Brad Hirschfield: July 2008 Archives

There is actually a website called The Daily Hitler, and it's not the product of neo-Nazis seeking their regular fix of the Fuhrer. It's the work of Israeli artist Nir Avigad. And although I know I am going to get clobbered by both sides on this one, I have no choice. Why? Because we are the first generation that will outlive the Survivors of the Shoah.

That means two things: first, that continuing to remember the way we have until now is impossible and second, that forgetting would be obscene. How will we remember in the twenty first century? How will we recall our painful past without becoming hostage to it? No one person has the answer to those and similar questions, but we need to try. It's actually why I edited Remember for Life: Holocaust Survivors' Stories of Faith and Hope. And it's why I think that attempts to wrestle with our use of Holocaust imagery are so important.

Avigad's installation, a wall of images depicting Hitler's face on a dog, on Theodore Herzel, and in a Looney Toons logo, just to name a few, went on display this week in Jerusalem. It can also be viewed at www.thedailyhitler.com to which he regularly adds new images. Needless to say many people have lodged protests against the display of this work which breaks a long-held taboo against such light-hearted depictions.

But objections to this work can not be that some things are simply beyond depiction. Isn't that a status reserved for God? Do we really want Hitler on that same pedestal? So, what is it?

What do you think about wearing an "Obamica"? How about covering your head with a "McCippah"? Well, now you can. A recent post at Seattlepi.com describes Shmuel Tennenhaus' new business, VanityKippah.com and it newest products. Take your pick, but you can now wear a kippah (yarmulke in Yiddish), the traditional Jewish head covering, and support your favorite candidate at the same time.

Things to hate about this idea? Well, hate is too strong a word, but in a world filled with religious violence, do we need any more intensification of the bond between partisan politics and religion? On the other hand, if religious ideas genuinely animate one's life, how can they not inform one's politics? I actually believe they should. Perhaps not this way, but....

The real story here is that Tennenhaus wants these to be fashionable enough so that "even non-Jewish people would wear one". That, I love. This guy imagines that one of the most common ways of identifying a Jew in public, could become so normal that it would cease to function in that way.

In other words, the idea of wearing a kippah, for whatever reason, would make so much sense that not even those who "are supposed to wear one", would choose to put them on. It's not the worst test for any practice in any community, i.e. the wisdom of doing the practice, would actually motivate people to perform it.

Ironically, that seems to be how the custom of covering one's head originated in Jewish circles. At least the oldest text describing it has it that way. The Talmud tells of a woman distraught with her misbehaving son, who she brought to a rabbi. The sage instructs her to wrap her son's head in some kind of cloth or turban (sudar, lit.) and apparently the act of dressing that way would raise his consciousness and subsequent behavior. Did it work? Don't know, but the idea of dressing the part has been with us for a long time, and it seems that Obamicas and McCippahs are just the next phase.

And I don't mean the meat from the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa which packages as much as thirty percent of the kosher beef consumed in this country. But according to today's New York Times, there are rabbis who disagree with me. They are coming perilously close to declaring that the meat from this plant, which meets the formal requirements for kosher beef, be declared un-kosher because of the labor practices of the plant's owners.

Don't get me wrong, I want increased ethical awareness. But I really don't want one more cause which empowers one group to identify another as "bad Jews". There are real areas of Jewish law which prohibit the abuse of workers, not paying them a fair and timely wage, and other crucial ethical obligations which are just as important as the fine points of kashrut. But the fact that they are just as important does not mean that one is a substitute for the other, or that the failure to meet one set of obligations implies that the other has not been met.

My recent post about Barack Obama's Western Wall prayer drew the attention of American Spectator contributing editor Jay Homnick, who was mentioned in it.

His comment:
How could I be said to be abusing a religious tradition for partisan ends? I criticized Obama and his team for crass behavior and I demonstrated the basis for the complaint. How is that partisan? And how is that abuse?
It is instructive that you do not mention the issue at hand; namely, the hanging of huge political posters in the Square in front of the Wall.
This is a "shining" example of the pot calling the kettle black? That is your fair-minded judgment?
And what is your second paragraph maintaining? That the Wailing Wall should not be viewed as a holy place that inspires the Jews of the world? This essay leaves me utterly befuddled.
Posted by: Jay D. Homnick | July 27, 2008 11:15 PM

My response:

Well Jay, I love that you read the post and hope that you will see this as well. Even more, I hope that you read and comment regularly.

Your "abuse" of the tradtion (admittedly a harsher term than one which I would normally use, but fair in this case because it wasintroduced by you to the conversation), comes in the form of sharing an isolated midrash to prove a particular political point. There is a midrash to "prove" anything, which is a strength of rabbinic literature, but a fact which demands greater modesty on the part of those who use it.

And while I appreciate your saying that you are "befuddled", we both know that is not true. You are far too smart for that. What you are is poorly informed about Jewish history. You assume a false dichotomy between "a holy place that inspires Jews" and one which can be used, as it always has been, for politcal purposes.

Not to mention that you keep insisting that it is a place of inspiration for Jews, suggesting that it can be one others as well. That too is disturbing but for other reasons and to be discussed at some other time.

What do you think?

The following question was posed by the editors of the Newsweek/Washington Post blog, On Faith: The ACLU, joined by the ADL, has asked the U.S. Naval Academy to end prayers at mandatory meals, and yet all branches of the service employ chaplains. What is the proper role of religion in the military?

My response, excerpted below, drew the attention of someone claiming to be one of the nine midshipmen who requested help from the ACLU in ending the pre-meal prayers to which they objected. My initial response to the question is followed by both the comment of that midshipman and my response to him.

My initial comments:

This should not be about constitutional debate or political wrangling. Which is why the ACLU's involvement, however well meaning, is not helpful. Nor is the involvement, soon to come I am sure, of any of the conservative advocacy groups with the word "freedom" in their name. This needs to be about meeting the spiritual needs of those sharing a meal, including those who have no felt spiritual needs at all.

Continue Reading This Post »