In a February 12, 2010 article in The Jewish Advocate, a Boston-area Jewish weekly, the work of a rabbi who checks for shatnez in clothing is depicted. Shatnez is the combination of wool and linen in the same garment, which is forbidden among extremely orthodox Jews. The reason for the prohibition is a biblical passage in Deuteronomy 22:11: “You shall not wear combined fibers, wool and linen together.” So the rabbi uses a microscope to examine fibers that he picks from various parts of a garment he tests. With the exception of undergarments, wigs, belts and earmuffs, no clothing may be worn until it is ruled shatnez free. That includes embroidery kits, oven mitts, blouses and baseball gloves. The rabbi states, “The mitzvah of shatnez is as important a mitzvah as ‘Do not steal,’ or ‘Love your friend as you love yourself.’
What gives here? Not combining wool and lines in clothing is just as important as loving thy neighbor or not stealing? No wonder most Jews are not Orthodox! This seem absolutely crazy. At least kosher laws have some apparent justification in being humane and promoting cleanliness. But come on now, mixing wool and linen? This is not like mixing milk and meat, which seems to be based on the callousness of washing down the meat of a calf in its mothers milk. Wool comes from the shearing, not killing, of a sheep and linen comes from a flax plant. Now what logic could there be in not mixing them? It seems like Orthodox Jews believe in following an extensive set of rules without regard to reason or benefit. This does not seem very spiritual and may even take the focus away from doing real good. The recent corruption scandal in New Jersey involving Orthodox rabbis speaks to this possibility.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Jewish Neocon Issue
The February 1, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine has a story entitled, "The Return of the Neocons" by David Margolick. Being a political observer but not a wonk, I was a bit startled to read that several of the so-called Neocons, who were key ideologists supporting the Bush 43 administration, were Jewish. They include Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith, William Kristol of the conservative Weekly Standard, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan, and Norman and John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine, among others. I find this disturbing for two reasons.
First, it is disturbing because I have viewed the neocons as somewhat evil, pushing war when it was not necessary, and I don't like to see Jewish people involved in less than laudatory activities (e.g. Bernie Madoff). It denigrates us as a people. While I detested Saddam Hussein and supported trying to depose him based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction, I later concluded that the evidence of such weapons was likely fabricated and the war was pushed through over legitimate objections. The Neocons seems to have played a key part in justifying the attack. In addition, they fostered the notion that the Iraqi people would greet us with open arms and embrace democracy. That didn't happen and it still seems likely that, without a U.S. military presence, Iraq will devolve into another anti-Western dictatorship. So where did the sacrifice of our soldiers get us?
Another strong reason to be disturbed by the fact that many Neocons are Jewish are the allegations that they have pursued aggressive and unilateral U.S. military action in the Middle East out of concern for Israeli rather than U.S. interests. If it were indeed the case, it would be quite disturbing. Indeed, there have been articles, books, and blog posts claiming that the Neocons represented a Jewish conspiracy to prompt the U.S. to act militarily in Israel's interest. Unfortunately, it is not easy to provide evidence to the contrary. How can we tell what is in someone's mind? The most solid evidence I've seen that concern for Israel's survival was not an important motivator to Jewish neocons is their consistent conservative and aggressive stances on issues unrelated to Israel. For example, William Kristol was a strong advocate for military action to save the Muslims of Kosovo by attacking the Serbian military. In addition, the major players in the aggressive and unilateral U.S. stance under Bush 43 were not Jewish. They included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among several others. I don't think such people would have let some conservative intellectuals dictate their policy. It is more likely that they used these men to justify policies that they already believed in.
Questions of divided loyalty always come up in politics. John Kennedy, in his campaign to become the first Catholic U.S. president, had to take pains to convince the U.S. public that he would not be beholden to the Pope. Barak Obama was elected as the first U.S. president of partial African ancestry in large part by convincing the public that he would focus on issues of importance to the entire nation rather than on predominantly black concerns.
I don't think it's bad for Jews to be represented all across the political spectrum. Why should any group toe one political line? Many Jews, Blacks, and Latinos have reasons to buck the predominately liberal outlooks and voting habits of their groups. This is a good thing. No group should be taken for granted by any political party. By the same token, no member of these groups who becomes conservative should be viewed as a traitor or self-hater. Thus, we must accept that Jews can become accomplished conservative ideologues just as they have traditionally been strongly represented in the ranks of liberal ideologues. That does not mean that they are acting out of divided loyalty. Democracy fosters the interplay of ideas. May the strongest ones predominate!
First, it is disturbing because I have viewed the neocons as somewhat evil, pushing war when it was not necessary, and I don't like to see Jewish people involved in less than laudatory activities (e.g. Bernie Madoff). It denigrates us as a people. While I detested Saddam Hussein and supported trying to depose him based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction, I later concluded that the evidence of such weapons was likely fabricated and the war was pushed through over legitimate objections. The Neocons seems to have played a key part in justifying the attack. In addition, they fostered the notion that the Iraqi people would greet us with open arms and embrace democracy. That didn't happen and it still seems likely that, without a U.S. military presence, Iraq will devolve into another anti-Western dictatorship. So where did the sacrifice of our soldiers get us?
Another strong reason to be disturbed by the fact that many Neocons are Jewish are the allegations that they have pursued aggressive and unilateral U.S. military action in the Middle East out of concern for Israeli rather than U.S. interests. If it were indeed the case, it would be quite disturbing. Indeed, there have been articles, books, and blog posts claiming that the Neocons represented a Jewish conspiracy to prompt the U.S. to act militarily in Israel's interest. Unfortunately, it is not easy to provide evidence to the contrary. How can we tell what is in someone's mind? The most solid evidence I've seen that concern for Israel's survival was not an important motivator to Jewish neocons is their consistent conservative and aggressive stances on issues unrelated to Israel. For example, William Kristol was a strong advocate for military action to save the Muslims of Kosovo by attacking the Serbian military. In addition, the major players in the aggressive and unilateral U.S. stance under Bush 43 were not Jewish. They included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among several others. I don't think such people would have let some conservative intellectuals dictate their policy. It is more likely that they used these men to justify policies that they already believed in.
Questions of divided loyalty always come up in politics. John Kennedy, in his campaign to become the first Catholic U.S. president, had to take pains to convince the U.S. public that he would not be beholden to the Pope. Barak Obama was elected as the first U.S. president of partial African ancestry in large part by convincing the public that he would focus on issues of importance to the entire nation rather than on predominantly black concerns.
I don't think it's bad for Jews to be represented all across the political spectrum. Why should any group toe one political line? Many Jews, Blacks, and Latinos have reasons to buck the predominately liberal outlooks and voting habits of their groups. This is a good thing. No group should be taken for granted by any political party. By the same token, no member of these groups who becomes conservative should be viewed as a traitor or self-hater. Thus, we must accept that Jews can become accomplished conservative ideologues just as they have traditionally been strongly represented in the ranks of liberal ideologues. That does not mean that they are acting out of divided loyalty. Democracy fosters the interplay of ideas. May the strongest ones predominate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
