Is the Equality Act Fair?

Former male cyclist Rachel Mackinnon competing with women (BBC)

Rabbi Efrem Goldberg did a masterful job.  A while back he gave a lecture on gender dysphoria – more commonly known as transgenderism. The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) describes this disorder as follows: 

…clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and or secondary sex characteristics. 

The understanding and sympathy Rabbi Goldberg expressed for people with this disorder ought to be emulated by all of us. It is a serious problem far more common than people think. And it affects observant Jewry too. Rabbi Goldberg described how a devoutly religious 60 year old  member of his Shul approached him one day and told him he wanted to change his sex. 

He also reported that he approached a Posek recognized by every segment of Orthodoxy with this issue and was told that he gets this question about 2 or 3 times a week! The bottom line is that although it is not Halachicly permissible to change one’s sex (or even to wear clothing of the opposite sex) we must nevertheless all have sympathy for people that suffer from this disorder. Their feelings are real.  They should never be ridiculed, disparaged or in any way made to feel bad about themselves once they reveal they are transgender. Transgender people should be treated the same way anyone with any disorder - physical or mental - should be treated. 

The bottom line though is that it is indeed a mental disorder and should be recognized as such. And not treated as an alternative lifestyle. Nor should we make laws that appear to do exactly that when it violates common sense, the norms of society, and in some cases interferes with religious rights. 

This is why the Equality Act is so problematic. Which is described as follows:

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.

The House just passed that bill. This bill goes well beyond understanding and sympathy. It is yet another example of ‘civil rights versus religious rights’ where civil rights come out on top. I don’t know what the Senate will do, but if a majority votes to pass it, it will become the law of the land. 

The question is, why not grant  people with this disorder the right to be the sex they choose to be rather than the sex they were born with? 

The differences between men and women are more than differences in genitalia. For example men generally have greater upper body strength then women. So that when it comes to competition in sporting events like swimming, men are generally able to swim a bit faster than women. This is why swimming competitions are separated by sex. Men compete against men and women against women. 

If a man changes his sex to become a woman, the Equality Act would require that he be permitted to compete with women and thereby have an unfair advantage. That is anything but equal. The Equality Act does not even require any surgical changes. All one has to do is be diagnosed as gender dysphoric and can still physically remain a man. 

This law is nothing short of being the ultimate in political correctness gone mad. There is a difference between having sympathy and understanding on the one hand - and on the other hand treating gender dysphoria as normal. There is no way that people who are physically male should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics. 

Then there is the religious issue. The Equality Act would allow people diagnosed as transgender while still being physically male to use a woman’s bathroom. How can anyone in their right mind think this is OK? How is this fair to women? I can’t imagine most woman feeling comfortable with a male using the same bathroom at the same time. 

While it might seem like the Equality Act extends civil rights to transgender people, it nonetheless takes away the rights of people who are sensitive about their modesty. Which most often applies to religious people. So in the arena of rights versus rights, this act clearly sides in favor of civil rights over religious rights. 

This is one of the things that divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that religious rights should be superseded by individual civil rights when the two conflict. Conservatives believe that the constitutional protection of religious rights is sacrosanct and should always come first.  I challenge the liberal  argument that religious rights are not infringed by this civil right. The facts say otherwise.   

It is my hope therefore that if this ever becomes the law of the land, that it is challenged in the Supreme Court. Hopefully, now that we now have a conservative majority in the court they will see the inherent unfairness of this law (as pointed out in the example about sports) and more importantly see it as a violation of our religious rights protected by the constitution.

The Yahrzeit of COVID

Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, ZTL

Rabbis Yaakov Perlow, Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, Dovid Soloveitchik, Yitzchok Sheiner, Abraham Twerski, Dovid Feinstein, Chaim Meir Wosner, Mordechai Gurary, Yehudah Leib Groner, Yehuda Yaakov Refson, Chaim Mertz, Matis Blum, Rev. Romi Cohen...

What do all these prominent religious figures have in common – many of them great rabbinic leaders? They all died of COVID or complications related to COVID. Along with over 2 million other human beings around the world since the pandemic began.

It’s hard to be funny this year on this day of Purim.

It has been quite a year. Almost exactly one year ago today is when this virus hit us hard. I remember its beginnings well.   

I had been following the news about a virus that originated in Wuhan, a city in China back in January of last year. Didn’t think much about it. It was just another news story among what I believed were far more important stories. 

Along came February and I had heard that a nursing home in the state of Washington had a few cases of this virus. And that residents were getting seriously ill - some dying. I thought, OK. Sad as this was, it was nevretheless 2000 miles away from Chicago. And the nursing home residents that died were surely health compromised. Even a simple flu virus could be mortally dangerous to them. 

Then I had heard that a religious Jew in New York had contracted it. And that he was very sick. Sorry as I was to hear that I still wasn’t that concerned about it being in Chicago.  I did however begin to wonder if it was just a matter of time before it hit Chicago.

And then one Sunday morning in early March just after Purim, I had attended my regular Daf Yomi Shiur and I was informed that someone in the Shul tested positive. That was the last time I attended a Shiur of any kind in person. Shortly thereafter Chicago had a lockdown. The city was virtually closed. No shul. No school. No restaurants… and people started getting sick and dying in huge numbers. It was like a really bad B movie. Only it wasn’t a movie. It was real.

While we are no longer in major lockdown - this is pretty much how it’s been for an entire year. That lives might have been saved if things were done differently is probably true. But there is no use crying over spilled milk.  ‘Coulda’ ‘Woulda’ ‘Shoulda’ isn’t going to help us now. We need to look forward. 

Vaccines are the key to a normal future. It is only a question of time and maximum participation by the public. Once we achieve herd immunity, we will be able to return to the more or less normal lives we had pre pandemic. Although I do believe some things will be forever changed by our experiences over the last year. 

I just wanted to reflect on how devastating this disease has been to the world in general and to our community in particular.  There are probably few people that don’t know someone that died or suffered greatly from COVID. And may still be suffering.

It need not be said that next to the Holocaust this pandemic is by far the greatest tragedy of the last 100 years to befall our people.  Only this time we are not alone. All of humanity is in the same boat. No one could have ever dreamed something like this could happen. These kinds of things only happen in disaster movies. Not in real life. 

That’s what I used to think. I was complacent - even though I realized that in theory it could happen. I recall my zoology professor telling us (his class) way back in 1969 that the most dangerous thing mankind faces is the virus. If anything can destroy humanity that is it.  I now understand what he meant.

There are some other prominent figures that died this year for reasons unrelated to COVID. Just to mention a few that come to mind, Rabbis Norman Lamm, Adin Steinzlatz, and Jonathan Sacks. 

It has been a rough year. 

Purim is the Yahrzeit – so to speak - of this pandemic. Purim is the time when we say V’Nahaphechu. Which basically means turning things suddenly on their head. Haman’s nefarious plans to annihilate us in ancient Persia turned around suddenly and annihilated him and his family instead. Last year’s V’Nahaphechu changed us suddenly for the worse. Maybe this year V’Nahaphechu will do the opposite. 

I think it will. It may not happen suddenly. But God willing it will happen.

To 'Hollywood' We are Racist and Misogynistic Weirdos

Screenshot from Nurses (TOI)

I saw the episode. 

Because of TV production problems due to COVID, NBC is starved for new content and they are looking for it outside of their usual fare. In one instance they found it in a series called Nurses which is produced in Canada. From whom they apparently acquired the rights to broadcast it. I tend to like medical  programs so I watched the first episode. I found it entirely boring and did not watch the show after that. 

But I had heard that on February 9^th  they had portrayed Orthodox characters on the show. Whenever that happens I try and watch how they portray us. Which is usually totally inaccurate. So I went to NBC’s website, found that episode, and watched it. 

It was bad. I had never seen anything like it. And that says a lot because Orthodox Jews are never portrayed in a favorable light.  With rare exception, there are always inaccuracies when ‘Hollywood’ tries to depict us. The bottom line is that ‘Hollywood’ sees a bunch of weirdos when they look at us. Orthodox Jews are never portrayed as normal. Even when their portrayals are sympathetic we are always quirky to one degree or another. And we have weird customs. 

But this episode of Nurses takes the cake. It was so laughable that it’s hard to believe anyone with a brain could portray Chasidic Jews that badly. The characters looked fake; the dialogue sounded fake… and religious values they attributed to them were fake. There was nothing at all  realistic in those portrayals. 

At the time I just chalked it up to ignorant and lazy writers, producers, directors, and actors who wouldn’t know a Chasid or any Orthodox Jew from hole in the ground. They relied on stereotypes, half truths, and preconceived negative notions. They had no knowledge of our beliefs and practices. And didn’t take the time to find out. They did absolutely no research. 

I didn’t really give it a second thought after that. But maybe I should have. Because in truth it was much more than just laughable. It was downright antisemitic. Now I’m sure it wasn’t intentional. I’ll bet they thought their portrayals were actually sympathetic. While at the same time truthful about the weird – even racist and misogynistic - views of Chasidic Jews. 

It doesn’t matter though. Good intentions are worthless without a commitment to the truth. Which none of the people responsible for that show bothered to find out. How bad was it? From the Times of Israel: 

The indignation was set off by an objectionable storyline in the hour-long drama, which follows a group of nurses in a Toronto hospital. In the episode, a young Hasidic patient is told he will need a bone graft to heal his broken leg, leading his devout father to recoil at the possibility of a “dead goyim leg from anyone. An Arab, a woman.” 

Saying that the storyline was objectionable is an understatement. It was disgusting. The public reaction reflects that: 

“The representation in this episode was offensive and ugly, reinforcing antisemitic stereotypes. We appreciate this quick action after the ADL and others called for accountability,” (Jonathan Greenblatt) tweeted. 

Allison Josephs, who blogs about Orthodox life as the founder and director of Jew In The City, also harshly criticized the episode. 

“The idea that such a surgery would be problematic in general or problematic because of where the bone came from not only is categorically false according to Jewish law, it is a vicious lie that endangers men who walk around with curled side locks and black hats,” Josephs wrote.  

Next time ‘Hollywood’  wants to portray Orthodox Jews they would do well doing a little research first. Or at the very least hire one as a technical advisor.

Is SNL Antisemitic?

Michael Che doing 'Weekend Update' (Washington Post)

I do not believe that Saturday Night Live’s Michael Che is an antisemite. Nor do I believe that SNL’s producers and writers are antisemites. And yet there has been a major uproar over a line uttered by Che in what I would call a feeble attempt at humor. Which has greatly backfired. It happened in a segment called ‘Weekend Update’ - a parody of TV news broadcasts. in that segment, Che said the following: 

“Israel is reporting that they vaccinated half of their population,”  “and I’m going to guess it’s the Jewish half.” 

Is the widespread outrage exaggerated? Perhaps. But at the same time the joke did imply that Israel (i.e. the Jews) care only about themselves and could not care less about their Arab population. Which further implies that Jews racist and feeds into the false narrative that Israel is an Apartheid state. 

The tragedy here is not so much that this implication is false. Which of course it is. It is that it comes so naturally to to the liberal mind. It is as though there is some truth to that. That is what makes a joke funny. There has to be an element of truth in any joke if people are going to laugh at it. Otherwise it would make no sense. Without the element of truth there would be no humor at all. It would be like saying that American has vaccinated half of its population. I’m going to guess that it was only people that wear wrist watches. Nothing funny there. Wouldn't generate a snicker.

 as i said, I do not think Michael Che is an antisemite. He is a victim. A victim of a the ‘Blame Israel first’ culture that the left loves to immerse itself in. It isn’t only SNL or Che that sees Israel that way. So too does the mainstream media and virtually the entire entertainment industry. 

To wit: CBS News broadcast this very story a few days ago. Praising the Jewish State’s achievement in handling the pandemic. As Che said, half the country has been vaccinated. First country to do that. But the reporter could not resist saying that Palestinians were not included in that half. Throwing cold water on that major achievement. It would be one thing if it was true. But according to one report in the Times of Israel:

Every Israeli citizen—Jewish and Arab, Muslim, Christian, of any or no faith—is eligible to be vaccinated; 2/3 of Israel's Arab citizens over 60 already have been. 

What might be true is that when Israel received its first shipment of vaccine, they proceeded to vaccinate their citizens in a very efficient manner. The Palestinian Authority (PA) did not want Israel’s help claiming that they were competent enough to procure the vaccine themselves. Israel was quite willing to let them do that since Palestinians decided decades ago (at Oslo) that  they would be responsible for their own health needs. 

When that didn’t happen Palestinians accused Israel of excluding them. Israel has since been aggressively vaccinating Palestinians. Why wouldn't they? In order to achieve herd immunity they need as many people being vaccinated as possible! COVID does not recognize ethnicity or religion.

The mainstream media has ignored all of that. They only prefer reporting negative news about Israel. Or if there is positive news, they make sure to qualify it with accusations of nefarious intentions with respect to the Palestinians. 

This is the culture in which Michael Che lives. He sees the world the way the left does. If SNL is anything it is political and about as left wing as any entertainment program can be. That joke felt pretty natural to Che. Not all that big a deal. After all ‘everyone knows that Palestinians are mistreated by Israel - who occupies their territory with a heavy hand’. Che thought it was an easy laugh.   

The sad irony is when it comes to issues of racism there is a lot more sensitivity to jokes like that. SNL would consider it an outrage if there were to be a joke implying fault to Black Lives Matter leaders about the rioting and violence that took place during some of their protests last summer. There is no possible way Che would make a joke about that – ridiculing BLM violence as normative. Not gonna happen. 

This is the world in which we live. It is dominated by the culture of the left that includes the media and entertainment industry. If someone is immersed in that culture the way Che is, it would be rare for them to not see the world the same way. (Although there are occasionally people that do think for themselves and ignore the leftist narrative.) 

Does SNL owe Israel and the Jewish community an apology? It would be nice if they recognized their error. But I wouldn’t count on it. Nor does it bother me that all much since I have come to expect no less from.  But who knows. maybe this time they will. We shall see.

More than One Way to Skin a Cat

There has been a lot of ink spilled lately in Mishpacha Magazine about Shiduchim. In the non Chasidic Charedi world there is really only one acceptable way for young people to get married. Through a Shadchan which loosely means a matchmaker. The idea of young people meeting socially at mixed gatherings is taboo in these circles. Which makes young people depend almost entirely on the good will of people they often barely know – if they even know them at all. 

I say ‘almost entirely’ because it is also legitimate for family members and friends to suggest young people they know to each other who might be compatible. But it seems that the vast majority of people in the Charedi world rely on a ‘professional’ Shadchan. Who fgets paid to set up your child with a compatible date.  

This method of dating has evolved into giving a Shadchan a lot of power.  It has also evolved into a system where a resume has become de rigueur.  Both male and female young people need to prepare and submit to a shadchan a list of their statistics and attributes. Which they use in finding compatible dates. 

On the surface, this might seem like a good idea. If young people can’t meet and find these things out for themselves before getting serious about marriage, then this is a relatively painless way to get a head start in that direction. it also considerably shortens that length of the courtship. 

But the resume has morphed into something very different. Making compatible dates even more difficult to find. 

First of all resume are for the parents. Which initially taking their children completely out of the decision making process. The argument for doing it this way is that parents know their children best.  Often believing they know them even better than they know themselves. And as parents with more life experience they make better, more informed decisions. 

Another problem more serious problem is tthat resumes have increasingly become more detailed to the point of absurdity. A situation that has existed for sometime now but keeps getting worse. Details like what color tablecloth a family uses on Shabbos is deemed significant to be a deal-breaker’ to some parents.

It need not be said that not every parent understands their children as well as they think they do. What is important to a parent may not be as important to a child. On the other hand a child might consider something important that a parent might brush off as insignificant. A lot of potential decent dates are thereby turned down by a parent. For all the wrong reasons. There are just too many people in the chain making decisions that should be ultimately be made by the children.

People are human and have biases. This is no less true for a Shadchan who will use them unintentionally when reviewing a resume and turn down a potential Shidduch when it is not called for.  

The most recent controversy involves whether a picture should be part of a resume. Does a young person have a right to see what a potential date looks like before they go out for the first time? Is it even important?

One might think that the altruistic answer would be no. Never judge a book by its cover. The way a person looks is of little real value compared to their character. But in my view that is a huge mistake to not consider appearance. Physical attraction is real. It ought not be ignored. 

Very few people will be happy dating someone that does not visually appeal to them. It may not be fair. It is however realistic. I think it is therefore appropriate to see what a potential date looks like before they date them. 

It is true that picture often lie. They do not really tell you what the person looks like. Pictures that are given to a Shadchan by a young person will sutely be the most flattering ones they can find. Sometimes the opposite is true. Some people might be very attractive in real life but not be photogenic. This is why I would suggest that a picture should never be the determining factor about whether to date someone. It should be understood the pictures can lie  in either direction. But at least they will be a ballpark indicator from which to start. 

The problem is that young women to not want to be judged by how they look. they might even consider it demeaning to be part of a resume. Some might even consider it a Tznius issue. I understand that too. What is a young man doing looking at a picture? He isn’t marrying the picture. Besides the way a person looks is also influenced by their personality. And finally there is the issue of subjectivity.  As the the ancient proverb says, ‘Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’. 

It is for these reasons that I believe the Shiduuch system - if used alone is counterproductive. It’s true that a lot of people get married this way. But it is also true that there are a lot of missed opportunities. 

I believe that using a shadchan (whether professional or through a family member or friend) as the only means of finding your life’s mate - contributes to the so called Shiduch crisis. Which has left a lot of older single around who (as they age) find it more difficult to get dates as they get older. I am sure that in many cases opportunities were missed because a misguided Shadchan or overprotective parent nixed a date. 

I know I am not going to change the world. But I will reiterate what I have said this before. I do not see a problem with being set up by a shadchan, family member, or friend.  As long as resumes are limited to the basics and do not detail stupidities like the classic what color tablecloth a family uses on Shabbos. It should certainly not, however, be the only means by which 2 young people meet. 

In my view it is highly appropriate to meet in social settings like weddings, bar mitzvahs, and a Kiddush in Shul. It is also perfectly appropriate to meet through families who invite each other over for Shabbos and Yom Tov meals. 

Volunteer organizations like NCSY, Chai Lifeline, or HASC, are ideal for idealistic young people to meet. I would encourage young people to join these organizations as volunteers for the dual purpose of Chesed as well as the opportunity to meet people. I know a lot of very fine young couples that met that way and have beautiful families now. Some of whom have become Charedi. That also takes care of the ‘looks’ problem. You don’t need a picture when you can see the real thing volunteering alongside you. in any given organization. 

The problem is that in the world of the right, all of these suggestions are discouraged. And pictures are seen as downright evil by some. How dare young people meet randomly at a Simcha? How dare any boy look a a picture of a girl before they date them? 

It’s really too bad that the world of the right has evolved this way in America. Because a lot of opportunity gets wasted, a lot of people get hurt unnecessarily. And a lot of people may never get married at all because of it.

Abortion Rights and Religious Rights

Reconstructionist Rabbi Megan Doherty

I have nothing personal against Reconstructionist Rabbi Megan Doherty. In fact she seems to pretty knowledgeable about Jewish Law. Which doesn’t surprise me. As I understand it, Reconstructionism is one of the more ‘observant forms of Judaism. 

Reconstructionist Judaism is an offshoot of the Conservative movement. It was founded one by of the  the Conservative movement’s pioneers, Mordechai Kaplan. Although encouraging observance, Reconstructionism does not believe in God other than it being the sum of all natural processes that allow people to become self-fulfilled. 

Needless to say, belief in God is the sine qua non of Judaism. Not believing in God is not only nonsense – it is unmitigated heresy! Observance without God is meaningless.  Reconstructionism redefines Judaism as a civilization rather than a religious belief system. Which nevertheless must include observance in order for it to be perpetuated. 

It is true that observance is necessary for that reason.. Without God, however, who cares if it is perpetuated? But I digress. My point here is to explain why Rabbi Doherty knows so much about Halacha and to nonetheless dismiss any religious authority she might want to assert. Even if we ignore the fact that that Orthodox Judaism does not recognize woman as rabbis. (For reasons way beyond the scope of this post.)

The issue at hand is Ohio’s new restrictive abortion law. Which is described in Rabbi Doherty's article: 

Ohio has a post-viability abortion ban that states that no abortion may be provided after viability unless two physicians certify in writing, as summarized by NARAL Pro-Choice America, that it is necessary to preserve the pregnant person’s life or to prevent a “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the pregnant person.  

Rabbi Doherty asserts that this is a violation of her religious rights since Judaism does allow abortion in certain limited cases. It is not considered murder under Jewish law. And during the first 40 days after conception the fetus is considered water. 

It is for this reason that I have always favored legalized abortion.  I believe the procedure should be available to us when we need it without the need to go through any hoops and hurdles. 

That does not however mean that I think it should be used on demand as a means of birth control. That is why I sympathize with the pro life position – even if I don’t agree with their goal of outlawing it. 

Aborting a fetus is not murder. But it is not permissible either except under certain circumstances. Circumstances that are more or less in concert with Ohio’s new law, that allows abortions to save the life of the mother. 

Whether this law might differ somewhat with Halacha in certain circumstances might be a problem. But the idea that there can be no law at all restricting abortions gives license to abort a potential life as a means of post facto birth control. If we want to honor the sanctity of life there is every reason to limit the outer limits of abortion. 

One more thing. As part of her argument, Rabbi Doherty makes the following point:

Jewish law has evolved and continues to do so, but these two concepts -- that the fetus is not a person, and the life of the pregnant person take precedence -- continue to inform and shape Jewish legal and ethical conversations about abortion. 

The latter part of her comment is absolutely true. But he former is not. Jewish law does not evolve. It is immutable. This does not mean that innovation doesn’t affect our behavior. It does. We apply Halacha to each innovation as it develops in order to know how to deal with it. 

So that when for example the light bulb was invented, we needed to know what Halacha tells us about it’s use on Shabbos. That is what legitimate Poskim do. They study the technology until they fully understand it and then apply Halacha.  We then proceed to use that new technology within those Halachic guidelines. We did not change the Halacha to permit it on Shaboos.  

Back to abortion rights. The bottom line for me is a sort of synthesis to keep abortion legal but at the same time to recognize that there is sanctity to the life of a fetus. That a just society recognizes that is a good thing. We ought to therefore look at any proposed  abortion legislation with those two principles in mind. Whether the Ohio law goes too far or not is beyond my paygrade. But I salute a political system that at least tries to have that kind of balance.

Good Intentions - Bad Advice

Robin DiAngelo (Daily Wire)

There are very few things I abhor more than racism. The fact that it exists at any level is extremely troubling to me. I cannot imagine what it means to be black in America these days. I think that has to be true of any white person. Unless you have been in someone else’s shoes you have no right to judge them. 

One of the more insidious forms of racism is what former President Bush (43) called soft bigotry. This is when black people are denied access to equality of opportunity in a variety of situations (e.g. schools, jobs, housing, loans, etc.) under the guise of some other explanation. As though it had nothing to do with their being black when in fact it had everything to do with that. It also accounts for the difference in the way law enforcement and the judiciary treats black people versus white people. 

Anyone that denies this is in denial of reality. They may not be racist. But they are insensitive to the realities so many black people face every single day of their lives. It is one of the more shameful aspects of American life. 

This is why there is currently a sort of national introspection about that kind of past insensitivity and what it is we can do about it – generated by the unjust killing of George Floyd, a black man in Minnesota by a municipal cop. 

I think it is legitimate to have this conversation. What is not legitimate is to be irrational about it to the point of feeling guilty about our skin color. There is no shame in being white. But if you listen to what ‘White Fragility’  Author Robin DiAngelo’s says about ‘Confronting Racism’, you would think that having a white skin is sinful even if one is not racist. 

Having a white skin is nothing to be ashamed of – or proud of. It is just skin. And it has nothing to do with one’s essence. Which should be mostly about character. 

There is inequality in America. The truth is that it has been changing for the better. That has been happening ever since segregation was made illegal in the early 60s. While it had slow difficult start - we have come a long way since Selma. There are successful black people in all areas of American life. In the arts, sciences, academia, the media, business, politics, and the professions. There are respected as equals no less than their white peers. 

Nonetheless inequality does still exist and needs to be dealt with. But we do not build black people by putting white people down. 

Ian Haworth notes that DiAngelo implies that this is exactly what we should do.  She says that we need to be ‘a little less white.’ How so? She lists a number of things we need to do, all of which implies the following about us: 

We are oppressive, arrogant, defensive, ignorant, apathetic, arrogant… and the most outrageous of all - we are somehow in solidarity with white people. Which almost makes it sound like we are more or less white supremacists deep down in our hearts. 

I’m sure that there are some people like this. But to imply that we are all this way as a nation is simply false. I am none of those things and I don’t know anyone that is. 

It isn’t as though we, the Jewish people, haven’t had their share of discrimination in our lives. We most certainly have. In spades. Culminating in the worst atrocity mankind has ever known. Furthermore, antisemitism still exists.  The Jewish people know what prejudice and bigotry is. Even though most of us are white. 

This doesn’t mean we can fully understand what it means to have black skin. But it certainly does not mean we are even remotely all - or any of the things she implies we are. 

How we level the playing field is a legitimate question, but in no way should we deny our basic humanity because of our white skin. That will not improve anyone’s life.

When Will They Ever Learn?

Will this save Conservative Judaism? (NJJN)

Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” His momma didn’t raise no fool. 

I don’t however think you need to be a genius to figure that out. And yet some people who are probably very smart do it anyway. 

Leaders of the  Conservative Movement keep thinking they are going to innovate themselves out of the mess they got themselves into. A mess that their innovations got them into in the first place.  And yet they almost ignore a proven solution to their mess. One that has has worked for Orthodoxy. 

Conservative Rabbi Ashira Konigsburg is one such leader. She is the Chief Operating Officer of the Rabbinical Assembly. The Conservative movement is hemorrhaging Jews in a variety of ways. Most notably through intermarriage. Her solution? Among other things is the following: 

We need to use an engagement model that builds relationships and networks one person at a time, first discovering what people want and need, and then empowering them to create meaningful experiences… Instead of providing ready-made programs, we must first facilitate the connection and community that our people are seeking...

Is this really what she thinks will stem the tide? Customizing the movement’s activities to fit what people seek? It is almost as though she is saying that rituals are beside the point of Judaism.

Change is not what has perpetuated Judaism over time. While it is true that historically Judaism did adjust to times, it was done by applying Halacha to fit the times. Not adapting Halacha to fit the times. 

Observance of Halacha and teaching that to our children is what kept us alive as a people throughout Jewish history. That is what gave us our identity. It made us different from the rest of society. It was the dignity of that difference that kept us proud of our heritage. Abandoning Halacha because it doesn’t fit with the lifestyle of complete freedom does not give us dignity. Nor does changing our ways to fit the times. It just makes us ordinary. Same as everybody else. It leads far to many of us to see Judaism as meaningless. Why bother? This is why so many Jews are opting out. 

Conservative Judaism’s claim to be a Halachic movement is laughable in the face of most Conservative Jews. In far too many cases the level of ritual observance is almost non existent - except for Chanukah. And that’s only because it coincides with Christmas. While there might be Conservative Jews that do a bit more than that, statistics show that they are a dying breed. 

Which is why Conservative rabbis like Ashira Konigsberg are panicking – and trying to come up with ideas like adjusting their activities to fit current trends of behavior. 

There are Conservatize leaders that understand this. Jack Wertheimer  has written copiously on the subject. The way to keep Conservative Jews Jewish is to teach them how to be Jews. And to not be afraid you will chase them away with that. Professor Wertheimer understands well how the Conservative movement has gotten themselves into their current mess. It is the fact that their pulpit rabbis ignored the lack of observance by their membership. Focusing instead on social justice issues. 

While there are exceptions, sadly, I think it is probably too late to teach most of their young adults how to be Jewish. Most have already chosen which path in life they wish to follow. 

Professor Wertheimer has suggested that if the Conservative leadership really wants to have any chance of survival they would do well to copy the Orthodox model of providing a Jewish education to all of their children from kindergarten through high school. Along with a vigorous adult education program in their synagogues.

Solomon Schechter schools have been a failure. Parents are not motivated enough to pay the humongous tuition costs Solomon Schechter schools charge. Tuition that is often higher than the best Modern Orthodox schools. They must find a way to lower their tuition fees to parents. There are surely  a lot of wealthy Conservative Jewish philanthropists that can help. 

Orthodoxy has been educating their young successfully for decades. Modeling that is in my view the best path to success. 

One more thing. I would advise Conservative rabbis encourage their teenage members to join NCSY. NCSY has had proven successes with teenagers whose parents are Conservative. Interestingly many of their rabbis realize this and have actually worked with NCSY to help them recruit their teenage members. I think that a truly altruistic Conservative rabbi would be happy to see one of their members becoming Orthodox instead of intermarrying.

As for Rabbi Konigsberg’s suggestions, I don't think they are all bad. But even those that are good - at best they play second fiddle to education. Her suggestions to innovate their way out of their mess... well the  more you change your activities to fit the spirit of the times the less important Halacha becomes. Commitment to observing Halacha and transmitting that to your children is the only proven way to perpetuate Judaism. Jack Wertheimer should not be one of the very few Conservative leaders that understands that.

In the Era of COVID Funerals Will Beget Funerals

Charedi volunteer providing in home care to a COVID patient (NYT)

The New York Times is not really known for its impartiality towards Israel or Orthodox Jews. I don’t think this is arguable. They have apologized far too many times for inaccuracies and bias in their articles and columns on these subjects. If they were as balanced as they think they are, apologies would be rare.  

Much of their reporting and opinion pieces are seen through a very colored lens. Almost always assuming the worst possible interpretation of their observations. If the Times were not so well respected by the world, it wouldn’t bother me as much. But that it considered the ‘newspaper of record’ for the world is what makes this so disturbing. With a reputation like that, the typical uninformed reader might read anything they write as close to indisputable truth as humanly possible. 

This being said, they are not always wrong. Sometimes they manage to be fairly balanced in reporting about these two subjects. This is largely the case in their latest article about how the Charedi world in Israel has been - and is - responding to COVID.  This lengthy article touched on it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I believe it is fairly accurate. I see things pretty much the way they are described. It is presented in an amazing format I have never seen before that includes interactive photos and videos embedded into the text. 

The good they reported is in the kindness and determination by Charedim that have responded (and still are) to the challenges of people within their community affected with the disease. Their sacrifice is matched only by the energy they are investing into it: 

Hasdei Amram, (a charity based) in an underground storeroom in Mea Shearim, the group fields thousands of calls a week from Haredim who have fallen ill with the virus… 

The shoestring operation is managed by Yitzhak Markowitz… (who) has built up a stockpile of more than 600 oxygen concentrators that his team lends to patients. 

The charity’s at-home treatment often allows patients to recover from the coronavirus without entering a hospital ward… 

The emergence of new virus variants has made the past month particularly devastating… “This wave is the hardest we’ve had,” said Menachem Markowitz, a coordinator for the charity. He drives across Jerusalem every night, rushing oxygen tanks and medicine to patients’ apartments, often until dawn.

“It’s a different kind of corona,” he said. “And people are getting infected more easily.”

The charity’s core team is made up of Haredi volunteers with no formal medical qualifications. They crisscross the city, delivering oxygen, blood tests and steroids to coronavirus patients who call for their assistance.

Their work is regularly supplemented by a pool of sympathetic private nurses and doctors who also journey from neighborhood to neighborhood each night, often after finishing their day jobs. Donations cover some of the costs, while the patients pay the doctors themselves… 

It is a ramshackle operation, staffed by hard-charging workaholics displaying little regard for their own safety… At each home, the volunteers changed into new suits to avoid spreading infection — an awkward and exhausting process. 

On a recent February night, Dr. Itamar Raz finished a full shift at his own general practice before beginning several hours of home visits on behalf of Hasdei Amram…  He zigzagged across the religious neighborhoods of Jerusalem — west from Givat Shaul to Har Nof, then east to Kiryat Sanz — visiting patients the charity had asked him to treat. At each apartment, he rushed straight in, protected only by a worn face mask that often dangled beneath his nose… 

As remarkable and praiseworthy as these Charedim obviously are… the bad and ugly part of this story is in major part responsible for the load they carry every day. Although there are many segments of the Charedi community that take the virus seriously, there are probably just as many or more that don’t. This contributes to the very sad statistic of Charedm in Israel having double the percentage of COVID infections than their percentage of the population. 

That fills up hospital beds and angers the secular public. Which has long had issues with their way of life. A way of life that eschews military service, and has an educational system that keeps their men learning Torah full time for as long as they can. And thereby out of the workplace  without preparing them for that eventuality. They are therefore seen - whether true or not - as noncontributing, and a drain on the economy. Many also resent what they see as religious coercion by the Charedi political parties.  

The reasons given by Charedim for wanting to keep schools open against medical advice (and against the law) are included in the article. As are the reasons given for large communal gatherings at various events (like funerals and weddings). It remains a serious issue of contention though, between various Charedi segments. No Charedi explains the exasperation she feels from those that violate the health guidelines – whether blatantly or not -  than does Esti Shushan. Reacting to pictures she saw of a recent funeral attended by masses of Charedim, she asked: 

“What is more important?” “To go to funerals and study Torah? Or to stay alive?” 

This lengthy article in the Times is well worth reading in its entirety. It is as well balanced as any I have ever read. You will not be disappointed.

Am I Charedi?

Is he Charedi? (MJL)

Last week during the course of a conversation I was having with one of my granddaughters she happened to mention in passing that she considers me Charedi.  Being Charedi herself, I thought she simply identified me as being Charedi, too. It still took me a bit aback to hear she thinks of me that way. Not that I mind being considered Charedi. It’s just that I am not. I am a Centrist. (Which basically amounts to being right wing Modern Orthodox.)

When I challenged her by pointing out that I have a TV in my house and that no Charedi would ever have one, she simply said that I am from a different generation when TV was more common in some Charedi homes. In other words, I am grandfathered in. (No pun intended.)

Upon reflection, though, it is not just thinking of me that way because we are family. It is that I am fully observant - same as she is and most Charedim are. Additionally, my views on many issues affecting Orthodox Judaism are not all that different that are the views of Charedim. In other words she does not see any practical differences between us. 

I actually agree with her. On a practical level there are no serious differences. The differences exist on a Hashkafic level which rarely come up in the course of our daily lives. Otherwise the way we both lead our lives is pretty much the same. 

(This is why I firmly believe that despite our Hashkafic differences Centrists and mainstream moderate Charedim meld very well into a community. As I repeatedly say - the future of Orthodoxy lies with the overwhelming and continually grown mainstream moderate Charedi joined by the much smaller but not insignificant Centrist minority.) 

What about our Hashkafic differences? They are there. They are real. And they are stark. Without going into too much detail those differences consist of our respective attitudes about we view secular education and the general culture. Even though we both have decent education and participate in the general culture our attitudes about both are starkly different. 

The term Charedi is their preferred descriptor. It based on being Chareid L’Dvar HaShem – trembling at the word of God. They wear that name proudly. Trembling at the word of God is often misunderstood. It does not mean that every Chaeredi goes around shaking with fear. It means is that they take the word of God seriously and try to fulfil their obligations to God in the best way they can. 

The fact is that Centrists are really no different in that respect. Isn’t that the mandate for every Jew? As a religion of obligations we try and and perform them the best way we can. And Like Charedim we don’t  always succeed  but we both know what is the ideal. 

If that’s the case, why shouldn’t all observant Jews be called Charedim? Is there an observant Jews who thinks it’s OK to NOT observe some things?  

One respected Rav I know told me that he resents the fact that Charedim have hijacked that term for themselves. He is not Charedi but is clearly Chareid L’Dvar HaShem. 

What I think has happened is that Charedim no longer define the term solely as being Chareid L’Dvar HaShem. They define themselves as people that listen to Daas Torah (in contradistinction to other orthodox Jews . Which they define as listening to their Gedolim on matters or public policy. There is no wiggle room. When Daas Troah speaks. That is the end of the conversation. 

One might ask, ‘So, what’s wrong with that?’ Aren’t we supposed to listen to our rabbinic leaders? Doesn’t the Torah tell us to do that? 

Yes. It does. But rabbinic leadership is not monolithic. There are differences of opinion between great leaders.  Daas Torah is not limited to a predetermined set of leaders that come up with public policy decisions by majority vote. But that is exactly how the Agudah Moetzes works. Dissenting opinions are never heard. When there is disagreement between them on public policy they take a vote and the majority rules. And then they speak with one voice. 

I do not accept that. I respect their views, but I have a problem with not allowing legitimate dissent to be made public. If there a legitimate opinion that makes sense to me but is not in the majority, I have a right to know what that is and choose that path. 

But the Charedi world never gets to hear that dissent from the Moetzes. They hear a unified statement  and that becomes inviolable public policy to which they ‘tremble’ before God. 

Of course there are Charedim that take their ‘Daas Torah’ with a huge grain of salt. But most are in the closet about this. And will never admit it publicly. 

So my granddaughter is right. I am Charedi. Just not the way Charedim currently define it.

Equality Does Not Mean Equal Outcomes

Declaration of Independence author, Thomas Jefferson 

One of the differences between the political left and right is in the definition of equality. One might wonder how there can be any differences? Who can be against equality for all people? Unless one is a bigot, racist, misogynist, or prejudiced in any other way - equality should be a no brainer. People should never be judged based on a difference that cannot be changed for physical or ideological reasons. In one of the greatest pieces of oratory I have ever heard:, the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, Dr. Martin Luther King said the following: 

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Character is all that really matters. Given equal abilities, equality means being blind to difference.  Race, religion, gender... none of that should matter. 

This is so basic… so fundamental to the ideals expressed by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence which in part says: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…’  

The founding fathers believed that all of mankind is endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights and thereby equal opportunity. 

Unfortunately equality is no longer universally defined that way. If you are on the political left, you do not look at equality as simply a matter of rights and opportunity. You look at equal outcome. To the left an the unequal outcome tat exists in this country is based on racism. Otherwise an equal outcome would be automatic statistically. The only way to fight racism then is to assure equal outcomes regardless of how we get there. 

This is not a new idea. It has been around since the 70s. That is how (through the courts) ‘Affirmative Action’ became the admission policy of many top universities. Black applicants were underrepresented. The belief was that was because of latent bigotry, a history of discrimination, and cultural factors that standardized college admissions tests did not account for -was responsible for the low number of black people attending top colleges and universities To right that perceived wrong quotas were implemented to assure proportional representation of black people in the student body. 

Ironically, Jews who had once been subjected to unfair quotas by the right limiting their entry into top universities are now being subjected to quotas from the left.

What the left apparently wants to now is apply ‘Affirmative Action’ in all areas of American life. The only thing that matters to the left is that all people end up equal. The equal opportunity that the founding fathers put into words in the Declaration of Independence is not longer considered equality by the left. It is now considered racism. 

I could not disagree more. It hurts those of us that work hard to get where we are to see others get a free pass. There is nothing equal about making sure we are all equal in outcome. 

Not everyone puts in the same effort. Not everyone has the same degree of intelligence. Not everyone is physically or mentally equal. Not everyone has the same temperament. Some of us have patience and some of us don't.  one of us will not be doctors or lawyers. Some of us are athletes or entertainers. Some of us are gifted craftsman and some are not. Some of us are ambitious and some of us are lazy. Some of us are of good character and some of us are not. 

Equalizing the outcome for us all is unfair and the furthest thing from equality. If the founding fathers were alive today, they would wonder what ever happened to the country they envisioned?! They must be rolling in their graves.

Reality and Disillusionment

In yet another moment of reflection about the Orthodox community, Jonathan Rosenblum tries to reconcile commitment to it with the contradictions he sees within it. He made note of this in an essay he contributed to Beyond Teshuva, a blog that deals with issues facing the newly religious:

I received (a call) this week from a baal teshuvah of decades’ standing. He told me that he finds himself terribly disillusioned by those whom he most respected, and that he is hearing the same from many friends who, like him, are baalei teshuvah of longstanding, and even from those who were born into religious families.

 My caller — someone whom I have never met — and his friends were particularly upset by the communal response to COVID-19. He had a particular grievance, as he is a doctor who has treated many of the Torah scholars in his community and their families. And he has grown increasingly exasperated at being told, “The doctors don’t know what they are talking about [with respect to urging people to wear masks, especially inside, or maintaining social distancing].” He had always been taught that the halachah pesukah is to act in accord with the best consensus among doctors at that particular moment in history.

 THAT PHONE CALL left me badly shaken…

I wish I could say I am surprised by such a phone call. But I’m not. The phenomenon that doctor describes is not limited to the Charedi world. It involves the entire Orthodox community. The plain fact is that being religious does not make one more likely to make good health choices in life. In that sense religious Jews are no different than non Jews. Some of us make good decisions and some of us don’t. That is the reality. It doesn’t even depend on how intelligent one is. Some of the most intelligent people on earth make poor health decisions. Why that is the case is a mystery to me. But it is nevertheless a fact.

The doctor who posed that question apparently assumed that if one is religious and intelligent, one will certainly follow the guidelines issued by the best health experts on earth. Health experts  are after all people whose are educated, trained and experienced in public health professionals. They have spent their lives studying and analyzing all the relevant data to determent the best course of action to stay safe during a pandemic. One one think that is a no brainer. But one would be wrong in making that assessment.

To illustrate, I have spoken to a number of respected doctors who scoff at wearing masks. They claim that studies about their effectiveness in protecting one from contracting the virus is at best inconclusive. When I asked them why the CDC and the vast majority of health experts say it is effective, they say something to the effect that it is a PR stunt for purposes of giving people a sense of doing something about it… adding that the virus is so small that it can easily get past those masks and infect the wearer. When I asked one doctor recently why surgeons wear masks, he said that it is to protect the more patient undergoing surgery from the bacteria the surgeon might be carrying. Not from any virus.

I have heard similar arguments from some religious medical professionals who refuse to be vaccinated. They say COVID vaccines have not been approved by the FDA. That’s because the long term effects have not been determined. They couldn’t be because COVID vaccines have not been around long enough to find out. They have only been approved for emergency as a means of combating a deadly and highly contagious pandemic.

I am dismayed at that kind of rationalizing. But it does not leave me disillusioned about my faith.

I can’t explain why some people trust the best experts in the world and follow their advice while others dismiss it as drivel. But the fact is that there are a lot of intelligent people on both sides of the issue. My guess is that the proportion of people in the Orthodox world that feel this way matches the proportion of intelligent people in the non religious world. It has nothing to do with their violating the Halachos of Pikuach Nefesh. No matter how much some of us feel they are. (Which I clearly believe is the case - as do many Poskim across the board of Orthodoxy from Charedi to Modern Orthodox.) The fact is that there are outliers that actually believe they are not violating the Halochos of Pikuach Nefesh at all. And have respected doctors in their corner to defend them. 

It is impossible to explain how one develops his belief system. Why does one intelligent religious person choose to believe the expertsand follow those guidelines meticulously while other intelligent realigiious person does not is a question that I can’t answer. But it should not shake one’s faith. 

What can shake one’s faith is when the outliers refuse to respect those of us that believe what the experts tells us. And either don’t wear masks at all, or wear them improperly or react with indignity if they are told to follow the rules properly. It is one thing to not believe in masks but still follow the rules. But it is another to disregard those rules in the face of those that follow them. Just because they don’t believe in masks does not give them the right to remove them when others are around who believe masks protect them. 

Jonathan and that doctor who became disillusioned at the fact that so many devout and otherwise intelligent Jews do not believe the experts should take solace in the fact that when it comes to trusting medical experts, religious jews, even intelligent ones, are no different than their non religious counterparts. But when those views are put into action – it shows these supposedly devout Jews being entirely selfish at the expense of their fellow Jews. That is reprehensible. And that is what should disillusion him. 

My two cents.

Defending Charedim

Mainstream Yeshiva students (Mir) in Israel (AL-Monitor)

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, ‘Julius Caesar’, Marc Antony begins his famous eulogy for Ceasar by saying he came to bury Caesar, not to praise him. What he ends up doing, however, is defending him from claims by Brutus (Caesar’s assassin) that Caesar was ambitious and by implication deserved to die for the sake of the Roman Empire.

I am not going to do that. I am saying up front that I am here to defend Charedim. Not to bury them. Defend them against charges that they are all self-centered  and uninterested in the general welfare. To the contrary. Even in Israel where the divisions are even more stark, the Charedim I know are as caring and kind as anyone else I have ever known. They in fact do care about others outside of themselves. Furthermore, no Charedi I know personally is more upset than I am by what certain elements of their world do in their own self interests without caring in the slightest about anyone outside of themselves. 

The problem of course is that all the accusations by the outside world (including many observant Jews) make against them are largely true. How do I reconcile these two opposing facts? The answer is that the Charedi world is not monolithic. There are factions. And there are factions within factions. There is much more divisiveness among Charedim than most people realize. 

One of the problems is that unless one is part of that world. one probably does not realize that. Obviously the mainstream media is not part of that world. Because there is no personal contact those distinctions are not made. So they report what they see.  

When a bus is set on fire by Charedi youth, they see Charedim setting a bus on fire. That is how they report it. Even though all the Charedi factions condemn it, Not all of them condemn it in the same way. It often comes with apologetics. The word ‘but’ quickly follows those condemnations. The conclusion by much of the media is that the underlying motives are the same as is the underlying animus. The only difference being tactics. 

That might be true in some cases. But not all Charedim feel that way.  The Charedim I know - which I believe is the mainstream - are not apologetic in their condemnation of the violence. There is no ‘but’. Their condemnation if unequivocal. But their voices are drowned out by the loud noises of factions that – while not condoning the violence, explain it away and express their own anger at whatever the issue might be that set off the violence. 

The best example of a faction within a faction where this is the case is the Jerusalem faction of the non Chasidic Lithuanian Yeshiva faction of the Charedi world. The anger expressed against this faction by the mainstream Yeshiva faction is greater than anything I have expressed. 

The media never makes those distinctions. They only know two categories: Charedi and secular.  The information the public has about the Charedi world in most cases is what the media reports about them. Is there ay wonder that the entire Charedi world is painted in such dark terms? 

This is one of the problems I have always had with the media in general. There is never any nuance. Never are issues examined closely enough to determine the truth. They look at a situation superficially and then report it as they see it. Which misrepresents the actual truth and unfairly characterizes all Charedim. 

There is one issue however that all Charedim in Israel are involved in that seems to cut across all its factions.  Their rate of COVID  infections is significantly higher than that of the general population. To the point of filling hospital beds where a majority of the patients are Charedi. Does that mean that all Charedim are guilty of treating the pandemic lightly – or worse? 

I have given that some thought and I believe the answer to  that is, no.  The Charedim I know are just as careful about observing the preventative measures as I am. But a huge percentage of them are not. And since their population centers are densely populated, the Charedim that are careful are nonetheless victims of those that are not. Unfortunately I know Charedim in Israel that were as careful as I have been - did not set foot into a Shul and still contratced and suffered from COVID. In some cases they are long haulers. 

The fault lies in the careless Charedim. They are the ones getting sick and spreading it to their neighbors who are not careless. And when hospitals become overcrowded with Charedim, they are all blamed for not only spreading the disease, but taking up valuable hospital space that prevent others that might need those rooms. 

It therefore is worth noting that there are differences between Charedim. And that many of them (the mainstream in my view) have values similar to the rest of us. 

This does not mean I don’t have major differences with them on a variety of issues. I do. Nor have I discarded any of the theories I have that might explain what I believe are mistakes in their Hashkafos.  I still believe that. None of that has changed. But the one thing I also believe is that  mainstream Charedim are good people with the same values general society has. They are law abiding citizens that care about their fellow regardless of whether they are Charedi or even observant. The mainstream Charedi is not self centered. 

While in Israel they do make demands of the government for purposes of protecting and advancing their lifestyle, they do not wish to harm anyone. They care about the same things any other decent person does. The care about the environment. They even appreciate the IDF even though they do not serve. (That was demonstrated by R’ Chaim Shmulevitz when he praised the IDF at a Seudas Hoda'ah.) And they abhor Charedi violence without  qualifiers.

So the next time anyone is tempted to criticize all Charedim – they ought to think about the fact that  they are not monolithic nor are they all self centered. And realize that their mainstream is victimized by the segments that are self scented... Who don’t really acre what anyone else thinks. It is those segments that deserve to be fully condemned. Not the mainstream. We can disagree with them. Even vehemently. But they are generally all good people. Same as the rest of us. We would all do well to be mindful of that when we express our disagreements in the future.

Does the Cancel Culture Really Exist?

Former NYT columnist, Bari Weiss - canceled for defending Israel

One of the things I have noticed when reading comments from the political left and the right is that term ‘cancel culture’ is used primarily by the right. The left never seems to have heard of it. Or they just don’t buy into it.

For the uninitiated, the term ‘cancel culture’ refers to a phenomenon where someone loses their job or is in some other way ostracized.  

If I understand correctly the term was first used in the context of the electronic media.  A television news oriented show was canceled because the  host used what is considered an offensive term on the air. When enough of that kind of thing happens it becomes a culture. The question is, why does the right use the term while the left never does?

I believe it’s because the left dominates the airwaves. So that if a comment uttered goes against the political orthodoxy of the left, they will fire that person deeming his comments to be offensive. 

This culture has expanded to other areas beyond the electronic media. As a former New York Times columnist soon found out. She expressed views about Israel that did not fit with the narrative of the left – which dominates their editorial staff in that paper. She was not fired, But she was hounded by her colleagues into resigning.  Which is another way of canceling her.

I never see anyone being canceled for expressing a view that is too far to the left. You cannot be left wing enough these days calling it freedom of speech. The left, actually believes that it has the moral high ground. To the left, the right is mostly a bunch of bigots and racists.  Nothing moral about them.

So for example when it comes to comments about the Israeli Palestinian conflict - the left see big bad Israel subjugating the poor little innocent Palestinians - who suffer needlessly because of the occupation.. How can they not see things that way?! It is so obvious to them.

Who ya gonna blame? The occupiers. Right? Of course!  What about context? They never heard of it. All they see is evil triumphing over good. So that even if they might admit there is more to the story, They will sooner support the right of a politician promote BDS than they would support BDS being boycotted because it is antisemitic. 

I get the feeling that the left does not believe there is such a thing as  ‘cancel culture’. people that lose their jobs for expressing an opinion that does not fit with the morality of the left deserve to lose them. They are being ‘canceled’  for good reason. 

That is just plain wrong. No one should be ‘canceled’ for being too pro Israel for example. People should not fear being fired for being too politically incorrect. 

Instead of never ever uttering the term other than in a pejorative way, I wish my friends on the left would acknowledge that cancel culture does exist. And that it isn't fair to cancel someone because their views don't fit the current politically liberal orthodoxy.

More than Ever - Our House is Divided

Image from Newsday

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ These words spoken by an Illinois legislator in 1858 (pre-Civil War) about slavery.  His name was Abraham Lincoln. He also said the following: 

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Lincoln was quite prescient. Just a few years later the Civil War broke out after which slavery was abolished. 

How appropriate those very words are today. The country is about as divided as it can be. Reflected by enthusiastic Trump voters on one side and Trump haters on the other. 

There was a time not all that long ago where people that differed politically with each other did not become enemies. One could be a conservative with liberal friends and a liberal with conservative friends. That might still be true in some instances. But increasingly the divisiveness has become so bitter, that one side cannot only not understand the other, they cannot stand one another. 

This did not happen overnight. We have been going in that direction for quite some time. But there little doubt that the previous President exacerbated it to the current level. His appeal to supporters is as unprecedented as is the disgust he generates in those that can’t stand him. No matter how anyone might feel about him on either side of the political aisle one thing should be obvious to both. The ex-President was one of the most divisive Presidents in American history. If not THE most divisive  

This was reflected by Los Angeles Times columnist Virginia Heffernan in a Newsday column entitled: “What can you do about the Trumpites next door?” that went viral. Heffernan expressed contempt for Trump voters who plowed her driveway without being asked. Jonathan Tobin writes: 

No doubt thinking that she spoke for many of the 81 million Americans who voted for President Joe Biden last November, Heffernan explored what she thought was a perplexing dilemma.

She views the 74 million who voted for Donald Trump as not merely mistaken, but as bad people to be viewed as the moral equivalent of Hezbollah terrorists or French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis. So what should a right-thinking person like her do when the terrorists/Nazi voters next door treat you with neighborly kindness? Heffernan is genuinely conflicted about the answer. 

We are living interesting times. The emotion generated by the ex-President has changed how we view each other. We are ‘house divided’. What happened on January 6^th is one manifestation of that division. Hopefully it will be the last. I shudder to think what might result if something like this is  tried again. We may not be on the precipice of another civil war. But the enmity between sides seems to be not all that different than it was in Lincoln’s time. The possibility of something even more tragic happening is very real. 

But even if it doesn’t the idea that we can no longer get along with each other at all saddens me. Especially as it pertains to my own people. It is no secret the the majority of Orthodox Jews support the ex-President. Many of them passionately. In some cases so much so that like many of Trump’s non Jewish supporters they buy completely into his narrative. Believing every lie as gospel.

 Meanwhile the Trump haters are just as intense in their hatred as the supporters are in their love of the man. They see him as so evil that only people with no character at all would support him. Treating them with contempt. On the other hand Trump’s enthusiastic Orthodox supporters cannot understand how anyone that calls them self Orthodox cannot love him the way they do. 

That has bred an unprecedented level of political divisiveness between Orthodox Jews. The idea that fellow Orthodox Jews that have so much in common by virtue of their observance nonetheless see each other with so much contempt because of politics is something I would have never thought possible. 

Not that there are not other things that divide us. There are plenty. And there is plenty of contempt between factions. But American politics has never been one of them. 

I see it here all the time. Maybe not in so many words. But in the way each side expresses their support or contempt for Trump. 

Don’t we have enough to argue and fight about? Why can’t we all accept the fact that there are good people on both sides of the the Trump issue? And not see how our own views as the only valid ones.  It is so sad when a person does a kindness cannot be appreciated because of who he supports politically. It is doubly sad when this happens to us. Is this where we are headed?