Our Supreme Court can be without a Protestant justice for the first time ever. And guess what? Most Americans don’t care. According to a Fox News poll, 70% couldn’t care less if the next nominee is a Protestant.
I find this to be a step in the right direction. Up until very recently in American history, Catholics and Jews were barred from noticable ascents to power and access to many societal institutions. Not only have we gotten past the “the only true American is a WASP” mentality, but we have also voiced that religious affiliation doesn’t matter for a Supreme Court nomination. Kudos to America for showing progress!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Israel's Tal Law and a Sense of Self-Entitlement
I didn’t know until yesterday that this existed in Israeli law, but after reading the Jerusalem Post, I found out that there was such a law called the Tal Law. The article gives a good explanation of what it entails:
As the article states, there are some issues regarding this law. The first is that only 3.5% of Haredim serve in the army. Although one might think that the Haredim are as sparse in American Jewish society as they are in Israel might want to re-examine. Again, referring to the article, “Currently, 48% of elementary school students are either haredi or Arab and, as highlighted in these columns before, that is set to rise to 78% by 2040.” Demographically speaking, that causes a slight problem because all this becomes is a legislatively licit form of draft-dodging. With a country surrounded by antagonistic enemies that want to see nothing more than the demise of Israel, that’s just a poor approach to long-term national security.
This goes beyond military service. The Israeli government also does this with regards to them working in general. About 70,000 married men receive annual state-funded stipends of NIS 10,000, and 33,000 unmarried young men receive about NIS 5,700 a year. The total annual yeshiva budget is about NIS 1 billion, which is nearly $270M.
How the Israel gives preferential treatment to yeshiva students is an outrage. Israel, you are willingly perpetuating the welfare system within your own borders. Because of this pandering to the Haredi community, it directly results in your high poverty (23.6%) and moderately high unemployment (7.4%...not as high as the States, but still!). As the Haredi population increases and the secular population decreases, the welfare state in Israel will only grow. If suicide bombers don’t blow up Israel, Israel will certainly commit national suicide by maintaining upholding this toches-kissing.
It’s not enough that it hinders Israel from its fullest economic potential. What really sets me off about the whole arrangement is why. For Haredim, Torah study supersedes military service, as well as having a job. Not only does their level of presumptuousness reek of holier-than-thou self-righteousness, but it is decidedly un-Jewish.
What exactly do I mean when I say it’s un-Jewish? What I mean by that is we were meant to work. Regarding work, the Torah says this: “Six days you shall labor, and the seventh you shall rest (Ex. 34:21).” How do I know that this goes beyond productivity, whether economic or erudite? Because all the Talmudic rabbis still had jobs to maintain the livelihood. Because Rabbi Gamiliel (Pirke Avot 2:2) [as well as subsequent commentary on this verse] says that study of Torah with a worldly occupation is a great thing. Because King David realized the value of work when he said (Psalm 128:2) "When you eat the labor of your hands, happy you shall be and it shall be well with you." Because King Solomon realized the perils of dependency when he said in Proverbs 15:27, "He that is greedy of gain troubles his own house; but he that hates gifts shall live."
The fashion in which Israeli Haredim behave is even more despicable than the welfare queens of America because they mooch off the government in the name of religion. For the sake of Israel, I hope that the Israeli government does the fair, democratic thing not only by making everybody serve, but even more importantly, eradicate the welfare system to stop the mentality of self-entitlement. That way, the Jewish people can raise their heads up high knowing their livelihood is not dependent on the gifts of others.
"The centerpiece recommendation, later ratified by the Knesset as part of the Tal Law, was to give yeshiva students aged 22 the option to take a one-year leave of absence, without facing immediate conscription, during which they could learn a trade or work. After that year was over, they could either return to the yeshiva, or perform a minimal military stint (four months with reserve duty) or national service (one full year) before being free to embark on a career."
As the article states, there are some issues regarding this law. The first is that only 3.5% of Haredim serve in the army. Although one might think that the Haredim are as sparse in American Jewish society as they are in Israel might want to re-examine. Again, referring to the article, “Currently, 48% of elementary school students are either haredi or Arab and, as highlighted in these columns before, that is set to rise to 78% by 2040.” Demographically speaking, that causes a slight problem because all this becomes is a legislatively licit form of draft-dodging. With a country surrounded by antagonistic enemies that want to see nothing more than the demise of Israel, that’s just a poor approach to long-term national security.
This goes beyond military service. The Israeli government also does this with regards to them working in general. About 70,000 married men receive annual state-funded stipends of NIS 10,000, and 33,000 unmarried young men receive about NIS 5,700 a year. The total annual yeshiva budget is about NIS 1 billion, which is nearly $270M.
How the Israel gives preferential treatment to yeshiva students is an outrage. Israel, you are willingly perpetuating the welfare system within your own borders. Because of this pandering to the Haredi community, it directly results in your high poverty (23.6%) and moderately high unemployment (7.4%...not as high as the States, but still!). As the Haredi population increases and the secular population decreases, the welfare state in Israel will only grow. If suicide bombers don’t blow up Israel, Israel will certainly commit national suicide by maintaining upholding this toches-kissing.
It’s not enough that it hinders Israel from its fullest economic potential. What really sets me off about the whole arrangement is why. For Haredim, Torah study supersedes military service, as well as having a job. Not only does their level of presumptuousness reek of holier-than-thou self-righteousness, but it is decidedly un-Jewish.
What exactly do I mean when I say it’s un-Jewish? What I mean by that is we were meant to work. Regarding work, the Torah says this: “Six days you shall labor, and the seventh you shall rest (Ex. 34:21).” How do I know that this goes beyond productivity, whether economic or erudite? Because all the Talmudic rabbis still had jobs to maintain the livelihood. Because Rabbi Gamiliel (Pirke Avot 2:2) [as well as subsequent commentary on this verse] says that study of Torah with a worldly occupation is a great thing. Because King David realized the value of work when he said (Psalm 128:2) "When you eat the labor of your hands, happy you shall be and it shall be well with you." Because King Solomon realized the perils of dependency when he said in Proverbs 15:27, "He that is greedy of gain troubles his own house; but he that hates gifts shall live."
The fashion in which Israeli Haredim behave is even more despicable than the welfare queens of America because they mooch off the government in the name of religion. For the sake of Israel, I hope that the Israeli government does the fair, democratic thing not only by making everybody serve, but even more importantly, eradicate the welfare system to stop the mentality of self-entitlement. That way, the Jewish people can raise their heads up high knowing their livelihood is not dependent on the gifts of others.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Ralph Nader: Tying In Civic Ethics with Jewish Ethics
I wasn’t expecting Ralph Nader's secular speech on civic duty to inadvertantly turn into a lesson on Jewish ethics. One of the things that struck me was his approach as to why most people don’t participate in civic life. He says that for many, people feel powerless in terms of the say they have of how their government works. Even if they didn’t feel powerless, they’d fall back on the excuse of “I don’t know how to even get started.” And even if they can get past that, there’s the excuse of “what if I get attacked.” And if backlash isn’t of concern, you still have to deal with “well, what I would do anyways wouldn’t make a difference.” As I am listening to this description, it sounded like something that was all too familiar—the יצר הרע (evil inclination). Nader was giving the secularized message that we constantly give ourselves excuses not to be actively involved in life. If we let the evil inclination get the better of us, we waste our lives. What separates us from the animals is that were more than creatures of instincts and mass consumption. Even when you look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (diagram below), self-actualization (and an example of that would be engaging in civic life) and being driven by purpose are at the top.
Embellishing on his point of civics was another point he brought up—responsibility for others. The Hebrew word for responsibility, which is אחריות. Etymologically speaking, אחריות has the same root as the word for other, אחר. Even our Sages (Pirke Avot 1:14) asked the question of "if I am only for myself, what kind of person am I?" The reason why Jewish tradition emphasized responsibility as such an important aspect of life is because it takes ego out of the equation. The ego is only obsessed with pleasing the self, something which can never be actualized. Even when looking at the Hierarchy of Needs, one cannot reach their full potential without developing a sense of responsibility. Plus, when you read the Torah, you realize that it is not a monastic practice. Much of it has to do with one's interactions with man and developing a sense of communal responsibility.
Finally, a message I had gathered from Nader's talk, was the important concept of self-empowerment. It’s safe to say that I don’t agree with the man’s politics. His call to aggrandize the government is abhorrent, as far as I am concerned. However, I do respect him because he has an exceptionally strong work ethic and is a self-made man, both traits I admire greatly. Self-empowerment has its Jewish roots, after all. We were brought here to exert our free will, yet another characteristic to separate us from the animals. If it weren't for free will, our moral choices would be meaningless, which is why Judaism doesn’t believe in the doctrine of predestination. I had recently blogged about how Jewish rituals play a role to ultimately help us realize our roles to do acts of loving-kindness. "And what does the L-rd require of you? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with G-d (Michah 6:8)." This cannot be done without developing a sense of helping the other. Even by acting justly in a secular arena such as civic life, we have the potential to hasten the coming of the Messiah. May Moshiach come soon!
Embellishing on his point of civics was another point he brought up—responsibility for others. The Hebrew word for responsibility, which is אחריות. Etymologically speaking, אחריות has the same root as the word for other, אחר. Even our Sages (Pirke Avot 1:14) asked the question of "if I am only for myself, what kind of person am I?" The reason why Jewish tradition emphasized responsibility as such an important aspect of life is because it takes ego out of the equation. The ego is only obsessed with pleasing the self, something which can never be actualized. Even when looking at the Hierarchy of Needs, one cannot reach their full potential without developing a sense of responsibility. Plus, when you read the Torah, you realize that it is not a monastic practice. Much of it has to do with one's interactions with man and developing a sense of communal responsibility.
Finally, a message I had gathered from Nader's talk, was the important concept of self-empowerment. It’s safe to say that I don’t agree with the man’s politics. His call to aggrandize the government is abhorrent, as far as I am concerned. However, I do respect him because he has an exceptionally strong work ethic and is a self-made man, both traits I admire greatly. Self-empowerment has its Jewish roots, after all. We were brought here to exert our free will, yet another characteristic to separate us from the animals. If it weren't for free will, our moral choices would be meaningless, which is why Judaism doesn’t believe in the doctrine of predestination. I had recently blogged about how Jewish rituals play a role to ultimately help us realize our roles to do acts of loving-kindness. "And what does the L-rd require of you? To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with G-d (Michah 6:8)." This cannot be done without developing a sense of helping the other. Even by acting justly in a secular arena such as civic life, we have the potential to hasten the coming of the Messiah. May Moshiach come soon!
Ralph Nader Speech: Crony Capitalism and What To Do About It
Last night, I was able to see Ralph Nader give a speech at my alma mater. He talked about a great deal of issues, including how corporate America has gained such a hold of our political system and our daily lives that we really don’t have freedom anymore. In terms of his list of grievances, they were largely spot on. Where I have to part ways with Nader is his overall critique of capitalism.
The issue with American politics and economy is not with capitalism per se, but with a certain kind of capitalism, mainly crony capitalism (or corporatism). Think of capitalism as a nice car, such as a Rolls Royce. Now, put a belligerently drunken idiot (i.e. cronyism) behind the wheel of that car. How long do you think the car will stay in one piece? This is where Nader and I would disagree. He'd say the problem is with the car, whereas I'd accurately say it's the driver.
I don’t subscribe to Nader alluding that Obama is a puppet of Wall Street. However, I will give him credence in that corporations do have a disproportionately large amount of representation in American politics, although that's a far cry from pulling politicians' strings. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of campaign donations come from Big Business. It would explain why Congress was more willing to give Wall Street the biggest bailout in American history. [Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Nader is ultimately right. I'm just showing that Nader doesn't base himself solely on crackpot theories about how wonderful government regulation is. There is actually some truth in what he has to say about corporate influence.]
Does this mean I advocate for Nader’s approach of further regulations? Goodness, no! As a general rule of thumb, government regulation is a terrible idea. A great majority of business owners are small business owners. An organization such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which was actually conceived "thanks" to Nader's activism, is a regulation nightmare. Half of their violations come from the "horrors" of not filling out proper paperwork. One study shows that these regulations actually increase occupational death rate. Regulations are a cost-increasing nightmare. It's funny to read this article from the Mises Institute from 2000 because they predict that we can have up to a $3T defecit in 2010. I guess if they knew Obama was going to be in office, they might have increased their projected prediction a bit. I can go on about regulatory egregiousness, but I'm sure that books have been written about this, probably by such geniuses as Hayek and Friedman.
Rather than usher in an era of even bigger government than FDR or LBJ had envisioned, I would like the economy to arrive at free-market economics, where Big Business can’t sway Big Government to insulate them from competition. I would like to see a government that serves the people rather than pander to special interests. Just to give you the condensed version what I had said about the Tea Party: I want my country back!
Notwithstanding Keynesian economics or Nader’s ranting about the corporations controlling American politics, we need to focus on bringing free-market capitalism back to the minds of the American people. And that begins with an individual’s consumer awareness. Know what you’re buying. Know how much you need, and don’t give into frivolous spending. Even more important, know the basics of economics. Open up an Economics 101 textbook or watch something like Milton Friedman’s Freedom to Choose television series. Having better informed consumers means more effective participation in the civics, which ultimately means politicians can stop pulling the wool over our eyes.
The issue with American politics and economy is not with capitalism per se, but with a certain kind of capitalism, mainly crony capitalism (or corporatism). Think of capitalism as a nice car, such as a Rolls Royce. Now, put a belligerently drunken idiot (i.e. cronyism) behind the wheel of that car. How long do you think the car will stay in one piece? This is where Nader and I would disagree. He'd say the problem is with the car, whereas I'd accurately say it's the driver.
I don’t subscribe to Nader alluding that Obama is a puppet of Wall Street. However, I will give him credence in that corporations do have a disproportionately large amount of representation in American politics, although that's a far cry from pulling politicians' strings. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of campaign donations come from Big Business. It would explain why Congress was more willing to give Wall Street the biggest bailout in American history. [Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Nader is ultimately right. I'm just showing that Nader doesn't base himself solely on crackpot theories about how wonderful government regulation is. There is actually some truth in what he has to say about corporate influence.]
Does this mean I advocate for Nader’s approach of further regulations? Goodness, no! As a general rule of thumb, government regulation is a terrible idea. A great majority of business owners are small business owners. An organization such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which was actually conceived "thanks" to Nader's activism, is a regulation nightmare. Half of their violations come from the "horrors" of not filling out proper paperwork. One study shows that these regulations actually increase occupational death rate. Regulations are a cost-increasing nightmare. It's funny to read this article from the Mises Institute from 2000 because they predict that we can have up to a $3T defecit in 2010. I guess if they knew Obama was going to be in office, they might have increased their projected prediction a bit. I can go on about regulatory egregiousness, but I'm sure that books have been written about this, probably by such geniuses as Hayek and Friedman.
Rather than usher in an era of even bigger government than FDR or LBJ had envisioned, I would like the economy to arrive at free-market economics, where Big Business can’t sway Big Government to insulate them from competition. I would like to see a government that serves the people rather than pander to special interests. Just to give you the condensed version what I had said about the Tea Party: I want my country back!
Notwithstanding Keynesian economics or Nader’s ranting about the corporations controlling American politics, we need to focus on bringing free-market capitalism back to the minds of the American people. And that begins with an individual’s consumer awareness. Know what you’re buying. Know how much you need, and don’t give into frivolous spending. Even more important, know the basics of economics. Open up an Economics 101 textbook or watch something like Milton Friedman’s Freedom to Choose television series. Having better informed consumers means more effective participation in the civics, which ultimately means politicians can stop pulling the wool over our eyes.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Re-Evaluating Jewish Ritual: A Reading of Hosea 6:6
I had an interesting comment posted on one of my previous blog postings, Jesus Didn't Die For My Sins. An anonymous Christian had posted how they had troubles believing that a blood sacrifice by Jesus was necessary for atonement. Their prooftext for this was Hosea 6:6, and the verse reads as such:
For that Christian, they thought that the purpose was not supposed to be obsessed with sacrifice, but with developing a closer relationship to G-d. I thank him/her for that insight because it helped me think about how that verse had and still does apply to Jews.
Before I continue with that thought, however, I would like to tell you an anecdote of when I was in Israel back in 2008. I was praying at the Kotel with my tefillin on. After I was done davening, I went to return the tefillin that the Chabad rabbis had so generously lent me. They asked me what I was doing in Israel, and I told them that I was on the Birthright trip. After asking a bit more about my background, the following conversation ensued:
Chabad Rabbi: Do you keep kosher?
Me: Glatt kosher? No.
Chabad Rabbi: Do you keep Shabbos?
Me: Shomer Shabbos? No.
Chabad Rabbi: Well, stay with us for a few days after your Birthright trip, and we'll teach you how to be a real Jew.
The only thing that could run through my mind was "Excuse me?!" Apparently, for these rabbis, the two indicators of what made a "real Jew" was keeping kosher and Shabbos. It's safe to say that this is but one scenario where I came to learn of Orthodoxy's overt emphasis on the ritualistic aspect of Judaism. I started asking myself why that is the case. In his book A Code of Jewish Ethics: You Shall Be Holy, which, by the way, is an excellent read, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (p. 22) does a good job at providing two reasons for this phenomenon:
1) Preventing assimilation. Jewish ethics, for instance, have more of a universalist bent to them. Although still important for a large majority of Orthodox Jews, ethics are still deemed as secondary in order to make sure that Jews don't go "off the derech." As such, the Orthodox community primarily emphasizes the particularistic, i.e., the rituals of Judaism.
2) Easier to perform ritualistic acts. Is it easy to keep kosher or Shabbos? No. But when you're in a strictly Jewish community, things such as a kosher supermarket or an eruv around your community ease the difficulties of ritualistic practice considerably. Ethical commandments, on the other hand, are difficult to perform, no matter how insulated your community is from the secular world.
Now, am I calling for a dismantling of all Jewish rituals? Of course not! Rituals such as tefillin, tzitzit, and kashrut all bring one closer to G-d, and I can vouch for that based on personal experience. But let's go back to Hosea 6:6 so we can bring some context into what I'm trying to get at. By the time of the later prophets, many thought that the motion of going through the sacrificial process replaced an actual relationship with G-d. As Maimonides points out in the Guide for the Perplexed (III, xxxii), the sacrifices were supposed to be the means rather than the ends. This then begs the question of what the ends are. Look at the verse: the ends are loving-kindness and knowledge of G-d.
Hosea's criticism of Jewish practice rings as true today as it did back then. It is not just about "going through the motions" or reciting the magic formula (i.e., the bracha). Rather, the rituals are supposed to be transformative acts. Rituals make us aware of His presence and that He sustains us. Rituals remind us that we are to be performing acts of kindness as a form of imitatio Dei. When we realize the role that ritual plays within the greater Jewish context, we can greater enhance what it means to develop a true relationship with G-d.
כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי, וְלֹא-זָבַח; וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים, מֵעֹלוֹת.
For I desire loving-kindness, not sacrifices; knowledge of G-d rather than burnt offerings.
For that Christian, they thought that the purpose was not supposed to be obsessed with sacrifice, but with developing a closer relationship to G-d. I thank him/her for that insight because it helped me think about how that verse had and still does apply to Jews.
Before I continue with that thought, however, I would like to tell you an anecdote of when I was in Israel back in 2008. I was praying at the Kotel with my tefillin on. After I was done davening, I went to return the tefillin that the Chabad rabbis had so generously lent me. They asked me what I was doing in Israel, and I told them that I was on the Birthright trip. After asking a bit more about my background, the following conversation ensued:
Chabad Rabbi: Do you keep kosher?
Me: Glatt kosher? No.
Chabad Rabbi: Do you keep Shabbos?
Me: Shomer Shabbos? No.
Chabad Rabbi: Well, stay with us for a few days after your Birthright trip, and we'll teach you how to be a real Jew.
The only thing that could run through my mind was "Excuse me?!" Apparently, for these rabbis, the two indicators of what made a "real Jew" was keeping kosher and Shabbos. It's safe to say that this is but one scenario where I came to learn of Orthodoxy's overt emphasis on the ritualistic aspect of Judaism. I started asking myself why that is the case. In his book A Code of Jewish Ethics: You Shall Be Holy, which, by the way, is an excellent read, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (p. 22) does a good job at providing two reasons for this phenomenon:
1) Preventing assimilation. Jewish ethics, for instance, have more of a universalist bent to them. Although still important for a large majority of Orthodox Jews, ethics are still deemed as secondary in order to make sure that Jews don't go "off the derech." As such, the Orthodox community primarily emphasizes the particularistic, i.e., the rituals of Judaism.
2) Easier to perform ritualistic acts. Is it easy to keep kosher or Shabbos? No. But when you're in a strictly Jewish community, things such as a kosher supermarket or an eruv around your community ease the difficulties of ritualistic practice considerably. Ethical commandments, on the other hand, are difficult to perform, no matter how insulated your community is from the secular world.
Now, am I calling for a dismantling of all Jewish rituals? Of course not! Rituals such as tefillin, tzitzit, and kashrut all bring one closer to G-d, and I can vouch for that based on personal experience. But let's go back to Hosea 6:6 so we can bring some context into what I'm trying to get at. By the time of the later prophets, many thought that the motion of going through the sacrificial process replaced an actual relationship with G-d. As Maimonides points out in the Guide for the Perplexed (III, xxxii), the sacrifices were supposed to be the means rather than the ends. This then begs the question of what the ends are. Look at the verse: the ends are loving-kindness and knowledge of G-d.
Hosea's criticism of Jewish practice rings as true today as it did back then. It is not just about "going through the motions" or reciting the magic formula (i.e., the bracha). Rather, the rituals are supposed to be transformative acts. Rituals make us aware of His presence and that He sustains us. Rituals remind us that we are to be performing acts of kindness as a form of imitatio Dei. When we realize the role that ritual plays within the greater Jewish context, we can greater enhance what it means to develop a true relationship with G-d.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Where's the Jewish Support for Israel?
I was reading a very interesting article by Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg. In spite of his accord with Obama on domestic issues, he wrote about how he nevertheless did not vote for Obama because of Obama's stance on Israel. Rabbi Wohlberg points out that the Obama administration is accusing Israel as the hinderance of peace, something which is unprecedented in American-Israeli relations. I highly suggest reading the article as it points out some of the finer points that makes Obama adversarial to Israel's interests, yet another phenomenon that is unprecented in American-Israeli relations.
After reading the article, I had to ask myself what the American Jewish community thinks of all of this. Reading a CNN article, it comes out that about two-thirds of Jews disapprove of the way Obama is handling Israel. Yet it's "funny" how every poll I see regarding American Jews and Obama shows that support for him is well over half. Although there has been some decline in Obama's approval rating since the election (which was nearly 80%), I find it disheartening that the secular minhag of being ardently Democrat is getting in the way of support for Israel.
Although Israel is not the sole issue one should take into consideration when a Jew analyzes the job a give president is doing, it should most certainly be at the top of the list. I hope that the recent celebration of Yom Ha'atzmaut, along with the realization that Obama is putting all of the burden on Israel while expecting nothing from Palestine in return, will help push Israel up on the list of priorities and have the Jewish community put pressure on Obama to do the right thing.
After reading the article, I had to ask myself what the American Jewish community thinks of all of this. Reading a CNN article, it comes out that about two-thirds of Jews disapprove of the way Obama is handling Israel. Yet it's "funny" how every poll I see regarding American Jews and Obama shows that support for him is well over half. Although there has been some decline in Obama's approval rating since the election (which was nearly 80%), I find it disheartening that the secular minhag of being ardently Democrat is getting in the way of support for Israel.
Although Israel is not the sole issue one should take into consideration when a Jew analyzes the job a give president is doing, it should most certainly be at the top of the list. I hope that the recent celebration of Yom Ha'atzmaut, along with the realization that Obama is putting all of the burden on Israel while expecting nothing from Palestine in return, will help push Israel up on the list of priorities and have the Jewish community put pressure on Obama to do the right thing.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Muslim Extremists Stifle Free Speech....Again!
Earlier this week, an Islamist extremist group sent a death threat to the creators of South Park for depicting Mohammed in a bear costume. Although the actual image of the Islamic prophet was supposed to be revealed in this week’s episode, Comedy Central decided to censor the episode to the point of incomprehension.
This censorship goes beyond issues of the First Amendment. In the past, South Park has made fun of Jews, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, [fundamentalist] Christians, atheists, Scientologists, Democrats, the pro-lifers from the Terri Schiavo case, rednecks, the list goes on. Although South Park’s satire can be crude at times, it is safe to say that when it comes to criticizing others, South Park is unquestionably equal opportunity. The question I now pose is the following: have we come across the uncriticizable? Even with a death threat, why should a dozen Muslims located in a bourough in New York City dictate to the rest of America what is appropriate material?! I know that showing an image of Mohammed is a psychological boo-boo for a Muslim, but if you don’t want to see the image of Mohammed portrayed on South Park, here’s what you do: you turn off your television set! You don’t send death threats, especially if you’re a part of the supposed “religion of peace.”
I know that Muslim culture isn’t used to such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or human rights. We don’t live in the Middle East or Northern Africa. This is America, and in this country, we have a government that protects our rights enumerated in the Constitution. This acquiescence to Muslim complaints is a symptom of the political correctness which is already strangling Europe, and is starting to make its way over to the States.
Theo van Gogh produced a film titled Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in the Islamic world. How did the “practitioners of peace” react? They murdered him. When the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed came out, the Muslim world violently protested. Two Danish embassies were burned and over a hundred people died in the process. Death by cartoon, what can one say?
Why should we be scared of Muslim backlash? Where is the civility in lashing out simply because one becomes offended? We live in such a hyper-sensitive society that people are offended by the simplest thing. For instance, let’s say someone is being rude. You can’t criticize them because you should “just accept them for who they are.” But in this country, if you end up criticizing them, you’re the one labeled as the intolerant boob. Not only is the "American perception" of what is proper is out of whack, but we let Muslims manipulate our sense of tolerance and diversity to get away with it.
If you don’t like a form of media, don’t use it. If it really offends you, get a bunch of friends together to boycott it to put a crimp on their finances. But death threats? Really? Talking about uncouth! As soon as we cave into one group because something is offensive, then we have to start stifling everybody’s free speech, and that is totalitarianism.
This censorship goes beyond issues of the First Amendment. In the past, South Park has made fun of Jews, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, [fundamentalist] Christians, atheists, Scientologists, Democrats, the pro-lifers from the Terri Schiavo case, rednecks, the list goes on. Although South Park’s satire can be crude at times, it is safe to say that when it comes to criticizing others, South Park is unquestionably equal opportunity. The question I now pose is the following: have we come across the uncriticizable? Even with a death threat, why should a dozen Muslims located in a bourough in New York City dictate to the rest of America what is appropriate material?! I know that showing an image of Mohammed is a psychological boo-boo for a Muslim, but if you don’t want to see the image of Mohammed portrayed on South Park, here’s what you do: you turn off your television set! You don’t send death threats, especially if you’re a part of the supposed “religion of peace.”
I know that Muslim culture isn’t used to such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or human rights. We don’t live in the Middle East or Northern Africa. This is America, and in this country, we have a government that protects our rights enumerated in the Constitution. This acquiescence to Muslim complaints is a symptom of the political correctness which is already strangling Europe, and is starting to make its way over to the States.
Theo van Gogh produced a film titled Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in the Islamic world. How did the “practitioners of peace” react? They murdered him. When the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed came out, the Muslim world violently protested. Two Danish embassies were burned and over a hundred people died in the process. Death by cartoon, what can one say?
Why should we be scared of Muslim backlash? Where is the civility in lashing out simply because one becomes offended? We live in such a hyper-sensitive society that people are offended by the simplest thing. For instance, let’s say someone is being rude. You can’t criticize them because you should “just accept them for who they are.” But in this country, if you end up criticizing them, you’re the one labeled as the intolerant boob. Not only is the "American perception" of what is proper is out of whack, but we let Muslims manipulate our sense of tolerance and diversity to get away with it.
If you don’t like a form of media, don’t use it. If it really offends you, get a bunch of friends together to boycott it to put a crimp on their finances. But death threats? Really? Talking about uncouth! As soon as we cave into one group because something is offensive, then we have to start stifling everybody’s free speech, and that is totalitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)