When I was visiting my Christian friend, who happens to be a Fundamentalist Baptist, out in Denver a couple weeks ago, we were engaging in religious polemics, which is not a surprise at all to me. I was trying to explain to him the Jewish concept of G-d, how G-d is infinite, and consequently, incorporeal. Obviously, this descriptive was incongruent to his theology. When I gave him the description of apophatic theology, he threw a question at me, and it’s been bugging me since. He asked me, “Are you saying that G-d can't do anything, that He's limited in some way?” For those of you who understand G-d from a Jewish perspective, you can understand how this question brought me to a pause.
Fortunately for me, I am not the first one to be troubled by this question. I say “fortunate” because it means that I can refer to men much wiser than myself while grappling with this inquiry. This dilemma has been thought of so often that it comes with its own name—it’s called the omnipotence paradox. Essentially, the omnipotence paradox addresses what an all-powerful being can do, including whether an all-powerful being can render himself powerless. The most cliché example of this paradox is this: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? In more general terms, one asks whether an infinite being can self-limit.
This is difficult to understand, considering that I have taken on the Jewish concept of G-d, which is a perfect, incorporeal, eternal, Infinite Oneness. Based on this definition, G-d couldn’t become a human because that would make G-d imperfect, not to mention finite. As such, omnipotence seems to put a damper into the Jewish notion of G-d. What I offer are three responses to this paradox. I want to point out that the latter two responses have significant overlap with one another.
1) Being finite beings ourselves, we are unable to grasp the nature of an infinite being. His awesomeness is just too much for us to fathom, even with something as paradoxical as this. To paraphrase Job, “If I were G-d, I’d be G-d.” However, I’m a Jew with a rationalist bent, and that answer doesn’t satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Although I am a man who does his utmost to humble himself before G-d, I also realize that life isn’t worth living if you don’t use the intellect that G-d gave you.
2) If G-d can be all of these other things (i.e., incorporeal, eternal, infinite, unity, perfection), and if omnipotence is what is causing the conflict, throw omnipotence out of the equation. Why isn’t it sufficient to say that G-d is exceptionally powerful, more powerful than any finite being could be? Can you not still be in awe of G-d because He created the universe and keeps sustaining the laws necessary to keep us going?
And if G-d could “do anything,” I would find that even more perturbing. If "G-d could do anything," that means G-d could do things like be prone to harm, become spiteful and take it out on others, fall down and scrape His knee, contract cancer, sin, murder others, kill Himself, die, or even turn Himself into a cockroach (all of this, of course, being followed with a whole-hearted "G-d forbid"). It's safe to say that G-d having the hypothetical possibility to become imperfect and finite is much more troubling to me than saying that the one thing G-d cannot do is become finite.
Side note for those who are Jewish: If you look at Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Belief, which is the closest thing one gets to dogma in Judaism (and I only say that because there were some "principles" with which Maimonides himself didn't even agree), omnipotence is not listed on there.
3) We don’t understand the true meaning of power. You can say to me: “If G-d can’t drive a car, then that’s something G-d can’t do.” But then I will ask you, in kind, what driving a car is. Driving a car is getting from point A to point B. The fact that you have to be dependent on a hunk of metal to transport you is a weakness, mainly because you are limited spatially. Even extorting people for money is a form of weakness. The reason I say that is because if you have to do that, you either have self-esteem issues or you need the money. No matter what your excuse for extortion is, you cannot maintain independence in the truest sense. Whatever we consider “true power” is in fact a concession to weakness. Even any form of “power” which is construed as an imitation of G-d (such as an act of loving-kindness) is a diluted, limited form of power. We can never know the true meaning of power. To reiterate, if I knew G-d, I’d be G-d.
I’m glad to finally feel [a degree of] resolution on this paradox because it’s nice not to lose shuteye over this anymore. I have a feeling that many will have a problem with this blog entry because they feel that if G-d were not omnipotent, it would diminish Him in some way. As I have stated, it's the other way around. By declaring him not omnipotent, you actually make G-d greater because of it. Omnipotence is overrated, and I have no problem whatsoever saying so because if G-d were omnipotent, the house of cards that is known as G-dliness would be-a-tumblin’.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Accepting Israel as the Jewish State
I like Daniel Pipes. His latest op-ed piece, Accepting Israel as the Jewish State, reminds me why. Particularly after Yom Yerushalayim, you think about the cause of the "Middle Eastern conflict." It has nothing to do with settlements or nothing to do with pre-1967 borders. If they want land so badly, there are other surrounding Arabic countries that can give them more than plenty. It is the hatred that Palestinians feel for the existence of a Jewish state. If your feelings are so strong about that, then a concession can clearly never be made for its existence. What I was surprised about was that 20% of Palestinians support a Jewish state, a number I thought was a bit high myself. But even if it is that high, the challenge is getting that 20% mobilized enough where they can make 20% grow to 60%, as Pipes points out. Short of troop invasion, which would surely backfire, it's difficult to say how one could stop the Palestinian PR machine that constantly portrays Israel as the most demonic entity in history. If anybody has any constructive thoughts or solutions on the matter, I'd love to hear it because quite frankly, this conflict has been going on long enough.....and that's even in spite of my previous posting.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Jews & Muslims: When and How Did They Go Their Separate Ways?
This was the title of an Adult Education course that my rabbi held yesterday. Although I do commend my rabbi for explaining the history of how Jewish people have lived in Muslim society, i.e., dhimmi status and Judeo-Muslim relations from the Spanish Golden age up to the creation of the modern state of Israel, it still begs the question of what initially caused the friction between the two. To better acquire an answer, I will look in two places: Jewish texts and Muslim texts.
Jewish Tradition
It was interesting because one time, I was having a conversation with my חַזָּן about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told me, "You want to know when it [the conflict] began? It wasn't with the creation of the state of Israel. It goes back to Yishmael and Yitzchak (Isaac)." When I was initially told that, it took me aback to think that such a conflict goes all the way back to the book of Genesis. But after looking at the Jewish texts, it makes sense. What one has to keep in mind is that Muslims can trace their ancestry back to Yishmael, just as the Jewish people trace theirs back to Yitzchak.
A few important things that can be said about Yishmael. In Genesis 21:20, we read that Yishmael was an accomplished archer. There is a Midrash (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 30) that expounds upon that by telling us that Yishmael was born with a bow, meaning that bloodshed does not merely come from training, but is something innate. Other texts illustrate this by saying that he got this from his mother, Hagar, who wanted to be free from the restraints of civilization (Bereishit Rabbah 45:9, Sforno on Bereishit Rabbah 16:6,8).
When reading about the covenant with Ishmael in the book of Genesis, we see that G-d promises a few things: that his descendants will be one great (not necessarily good) nation (17:20), but more importantly, that he will be antagonistic to everyone, including his brothers (16:12). It is worth noting that the phrase used to describe Yishmael is פֶּרֶא אָדָם, which is best translated as an uncivilized man. R. Samson Hirsch explains that פֶּרֶא אָדָם denotes a man liberated from the confines of social order. “His hand against everyone” means that Ishmael removes himself from the laws of society. As he sets about fulfilling his wishes at any cost, chaos ensues (ibid). Even the Chofetz Chayim (Peninim MiShulchan Gavoha on Berishit, p. 78) had the following to say about Yishmael, the פֶּרֶא אָדָם:
Looking at the Jewish texts, it seems to be stating that any pre-Messianic attempt to "give peace a chance" is futile, not to mention that it has thus far predicted the overall friction between the two religions.
Islamic Tradition
Although the conflict between Yishmael and Yitzchak goes back way before the creation of the religion of Islam, it definitely gives some context of what ensues within the life of Mohammed. To make a long story short, Mohammed was a merchant, but one day, he allegedly was given divine revelation in a cave by the Angel Gabriel. He then felt the need to deliver his version of monotheism to the world. During his travels, he had come across many Christians and Jews, but he had particularly been inspired by the Jews. That is why prayer was in the direction of Jerusalem and he kept kashrut, amongst other Jewish rituals. His admiration for Judaism, however, dissipated when the great majority of Jews rejected his "Arab version of Judaism," and rightly so. The result--Mohammed's animosity. He changed the direction of prayer to be towards Mecca rather than Jeruslaem. Short of the prohibition on the consumption of blood and pork, he did away with kashrut. And he also did away with the Sabbath being the holiest day of the week and moved it to Friday. His animosity was coupled with the fact that he had eventually gained enough momentum by 622 CE to acquire a military force.
Before continuing, I have to make a note of how certain things are abrogated (abrogation is based on the Qu'ran 2:106) in the Qu'ran. When reading the Qu'ran, one has to realize that the book is not in chronological order. Although there is some dispute as to the exact chronological order, one thing I have found is that Sura 5 and Sura 9, the chapters describing Jews and Christians in a negative fashion, as well as the infamous verse, 9:29, describing an external, global jihad with unbelievers, are chronologically at the end of Mohammed's "revelation." This means that any peaceful verses one would find from Mohammed's earlier days would have been abrogated by his violent ones. Even if one rejects the Qu'ran as divine, the progression of his hatred towards the unbeliever makes sense. As more Jews [and Christians] reject his version of monotheism, he becomes more embittered by their denial of Mohammed. As his army grows, he is able to better exhibit his anger because he doesn't have to play nice anymore.
Mohammed's view of the kafir, the unbeliever, has to make us pause. In the Qu'ran, it is said that a kafir is an antagonist (3:28), ignorant (6:111), untrustworthy (5:54), arrogant (35:42-43, 40:76), a liar (51:9-10), disgraced (37:18), meriting of punishment (2:88, 68:44), a partner of Satan (2:168-169, 25:55), unclean (9:28), and as a result, will burn in hell (98:6). Because the kafir is "so despised in the 'eyes of Allah'," the kafir can be hated (40:35), enslaved (Bukhari 5,58,148), raped (Ishaq 759), mocked (83:34), punished (25:77), beheaded (47:4), plotted against (86:15), terrorized (8:12), killed (4:91, 6:45), crucified (5:33), faught in jihad (9:29), and humiliated, most notably via a jizya, which is a burdensome poll tax (ibid). When going through the Qu'ran, approximately 94% of all references of "going to Hell" say that you merit it because you disagree with Mohammed, which means that being Jewish doesn't make you "O.K. with Allah." Talk about reassuring....
Even if you decide to ignore that these verses exist or that they have been taken out of context, it cannot be denied that these verses have been used to treat the non-believer horribly throughout history. When the Muslims conquered a given land, they gave the "People of the Book" three options: die, convert, or be given status of dhimmi. For those who don't know what dhimmi status is, it is a subservient pact that allows a non-believer to live in a Muslim world as a non-believer. This pact, however, came with many humiliating provisions. For instance, one had to pay the jizya. Distinctive clothing, most notably a yellow badge, had to be worn. A Jew was not permitted to have a synagogue could ever be higher than a mosque, not to mention that they could ever build new synagogues. A Jew could never give evidence in a Muslim court. A Jew could not inherit from a Muslim. A Jew did not have a right to bear arms. These are just some restrictions placed on the Jew, as well as the Christian. Although all prohibitions were not applied equally or universally, it is safe to say that the typical Muslim believed that the Jew [and the Christian] was inferior to the Muslim. Even though this view should have died along with the Middle Ages, it still unfortunately permeates in the minds of many Muslims.
Conclusion: This treatise was written to better understand the origin of Judeo-Muslim tension. As for any attempt to ameliorate the conflict between the two religions, I guess we'll have to save that discussion for another time.
Jewish Tradition
It was interesting because one time, I was having a conversation with my חַזָּן about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told me, "You want to know when it [the conflict] began? It wasn't with the creation of the state of Israel. It goes back to Yishmael and Yitzchak (Isaac)." When I was initially told that, it took me aback to think that such a conflict goes all the way back to the book of Genesis. But after looking at the Jewish texts, it makes sense. What one has to keep in mind is that Muslims can trace their ancestry back to Yishmael, just as the Jewish people trace theirs back to Yitzchak.
A few important things that can be said about Yishmael. In Genesis 21:20, we read that Yishmael was an accomplished archer. There is a Midrash (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 30) that expounds upon that by telling us that Yishmael was born with a bow, meaning that bloodshed does not merely come from training, but is something innate. Other texts illustrate this by saying that he got this from his mother, Hagar, who wanted to be free from the restraints of civilization (Bereishit Rabbah 45:9, Sforno on Bereishit Rabbah 16:6,8).
When reading about the covenant with Ishmael in the book of Genesis, we see that G-d promises a few things: that his descendants will be one great (not necessarily good) nation (17:20), but more importantly, that he will be antagonistic to everyone, including his brothers (16:12). It is worth noting that the phrase used to describe Yishmael is פֶּרֶא אָדָם, which is best translated as an uncivilized man. R. Samson Hirsch explains that פֶּרֶא אָדָם denotes a man liberated from the confines of social order. “His hand against everyone” means that Ishmael removes himself from the laws of society. As he sets about fulfilling his wishes at any cost, chaos ensues (ibid). Even the Chofetz Chayim (Peninim MiShulchan Gavoha on Berishit, p. 78) had the following to say about Yishmael, the פֶּרֶא אָדָם:
The Torah is eternal. When the Torah tells us that Yishmael is a פֶּרֶא אָדָם, it means that he will remain that way forever. Therefore, any attempt by the "cultured" nations of the world to civilize him will be unsuccessful because Yishmael is uncivilized. Woe, who knows what this פֶּרֶא אָדָם is yet likely to do to the Jewish nation at the end of days.
Looking at the Jewish texts, it seems to be stating that any pre-Messianic attempt to "give peace a chance" is futile, not to mention that it has thus far predicted the overall friction between the two religions.
Islamic Tradition
Although the conflict between Yishmael and Yitzchak goes back way before the creation of the religion of Islam, it definitely gives some context of what ensues within the life of Mohammed. To make a long story short, Mohammed was a merchant, but one day, he allegedly was given divine revelation in a cave by the Angel Gabriel. He then felt the need to deliver his version of monotheism to the world. During his travels, he had come across many Christians and Jews, but he had particularly been inspired by the Jews. That is why prayer was in the direction of Jerusalem and he kept kashrut, amongst other Jewish rituals. His admiration for Judaism, however, dissipated when the great majority of Jews rejected his "Arab version of Judaism," and rightly so. The result--Mohammed's animosity. He changed the direction of prayer to be towards Mecca rather than Jeruslaem. Short of the prohibition on the consumption of blood and pork, he did away with kashrut. And he also did away with the Sabbath being the holiest day of the week and moved it to Friday. His animosity was coupled with the fact that he had eventually gained enough momentum by 622 CE to acquire a military force.
Before continuing, I have to make a note of how certain things are abrogated (abrogation is based on the Qu'ran 2:106) in the Qu'ran. When reading the Qu'ran, one has to realize that the book is not in chronological order. Although there is some dispute as to the exact chronological order, one thing I have found is that Sura 5 and Sura 9, the chapters describing Jews and Christians in a negative fashion, as well as the infamous verse, 9:29, describing an external, global jihad with unbelievers, are chronologically at the end of Mohammed's "revelation." This means that any peaceful verses one would find from Mohammed's earlier days would have been abrogated by his violent ones. Even if one rejects the Qu'ran as divine, the progression of his hatred towards the unbeliever makes sense. As more Jews [and Christians] reject his version of monotheism, he becomes more embittered by their denial of Mohammed. As his army grows, he is able to better exhibit his anger because he doesn't have to play nice anymore.
Mohammed's view of the kafir, the unbeliever, has to make us pause. In the Qu'ran, it is said that a kafir is an antagonist (3:28), ignorant (6:111), untrustworthy (5:54), arrogant (35:42-43, 40:76), a liar (51:9-10), disgraced (37:18), meriting of punishment (2:88, 68:44), a partner of Satan (2:168-169, 25:55), unclean (9:28), and as a result, will burn in hell (98:6). Because the kafir is "so despised in the 'eyes of Allah'," the kafir can be hated (40:35), enslaved (Bukhari 5,58,148), raped (Ishaq 759), mocked (83:34), punished (25:77), beheaded (47:4), plotted against (86:15), terrorized (8:12), killed (4:91, 6:45), crucified (5:33), faught in jihad (9:29), and humiliated, most notably via a jizya, which is a burdensome poll tax (ibid). When going through the Qu'ran, approximately 94% of all references of "going to Hell" say that you merit it because you disagree with Mohammed, which means that being Jewish doesn't make you "O.K. with Allah." Talk about reassuring....
Even if you decide to ignore that these verses exist or that they have been taken out of context, it cannot be denied that these verses have been used to treat the non-believer horribly throughout history. When the Muslims conquered a given land, they gave the "People of the Book" three options: die, convert, or be given status of dhimmi. For those who don't know what dhimmi status is, it is a subservient pact that allows a non-believer to live in a Muslim world as a non-believer. This pact, however, came with many humiliating provisions. For instance, one had to pay the jizya. Distinctive clothing, most notably a yellow badge, had to be worn. A Jew was not permitted to have a synagogue could ever be higher than a mosque, not to mention that they could ever build new synagogues. A Jew could never give evidence in a Muslim court. A Jew could not inherit from a Muslim. A Jew did not have a right to bear arms. These are just some restrictions placed on the Jew, as well as the Christian. Although all prohibitions were not applied equally or universally, it is safe to say that the typical Muslim believed that the Jew [and the Christian] was inferior to the Muslim. Even though this view should have died along with the Middle Ages, it still unfortunately permeates in the minds of many Muslims.
Conclusion: This treatise was written to better understand the origin of Judeo-Muslim tension. As for any attempt to ameliorate the conflict between the two religions, I guess we'll have to save that discussion for another time.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Genesis 1:27-"Created in His Image" and What It Means to Develop a Relationship with G-d
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ
And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him. -Genesis 1:27
Created in His image. I had always perceived that to be awkward phraseology. What exactly does it mean to be created in His image? Off hand, I can tell you what it doesn’t mean. It certainly doesn’t refer to the Christian concept that G-d is man (or vice versa, sometimes you just can’t tell which one it is). But you might say to me, “what else can image possibly mean? It’s what the Bible says.”
First, let me just say that is not what the Bible says. The best translation for the word is not image, but form. As Maimonides brings up in Guide for the Perplexed (1:2), there are two words in the biblical Hebrew that signify form. The first word, תאר, refers to a physical form. תאר is used in such verses as Genesis 39:6, 1 Samuel 28:14, and Judges 8:18, are all references to a form in a physical sense.
On the other hand, the word צלם means form in a more abstract sense. The word צלם denotes non-physical similarity. Let's look back at the top of the blog entry and look at the word which is used in the text, which, by the way is צלם. If G-d wanted to state that He had a physical form and that we were "molded" in that fashion, He would have used the word תאר. But since He used the word צלם, it cleary references something else.
So, if “in His image” does not refer to a physical similarity, to what does it refer? In Jewish tradition, most enounced in the Kabbalistic world, humans have two souls: an animal soul and a G-dly (or divine) soul. Whether you see it as two distinct entities or the soul merely as one entity with two facets is irrelevant. The point that Jewish tradition accurately points out is that we are part animal and part divine. Since we know that this cannot be referring to a physical image, this begs the question of what separates us from the animals, i.e., what does it mean to be G-dly or G-d-like.
Rabbi Obadiah Sforno comments that being “in His image” means that we are endowed with free will. Animals are creatures that solely act on impulse and instinct. Animals lack the self-restraint that humans have. We are able to make choices. Of course, this is not the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. True free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong. Each action we take is of utmost importance because it either brings us closer or distances us from G-d. That is why Judaism strongly believes that what we do "in the here and now" matters greatly.
As stated above, Maimonides certainly didn’t believe in the corporeality of G-d. For him, “created in His image” meant something else. Unlike animals, we humans are creatures capable of rationality, logic, profound thought, and common sense. From a Maimonidean perspective, “His image” refers to humans not only having divine-like intelligence, but also the duty to use it. With this ultra-rationalism in mind, it is no accident that Maimonides believed that what most people in religious circles call “divine providence” is the usage of the intelligence that G-d gave humans.
Concluding thoughts: Do R. Sforno’s thoughts contradict Maimonides’ thoughts? Absolutely not! What we see are two different, but nevertheless equally Jewish manifestations of what it means to “be created in His image.” Since Judaism strongly stresses the incorporeality, and thus the infinitude, of G-d, there is no way to directly connect to G-d. Stating that one can directly connect with G-d is nothing short of heresy.
[Just as a side note, some of you might find my usage of the term heresy as harsh. The definition of heresy is the rejection of an already accepted belief. Although Judaism is more action oriented than other religions, it nevertheless holds certain beliefs, the two most notable ones being G-d’s existence and G-d’s infinitude. Historically, there is much debate and discussion amongst other Jewish beliefs, such as the belief in resurrection, but these two concepts are decidedly Jewish, and any deviation from them are, by definition, heresy.]
This, however, does not mean we cannot have a meaningful relationship with G-d. It just means that any connection made with G-d has to be done indirectly.
R. Sforno and Maimonides actually provide us with the two methods of indirectly developing a strong relationship with G-d. R. Sforno shows us that the way to develop G-d is via imitatio Dei. By partaking in the mitzvot, not only do we elevate our mundane actions to a divine level, but we grasp a sense of divinity by “walking in His ways.” Let us add a Maimonidean twist to this concept. Maimonides did not view the mitzvot as either G-d-oriented or man-oriented. To say that G-d needs us to perform a mitzvah, or anything for that matter, is tantamount to saying G-d is lacking something, which, of course, is heretical. That is why Maimonides divides the mitzvot into two categories: that which refines the individual, and that which refines society as a whole. The former is what most Jews would call “divinely oriented commandments.” Maimonides obtained this idea through the Midrash that the purpose of Torah is to refine man, which I agree with. This idea aggravated, and to a large extent, still aggravates many. Aside from the fact that so many people want to have an unfeasibly direct connection to G-d, this also breaks the Jewish concept of a chuk, i.e., a Jewish law that was “created without reason.”
Aside from knowing G-d through His commandments, we can also develop an indirect relationship with G-d another way. Maimonides would call that “knowing G-d” through His works via divine intellect. Rather than science being an impediment to religiosity, I have always found it to be an enhancement to understanding the divine. Just looking at the complexity of a cell or that of an eyeball alone can show us the wonder and splendor of the divine. Understanding cosmology, physics, and other sciences help us understand His creations. We do have to keep in mind that Maimonides was a scientist, and thought the study of science was the way to study Torah. For him, if there seems to be a conflict between the two, you either don’t understand science or don’t understand the Torah. Although I agree with Maimonides when he says that understanding science is a way of understanding Torah, I also opine that the use of divine intellect goes beyond natural sciences. It has to permeate in every study, whether that would be history, politics, economics, or the usage of common sense and wisdom in our daily lives because even in those areas, one can see divinity.
By imitating G-d and by using the divine intellect that G-d gave us, we can indirectly develop a relationship with G-d by truly understanding what it means to be created in His image.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Studying Foreign Theologies: Is It Idolatry?
For those of you who know me, I'm not exactly the world's biggest Chabad fan. I find certain methodological issues with their approaches (which I'm not going to get into here because that would involve a separate blog entry), and many times after talking to them about Judaism, I usually feel like banging my head against the wall. That set aside, I figured that I'd give their Daily Mitzvah study a try. The one for Friday, May 7th, was on Rambam's 10th negative commandment, which is whether it is acceptable to study foreign theologies. Chabad's answer was an emphatic "no," as if that would have been a surprise to me.
From a historical perspective, I find Chabad's conclusion to be highly fallacious. Maimonides, after all, did a degree of such studying. He was a Jew in an Islamic caliphate. He even wrote on his two cents about Christianity and Christendom, which is hard to do if you are supposed to be forbidden from studying foreign theologies. It either means that Maimonides broke one of the very laws that he laid down for the general population, or *surprise surprise,* Chabad is once again incorrect. I'm willing to go with the latter on this one.
This goes beyond the Haredi community's authoritarian attempt to keep their congregants on their "narrow path" to make sure they don't leave the community. This mentality goes against the first commandment on the Decalogue, which is also the first of the Six Constant Mitzvot: Know there is a G-d (Exodus 20:2). As R. Noah Weinberg, z"tl points out:
Guess what this entails? Studying foreign theologies. Being in a world in which dissemination of information is unprecedented, we are faced with conflicting ideologies and religions. You can't just say "I have the truth" without listening to others. On the other hand, this doesn't mean we give equal credence to each ideology. For instance, I can eliminate Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Shintoism from the list because there is not a shred of positive evidence confirming anything they have to say. Even in the secular world, such crock pot theories as Communism can be dismissed because every time it has been implemented has been proven to be a total failure.
Part of knowing the truth is knowing that others don't know what the truth is. For me, it's not a matter of subjective "oh, I wish it were true, but I'm going to ignore everything in front of me." That level of irrationality is a denial of truth, and subsequently, a denial of G-d.
Some people in Chabad might realize that, as Jack Nicholson put it, people can't handle the truth, which can potentially be the reason why Chabad adds such stringency. Their approach ultimately becomes a double-edged sword. Yes, Jews might wander off to other religions because "it feels good," or they cannot stand whatever burdens an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle might thrust upon them, and abandoning Judaism is bad. However, by taking the mentality that studying other theologies is idolatry is, ironically enough, an idolatry in itself because knowing, not just whimsically believing on some flighty notion of faith, that G-d exists is the foundation of Judaism.
So yes, other theologies need to be studied so they can be disproved. The search for truth is what Judaism is all about. That is why it takes a certain level of intellect to pursue it. Since most people don't have it (trust me, Maimonides would agree with me regarding people's intelligence), it is best to find someone who has the intellectual capacity to help you walk through the complexities and nuances that reality throw out. May you objectively seek truth in all your endeavors!
From a historical perspective, I find Chabad's conclusion to be highly fallacious. Maimonides, after all, did a degree of such studying. He was a Jew in an Islamic caliphate. He even wrote on his two cents about Christianity and Christendom, which is hard to do if you are supposed to be forbidden from studying foreign theologies. It either means that Maimonides broke one of the very laws that he laid down for the general population, or *surprise surprise,* Chabad is once again incorrect. I'm willing to go with the latter on this one.
This goes beyond the Haredi community's authoritarian attempt to keep their congregants on their "narrow path" to make sure they don't leave the community. This mentality goes against the first commandment on the Decalogue, which is also the first of the Six Constant Mitzvot: Know there is a G-d (Exodus 20:2). As R. Noah Weinberg, z"tl points out:
We should not believe in God "on faith" alone. Investigate the evidence. Get knowledge. Research. Study. Analyze. It is a fundamental principle of Judaism: You have to know, not just believe.
Guess what this entails? Studying foreign theologies. Being in a world in which dissemination of information is unprecedented, we are faced with conflicting ideologies and religions. You can't just say "I have the truth" without listening to others. On the other hand, this doesn't mean we give equal credence to each ideology. For instance, I can eliminate Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Shintoism from the list because there is not a shred of positive evidence confirming anything they have to say. Even in the secular world, such crock pot theories as Communism can be dismissed because every time it has been implemented has been proven to be a total failure.
Part of knowing the truth is knowing that others don't know what the truth is. For me, it's not a matter of subjective "oh, I wish it were true, but I'm going to ignore everything in front of me." That level of irrationality is a denial of truth, and subsequently, a denial of G-d.
Some people in Chabad might realize that, as Jack Nicholson put it, people can't handle the truth, which can potentially be the reason why Chabad adds such stringency. Their approach ultimately becomes a double-edged sword. Yes, Jews might wander off to other religions because "it feels good," or they cannot stand whatever burdens an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle might thrust upon them, and abandoning Judaism is bad. However, by taking the mentality that studying other theologies is idolatry is, ironically enough, an idolatry in itself because knowing, not just whimsically believing on some flighty notion of faith, that G-d exists is the foundation of Judaism.
So yes, other theologies need to be studied so they can be disproved. The search for truth is what Judaism is all about. That is why it takes a certain level of intellect to pursue it. Since most people don't have it (trust me, Maimonides would agree with me regarding people's intelligence), it is best to find someone who has the intellectual capacity to help you walk through the complexities and nuances that reality throw out. May you objectively seek truth in all your endeavors!
Friday, May 7, 2010
Wearing American Flags on Cinco de Mayo Causes Trouble
This past Cinco de Mayo, five students at Live Oaks High School, a predominantly Hispanic high school, decided to wear shirts with American flags. Initially, the vice principal, who happened to be Hispanic, told he boys, one of them who happened to have Hispanic heritage, to turn their shirts inside out because they were "incendiary." The boys refused. So what did the school officials decide to do? Send them home!
What do I find wrong with this whole scenario? A violation of First Amendment rights, for starters. If students of Mexican origin want to show Mexican pride, that's your prerogative. But to force your pride onto somebody else like that is nothing short of the double standards that we see in affirmative action (better known as reverse discrimination) and any other politically correct, societal discourse in racism.
Second, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the students who were "offended" by these T-shirts were American citizens themselves. Aside from the fact that they cannot distinguish between nationality and ethnicity, what it does is help divisiveness permeate throughout. What do I mean by that? By being "offended" and having their elders affirm their "right to be offended" (for the record, no such "right" exists in the Constitution), they inculcate into them that they're somehow not "American enough" or that being American is so tertiary to them that their being American is of no importance. Capriciously throwing the race card around and letting these students get away ultimately perpetuates the very "racial wars" about which they bemoan in the first place because what the Left (or Chicano groups) imply is that they are too emotionally fragile to maturely handle such issues, which is nothing more than a politically correct form of racism.
Finally, if a sizable ethnic minority were to pull this stunt in any other country, they would, at the least, be dismissed as unpatriotic ignoramuses, and at most, would be shot for treasonous behavior. Obviously, this is akin to having the Hispanic population force Spanish on the rest of American society with bilingualism. Even though I'm fluent in Spanish, I still get annoyed when I hear "Oprima número dos para español." But why would I be annoyed? For one, although I recognize that America doesn't have an official language, I also recognize that the language that has been used throughout the American history for public interactions has overwhelmingly been English. It is also annoying because it's a slap in the face of the host country. Think of the example of the "boorish American tourist." One of the main reasons that the American tourist is stereotypically considered boorish is because he never took the time to learn the language of the host country. If 100,000 Americans moved to Argentina and demanded to the Argentinian government that everything be changed into English to better fit their needs, you can imagine the reaction.
When I taught ESL back in high school, I did meet Hispanics who genuinely wanted to learn the English language because they wanted to be able to interact in their host country. Even though I recognize that there are many Hispanics that want to learn English because it will give them a socio-economic boost, I also recognize that a large minority (or even a slight majority) of Hispanics in this country expect to be linguistically coddled. If you want to speak Spanish in your own home, watch Telemundo, and maintain your heritage, I am all for that! Ethnic pride is great, and one of the great things about America is that we live in a nation in which we can respect other peoples' differences. I can tell you that no nation in Europe has been able to foster such an open policy when it comes to diversity. However, don't let that interfere with interacting with others in a civil manner. So if you're Hispanic, and if having respect for America and those who decide to be patriotic is too difficult for you to handle, you can always take your Mexican pride and hightail it south of the border.
What do I find wrong with this whole scenario? A violation of First Amendment rights, for starters. If students of Mexican origin want to show Mexican pride, that's your prerogative. But to force your pride onto somebody else like that is nothing short of the double standards that we see in affirmative action (better known as reverse discrimination) and any other politically correct, societal discourse in racism.
Second, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the students who were "offended" by these T-shirts were American citizens themselves. Aside from the fact that they cannot distinguish between nationality and ethnicity, what it does is help divisiveness permeate throughout. What do I mean by that? By being "offended" and having their elders affirm their "right to be offended" (for the record, no such "right" exists in the Constitution), they inculcate into them that they're somehow not "American enough" or that being American is so tertiary to them that their being American is of no importance. Capriciously throwing the race card around and letting these students get away ultimately perpetuates the very "racial wars" about which they bemoan in the first place because what the Left (or Chicano groups) imply is that they are too emotionally fragile to maturely handle such issues, which is nothing more than a politically correct form of racism.
Finally, if a sizable ethnic minority were to pull this stunt in any other country, they would, at the least, be dismissed as unpatriotic ignoramuses, and at most, would be shot for treasonous behavior. Obviously, this is akin to having the Hispanic population force Spanish on the rest of American society with bilingualism. Even though I'm fluent in Spanish, I still get annoyed when I hear "Oprima número dos para español." But why would I be annoyed? For one, although I recognize that America doesn't have an official language, I also recognize that the language that has been used throughout the American history for public interactions has overwhelmingly been English. It is also annoying because it's a slap in the face of the host country. Think of the example of the "boorish American tourist." One of the main reasons that the American tourist is stereotypically considered boorish is because he never took the time to learn the language of the host country. If 100,000 Americans moved to Argentina and demanded to the Argentinian government that everything be changed into English to better fit their needs, you can imagine the reaction.
When I taught ESL back in high school, I did meet Hispanics who genuinely wanted to learn the English language because they wanted to be able to interact in their host country. Even though I recognize that there are many Hispanics that want to learn English because it will give them a socio-economic boost, I also recognize that a large minority (or even a slight majority) of Hispanics in this country expect to be linguistically coddled. If you want to speak Spanish in your own home, watch Telemundo, and maintain your heritage, I am all for that! Ethnic pride is great, and one of the great things about America is that we live in a nation in which we can respect other peoples' differences. I can tell you that no nation in Europe has been able to foster such an open policy when it comes to diversity. However, don't let that interfere with interacting with others in a civil manner. So if you're Hispanic, and if having respect for America and those who decide to be patriotic is too difficult for you to handle, you can always take your Mexican pride and hightail it south of the border.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Law: My Two Cents on the Whole Matter
One of the brouhahas in the news lately has been about a recent bill passed in Arizona (SB 1070), that states that Arizona police can question somebody about their immigration status upon “reasonable suspicion.” I would first like to state that the federal government already has such laws on the books. What Arizona has done is made it a crime on a state level, and what’s more, is that because Arizonians are fed up with illegal immigration, they’ll actually enforce the law. Second of all, Arizona is able to do so within the scope of Ninth and Tenth Amendments (i.e., since it’s not explicitly stated within the Article of the Constitution for the federal government to handle the matter, it goes to the states). Plus, the law was supported by 70% of Arizonians. For some reason, I would imagine that living on the border and having to deal with it day-by-day gives a little more credence than some putz on the Left by grossly offending people by erroneous analogizing this law with Nazi Germany, thereby diminishing the horrors that those in the Holocaust went through. But I only digress.....slightly.....
Personally, I am glad that somebody is saying ¡ya basta! to the fact there are millions of people who are here illegally. Yes, we’re still a nation of laws, and if you break a law, you are a criminal. Is it really any different if you’re pulled over by the police and you don’t have your driver’s license? I don’t think so!
I find a few issues with the approach of the whole immigration issue, and it has nothing to do with the state of Arizona actually deciding to actually confronting the issue rather than pretending as if one didn’t exist.
The biggest issue I have is with a lack of border enforcement. We’re worried about some non-existent enemy in Afghanistan while in the same breath, we cannot even defend ourselves when an even bigger problem sits right on our Southern border, especially in light of the narco-terrorism that is plaguing Mexico. Put up a huge fence and make sure that nobody crosses. If the defender in a soccer game is doing his job, there theoretically is no need for a goalie. Or here's another way of saying this: if we had a fence up in the first place, none of this would have become an issue.
This, of course, is only a short-term solution.
Securing the border needs to be coupled with a temporary worker program. Why do I say that? Because the United States has had this issue in its recent memory—during the 1950s. During the mid-1950s, there was rampant illegal immigration. When border security was combined with a temporary worker program, illegal immigration dropped 95%. If we did this, we’d see a shrinking underground economy. Furthermore, by making the Mexicans citizens, it would force them to pay taxes, at least in theory.
The reason why these two initiatives wouldn’t work in practice is because of how our already-burdensome tax system is set up. The lower half of Americans does not pay any taxes. If we absorb newly arrived Mexicans into our economy, they will expand upon the lower half because just about everybody who crosses the border to begin with is unskilled labor. At least with the immigrants that came into Ellis Island in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they were actually skilled labor, i.e., they were able to make positive contributions to the advancement of America. The reason why I make a distinction between skilled and unskilled labor is that skilled labor is more likely to advance upward [i.e., they won’t be stuck in poverty anymore].
Although a temporary worker program with secure borders sounds nice, it has to contend with one huge obstacle that they didn’t have back in the 1950s—dependency on government. Thanks to schmucks like LBJ, and more recently, Obama, we have created a society which is dependent on such “services,” if you can call them that, as Medicare, Social Security, welfare, free public education, the list goes on. Since these hypothetically absorbed workers would be lower-class because they are unskilled, the only thing they would do is expand the Nanny State’s already pervasive role, thereby causing further debt for America.
A temporary worker program with the status quo will only exacerbate the situation. Until more Americans get furious at a much higher furor about dependency on government, expanding deficits, and increasing invasiveness of the government, most Americans will view the Mexicans coming over to the United States as a socio-economic burden rather than people who just want a decent life for their families.
Personally, I am glad that somebody is saying ¡ya basta! to the fact there are millions of people who are here illegally. Yes, we’re still a nation of laws, and if you break a law, you are a criminal. Is it really any different if you’re pulled over by the police and you don’t have your driver’s license? I don’t think so!
I find a few issues with the approach of the whole immigration issue, and it has nothing to do with the state of Arizona actually deciding to actually confronting the issue rather than pretending as if one didn’t exist.
The biggest issue I have is with a lack of border enforcement. We’re worried about some non-existent enemy in Afghanistan while in the same breath, we cannot even defend ourselves when an even bigger problem sits right on our Southern border, especially in light of the narco-terrorism that is plaguing Mexico. Put up a huge fence and make sure that nobody crosses. If the defender in a soccer game is doing his job, there theoretically is no need for a goalie. Or here's another way of saying this: if we had a fence up in the first place, none of this would have become an issue.
This, of course, is only a short-term solution.
Securing the border needs to be coupled with a temporary worker program. Why do I say that? Because the United States has had this issue in its recent memory—during the 1950s. During the mid-1950s, there was rampant illegal immigration. When border security was combined with a temporary worker program, illegal immigration dropped 95%. If we did this, we’d see a shrinking underground economy. Furthermore, by making the Mexicans citizens, it would force them to pay taxes, at least in theory.
The reason why these two initiatives wouldn’t work in practice is because of how our already-burdensome tax system is set up. The lower half of Americans does not pay any taxes. If we absorb newly arrived Mexicans into our economy, they will expand upon the lower half because just about everybody who crosses the border to begin with is unskilled labor. At least with the immigrants that came into Ellis Island in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they were actually skilled labor, i.e., they were able to make positive contributions to the advancement of America. The reason why I make a distinction between skilled and unskilled labor is that skilled labor is more likely to advance upward [i.e., they won’t be stuck in poverty anymore].
Although a temporary worker program with secure borders sounds nice, it has to contend with one huge obstacle that they didn’t have back in the 1950s—dependency on government. Thanks to schmucks like LBJ, and more recently, Obama, we have created a society which is dependent on such “services,” if you can call them that, as Medicare, Social Security, welfare, free public education, the list goes on. Since these hypothetically absorbed workers would be lower-class because they are unskilled, the only thing they would do is expand the Nanny State’s already pervasive role, thereby causing further debt for America.
A temporary worker program with the status quo will only exacerbate the situation. Until more Americans get furious at a much higher furor about dependency on government, expanding deficits, and increasing invasiveness of the government, most Americans will view the Mexicans coming over to the United States as a socio-economic burden rather than people who just want a decent life for their families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)