Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

National Public Radio commentators recently discussed a very interesting question: Should President Obama have “apologized” for the accidental burning of the Qur’an? Some argue that the President should have expressed “regret” over the incident, which acknowledges some degree of culpability. Regret does not contain any element of obeisance that an apology would convey. One can apologize without compromising one’s dignity, or without groveling. Tonality often  conveys meaning that goes beyond the words. The White House’s tonality was decidedly humble. In a macho part of the world like the Middle East, a show of strength makes a greater impression. Dignity means everything to a society that respects honor. If you wish to command respect, you have to act with authority and with a sober composure.

Some Republican politicians used this incident to score some political points in the upcoming primaries. Of all the candidates who have taken issue with President Obama, Newt Gingrich seemed to make the most persuasive point that many pundits either  ignore or discount. According to Gingrich, the President did not hold the Afghan government responsible for the death of the six  NATO soldiers who were killed by a men wearing an Afghan army uniform.

Before the Republican critics start blaming President Obama’s apology, they should remember that Obama’s speech is essentially the same kind of apology that President Bush gave to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, back in 2008, soon after an American soldier shot several bullets into a Qur’an. The difference between the two desecrations ought to be obvious. In 2008, the act was deliberate, whereas in 2012, burning the Qur’an was accidental. The person burning the Qur’an did not realize this was considered a breach of religious etiquette because the Qur’an already had secret messages scribbled on its pages.

* Who’s Right?

Whereas in the past, I have taken issue with President Obama on many issues, despite his tonality, I believe that he did the right thing by apologizing. Whether a person expresses “regret,” or “apologizes,” the difference between these two terms seems minor; taking the moral high road is not a bad course of action. Therefore, given the religious fanaticism of our times, apologizing seems to be the best approach in de-hostilizing an already tense environment. Obviously, the apology won’t convince the Muslim radicals, but it could detoxify the Muslim moderates. As a chess move, Obama’s apology could tactically change the direction of the political game.

While Newt did not discount the importance of Obama’s apology, he insisted upon reciprocity. Newt felt that the Afghani government also should have apologized,  “If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing, then we should say, ‘Goodbye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.’”

Newt makes a good point.

What are some of the lessons we might learn from this experience?

Many.

Well, for one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more economic damage to our own country, as well as the other countries that have participated. The mighty Roman Empire disappeared as a super-power once it overextended itself and spent considerable monies on wars it could not afford. The United States would be wise to apply this knowledge of ancient history and apply its lessons to our current war with the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home.

As mentioned in an earlier posting, some Muslim scholars have argued in past centuries that burning a Qur’an ought to be performed reverently and preferably on sacred ground, like a the outside of a mosque. Accidental burning of a disposable holy text, while it is a monumental testament to human thoughtlessness, certainly should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy. Once again, if rational Muslim leaders spoke out and condemned the violence, maybe somebody would listen. No religion can afford to tacitly approve psychotic behavior in the name of God. Now that’s true blasphemy—the willful misuse of God’s Name to perpetuate violence toward others. I am curious why scribbling terrorist messages in the pages of the Qur’an is not condemned as a sacrilege by Muslim scholars or leaders? Not even the Haredi would dare disrespect a Torah scroll or a Pentateuch with scribbling thoughts about the sinfulness of the non-Haredi!   Continue Reading

The accidental burning of the Quran in Afghanistan raises some important questions: How does one dispose of religious literature?

The 18^th century Muslim scholar Allamah Haskafi, author jurisprudence text Durr-Mukhtar, wrote of the disposal of the no-longer wanted Qurans: “If one decides to get rid of religious literature, the right thing would be to bury them by wrapping them in something pure first, in a place where people would rarely traffic. Similarly, it would be permitted to tie the books and papers with something heavy and cast them into a flowing river. You may also burn [texts other than the Quran], but in this case, only after erasing the names of Allah, his Angels and his Messengers…”

Religious traditions vary considerably—even within a given faith. Some Muslim traditions require that the Quran be wrapped in a linen cloth, to protect it from the impure soil. Some scholars recommend that the Muslims place the book in a niche dug along the side of a grave, pointing in the direction of Mecca.

Historically, some early Muslim scholars recommended burning the Quran—but only as a last resort to prevent the book from being defiled. Afterwards, the ashes should be buried or scattered over water. The place where the Quran is burnt is also important and should be ritually performed over the property of a mosque. One Muslim scholar informed me that burning individual Quranic verses represents a type of symbolic sacrifice.

Among the oriental faiths, Hindus immerse their holy writings in clean water, burial or burning, according to the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, a Hindu book of rituals and conduct. If still usable, the items can be sent to the next of kin or cremated with a deceased owner. Buddhist ritual is less defined. However, normally a Buddhist should recite a Buddhist scripture in front of the items to be disposed of, if such a person is present. The material can then be burned and its ashes buried. It is permitted to place the text in a bag and leave it for recycling.[1]

Medieval Christian history regarded the disposal of the Bible as a serious sin. Only recently have Christians adopted the Jewish and Muslim tradition of burying the Bible and other sacred writings, while others recommend one ought to simply fix the Bible so that it will be reusable. According to the Wikihow.com, Christian scholars recommend:

• Consider the intent of your disposal method. If you respect the Holy Bible as a sacred text, you should choose a method which is not deliberately defiling or irreverent. Burying or burning, would not mix the pages of your Bible with common household refuse and cause it to be subjected to objectionably gross conditions. Burying the Bible. Wrapping the Bible in a clean, plain white cloth, or building a small wooden casket would give the Holy Book a reverent final resting place. The Jews have a tradition of burying defiled or damaged copies of their sacred texts in a cemetery, usually with a body, after performing liturgical rites over them.

•  Burning the Bible. This should be done in a reverent, somber fashion. Building a small bonfire and placing the Book in the flames to ensure that it burns completely, and nature will scatter the ashes.  Show respect due, in accordance to your faith, the book which you are disposing of. Think of its history, value, and enduring quality. If you feel compelled, during the process of disposal, say a prayer, or repeat a selected verse or passage from the Book.[2]

Jewish tradition traditionally buries their holy books at the local Jewish cemetery. Unlike the Muslim faith, it is forbidden to erase or burn God’s Name to facilitate its burial.  Burning siddurim or old Torah scrolls is expressly forbidden—probably because of the violent abuse Jewish communities experienced in Christian and Muslim lands. [3]Unfortunately, not every religion shows its respect toward the faith of the Other. I would add that all religions are guilty of this type of sacrilege to a greater or lesser degree.

Erasing God’s Name is a complicated issue in Halachic literature. Many Orthodox Jews will write God’s Name as “G-d” to get around the issue. By doing so, since God’s Name is not really being written down, newspapers or articles with G-d’s Name may be discarded. This is somewhat of a legal fiction that probably makes little algebraic sense. Nowadays even our currency reads “In God we trust,” and some Halachic scholars would argue that one should not count money while in a bathroom, since God's Name needs to be associated with a clean place. On the other hand, one may justifiably wonder: How appropriate is it to have God's Name embossed on money in the first place? Some critics occasionally muse, "Does 'In God we trust' signify a faith in God? Or does it signify a faith in the god of mammon?" These are valid theological and practical questions that we might explore at a future time.

Several medieval rabbinic scholars contend that if the Divine Name was not meant for holy usage, it may be erased and discarded.[4] Other rabbinical scholars contend that the Hebrew Name only has holiness in Hebrew and that all secular names for God have no holiness whatsoever.[5]

The only exception to destroying God’s Name is when it involves the ritual of the Sotah (a woman accused of adultery). According to the Torah, the name of God had to be erased and used for a special ceremony (Numbers 5:11-31). The ritual involved seven steps performed by the priest: 1) putting sacral water into an earthen vessel; 2) throwing some earth from the floor of the Sanctuary into the water; 3) standing the woman on trial before the Lord, baring her head and placing her meal offering upon her hands; 4) adjuring the woman by solemn oath to which she answers, "Amen, amen"; 5) putting this oath down (which contained God’s Name)  in writing and rubbing off the ink in the water that is in the earthenware bowl; 6) elevating the meal offering, presenting it on the altar, and turning a token part of it into smoke on the altar; 7) making the woman drink the spell-inducing water of bitterness.

Burning God’s Name was considered one of the worse acts of sacrilege. According to the Talmud, Apostomos, captain of the occupation forces, publicly burned the Torah - both acts considered open blasphemy and desecration and became one of the principle reasons why the Sages created a Jewish fast day for the 17^th of Tammuz. [6]

In many synagogues, old Siddurim (prayer books), Torah mantels, teffilon (phylacteries), tallit, and mezuzoth, are placed in the synagogue genizah (hidden places). Traditionally, such places were often situated under the bimah (where the Torah is read), behind the ark in a small adjacent room, or in a cellar—as was the case with the Bokhara synagogue in Tehran. When the geniza became full, they would take the items to be buried at the synagogue once every ten years. The burial was believed to help induce a healthy rainy season. The manner in which this was carried out was with solemnity, followed afterward by a special banquet.

As you can see, the religious faiths of the world share many attitudes and customs regarding their sacred literature. In short, I think all religions can and ought to learn some practical lessons from one another. Let such a venture mark the beginning of our collective and personal spiritual healing.

Continue Reading

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/rick-santorum-quran-burning_n_1302219.html

The German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) once wrote, “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.” Heine’s admonition certainly became a prophetic portend in the days of the Holocaust. However, his words are no less an admonition for the future we are now—once again—creating.

More than 30 people have been killed after American soldiers accidentally burned copies of the Quran along with other religious materials had been thrown into a fire pit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large U.S. base north of Kabul. The incident prompted apologies from the Secretary of State, a leading brigadier general, and an American President—all who expressed sadness about the act of sacrilege.

Adding more fuel to the fire (pardon the pun), Rick Santorum criticized Obama for having dared to apologize to the Muslim international community for burning their sacred literature.  Santorum would be wise to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes, “A time for silence and a time for speaking” (Eccl. 3:7). This is clearly not the time to politicize the loss of human life for pecuniary political gain in the polls. Despite apologies from the President and other U.S. officials for what they said was a mistake, their regrets have not quelled the anger of Afghans, who viewed the Quran burnings as an illustration of what they perceive as foreign disrespect for their culture and religion. One would think after ten years of fighting, the military would have decided to error on the side of caution with respect to this issue.

The loss of life and animus that the Afghanis are exhibiting make it clear that our past policy of waging war to achieve our goals was—and still—is  a misguided policy. It is this writer’s opinion that the United States needs to think more cautiously in the future about fighting ground wars in countries, whose culture and religion it does not really understand. War is not always the best or only solution to global conflicts.

In short, human tragedy and error can cause considerable trouble. Although the Muslim reaction is understandable, it is important for all religious leaders of all faiths to acknowledge that showing disrespect toward any religious faith is inappropriate behavior.

With this thought in mind, it is important for all of us to be introspective and reflective about our own religions. Have we honored the finest teachings of our faith? Muslims cannot ignore the importance and relevance of this question either. Let’s be honest and candid. Muslims are not the only “victims,” not by a long shot. The Islamic international community did not complain much when the Afghani Taliban government destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha on March 1, 2001.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords put Joseph’s Tomb under Israeli jurisdiction, but on Oct. 7, 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered a unilateral retreat, based on a Palestinian agreement to protect the site. Well, this proved to be a terrible mistake when the Palestinians stormed into the Joseph’s Tomb and destroyed the site believed to be the burial place of the biblical patriarch Joseph––the son of Jacob––who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became the viceroy of Egypt. Joseph is a hero who is enshrined in Muslim literature. How could they allow the desecration of a hero’s memory who was loved by their own scriptural tradition? The international Muslim community not only refused to condemn the violence, but in many places, they actually applauded and celebrated the desecration.

How many times have we seen Muslim Sunnis blow up the holy places of Muslim Shi’ites, or Sufi shrines?  What about all the Qurans and other sacred items that one has destroyed–all in the name of Allah? What about last week’s news about how Assad of Syria defiled a mosque and used it as a military barracks? Why are we not hearing any fatwas from world respected Muslim leaders on the BBC or on Al-Jazeera, or the American news stations directed against those members of the Muslim community who endorse and perpetuate a relentless philosophy of violence directed at the Other?

When I hear Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders take this matter seriously, then I will know we are taking a meaningful step forward. Unfortunately, when violence turns against the “insider” of a given faith, it is inevitable the rage of violence will turn to the Outsider as well.

Respect is a two-way street. Before there can be any hope of peace, religious leaders of all faiths need to make the respect of all faiths a nonnegotiable item and prerequisite. People who live in glass homes should not throw stones. There must be no double-standard when it comes to the religious desecration of any faith. Continue Reading

Our opening line of the story almost begins like a joke . . .

Last Halloween, two atheists decided to poke some adolescent fun at the expense of Catholicism and Islam. One person dressed up as Zombie Pope, and the other dressed up as “Zombie Mohammed.” Their behavior was outrageous. This is what happened afterwards. A Muslim man, named Talaag Elbayomy, felt so insulted by the parody that he decided to take action: he assaulted “Zombie Mohammed,” whose real identity is Ernest Perce, the President of the Pennsylvanian Atheist Society.

According to the officer who responded to the incident, Elbayomy admitted he had physically assaulted and choked Perce. Logically, this should have been a shut and closed case. Furthermore, the incident was also caught on camera.

Not necessarily. This is where the story took a rather bizarre turn.

Judge Mark Martin, who happens to be a practicing Muslim, was presiding over the case. The Judge decided to chastise Perce for his ignorance of Islam, and his disrespect of Muslim culture.

More seriously, Judge Martin refused to allow the video into evidence; he likewise refused to listen to the Police Officer’s testimony that substantiated Perce’s position. Judge Martin claimed that the officer did not give an accurate account; therefore, he would not give any weight to his testimony.

The crime of assault, in this instance, pales in comparison to the misuse of judicial power on the part of Judge Martin and his willingness to curtail freedom of speech. One of the most important dissidents from the Muslim world is a man named Ibn Warraq. Shortly after the famous (or “infamous”) cartoons of Muhammed appeared in the Danish newspaper back in 2005, Warraq wrote a brilliant article entitled, “Democracy in a Cartoon.” [1] In the interest of brevity, I will quote only a few of the relevant points he makes in his thought-provoking essay. Much of what he wrote applies to our Pennsylvanian case as well.

• The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

• A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

• Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize . . .

• How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised? Why should they, in the words of the African-American writer James Baldwin, want to integrate into a sinking ship? Why do they all want to immigrate to the west and not Saudi Arabia? They should be taught about the centuries of struggle that resulted in the freedoms that they and everyone else for that matter, cherish, enjoy, and avail themselves of; of the individuals and groups who fought for these freedoms and who are despised and forgotten today; the freedoms that the much of the rest of world envies, admires and tries to emulate." When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square (in 1989) , they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty."

• Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

On the one hand, it seems to me that the Judge had every right to criticize the behavior of Perce and his friend for disrespecting religion in an inappropriate way in front of impressionable young children. However, I think he missed an incredible opportunity to explain why this country is so unique in the annals of history because it espouses the unique concept of freedom of speech. Judge Martin could have done much to promote better Muslim-Christian relations by reminding the defendant that he is in a new country. Unlike other countries, the United States protects every person’s civil liberties. Freedom of speech ultimately helps to ensure and guarantee all of our civil liberties.

The noted atheist Christopher Hitchens felt even more strongly than Ibn Warraq. According to him, religion deserves to be parodied when it denies the freedom of its people and others. [2]

The Judge might have criticized Elbyomy and tell him that he modeled poor behavior, and taught his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. The Judge’s lesson about how other Muslim countries deal with religious dissent or apostasy is completely irrelevant. In this country, the Bill of Rights has long tolerated people’s rights to “piss off other people and their cultures.” The fact that the Judge also felt insulted by Perce’s behavior is all the more reason why he should have recused himself from the case. In this country, the Constitution and the protection of its ordinances are of primary value. Whether it be Catholic Canonical Law, or Halacha, or Sharia Law, these systems of law must remain legally subservient to a legal tradition that has made this country great.

Personally, I would told the atheist that every action--even those which are done out of jest--has unforeseen consequences across the globe. Deliberately inciting a Muslim fanatic might result in the death of innocents, as we have seen today in the news regarding the accidental burning of the Koran. Perhaps this knowledge would have had zero impact on Perce and his atheist buddies. I also think the Judge should have sentenced the assailant to 30 days of community service at a charitable organization. Bad deeds, even well-intended, can have terrible consequences. The issue of whether Martin is a Muslim or not is unimportant. What really matters is that the law of free speech be upheld.

It is unusual to see Christians and atheists on the side of a legal issue. It is even stranger to see liberals who have long championed the separation of Church and State fight to dissolve this distinction over the peculiar ruling of an American Muslim judge, who probably should never have gotten involved in such a case that threatens the historical integrity of our Constitution.

I suspect we have not heard the last word on this fascinating case, but I pray we listen to the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, in his famous work, On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

*

Notes:

[1] Ibn Warraq, "Democracy in a Cartoon" Spiegel Online International 02/03/2006

[2] Christopher Hitchens, "Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion" Slate, 02/04/2006 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html

Hitchens goes on to say:

• The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
• Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun . . . The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight." Continue Reading

For Jewish Values Online:

Are Haredim changing the face of Traditional Judaism? Is the divide between the ultra-Orthodox and other denominations (Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) too great to promote a better understanding and respect between each other?

Over the years, the Jewish Press has produced some interesting stories; and there was a time when I subscribed to it. Lately, the Jewish Press surprised me. Recently, they published an autobiographical article about a gay Orthodox Jew, named Chaim Levin. Chaim grew up in a well-respected Hassidic home located in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights. The young man wanted to share his story about living in an Orthodox world that wishes he would go back and hide in the closet.

Chaim recalls, “Saying that Hashem would never make a gay person unable to change is simplistic, inconsistent and flat-out wrong. If someone gets into an accident we would never say that we know he can be ‘cured’ simply because his affliction is not genetic and he wasn’t born this way. We would never tell a deaf person (born deaf or not) that his nisayon (ordeal) is to find a way to hear again, so that he can be mekayem (fulfill) the mitzvah of shofar? Yet the Torah Declaration uses all of these arguments to make gay people feel that their nisayon in life is to change their sexuality, simply because it may not be genetic and Hashem would never make it unchangeable. This is the worst kind of rationalized homophobia.”

Despite spending thousands of dollars in therapy to break Chaim of his homosexuality, Chaim realized his parents’ effort to change him was a waste of time. Chaim needed to make peace with his own conscience and so he did.

Chaim’s message is so eloquently simple: “I am simply asking my community not to judge . . . Just because someone is honest about being gay, does not mean that he engages in any sin or chillul Hashem (religious scandal). No one should feel silenced or asked to lie about who they are . . . A little humility goes a long way. Sometimes the kindest and most thoughtful response when it comes to very difficult situations is, ‘I don’t know, but I’m here for you because you are part of my family and community.’”

What does Chaim want? He wants the gift of Presence. He wants people to see and respect his humanity. It is a pity people in many religious communities, e.g., Jewish, Christian, Muslim, regard the gay worshiper as an affront to their values and belief system. In a community where conformity and fitting in are extremely important, you have to admire young Chaim for speaking his truth for all to see and hear.

The loss of human life is especially tragic whenever a young gay Orthodox or Hassidic Jew commits suicide out of a feeling of desperation, loneliness, and hopelessness. There have been numerous suicides in the Orthodox communities of Israel and New York—all because a community refuses to walk its talk about, “Loving your fellow Jew,” even though it is “the basis of our holy Torah.” A couple of years ago, one Haredi rabbi even suggested that if an Orthodox homosexual Jew cannot overcome his “evil inclination,” he should commit suicide! I am certain the Mullahs in Iran would love to offer that kind of “encouragement” to the gay members of their own religious community.

I want to extend kudos to the Editor of the Jewish Press for showing the courage to publish an article that is creating shock-waves within his community. The Jewish Press has received all sorts of threats from a number of its readers. Some of the advertisers have been approached by zealots, telling them to, “Stop advertising, or else!” As the editor wrote his in latest op-ed piece, “A situation where religious Jews are provoking children and adults who are different, to consider suicide is unthinkable and unacceptable.”

So far the advertisers are standing tall and strong and will not back down.

Yes, the Jewish Press is showing the world what real Jewish values are all about. Continue Reading

Over a year has passed since the terrible Arizona shooting, when a gunman opened fire, killing six people and wounding 13 others.  Gabrielle Giffords, a conservative Democrat representing Arizona’s Eighth District, was among those wounded. She remained in critical condition after she survived a single gunshot to the head fired at point-blank range. Within three days after the shooting, one of her doctors described her chances of survival as “101 percent.” Her neurosurgeon, Dr. Dong Kim, called her progress “almost miraculous.”

We are all blessed with her recovery, but  greater challenges lie ahead for Gabrielle and ourselves as a nation, which sometimes teeters on the edge of insanity.

We wonder: Have we learned anything new from this devastating experience?

One bill that appeared before Congress proposed that the House of Representatives “reduce” the time allowed for criminal background checks. The Senate asked for a three-business day waiting period. The amended Bill in the House proposed a 24 hour waiting period. The reason: gun shows are very popular during the weekends. They argue that there would be no time to conduct a background check on people wishing to purchase arms.

Oh really?!

I think our politicians are living in Chelm, a place in Jewish history reserved for fools who think they are wise. If somebody wishes to purchase firearms at a convention, why don’t the new purchasers take the test one week before the gun show? What is wrong with this picture?

Over the last decade and a half, more and more states are starting to require psychological testing as a condition of hiring any full time police officer. Given the immense stress of the job, this decision makes perfect sense. In fact, schools across the country now require psychological testing for its faculty members. Even Wal-Mart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.

Now, it seems to me that the recent Arizona shooting might have been avoided had the state required psychological testing for anyone wishing to own a gun. In fact, if every state required psychological testing, we might be able to cut down the number of accidental shootings, or even willful shootings that seem to occur every year in our great nation.

One cannot expect a family to recognize or, for that matter, even be willing to admit that their son may have deep-rooted psychological problems requiring professional help. In addition, I think the question of machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, assault-rifles, and similar type weapons should be banned except for the military or police. Private individuals do not need to act like Rambo when a vagrant is breaking into their home. [1]

In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deut. 22:8). One precept in particular is especially important, “You shall not curse the deaf; you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, but you will fear your God; I am YHWH ” (Lev. 19:14).

This verse includes two types of prohibitions: (1) placing a stumbling block in front of the blind for sport or entertainment, (2) taking advantage of someone’s ignorance–especially for pecuniary gain. The verse stresses that a God fearing person will not take advantage of anyone for any reason.

By the expression, “God fearing,” this is the biblical way of describing a moral person who acts with a reverence toward life. God-fearing also indicates that Creator and Judge of the world will hold all such offenders accountable for disrespecting human life. Authentic piety is best reflected by acts of compassion and consideration–especially toward individuals who suffer from a serious disability–whether physical, emotional, intellectual, and psychological. [2]

It is also instructive that Maimonides asserts that enabling someone to commit a crime, (e.g., the individual who offers a bribe, or offers to pay interest on a loan) violates the above biblical dictum.[3]

In light of the Arizona shooting—or for that matter, any other well-known shootings that we have seen in recent history, the Columbine or Virginia Tech incidents—the onus of responsibility cannot be placed on someone who is mentally-impaired or schizophrenic, or someone suffering from psychotic-break with reality.

It is not realistic to expect psychotics like Jared Lee Loughner to behave like normal citizens. I expect the judge will send him to a special hospital for the criminally insane. Local courts and governments have a duty to make it as difficult as possible in determining who can and ought to own a gun. Certain individuals should never own a gun of any kind. The duty to protect citizens is the government’s responsibility.

I would argue that we apply the same standards that exist for other professionals in our country also be applied to anyone wishing to own a gun. The time has come for the gun-lobby to start leading the campaign to protect the country from individuals who endanger public welfare. Ultimately, such a responsible move will not diminish the constitutional rights of owning a gun–but such sensible legislation will enable all of us to breathe easier.

=========== Continue Reading

• History of Honor Killings and Mutilations

None of us are products of the present. The values of past generations, along with their history, continue to shape and structure the contemporary psyche of people everywhere in the world.

In this brief article, I wish to provide a sketch about the history of honor killings. In Carol Delancy’s amazing book, “Abraham on Trial,” the author examines the story of the Akedah–the “Binding of Isaac,” which she claims, really extols the virtues of patriarchal power. Delancy argues that in Middle Eastern societies–ancient and modern–the sacrifice of children more than the protection of children, has become the focus of their faith. Her underlying premise has important implications for how we might understand this dangerous phenomena that continues to haunt the 21st century.

The history of honor killings can be found in the annals of antiquity. According to ancient Roman law, if a woman had been raped by a rebellious slave, her reputation was for all practical purposes destroyed The Romans considered the honor killing as a “merciful act.” If a husband caught his wife in an adulterous relationship, the wife’s fate was subject to the whim of her husband.

The first king of Rome, Romulus, is said to have allowed the death penalty for women who committed adultery or drank wine.  Roman law also permitted the father to execute his children if they were guilty of adultery based on the Julian law regarding adultery (Lex Iulia de adulteriis) that was passed in around 18 CE during the reign of Augustus. [2] Emperor Nero divorced his wife Octavia in 62 CE, alleging that she had committed adultery; however, the evidence was scanty. Nevertheless, the court banished Octavia to Pandateria. Nero ordered his soldiers to slowly execute her, and within a few days, they brought back her head to Nero.[1] The Emperor soon married Poppaea, who incidentally is believed to have later converted to Judaism! Seneca and other playwrights often lampooned Nero’s disposal of his ex-wife. Just imagine what the Romans would have done, had they invented television!

The Greek historian and Roman citizen Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 C.E.) quotes a well known aphorism from the Athenian statesman Solon 638 B.C.E.– 558 B.C.E.), “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. . . .” He adds, “Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.”

Mutilation of female adulterers occurred in Babylon, China, Egypt, as well as among Native American Indian cultures. The list goes on–wherever men “own” their wives, this type of abuse has occurred. In Muslim countries, it is still a common occurrence. [3]

The common feature in almost all honor killings is the idea that the Other is the property of the aggrieved spouse.  It is startling that women are not considered persons; they are considered chattel and are perceived as bereft of an identity independent of the husband.

The Bible itself contains numerous stories dealing with honor killings that illustrate our last point. For example, Dinah’s massacre of the Shechemites in Genesis 34 meets all the criteria regarding an honor killing, but in this instance the brothers take their rage out on Dinah’s lover, Shechem and his immediate community. Tamar is nearly burned at the stake by her self-righteous father-in-law, Judah, for having shamed the family. Tamar knew Judah was an ethically challenged individual.  Were it not for Tamar’s anticipation of this possible outcome, she would have been killed (Gen. 38:24).

One of the most important pieces of biblical legislation pertains to the wife who is accused of adultery (Num. 5:11-31). An elaborate trial takes place that ultimately prevents her murder. Despite the primitive background of the precept, the ritual of the Sotah  probably saved many female lives.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the abundance of Scriptural imagery where God goes after Israel for having worshiped idols. In exacting retribution, God strips Israel naked, and subjects her to all kinds of, presumably, sexual abuse at the hand of her lovers (Ezek. 16:37-40).

God also resorts to mutilation, for in Ezekiel 23, God says in v. 25, “I will leave it to them to judge, and they will judge you by their own ordinances. I will let loose my jealousy against you, so that they shall deal with you in fury, cutting off your nose and ears; and what is left of you shall fall by the sword. They shall take away your sons and daughters, and what is left of you shall be devoured by fire” (Ezek. 23:25).

Mark Twain once said, “I have no problem with those parts of the Bible I don’t understand. It’s those parts of the Bible I do understand that gives me fits.

Amen!

When you look at the mutilation that has taken place in Arab countries, the imagery of husbands abusing their wives, or other female family members is sickening.[7] In both psychological and theological terms, abusive imagery of God often functions as the template for how males interact with females.

The Bible sometimes becomes a template for the idolization of masculine power. Men assume the role of “God,” who possesses the power of life and death over a hapless victim. Is maleness the closest thing to Godliness? I don’t think so. Women can create life from their bodies, just like God creates life out of Her body (so to speak!).

While none of us can change the past, we can change the present and create a new and hopeful future for oppressed women wherever they may be. As of late, we have been receiving a lot of hits on this website from Egypt. For all those wishing to promote democracy in Egypt, there can be no true democratic reforms anywhere without  ensuring equal rights for women. Do not let the Sha’ria Law take away your freedom and dreams for a healthy Egypt. In Israel, we have a similar problem with the Ultra-Orthodox. Standing together with one powerful voice will make the status quo think twice about their ambitions to control the thoughts and soul of  a people.

*

Notes:

[1] Richard Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (NY: Routledge, 1996), 89-90.

[2] Rebecca Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 20.

[3] http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/honor-killing-islams-gruesome-gallery.html

Kingston, Ontario was once a quiet peaceful community. That all changed when Mohammad Shafia, his wife, and son decided to murder the girls of their family. When he discovered his daughters sending pictures of themselves posing in bras and panties to their boyfriends, he said, “They betrayed humankind. They betrayed Islam. They betrayed our religion; they betrayed everything! I say to myself, ‘You did well.’ Were they to come to life, I would do it again. May the devil s— on their graves!”[1]

This case shocked and captivated the Canadian nation. This past Sunday, the court arrived at a verdict: Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya and their son Hamed Mohammad Shafia had each been found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder. Justice Robert Maranger put it best when he said, “It’s difficult to conceive of a more heinous, more despicable, more honor-less crime.”

If this story interests you, read on.

The tragic murder of three female family members in Canada is a grim reminder that honor killings are still a problem even in the 21st century. Male family members may attack a female family member for a variety of reasons, e.g., for refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, for having been raped or sexually assaulted, for allegedly wanting to leave an abusive husband.

Although the Mohammad Shafia trial has attracted considerable attention in the Western press, in the Arab world, honor killings are routine and considered normal behavior—even in the 21st century. Honor killings exist in many Muslim countries with the tacit approval of local law enforcement agencies and clerics. Muslim women live with a deep-seated fear of their male family members. To most of us living in the West, this is a foreign concept most of us cannot understand.

Among the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority, exempt men from facing any punishment if a male family member kills a female family member for “dishonoring” the family. Despite Abbas’s promise to eliminate this exemption, he has not undertaken any action.[2] Like American politicians, Abbas is skilled in the art of double-speak: say one thing to pander to the rabble, but do the exact opposite!

According to the UNICEF, about two-thirds of all the murders in the Palestinian territories are due to honor killings.[3] Men feel killing these “shameless” women removes the shame of adultery from the family.[4] The majority of the honor killings occur in rural villages, where the majority of its inhabitants are uneducated and live in squalor. Prior to Israel’s departure from Gaza, the Israelis kept records of the honor killings, which came to the attention of the Israeli police.

A number of brave Muslim women are speaking against this barbaric practice, such as Riffat Hassan, an activist who founded the International Network for the Rights of Female Victims of Violence in Pakistan. An Islamic theologian, she effectively speaks for women’s rights, especially regarding honor killings. Hassan courageously appeared on the ABC news program Nightline in February 1999 to address this “misogynistic” practice.[5] Although this extreme application of shari’a is not common in every Islamic country, it does occur. In countries like Iran, women who suffer rape are executed for bringing disgrace upon their families.

Like the Halachic concept of tsniyut (modesty laws), Shari’a law prescribes a dress-code for women they must adhere to. The hijab varies from one Muslim culture to another. Under the Taliban, CNN filmed a special documentary called, “Inside Afghanistan: Behind the Veil.” The film depicts an undercover female reporter who secretly documents the daily life of the Afghani women under the oppressive Taliban. While she covered her face a thick veil, she found life to be almost impossible. If she accidentally revealed her face or ankles, she could have been arrested.[6]

Even more conservative Muslim regimes like Iran and the Persian Gulf states have similar public dress codes that a woman must adhere to or face corporeal punishment. A woman who fails to conform to the local standard of hijab is likely to be punished severely. Worse, she brings disgrace on her family in the eyes of her community in a culture where honor is closely bound up with the virtues of modesty and purity. The standards extend from dictates about wearing the hijab to laws regulating behavior toward men. Often a woman is forbidden even to look at a man other than her husband or an immediate family member. Remember one rule: In the Middle East, people kill over honor. This is a tradition that stretches back to the earliest periods of recorded history.

Whether it be in the Mullacracy of Iran, or the Sheikdoms of the Middle East, or for that matter—in the streets of Jerusalem and Beth Shemesh. Women are dehumanized and reduced to sex objects by the men of their society. If you ever wanted to understand what Radical Islam and Ultra-Orthodoxy have in common, it is a mutual misogyny of women. No woman can define her identity apart from her husband, family, or community.

The war between Radical Islam and the West is fighting for control of our soul and our freedom. Radical Islam is not interested in peaceful coexistence. As Jews, we are also experiencing a similar problem in Israel, whenever we see Haredim attack women they perceive as, “immodestly dressed.” The Ultra-Orthodox wish to transform Israel into a theocracy. Although there is little we can practically do to change the overall situation, change is incremental. Supporting women’s groups that protect the rights of women, whether they be Muslim women’s groups or Jewish women’s groups—adding our voice to theirs may eventually produce the changes millions of women yearn to see in that troublesome part of the world.

Remember: One person can change the world. However, the power of two or more, can effect an even greater change! Continue Reading