common “surely die.” While, to the best of my understanding, the Post’s translation is technically accurate; I agree that they should have used the more charitable translation. As such there are valid grounds for criticizing them. I wrote a comment that went along a slightly different path:
Considering some of the extremists at work, it is not unreasonable that many of them would take the biblical “he shall surely die” as meaning that someone should kill them. This would still be a step away from actual murder. One has to go from saying “in theory it would be right for me to kill someone” to actually doing it, particularly as this would mean going up against the legal system.
As a parallel example, when I see Muslims waving signs saying “death to the enemies of Islam,” I do not assume that they mean that Allah, in his own good time, will cause them to die. Rather they are making the ideological statement that Muslims have the theological right and even the duty to carry out acts of murder against those perceived as enemies of Islam.
I got a very nice email from Menken, saying:
I have to bounce your comment, because to say there are 'extremists' in Me'ah Shearim who believe all non-Orthodox Jews should die (a la the Muslim model) simply defies the reality. It's not what reciting the posuk (verse) means, and not what they intended. These are people who regularly have non-Orthodox Jews, people they've never met before, as guests in their homes for Shabbos meals.
Yours,
Yaakov Menken
Yes Menken has every right to take my comment down; we live in a free country. In my defense, it should be noted that I do not accuse any Haredim of actually engaging in violence. I specifically noted that what I was talking about was “step away from actual murder.” I also did not compare Haredim to terrorists. I compared relatively peaceful Haredi protesters saying potentially dangerous things with relatively peaceful Muslim protesters saying potentially dangerous things. The issue at hand is not some vague “Muslim” model of kill all irreligious people. What is at stake is what, if any, practical role does the fact that the Torah has the death penalty listed for people who break Shabbos play in our world today, particularly in how we deal with Jews who do not keep Shabbos?
I do not know what those protesters, waving the signs, believe or what sort of conversations they are having behind closed doors. The moment you bring in words like “surely die” into play, it raises certain questions. If someone commits a sin carrying the threat that God will cause that person to die, does it mean that the person deserves to die or that it is a good thing that the person dies? If we assume the affirmative than are we allowed to play some sort of role in bringing this about or in allowing it to happen? Is it alright if someone saw a Shabbos desecrator injured in a car crash and left them to bleed to death on the pavement? If you were in a sealed room with a leading promoter of Shabbos desecration, someone who sins and causes others to sin, and you knew that no one would ever find out, could you put a bullet in that person’s head?
These are not simple issues and intelligent people will likely come down on different sides of this issue. (It should be noted that the Torah portion this coming week in Israel, gives me some pretty solid grounds to pull that trigger.) I hope that the Haredim with those signs are having this conversation. If they are not then they are just throwing around empty words. I have utter contempt for people who simply throw around open ended words without considering what they might mean and without having the moral spine to pay the full consequences for those words. I also fear such words, viewing them as ricocheting bullets. It was not that long ago when the National Religious community was burnt by throwing around a term like “Rodef,” someone whose continued existence is a physical threat to others. One of their own took this word to its literal conclusion and murdered a Prime Minister.
I think Menken’s rather peculiar argument at the end is telling. He argues that because many of the people at the protest gladly bring irreligious Jews into their homes for Shabbos, no one at the protest could have intended physical harm to irreligious Jews. Menken repeats this argument in the comments section when responding to someone else, saying:”I don’t need to do a survey, since I know how many of these protesters open their homes on Shabbos to guests they’ve never met, with or without the ability to even speak the same language.”Clearly Menken believes that this is some sort of trump cad argument and it essentially amounts to: “How dare anyone believe that Haredim are capable of violence, even when they clearly do engage in violence. Haredim invite people into their homes so they must all be kind and decent people.” To state the obvious, there can be people who invite irreligious Jews over for Shabbos and fanatics, who believe in violence, at the same rally and even standing side by side. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in the same person believing, in theory, that Jews who break the Shabbos should be killed and the willingness, in practice, to host an individual non Shabbos observing Jew in one’s home. Considering that Muslims have a reputation for hospitality, that they would never harm, even their enemy, while that person is their guest, this defense is ironic.
I am not arguing that Haredim are violent people; I know too many, who are some of the most wonderful people in the world. Some of these people are even relatives of mine. I am not even arguing that anyone at the protest is guilty of violence. What I am suggesting is that, just as “peaceful” “moderate” Muslims cannot play innocent when they throw around words like “death to the enemies of Islam,” we should not play innocent with such words as “surely die.” Words do mean things and, like bombs, they can explode and kill. We should respect ourselves enough not to hide behind petty apologetics.
The fact that Menken found what I said so troubling as to cause him to erase my comment (and then accuse me of saying things that I did not say) says something about him and what sort of line he has drawn as to what is acceptable. For him, that line is anyone who fails to simply engage in Haredi apologetics and dares to attempt to raise the tough questions. It does not matter if that person moderates what they say and is clearly not out to get the Haredi community as a whole. For Menken there is no such thing, anyone who does raise questions is, by definition, out to get Haredim.
Friday, July 3, 2009
My Escapades around Oxford (No I Have Not Been at the Center of Any International Intrigue)
I have fallen head over heels in love with the city of Oxford. Heaven should look like it. Oxford may not be a beautiful city in the conventional sense, but it is old, historic and the academic city that every other academic city wishes it could be. In other words, my kind of town.
While walking about I ran into a former professor of mine, James Bracken. I was really surprised when he introduced me to his friend from Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota (If only Gustavus had been Norwegian and not Swedish we could have had the perfect Garrison Keillor Minnesota stereotype.). Dr. Bracken actually managed to remember the paper I wrote on Christian Hebraism for his History of the Book class. We promptly did the sacred letters, O-H, to demonstrate Ohio State’s kinyan, ownership, of this land. (We did not have the manpower to perform the I-O, but I am sure Coach Woody Hayes up above understands.)
I walked into a Borders here at Oxford. It is good to feel some of the pleasures of home. Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight vampires are clearly a hit in this country as well.
While walking about I ran into a former professor of mine, James Bracken. I was really surprised when he introduced me to his friend from Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota (If only Gustavus had been Norwegian and not Swedish we could have had the perfect Garrison Keillor Minnesota stereotype.). Dr. Bracken actually managed to remember the paper I wrote on Christian Hebraism for his History of the Book class. We promptly did the sacred letters, O-H, to demonstrate Ohio State’s kinyan, ownership, of this land. (We did not have the manpower to perform the I-O, but I am sure Coach Woody Hayes up above understands.)
Oxford, like Columbus, has a Broad and a High Street. So I think this makes it a very ripe target for my brand of academic imperialism.
A few posts back, I discussed Terry Eagleton and his Marxist beliefs. If anyone has any doubts about that, Eagleton is listed as a speaker at an upcoming Marxist rally.
I walked into a Borders here at Oxford. It is good to feel some of the pleasures of home. Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight vampires are clearly a hit in this country as well.
I got this picture of myself next to posters for the upcoming performances of Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors and Roald Dahl’s BFG. Between Shakespeare at his worst and Dahl at his best, I think I am going to go with Dahl.
I managed to befriend some of the workers at the theater pub. They were Dahl fans as well and believed in the continued relevance of Dahl in saving the world. We also got to talking about Disney and Monty Python. There was a girl in the group; she was intrigued by the fact that I was an American. She had not spoken to any Americans since the election and wanted to know what I thought about Barack Obama. That was a tricky one for me as I am part of the small minority of my peer group that does not support Obama, making me a very poor sample. I started dancing around the issue, explaining that I liked Obama as a person, but I had problems with many of his policies. In the end, I told her point-blank that I was a Republican, who voted for McCain, though one who is not happy with the party, mainly because it had been taken over by the Christian right. I furthermore explained that I was a Libertarian and elaborated on what that meant. She seemed satisfied with my response. In my experience, most people become very open to Libertarianism once you explain to them what it is. Libertarianism has a lot to offer, particularly if you are a well-educated person, working hard to make ends meet, who enjoys the occasional beer and hand-rolled cigarette.
Sitting around in the Oriental Studies library, I came across an essay by David S. Katz, “Edmund Gayton’s Anti-Jewish Poem Addressed to Manasseh Ben Israel, 1656.” [JQR 71(1980-81)] This essay deals with a series of rumors, circulated by royalists, while the issue of Jewish readmission into England was being debated, that the Jews were negotiating with Oliver Cromwell’s government to buy St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Bodleian Library, the main library at Oxford. Apparently, the Jews offered 500,000 pounds but Cromwell wanted 700,000-800,000 pounds. I showed this to the librarian and he got a good laugh.
Sitting around in the Oriental Studies library, I came across an essay by David S. Katz, “Edmund Gayton’s Anti-Jewish Poem Addressed to Manasseh Ben Israel, 1656.” [JQR 71(1980-81)] This essay deals with a series of rumors, circulated by royalists, while the issue of Jewish readmission into England was being debated, that the Jews were negotiating with Oliver Cromwell’s government to buy St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Bodleian Library, the main library at Oxford. Apparently, the Jews offered 500,000 pounds but Cromwell wanted 700,000-800,000 pounds. I showed this to the librarian and he got a good laugh.
Now, this is a plot that I could go for. So here it is for all you members of the Elders of Zion. I am not interested in taking over banks or Hollywood; what I want is the Bodleian Library. Well, the Bodleian and the rest of Oxford. The Bodleian can be my castle and the rest of greater Oxford can be my personal feudal kingdom, which would give me the Yarnton Manor as a summer/plague retreat.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Yarnton Manor and My Visit to Animal Farm
Despite my lack of sleep from my fleet to England, I still managed to enjoy the sight of Oxford from the top deck of a double-decker bus.
Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Imagine my surprise when, around the bend, I discovered a Manor Farm.
As per the advice of Dr. Daniel Frank, who taught at Oxford for a number of years, I am staying at the Yarnton Manor. This complex of buildings, in the village of Yarnton a few miles outside of Oxford, houses the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Judaic Studies.
Before I left for England, my younger brother called me to find out if I planned on singing “Beasts of England” on the plane ride there. For those of you who are not familiar with George Orwell’s short novel, Animal Farm, “Beasts of England” is the anthem song by the animals of Manor Farm as they revolt against the tyrannical rule of farmer Jones and establish Animal Farm. Here are the lyrics:
Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tidings
Of the golden future time.
Soon or late the day is coming,
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown,
And the fruitful fields of England
Shall be trod by beasts alone.
Rings shall vanish from our noses,
And the harness from our back,
Bit and spur shall rust forever,
Cruel whips no more shall crack.
Riches more than mind can picture,
Wheat and barley, oats and hay,
Clover, beans, and mangel-wurzels
Shall be ours upon that day.
Bright will shine the fields of England,
Purer shall its waters be,
Sweeter yet shall blow its breezes
On the day that sets us free.
For that day we all must labour,
Though we die before it break;
Cows and horses, geese and turkeys,
All must toil for freedom's sake.
Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken well and spread my tidings
Of the golden future time.
Imagine my surprise when, around the bend, I discovered a Manor Farm.
I did not find Napoleon, Snowball, Squealer or Boxer, but I did find this beautiful Shetland pony.
I tried explaining some of the doctrines of Animalism to this pony, such as “all animals are equal” and “four legs good, two legs bad,” but I think it was mainly interested in finding out if I had any treats on me. Unlike a certain parent of mine, I am capable of resisting the begging of even the most adorable animals.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
My Flight to England or How British Airways Lost my Suit Bag
After a hearty goodbye from Dallas Blumenfield, I headed off to JFK airport to catch my flight to England on British Airways. Upon boarding the plane I found myself seated in the middle between a secular Israeli girl in a tube top on one side and a Yeshiva student in a hat and jacket on the other side. Sounds like a good set up for a comedy sketch. I am not sure how three Jews ended up seated together, maybe someone at the airlines had a sense of humor. The girl was going back to Israel after spending a year in the States, studying theater. The guy was studying the Talmudic tractate of Sukkah. I think it says something to my credit that I was capable of engaging both of them in an intelligent conversation on their field of choice.
The special kosher dinner was quite good. I had chicken and rice with my favorite vegetable, eggplant, and chocolate mousse for desert. There was also humus, but I do not eat that so I left it to the side. The economy seat I was in, I am sure, does not compare to the first class seats I drooled over on my way through the plane, but were comfortable enough for this devotee of self imposed poverty. Most importantly there was a decent collection of movies to watch to distract me from my usual claustrophobia.
The first film I watched was Gran Torino. I must say there is something to Clint Eastwood at almost eighty years old beating the tar out of guys young enough to be his great grandchildren and it being believable. Eastwood seems to have a knack for making films that seem to be simple feel good films until the end where they take a disturbing turn, leaving a film that is truly provocative, with no easy answers. Million Dollar Baby, for example, was Rocky meets My Fair Lady up until the last half hour where it got really dark and interesting. Grano Torino on the surface seems to be about a bigoted old man learning to tolerate his Hmong neighbors. Fortunately it is actually much more interesting than that.
I was not so fortunate with the other two films I watched. Taken was Twenty-Four Season One with Liam Nielson in the starring role. Nielson’s character, like Jack Bauer, has several hours to save his kidnapped daughter and single mindedly pursues this goal without even a break to eat, sleep or use the restroom. Coincidently the film had Xander Berkeley, who played George Mason on Twenty-Four. Unfortunately Taken lacks that addictive quality that made Twenty-Four so much more than fun stupidity, leaving us with simple stupidity.
The final film I watched was Valkyrie, which was about the plot by members of the German army to assassinate Hitler in June 1944. As someone who teaches the events of the film, I had been meaning to see the film. The film crashes on Tom Cruise being very American surrounded by a cast of distinctively British actors or German actors who come across as very British. For a story whose plot centers on the psychological motivations of World War II German army officers, this is a problem. If you want to see a truly brilliant film about Hitler, see the German film Downfall. Coincidently Valkyrie had two actors who appeared in Downfall, Thomas Kretschmann and Christian Berkel.
Upon arriving at Heathrow airport, I was held up at immigration. I would have taken this as a badge of honor if it had been because I was transporting a WMD or if someone had read my blog and decided that I was a national security risk or at least a basic level hate monger like Michael Savage. The problem was that the last time I had used my passport, back when I traveled to Israel in 2000-01, I overstayed my three months without bothering to get my passport stamped again. If my memory serves me correctly, my yeshiva was supposed to send all the passports in to get them stamped, but there was a problem at the time with the government office being on strike (that happens a lot in Israel). So in the end it was never done and when I left the country I got lectured by the lady checking my passport. I never thought that my teenage laziness and unconcern for bureaucracy in one country would come back to trouble me nearly a decade later in another one. The people at immigration eventually asked me to produce evidence that I had a ticket out of England in three weeks time like I said. I was given leave to enter for six months with “no work or recourse to public funds.” This is a good example why we need libertarian governments around the world. A libertarian government would have no need to worry about immigration and border control, beyond checking for WMDs; a libertarian government would have no government services for illegal immigrants to take advantage of. Anyone, therefore, would be allowed to just come and compete for jobs on an open market and after a few years, if they did not break any laws, they could apply for citizenship.
This holdup at immigration for over an hour had further repercussions beyond wasting my time. By the time I reached baggage reclamation, my suit bag had gone missing. I had to wait around several more hours (keep in mind that I had not slept the previous night) while the people at baggage decided that my bag was really missing and sent me on my way. I was debating whether I would want them to find the bag or not. On the balance was my dream of being able to go shopping to replace my two suits and almost all of my good shirts on their pound with my nightmare of going clothes shopping and of making my way through the inevitable paperwork. In the end British Airways found the suit bag a day later and sent it to me. I was hoping that they would give me something for my trouble like an upgrade to those first class suits I was drooling over, but no such luck.
The special kosher dinner was quite good. I had chicken and rice with my favorite vegetable, eggplant, and chocolate mousse for desert. There was also humus, but I do not eat that so I left it to the side. The economy seat I was in, I am sure, does not compare to the first class seats I drooled over on my way through the plane, but were comfortable enough for this devotee of self imposed poverty. Most importantly there was a decent collection of movies to watch to distract me from my usual claustrophobia.
The first film I watched was Gran Torino. I must say there is something to Clint Eastwood at almost eighty years old beating the tar out of guys young enough to be his great grandchildren and it being believable. Eastwood seems to have a knack for making films that seem to be simple feel good films until the end where they take a disturbing turn, leaving a film that is truly provocative, with no easy answers. Million Dollar Baby, for example, was Rocky meets My Fair Lady up until the last half hour where it got really dark and interesting. Grano Torino on the surface seems to be about a bigoted old man learning to tolerate his Hmong neighbors. Fortunately it is actually much more interesting than that.
I was not so fortunate with the other two films I watched. Taken was Twenty-Four Season One with Liam Nielson in the starring role. Nielson’s character, like Jack Bauer, has several hours to save his kidnapped daughter and single mindedly pursues this goal without even a break to eat, sleep or use the restroom. Coincidently the film had Xander Berkeley, who played George Mason on Twenty-Four. Unfortunately Taken lacks that addictive quality that made Twenty-Four so much more than fun stupidity, leaving us with simple stupidity.
The final film I watched was Valkyrie, which was about the plot by members of the German army to assassinate Hitler in June 1944. As someone who teaches the events of the film, I had been meaning to see the film. The film crashes on Tom Cruise being very American surrounded by a cast of distinctively British actors or German actors who come across as very British. For a story whose plot centers on the psychological motivations of World War II German army officers, this is a problem. If you want to see a truly brilliant film about Hitler, see the German film Downfall. Coincidently Valkyrie had two actors who appeared in Downfall, Thomas Kretschmann and Christian Berkel.
Upon arriving at Heathrow airport, I was held up at immigration. I would have taken this as a badge of honor if it had been because I was transporting a WMD or if someone had read my blog and decided that I was a national security risk or at least a basic level hate monger like Michael Savage. The problem was that the last time I had used my passport, back when I traveled to Israel in 2000-01, I overstayed my three months without bothering to get my passport stamped again. If my memory serves me correctly, my yeshiva was supposed to send all the passports in to get them stamped, but there was a problem at the time with the government office being on strike (that happens a lot in Israel). So in the end it was never done and when I left the country I got lectured by the lady checking my passport. I never thought that my teenage laziness and unconcern for bureaucracy in one country would come back to trouble me nearly a decade later in another one. The people at immigration eventually asked me to produce evidence that I had a ticket out of England in three weeks time like I said. I was given leave to enter for six months with “no work or recourse to public funds.” This is a good example why we need libertarian governments around the world. A libertarian government would have no need to worry about immigration and border control, beyond checking for WMDs; a libertarian government would have no government services for illegal immigrants to take advantage of. Anyone, therefore, would be allowed to just come and compete for jobs on an open market and after a few years, if they did not break any laws, they could apply for citizenship.
This holdup at immigration for over an hour had further repercussions beyond wasting my time. By the time I reached baggage reclamation, my suit bag had gone missing. I had to wait around several more hours (keep in mind that I had not slept the previous night) while the people at baggage decided that my bag was really missing and sent me on my way. I was debating whether I would want them to find the bag or not. On the balance was my dream of being able to go shopping to replace my two suits and almost all of my good shirts on their pound with my nightmare of going clothes shopping and of making my way through the inevitable paperwork. In the end British Airways found the suit bag a day later and sent it to me. I was hoping that they would give me something for my trouble like an upgrade to those first class suits I was drooling over, but no such luck.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
To Lakewood to Boro Park to the Gay Pride Parade in Manhattan: My Weekend (Part II)
(Part I)
I met up with my friend Dallas Blumenfield for lunch Sunday in Manhattan. I roomed with Dallas for two years when I was at Yeshiva University. The two of us were involved with the Drama Society and waitered on weekends. I would describe Dallas as my gay Texas Jewish Republican, complete with multiple pairs of several hundred dollar boots. Dallas is not actually gay (for one thing he is now happily married to a woman) though he does, in many respects, fit the stereotype. Dallas is the sort of person comfortable enough with his sexuality not to particularly care if he gives the imprecision that he is not straight. It was because of Dallas that I became a follower of Queer as Folk. I never actually saw more than a few scenes of the show, but I became familiar with the show, its characters, and plotlines from hearing it across the room and from Dallas filling me in on the details. I should also mention that Dallas is right now working on becoming a rabbi.
By some strange quirk of fate, we had lunch a block away from Fifth Avenue, down which the Gay Pride Parade was marching. So after lunch, we both went to have a look at what Dallas jokingly referred to as the “freak show.” I promptly berated him for his prejudiced attitude.
So here we were; two nice Jewish men arm and arm. I think we fit in quite nicely. What really struck about the whole event was how mainstream it was. (Men in leather thongs being as about as extreme as it got) There was nothing there that would be particularly out of place anywhere else in midtown Manhattan. Granted, that you can get away with almost anything in Manhattan today. I would see this as a reason to accept the gay rights movement’s agenda; if you can put up with Manhattan than you should be able to put with them. Alternatively, a heterosexual society that has created a Manhattan for itself frankly deserves the full normalization of homosexuality.
This parade was not all that different from parades honoring the Irish or the Italians. There were quite a number of local politicians walking. You can say that by now it is a necessary part of New York City politics, particularly if you are a Democrat, to walk. There was a gay running club, a gay rugby club, and a gay sailing club. For some strange reason, people think that there something radical or revolutionary about arguing for gay rights. If you have politicians trolling for your vote like any other interest group and particular social clubs to cater to the interests of members of your social group than you are no different from any other social group with the same moral standing as any other social group. Just as social groups such as the Irish and the Italians have the right to pursue their self-interest as something distinct from their rights so too do homosexuals. But let us be absolutely clear, just because something is in the gay community’s best interest does not mean it is a right.
I am not sure what to make of the fact that someone with a yarmulke was walking in the parade. Maybe this person was simply showing his moral support as a fellow liberal. I wonder if the person is Orthodox or not. If he was a secular Jew, who simply put on a yarmulke for the event to identify himself as a Jew, should I take it as an offense? My inclination is to see this in a positive light and embrace this person as someone pursuing his own Jewish journey even though I may have problems with the means by which he does this. I think it is simplistic and unhelpful to simply cast this person as someone trying to destroy Judaism.
This is why we need gays in the military. As fans of Mel Brooks understand, if we had a gay sergeant in the gay Peruvian Indians than we could crush France in six weeks.
Now I am flying off to England. Stay tuned.
I met up with my friend Dallas Blumenfield for lunch Sunday in Manhattan. I roomed with Dallas for two years when I was at Yeshiva University. The two of us were involved with the Drama Society and waitered on weekends. I would describe Dallas as my gay Texas Jewish Republican, complete with multiple pairs of several hundred dollar boots. Dallas is not actually gay (for one thing he is now happily married to a woman) though he does, in many respects, fit the stereotype. Dallas is the sort of person comfortable enough with his sexuality not to particularly care if he gives the imprecision that he is not straight. It was because of Dallas that I became a follower of Queer as Folk. I never actually saw more than a few scenes of the show, but I became familiar with the show, its characters, and plotlines from hearing it across the room and from Dallas filling me in on the details. I should also mention that Dallas is right now working on becoming a rabbi.
By some strange quirk of fate, we had lunch a block away from Fifth Avenue, down which the Gay Pride Parade was marching. So after lunch, we both went to have a look at what Dallas jokingly referred to as the “freak show.” I promptly berated him for his prejudiced attitude.
So here we were; two nice Jewish men arm and arm. I think we fit in quite nicely. What really struck about the whole event was how mainstream it was. (Men in leather thongs being as about as extreme as it got) There was nothing there that would be particularly out of place anywhere else in midtown Manhattan. Granted, that you can get away with almost anything in Manhattan today. I would see this as a reason to accept the gay rights movement’s agenda; if you can put up with Manhattan than you should be able to put with them. Alternatively, a heterosexual society that has created a Manhattan for itself frankly deserves the full normalization of homosexuality.
This parade was not all that different from parades honoring the Irish or the Italians. There were quite a number of local politicians walking. You can say that by now it is a necessary part of New York City politics, particularly if you are a Democrat, to walk. There was a gay running club, a gay rugby club, and a gay sailing club. For some strange reason, people think that there something radical or revolutionary about arguing for gay rights. If you have politicians trolling for your vote like any other interest group and particular social clubs to cater to the interests of members of your social group than you are no different from any other social group with the same moral standing as any other social group. Just as social groups such as the Irish and the Italians have the right to pursue their self-interest as something distinct from their rights so too do homosexuals. But let us be absolutely clear, just because something is in the gay community’s best interest does not mean it is a right.
I am not sure what to make of the fact that someone with a yarmulke was walking in the parade. Maybe this person was simply showing his moral support as a fellow liberal. I wonder if the person is Orthodox or not. If he was a secular Jew, who simply put on a yarmulke for the event to identify himself as a Jew, should I take it as an offense? My inclination is to see this in a positive light and embrace this person as someone pursuing his own Jewish journey even though I may have problems with the means by which he does this. I think it is simplistic and unhelpful to simply cast this person as someone trying to destroy Judaism.
This is why we need gays in the military. As fans of Mel Brooks understand, if we had a gay sergeant in the gay Peruvian Indians than we could crush France in six weeks.
Now I am flying off to England. Stay tuned.
Monday, June 29, 2009
To Lakewood to Boro Park to the Gay Pride Parade in Manhattan: My Weekend (Part I)
For my final weekend here in the United States, before going to England, I went to New York with father and step-mother. They were going to a wedding and a bar-mitzvah of the children of friends of theirs (No it was not the same people getting married and bar-mitzvahed.); since these were families that I am also close to, I came along as well. Both of the families are very Haredi so I could count on sticking out at these events even more than I usually do. At Ohio State, I may be a strange sight, but someone like me still makes sense as a legitimate member of that society. Also at Ohio State, I can count on a lower rate of statements made as a matter of casual fact that I not only disagree with but find downright immoral and offensive.
The wedding was Thursday night in Lakewood New Jersey, a bastion of Haredi Orthodoxy where everything from a serious secular education to the internet is banned. Soon after arriving, a little kid asked me why I did not have a black hat. I told him jokingly that I had lost mine. My other response in my mental Rolodex for such situations is that I still need to grow up. Truth be told, I wore a black hat until two years ago. (I had been thinking of stopping to wear it since I was a teenager, ever since I became conscious of the gap between me and the Haredi world, but could never summon the initiative to stop engaging in a daily ritual; how do I justify not doing something one day when I had been doing it the day before and the day before that? I often ponder this as a major religious challenge. If I found it so difficult to back out of such a trivial practice than how could I ever hope to summon the intellectual courage if I ever wished to point-blank abandon Orthodox Judaism. If I lack the hypothetical intellectual courage to abandon Orthodox Judaism than my decision to remain within the bounds of Orthodox Judaism becomes an exercise in rationalizing away my own cowardice.)
As the wedding was dying down I called my friend, Nick Connelly, to tell him that I was calling from Lakewood. Nick is not Jewish but knows a lot about Jewish politics. I gave him permission to come in, beat me over the head, and drag me out if I failed to leave of my own volition. Nick then told me the news that Michael Jackson had died that afternoon. Having been away from the internet the whole afternoon I had been unaware of this. To which Nick responded that this proved that I was in Lakewood.
After the wedding, my folks and I went over to Borough Park in Brooklyn New York, another bastion of Haredism. Friday morning, in search of an internet connection I made my way to a local branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, where I managed to get in several hours of fruitful work besides for internet surfing. I was struck by the amount of clearly Haredi individuals coming into the library, many of whom were clearly not there for the library's remarkably extensive Judaic section. I was pleased to hear one young woman ask about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. The most intriguing thing was the parade of Haredi men coming in to use the internet on the library’s computers. (No I was not close enough to see if they were looking at porn; I sincerely hope they were not.) As someone who believes in studying history from the bottom up and from the edge, I am intrigued by such people and their motives? Here they are identifying themselves with a given community, breaking a taboo of that community in a public place where anyone (even me) could see them. One assumes that these people do not have access to the internet in their homes, a more serious infraction of the internet taboo, but also less public. I hope that a future writer of the history of Haredim in the early twenty-first century would have the subversive turn of mind to look beyond those putting out the bans and make these Haredi internet users the center of their discussion of Haredim and their attempts to ban the internet.
Over Shabbos, I got into a number of interesting conversations and I must say that everyone was really nice to me. (This is probably the community’s greatest strength. Contrary to stereotype, once you get past the initial barrier and establish yourself as a non-threat, this is a very welcoming community that will embrace outsiders.) A particular one that comes to mind was a conversation I was thrown in the middle of as to whether there are more people alive today than all the people from past times combined. I vaguely remember hearing such a thing, but I do not have the sources to back the claim up. Population Studies are not a field that I have any expertise in nor do I have much of a head for mathematics. Furthermore, I was asked to attempt to combine rabbinic assumptions about populations in the ancient world with the views of academics. This creationist style of thinking, combining a veneer of scholarship with academic nonsense, is something that usually appeals to my intellectual sense of absurdity, but this is the sort of absurdity that requires my brain to be working at full capacity, which it was not at that time of night. Word got around about me, even to strangers, that I was a historian. This brought with it a certain level of curiosity. One boy came up to me to tell me that he had a rebbe in Lakewood teaching them Jewish history, who was a genius. The optimist in me wishes to believe that even in the bowels of Lakewood there could be someone trying to teach Jewish history and not simply Haredi propaganda. The realist in me assumes otherwise.
(To be continued …)
The wedding was Thursday night in Lakewood New Jersey, a bastion of Haredi Orthodoxy where everything from a serious secular education to the internet is banned. Soon after arriving, a little kid asked me why I did not have a black hat. I told him jokingly that I had lost mine. My other response in my mental Rolodex for such situations is that I still need to grow up. Truth be told, I wore a black hat until two years ago. (I had been thinking of stopping to wear it since I was a teenager, ever since I became conscious of the gap between me and the Haredi world, but could never summon the initiative to stop engaging in a daily ritual; how do I justify not doing something one day when I had been doing it the day before and the day before that? I often ponder this as a major religious challenge. If I found it so difficult to back out of such a trivial practice than how could I ever hope to summon the intellectual courage if I ever wished to point-blank abandon Orthodox Judaism. If I lack the hypothetical intellectual courage to abandon Orthodox Judaism than my decision to remain within the bounds of Orthodox Judaism becomes an exercise in rationalizing away my own cowardice.)
As the wedding was dying down I called my friend, Nick Connelly, to tell him that I was calling from Lakewood. Nick is not Jewish but knows a lot about Jewish politics. I gave him permission to come in, beat me over the head, and drag me out if I failed to leave of my own volition. Nick then told me the news that Michael Jackson had died that afternoon. Having been away from the internet the whole afternoon I had been unaware of this. To which Nick responded that this proved that I was in Lakewood.
After the wedding, my folks and I went over to Borough Park in Brooklyn New York, another bastion of Haredism. Friday morning, in search of an internet connection I made my way to a local branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, where I managed to get in several hours of fruitful work besides for internet surfing. I was struck by the amount of clearly Haredi individuals coming into the library, many of whom were clearly not there for the library's remarkably extensive Judaic section. I was pleased to hear one young woman ask about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. The most intriguing thing was the parade of Haredi men coming in to use the internet on the library’s computers. (No I was not close enough to see if they were looking at porn; I sincerely hope they were not.) As someone who believes in studying history from the bottom up and from the edge, I am intrigued by such people and their motives? Here they are identifying themselves with a given community, breaking a taboo of that community in a public place where anyone (even me) could see them. One assumes that these people do not have access to the internet in their homes, a more serious infraction of the internet taboo, but also less public. I hope that a future writer of the history of Haredim in the early twenty-first century would have the subversive turn of mind to look beyond those putting out the bans and make these Haredi internet users the center of their discussion of Haredim and their attempts to ban the internet.
Over Shabbos, I got into a number of interesting conversations and I must say that everyone was really nice to me. (This is probably the community’s greatest strength. Contrary to stereotype, once you get past the initial barrier and establish yourself as a non-threat, this is a very welcoming community that will embrace outsiders.) A particular one that comes to mind was a conversation I was thrown in the middle of as to whether there are more people alive today than all the people from past times combined. I vaguely remember hearing such a thing, but I do not have the sources to back the claim up. Population Studies are not a field that I have any expertise in nor do I have much of a head for mathematics. Furthermore, I was asked to attempt to combine rabbinic assumptions about populations in the ancient world with the views of academics. This creationist style of thinking, combining a veneer of scholarship with academic nonsense, is something that usually appeals to my intellectual sense of absurdity, but this is the sort of absurdity that requires my brain to be working at full capacity, which it was not at that time of night. Word got around about me, even to strangers, that I was a historian. This brought with it a certain level of curiosity. One boy came up to me to tell me that he had a rebbe in Lakewood teaching them Jewish history, who was a genius. The optimist in me wishes to believe that even in the bowels of Lakewood there could be someone trying to teach Jewish history and not simply Haredi propaganda. The realist in me assumes otherwise.
(To be continued …)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Transformers Wipes Israel off the Map
Yesterday I went with my good friend Lionel Spiegel to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I will not comment on the movie itself other than to say that it was of Mystery Science Theater 3000 quality. Lionel and I were laughing our heads off the entire movie and not in a good way; for one thing, we were probably being a nuisance to everyone around us. What really caught my attention was how the movie deals with Israel and the Middle East. As with much of what is wrong with how Israel gets reported on in the media, this is a sin of omission rather than commission. The final battle between the Autobots, along with their mostly American allies, and the Decepticons, led by the Fallen (a Monty Python worthy evil villain), takes place around an Egyptian Pyramid, along the border with Jordan. For those of you not familiar with the geography of the Middle East, here is a map of the area in question.
As you can see, while Egypt is very close to Jordan, there is a little resort town called Elat separating Egypt from Jordan. I have been to Elat; it is a beautiful place, perfect for anyone with a sense of political humor. From Elat, you can look out and see Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, all while remaining firmly in the State of Israel. For some strange reason, Michael Bay failed to notice that Israel lies between Egypt and Jordan. (This is all the worse as Steven Spielberg is listed as a producer. One would have hoped that he would have jumped on such a mistake.)
This removal of Israel becomes even more ridiculous when the humans put out a call for help to the Egyptian military, whose country they are in, and the Jordanians and several Jordanian helicopters take part in the battle, mainly by getting blown out of the sky. Last I checked the Middle East superpower in the air is Israel, not Jordan. Why couldn’t we have Israel jets shooting it out with the Decepticons to save the world? This could have even been a good opportunity to stick in a peace process message by having Israel fight alongside the Muslim countries of Egypt and Jordan. Particularly since, even in real life, Israel is at peace with both of these countries.
This removal of Israel becomes even more ridiculous when the humans put out a call for help to the Egyptian military, whose country they are in, and the Jordanians and several Jordanian helicopters take part in the battle, mainly by getting blown out of the sky. Last I checked the Middle East superpower in the air is Israel, not Jordan. Why couldn’t we have Israel jets shooting it out with the Decepticons to save the world? This could have even been a good opportunity to stick in a peace process message by having Israel fight alongside the Muslim countries of Egypt and Jordan. Particularly since, even in real life, Israel is at peace with both of these countries.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Benzion Netanyahu: Where the Middle Ages and the Middle East Collide
Erich Follath’s “Is war between Iran and Israel inevitable?” (Originally run in Der Speigel but translated for Salon) is a good example of liberal moral equivalency. Its essential premise, after hypocritically acknowledging that the two are not morally equivalent, is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are very much alike and the combination of the two of them makes it likely that a major conflict in the Middle East will erupt. Forget the fact that Israel recognizes Iran as a Shiite Muslim state and desires to have peace with it. Forget the fact that Netanyahu is a secular Jew with no apocalyptic pretentions. What caught my attention in this otherwise banal article was that it refers to my area of interest, medieval Jewish history. Follath mentions Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, the historian Benzion Netanyahu and his book, The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. (A few years ago, during Passover, I asked my father for a deluxe Spanish Inquisition action figure set as my way of requesting this book. Once you are finished reading it you can hit people over the head with it in the hope of doing serious bodily harm.) As Follath notes:
In his more than 1,300-page opus, the key points of which he conveyed to his sons in hours of family readings, the historian argues that the Spaniards were more strongly motivated by racism than religion in their pogroms against the Jews during the Inquisition. He also argues that militant anti-Semitism is always an expression of unmotivated hatred, and that there is only one possible response to it: militant and, if necessary, preventive Jewish self-defense.
I am not sure what Follath’s background in Jewish history is or if he actually bothered to read Benzion Netanyahu for himself, but pogrom violence is certainly very different than Inquisition violence. A basic point of the senior Netanyahu’s is that the Spanish Inquisition only came about in the years after the major anti-converso riots. This is important because Netanyahu wants to argue that the Inquisition only came about after Judaizing conversos had stopped being a real issue and therefore the real purpose of the Inquisition could only have been to eliminate Christians of Jewish descent.
I am not a fan of Benzion Netanyahu’s work precisely because it speaks too much to a modern historical agenda. In Netanyahu’s case, as a man nearing his 100th birthday, this “modern” agenda is the failure of pre-war secular Jewry, particularly in Germany, to forestall the threat of Nazism, a brand of anti-Semitism that had nothing to do with religion. When discussing Benzion Netanyahu with other people I often find myself walking the exact opposite path as Follath. Benzion Netanyahu happens to be the father of a certain right wing Israeli politician of the same name, which is a good indicator of his politics. This is a right wing secular Zionist, who left Israel and became a history professor at Cornell because Israel was being run by a bunch of leftists.
Follath simply shoehorns Netanyahu into the needs of his article. Another useful of thinking of the senior Netanyahu’s politics as it plays out in his history books is that Jews should not put their trust in gentiles like Follath, however well meaning they might be, in the hope that they will protect them from the likes of those like Ahmadinejad, who wish to kill Jews simply because they are Jews.
In his more than 1,300-page opus, the key points of which he conveyed to his sons in hours of family readings, the historian argues that the Spaniards were more strongly motivated by racism than religion in their pogroms against the Jews during the Inquisition. He also argues that militant anti-Semitism is always an expression of unmotivated hatred, and that there is only one possible response to it: militant and, if necessary, preventive Jewish self-defense.
I am not sure what Follath’s background in Jewish history is or if he actually bothered to read Benzion Netanyahu for himself, but pogrom violence is certainly very different than Inquisition violence. A basic point of the senior Netanyahu’s is that the Spanish Inquisition only came about in the years after the major anti-converso riots. This is important because Netanyahu wants to argue that the Inquisition only came about after Judaizing conversos had stopped being a real issue and therefore the real purpose of the Inquisition could only have been to eliminate Christians of Jewish descent.
I am not a fan of Benzion Netanyahu’s work precisely because it speaks too much to a modern historical agenda. In Netanyahu’s case, as a man nearing his 100th birthday, this “modern” agenda is the failure of pre-war secular Jewry, particularly in Germany, to forestall the threat of Nazism, a brand of anti-Semitism that had nothing to do with religion. When discussing Benzion Netanyahu with other people I often find myself walking the exact opposite path as Follath. Benzion Netanyahu happens to be the father of a certain right wing Israeli politician of the same name, which is a good indicator of his politics. This is a right wing secular Zionist, who left Israel and became a history professor at Cornell because Israel was being run by a bunch of leftists.
Follath simply shoehorns Netanyahu into the needs of his article. Another useful of thinking of the senior Netanyahu’s politics as it plays out in his history books is that Jews should not put their trust in gentiles like Follath, however well meaning they might be, in the hope that they will protect them from the likes of those like Ahmadinejad, who wish to kill Jews simply because they are Jews.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Compliments and Other Rewards of Blogging
I readily confess that there is something downright egotistical about blogging. To become a blogger means to assume that random people from vague acquaintances to random strangers would wish to read your thoughts about life the universe and everything. (Including Douglas Adams) I have no particular qualifications for world pontificator being only twenty-six years old and still working on my doctorate. The truth is I only started doing this because a girl I liked told me that she would be curious as to what a blog written by me would look like. Before I had the chance to write a serious post this same girl told me that I was a bright wonderful person and that she thought it would be for the best if we never spoke again. I found writing to be an effective way to cope with the depression that followed plus I maintained the forlorn hope that this would bring the girl back. (This was a different girl from my ex from last summer. I tend to get my heart broken a lot when it comes to women.) As it has been nearly three years I have come to accept that this is not going to happen and I have moved on to further adventures in glorious singlehood. There is not much in the way of money to be made from blogging though I seem to have a fan from the Oh Nuts candy company who around holidays offers certain rather generous compensations for putting up an ad for his company. If I were being charitable to myself I would say that I love having a positive influence on people. This, though, is often hard to distinguish from pride as a motive for writing. There is something intoxicating about random people contacting you and telling you how you have had a positive influence on them and what a brilliant person you are.
This past weekend I randomly bumped into a person of some prominence within the Jewish community and he knew who I was and told me how wonderful it was to meet me in person. This person told me that he read this blog and was particularly moved by a post of mine discussing the situation of his generation in relationship to mine.
There was a regular commentator that I only knew through his alias; I wondered who he might be and where he might live. Imagine my surprise when he walked over to me while I was sitting in my building lobby, introduced himself and said that mine was one of his favorite blogs. Not only did he live in my building, he actually lived on my floor. We talked face to face for several hours. Contrary to what I imagined him to be, he was a Hindu male of medium height. Much of our conversation dealt with his attempt, though he views himself as secular, to find meaning within his own faith tradition.
I have received several pieces of fan email, the nicest was one sent a few weeks ago.
Thanks for your blog. I'm reading what I can. I'd love to have hours to write, but since I don't here's why I am writing to you. I am the mother to four children ... We are all somewhere on some spectrum, my youngest son on the verge of an official diagnosis of AS. I have been avidly reading for the last month on the subject, but as a chassidic (Chadad) Jew (baal tshuva) I have been taken very much by your blog. It is refreshing and honest. Plus, I have always loved history, though I don't feel I understand it at all, meaning, it's hard for me to grasp all the perspectives (my own AS problem I think). History seems to me like a messy room...but for that matter, so does Gemara. ...
I am fascinated by images ... I am now taken to the images of Jewish history straight from the text, such as Chumash, Tehillum and Davening. I am often brought to tears by the words so powerful.
In your blog, you allude to something to the order of Jews and a strong relationship to AS. Or maybe that Orthodox Jews are isolated in their own world. Actually, I am having a hard time putting into words what I read in your blog about your views of Orthodoxy and autism, but I do recall being lost in thought for several days on the subject of "Was Moshe AS, how about Avroham?" Could be I am looking through AS eyes at all my heroes and seeing how they stack up on the spectrum, friend or foe.
But most importantly, I admire you for living out your personhood, expressing yourself and thereby giving me some hope for my youngest son. ... I do wonder about my son. You raise the issue of labels and shidduch and all that. And so many other areas. …
Probably the nicest thing to happen to me from this blog is a friend I first met here through their comments and then got to meet in real life. We now talk on a regular basis. Part of what makes this person so much fun is that we disagree on so much. This person operates from a very different background and perspective from my own and has truly been an eye-opener for me. This person would probably not wish to be named so I will remain silent as to their identity.
At the end of the day, I am not certain I can defend the amount of time I invest in this blog considering all the other things I have to do. With all the wonderful people I have met through this blog I feel vindicated. Of course, if this blog ended up opening the door for a job or a fellowship that would be all the better. If this blog ended up resulting in a relationship with a female that did not end with me in tears and depression than that would be really special. For now, I will take the occasional compliment and fan email.
This past weekend I randomly bumped into a person of some prominence within the Jewish community and he knew who I was and told me how wonderful it was to meet me in person. This person told me that he read this blog and was particularly moved by a post of mine discussing the situation of his generation in relationship to mine.
There was a regular commentator that I only knew through his alias; I wondered who he might be and where he might live. Imagine my surprise when he walked over to me while I was sitting in my building lobby, introduced himself and said that mine was one of his favorite blogs. Not only did he live in my building, he actually lived on my floor. We talked face to face for several hours. Contrary to what I imagined him to be, he was a Hindu male of medium height. Much of our conversation dealt with his attempt, though he views himself as secular, to find meaning within his own faith tradition.
I have received several pieces of fan email, the nicest was one sent a few weeks ago.
Thanks for your blog. I'm reading what I can. I'd love to have hours to write, but since I don't here's why I am writing to you. I am the mother to four children ... We are all somewhere on some spectrum, my youngest son on the verge of an official diagnosis of AS. I have been avidly reading for the last month on the subject, but as a chassidic (Chadad) Jew (baal tshuva) I have been taken very much by your blog. It is refreshing and honest. Plus, I have always loved history, though I don't feel I understand it at all, meaning, it's hard for me to grasp all the perspectives (my own AS problem I think). History seems to me like a messy room...but for that matter, so does Gemara. ...
I am fascinated by images ... I am now taken to the images of Jewish history straight from the text, such as Chumash, Tehillum and Davening. I am often brought to tears by the words so powerful.
In your blog, you allude to something to the order of Jews and a strong relationship to AS. Or maybe that Orthodox Jews are isolated in their own world. Actually, I am having a hard time putting into words what I read in your blog about your views of Orthodoxy and autism, but I do recall being lost in thought for several days on the subject of "Was Moshe AS, how about Avroham?" Could be I am looking through AS eyes at all my heroes and seeing how they stack up on the spectrum, friend or foe.
But most importantly, I admire you for living out your personhood, expressing yourself and thereby giving me some hope for my youngest son. ... I do wonder about my son. You raise the issue of labels and shidduch and all that. And so many other areas. …
Probably the nicest thing to happen to me from this blog is a friend I first met here through their comments and then got to meet in real life. We now talk on a regular basis. Part of what makes this person so much fun is that we disagree on so much. This person operates from a very different background and perspective from my own and has truly been an eye-opener for me. This person would probably not wish to be named so I will remain silent as to their identity.
At the end of the day, I am not certain I can defend the amount of time I invest in this blog considering all the other things I have to do. With all the wonderful people I have met through this blog I feel vindicated. Of course, if this blog ended up opening the door for a job or a fellowship that would be all the better. If this blog ended up resulting in a relationship with a female that did not end with me in tears and depression than that would be really special. For now, I will take the occasional compliment and fan email.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A Plea for Racism: Let it Mean Something
Kim Gandy, the president of NOW, in her recent Below the Belt column, responded to the charge of reverse racism against Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. According to Gandy: “Reverse racism -- an oxymoron, since the systems that oppress cannot be simply reversed, and certainly not by a single individual …” This is a common response by many liberals when conservatives throw around charges of racism of their own. The meaning of the word “racism” is redefined to mean the acts of oppression of the dominant culture, i.e. people who are white, Christian and male. The idea here is that not only is a given member of a minority group, whether they are Hispanic or Black, not guilty of racism, but that by definition they are incapable of being racist. I speak here not as a conservative trying to score points but as a liberal. As a follower of the liberal tradition, this willingness to narrowly tailor the meaning of racism concerns me as it should concern anyone for whom racism is a real issue to be fought and not just a charge to be thrown around as part of some power game.
Let us consider some of the implications of this definition of racism as something that only applies to people outside of power. Gandy does not seem to appreciate that racism often arises from a perception of powerlessness and a desire to strike out against a perceived racial oppressor. Take the rise of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstructionist America, a definitive example of racism if there ever was one in American history. From the perspective of Southern apologetics (Watch Birth of a Nation if you want to see a good example of this), it was white Southerners who were being oppressed by an alliance of Northerners and blacks. Now, one has to admit that these Southerners had a point; the South lost the Civil War, was devastated and was at the mercy of the North. Northern abolitionists wished to help former slaves and saw them as useful allies in ruling over the former members of the Confederacy. This does not justify the actions of the Klan. Personally, I think the South deserved what happened to them and actually got off too lightly. That being said, the Klan was coming from a position of lacking power. They may have struck against those who had even less power, but that still does not make their actions that of the powerful. At the end of the day, as horrible as their actions were, these were actions that came out of a lack of power. If we apply the liberal definition of racism honestly then we must accept that, however we wish to describe the horrors of the Southern response to Reconstruction, we cannot call it racism.
What about Nazi Germany? The Nazis arose after the defeat of Germany in World War I and the crushing peace treaty of Versailles. I am not suggesting that the Allies were not within their rights to put forth such a treaty nor am I blaming Versailles for Hitler. What we have to realize is that Nazism came out of Germany’s loss of power. So the Nazis might have preached about the inferiority of Jews and other racial minorities and murdered them out of a sense that these groups were subhuman, but the Nazis cannot be labeled as racists since their actions came from their lack of power. It should even be noted here that the bulk of the killing of Jews happened during the second half of the war when Germany was clearly heading toward defeat so even these actions were those of a lack of power.
On a more serious note, how should a person like me respond to Jewish “racism?” Many Haredim and even people who are supposedly Modern Orthodox like to claim that non-Jews, in some sense do not have souls or do not have souls equal to that of Jews. (I admit that there are legitimate Jewish sources for such opinions, but such opinions must be rejected. I would wish for Jews to do something similar to what the Lutheran Church did in regard to Martin Luther’s statements on Jews and officially declare such views to be outside of what a Jew is allowed to believe today.) Jews, particularly Orthodox Jews, do not dominate Western culture and these statements are meant specifically to target people of the European Christian tradition. As such, it fits perfectly into the model of an oppressed group striking out against the dominant culture and therefore, by definition, can never be racist. If I am going to follow this liberal model I, therefore, cannot call such statements racist. What does a supposed liberal like Gandy want me to do? Does she want me to simply keep my mouth shut, wink, and smile at such statements? There are many things that one can call such a course of action, but liberal is not one of them.
The liberal definition of racism would, if followed consistently, rob the term of any meaning. For me, that is a problem. As a follower of the liberal tradition, I believe that ultimately human beings are one group and should work together for the good of the human race as a whole. As such any form of tribalism, the idea that one should prefer one’s group over another is a problem. I am a realist and recognize that there is a little tribalism in us all. I am therefore willing to put up with a moderate level of tribalism as long as it is kept to the sensibility of “our men are the strongest, our women the fairest, and our land the most beautiful” and that even this is recognized as something absurd to be laughed at. The moment this tribalism turns to racism, that some groups are above having ethical obligations and that others are below deserving them, we have something truly dangerous on our hands. Racism is the end of all humanism and will destroy the free society. Why should members of the “master race” bother to follow the rules of a free society and why should members of “inferior races” be allowed to benefit?
I have not formed any strong opinions on Judge Sotomayor and I have no idea if she is a racist or not. For now, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. That being said I believe that this is an important question to be asked. As a white Jewish male, raised with the best of liberal values, I grew up knowing that I had responsibilities beyond simply white Jewish men and needed to look out for human beings as a whole. I do not claim to be perfect and I have my tribalist biases. I still know, though, to be ashamed of them and seek to limit them through regular doses of self-examination, exposure to people who are not white, Jewish, or male, and, most important of all, to laugh at myself. I, therefore, have every right to ask if Sotomayor has this same sense of working on behalf of everyone and not just Hispanic women. I deserve an answer to that question and not just to be told my question is meaningless.
Let us consider some of the implications of this definition of racism as something that only applies to people outside of power. Gandy does not seem to appreciate that racism often arises from a perception of powerlessness and a desire to strike out against a perceived racial oppressor. Take the rise of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstructionist America, a definitive example of racism if there ever was one in American history. From the perspective of Southern apologetics (Watch Birth of a Nation if you want to see a good example of this), it was white Southerners who were being oppressed by an alliance of Northerners and blacks. Now, one has to admit that these Southerners had a point; the South lost the Civil War, was devastated and was at the mercy of the North. Northern abolitionists wished to help former slaves and saw them as useful allies in ruling over the former members of the Confederacy. This does not justify the actions of the Klan. Personally, I think the South deserved what happened to them and actually got off too lightly. That being said, the Klan was coming from a position of lacking power. They may have struck against those who had even less power, but that still does not make their actions that of the powerful. At the end of the day, as horrible as their actions were, these were actions that came out of a lack of power. If we apply the liberal definition of racism honestly then we must accept that, however we wish to describe the horrors of the Southern response to Reconstruction, we cannot call it racism.
What about Nazi Germany? The Nazis arose after the defeat of Germany in World War I and the crushing peace treaty of Versailles. I am not suggesting that the Allies were not within their rights to put forth such a treaty nor am I blaming Versailles for Hitler. What we have to realize is that Nazism came out of Germany’s loss of power. So the Nazis might have preached about the inferiority of Jews and other racial minorities and murdered them out of a sense that these groups were subhuman, but the Nazis cannot be labeled as racists since their actions came from their lack of power. It should even be noted here that the bulk of the killing of Jews happened during the second half of the war when Germany was clearly heading toward defeat so even these actions were those of a lack of power.
On a more serious note, how should a person like me respond to Jewish “racism?” Many Haredim and even people who are supposedly Modern Orthodox like to claim that non-Jews, in some sense do not have souls or do not have souls equal to that of Jews. (I admit that there are legitimate Jewish sources for such opinions, but such opinions must be rejected. I would wish for Jews to do something similar to what the Lutheran Church did in regard to Martin Luther’s statements on Jews and officially declare such views to be outside of what a Jew is allowed to believe today.) Jews, particularly Orthodox Jews, do not dominate Western culture and these statements are meant specifically to target people of the European Christian tradition. As such, it fits perfectly into the model of an oppressed group striking out against the dominant culture and therefore, by definition, can never be racist. If I am going to follow this liberal model I, therefore, cannot call such statements racist. What does a supposed liberal like Gandy want me to do? Does she want me to simply keep my mouth shut, wink, and smile at such statements? There are many things that one can call such a course of action, but liberal is not one of them.
The liberal definition of racism would, if followed consistently, rob the term of any meaning. For me, that is a problem. As a follower of the liberal tradition, I believe that ultimately human beings are one group and should work together for the good of the human race as a whole. As such any form of tribalism, the idea that one should prefer one’s group over another is a problem. I am a realist and recognize that there is a little tribalism in us all. I am therefore willing to put up with a moderate level of tribalism as long as it is kept to the sensibility of “our men are the strongest, our women the fairest, and our land the most beautiful” and that even this is recognized as something absurd to be laughed at. The moment this tribalism turns to racism, that some groups are above having ethical obligations and that others are below deserving them, we have something truly dangerous on our hands. Racism is the end of all humanism and will destroy the free society. Why should members of the “master race” bother to follow the rules of a free society and why should members of “inferior races” be allowed to benefit?
I have not formed any strong opinions on Judge Sotomayor and I have no idea if she is a racist or not. For now, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. That being said I believe that this is an important question to be asked. As a white Jewish male, raised with the best of liberal values, I grew up knowing that I had responsibilities beyond simply white Jewish men and needed to look out for human beings as a whole. I do not claim to be perfect and I have my tribalist biases. I still know, though, to be ashamed of them and seek to limit them through regular doses of self-examination, exposure to people who are not white, Jewish, or male, and, most important of all, to laugh at myself. I, therefore, have every right to ask if Sotomayor has this same sense of working on behalf of everyone and not just Hispanic women. I deserve an answer to that question and not just to be told my question is meaningless.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
History 112: Final
Here is the final I gave my students. It consisted of two sections, identifies, where they had to give the proper context for a given person or term, and a pair of short essays for them to write. With the exception of a few disasters pretty much everyone did well on this final. The average for this final was about an 84. My philosophy is that I demand more than most from my students, but I am a fairly generous grader.
Identifies – 70 pts (Pick 7)
1. Friedrich Engels
2. John Calvin
3. Thomas Hobbes
4. Spanish Armada
5. Versailles
6. Immanuel Kant
7. Schlieffen Plan
8. Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty
9. Six Day War
10. Maximilian Robespierre
Bonus: Deborah Lipstadt
Essays – 130 (Pick 2)
1. What is the Whig narrative? Give specific examples from the material we covered in class such as the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. How would a Whig view these events? Is the Whig narrative particularly useful? What might some alternatives?
2. What are primary and secondary sources? How does each of these things contribute to an understanding of history? Give specific examples from the reading and your non-fiction book.
3. What were some of the major implications of the Scientific Revolution? Did the Scientific Revolution mean an end to faith? Discuss the religious beliefs of at least three major figures from the Scientific Revolution (e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Bruno, Newton)
4. Describe some of the methods used by the Nazi and Soviet Regimes to promote their views. Can brilliant art be put into the service of totalitarian regimes? What is the moral responsibility of the artist for the uses of their work? Can one separate art from the historical context in which it was created?
Identifies – 70 pts (Pick 7)
1. Friedrich Engels
2. John Calvin
3. Thomas Hobbes
4. Spanish Armada
5. Versailles
6. Immanuel Kant
7. Schlieffen Plan
8. Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty
9. Six Day War
10. Maximilian Robespierre
Bonus: Deborah Lipstadt
Essays – 130 (Pick 2)
1. What is the Whig narrative? Give specific examples from the material we covered in class such as the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. How would a Whig view these events? Is the Whig narrative particularly useful? What might some alternatives?
2. What are primary and secondary sources? How does each of these things contribute to an understanding of history? Give specific examples from the reading and your non-fiction book.
3. What were some of the major implications of the Scientific Revolution? Did the Scientific Revolution mean an end to faith? Discuss the religious beliefs of at least three major figures from the Scientific Revolution (e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Bruno, Newton)
4. Describe some of the methods used by the Nazi and Soviet Regimes to promote their views. Can brilliant art be put into the service of totalitarian regimes? What is the moral responsibility of the artist for the uses of their work? Can one separate art from the historical context in which it was created?
My Problem with Terry Eagleton
One of the newest entries into the debate over the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins is Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Eagleton is on the “God” side of this debate and his book is an attack on Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, dubbed by Eagleton as Ditchkins, in particular. Considering the highly polemical nature of this debate Eagleton has certainly received many supportive and hostile reviews. Two very useful examples of this are Stanley Fish in support and PZ Myers in opposition. Fish's glowing review of Eagleton is particularly interesting as Eagleton takes a swipe at him twice in this very book. I find the book to be well written and at times, when defending the beauty of faith, Eagleton comes almost to the level of C. S. Lewis. I must, in the end though, side with Myers in opposing this book, even if it is for very different reasons.
While most of the attention regarding Eagleton has been about the reason and faith parts of the book, Eagleton’s real focus is on revolution. For Eagleton, as unapologetic Marxist, revolution here means the defeat of global Capitalism. Dawkins and the New Atheist movement like the religious fundamentalists, they love to mock, are products of late Capitalism and its failure of values. The solution for Eagleton lies in abandoning the simple economic calculus of Capitalism and embracing Marxism. It is Marxism that offers the necessary grounding in values to stand against economic inequality and imperialism.
Despite my opposition to Communism, I actually enjoyed this part of the book as well. I see no problem in reconciling religion in general and Christianity in particular with Marxism. Any person of faith who can reconcile his faith with evolution should have little difficulty making his peace with Marxism. I can even admire Eagleton for his subversiveness in wrapping a Marxist polemic between the cover of a theist book. Ordinary passive believers looking for confirmation in their faith are going to be in for a rude surprise. I find his case for Marxism remarkably eloquent and persuasive after a fashion. One of the beauties of being a free-marketer is that I am able absorb the strong points of every other economic ideology. For example, yes I have a problem with CEOs making millions while ordinary workers struggle to get by. I think companies would, in general, be far better off being run by their workers and for their workers. The free-market offers the opportunity for such a proletarian takeover without a drop of blood being shed. (The fact that our government has stepped in to bail out corporate America from a financial mess of their own creation offends me as much as the most ardent Marxist.)
My problem with Eagleton is that his hostility toward Capitalism leads him into an anti-West rant where he blames the United States in particular for pretty much all of the problems in the Third World. Eagleton dances around the issue but in the end, for all intents and purposes, he blames September 11 on the United States since, from his perspective, the United States created the problem of Islamic terrorism. Eagleton may be a bit more subtle than Ward Churchill but that just makes him all the more dangerous. Eagleton is smart enough to know that his case cannot stand critical scrutiny yet continues to try implying it on the sly.
As with many on the radical left, Eagleton’s anti-West sentiments quickly lead him to attacking Israel as the fist of the West’s oppression. Eagleton waxes nostalgically about President Nasser of Egypt. According to Eagleton:
Nasserism, once the dominant secular-nationalist, authoritarian-socialist current in the Arab world, was effectively destroyed by the Western-backed 1967 Israeli victory over Egypt. The Islamism that arouse in the wake of that defeat arraigned Nasser for his failure to lead the Arab forces to victory over Israel. The political balance within the Arab would shifted accordingly, away from a discredited Nasserism to the monarchical, pro-Western Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia. What a secular politics could apparently not accomplish, a fanatically religious one could achieve instead (pg. 106).
So great tragic turning point in history was when the Mein Kampf loving dictator of Egypt failed to destroy its democratic neighbor and massacre its Jewish population.
Considering that Eagleton has no problem with apologizing for Nasser’s atrocities, one might hope he would show Israel the same courtesy. Israel is blamed for perpetuating a massacre on the Jordanians in 1971. Eagleton point blank argues that “without the vast concentration camp known as the Gaza Strip, it is not at all out of the question that the Twin Towers would still be standing" (pg. 107). While the first concentration camps were created by the British during the Boar War, in modern parlance a concentration camp means something very specific. So by using this word, Eagleton can mean only one of three things. He could be a Holocaust denier, who believes that the camps were about as bad as the Palestinian situation. He could be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, who believes, without evidence, that Israel has murdered millions of Palestinians. Or he could just be a plain liar, seeking to malign Israel and Jews for his own ideological gain.
Eagleton is a textbook example of Dennis Prager’s observation that hatred of the United States and anti-Semitism seem to follow similar lines of reasoning and have common origins. In the end one must view Faith, Reason and Revolution as an attempt to pass off anti-Israel propaganda and plain anti-Semitism under the guise of a bestselling book on religion. The fact that this is only a passing issue in the book makes it all the more dangerous. If Eagleton had been forthright about his agenda this book would never have sold. He is not really interesting in defending Christianity or any form of theism. His real interest is to push for Marxism, an ideology grounded in hatred of the West and of Israel.
While most of the attention regarding Eagleton has been about the reason and faith parts of the book, Eagleton’s real focus is on revolution. For Eagleton, as unapologetic Marxist, revolution here means the defeat of global Capitalism. Dawkins and the New Atheist movement like the religious fundamentalists, they love to mock, are products of late Capitalism and its failure of values. The solution for Eagleton lies in abandoning the simple economic calculus of Capitalism and embracing Marxism. It is Marxism that offers the necessary grounding in values to stand against economic inequality and imperialism.
Despite my opposition to Communism, I actually enjoyed this part of the book as well. I see no problem in reconciling religion in general and Christianity in particular with Marxism. Any person of faith who can reconcile his faith with evolution should have little difficulty making his peace with Marxism. I can even admire Eagleton for his subversiveness in wrapping a Marxist polemic between the cover of a theist book. Ordinary passive believers looking for confirmation in their faith are going to be in for a rude surprise. I find his case for Marxism remarkably eloquent and persuasive after a fashion. One of the beauties of being a free-marketer is that I am able absorb the strong points of every other economic ideology. For example, yes I have a problem with CEOs making millions while ordinary workers struggle to get by. I think companies would, in general, be far better off being run by their workers and for their workers. The free-market offers the opportunity for such a proletarian takeover without a drop of blood being shed. (The fact that our government has stepped in to bail out corporate America from a financial mess of their own creation offends me as much as the most ardent Marxist.)
My problem with Eagleton is that his hostility toward Capitalism leads him into an anti-West rant where he blames the United States in particular for pretty much all of the problems in the Third World. Eagleton dances around the issue but in the end, for all intents and purposes, he blames September 11 on the United States since, from his perspective, the United States created the problem of Islamic terrorism. Eagleton may be a bit more subtle than Ward Churchill but that just makes him all the more dangerous. Eagleton is smart enough to know that his case cannot stand critical scrutiny yet continues to try implying it on the sly.
As with many on the radical left, Eagleton’s anti-West sentiments quickly lead him to attacking Israel as the fist of the West’s oppression. Eagleton waxes nostalgically about President Nasser of Egypt. According to Eagleton:
Nasserism, once the dominant secular-nationalist, authoritarian-socialist current in the Arab world, was effectively destroyed by the Western-backed 1967 Israeli victory over Egypt. The Islamism that arouse in the wake of that defeat arraigned Nasser for his failure to lead the Arab forces to victory over Israel. The political balance within the Arab would shifted accordingly, away from a discredited Nasserism to the monarchical, pro-Western Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia. What a secular politics could apparently not accomplish, a fanatically religious one could achieve instead (pg. 106).
So great tragic turning point in history was when the Mein Kampf loving dictator of Egypt failed to destroy its democratic neighbor and massacre its Jewish population.
Considering that Eagleton has no problem with apologizing for Nasser’s atrocities, one might hope he would show Israel the same courtesy. Israel is blamed for perpetuating a massacre on the Jordanians in 1971. Eagleton point blank argues that “without the vast concentration camp known as the Gaza Strip, it is not at all out of the question that the Twin Towers would still be standing" (pg. 107). While the first concentration camps were created by the British during the Boar War, in modern parlance a concentration camp means something very specific. So by using this word, Eagleton can mean only one of three things. He could be a Holocaust denier, who believes that the camps were about as bad as the Palestinian situation. He could be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, who believes, without evidence, that Israel has murdered millions of Palestinians. Or he could just be a plain liar, seeking to malign Israel and Jews for his own ideological gain.
Eagleton is a textbook example of Dennis Prager’s observation that hatred of the United States and anti-Semitism seem to follow similar lines of reasoning and have common origins. In the end one must view Faith, Reason and Revolution as an attempt to pass off anti-Israel propaganda and plain anti-Semitism under the guise of a bestselling book on religion. The fact that this is only a passing issue in the book makes it all the more dangerous. If Eagleton had been forthright about his agenda this book would never have sold. He is not really interesting in defending Christianity or any form of theism. His real interest is to push for Marxism, an ideology grounded in hatred of the West and of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)