Brad Hirschfield: August 2008 Archives

What is faith, any faith really about? Is it about philosophical debates? Is it nothing more than theological wrangling? Or could it be something much closer to home for most of us? Could it be about the big questions in our everyday lives, and the spiritual tools we need to address them?

My recent post, Proof of God's Existence, drew an interesting response from regular reader and interesting commenter, Laura Mushkat, which got me thinking about this. Frustrated by what she perceived as a disconnect between my post's title and the piece itself, which deals with a family tearing itself apart over a grandfather's will, and her desire share her own theological musings about the ability to prove God's existence, she writes:

ALRIGHTY THEN! Very clever headline for a mundane subject. Was all set to come here to write about why we should or should not require proof the good Lord exists. Instead we have a will and a family fight! OMG! (SARCASIM)

Well Laura, there is nothing mundane about a family that allows their father and grandfather's legacy to destroy their family. Unless by mundane, you mean commonplace. In which case, I would sadly have to agree. These kinds of family fights occur everyday, and all too often, one or both sides invoke God or tradition to "prove" that they are correct. And it's not that I am opposed to people believing that they are correct, or to believing that their interpretation of God's will is correct. But how come we don't see people invoking God that way to hold the family together, despite their disagreements about "what God wants"? Isn't that kind of commitment to each other also a religious issue?

If Barack Obama were a doctor, he would get an A for diagnostic skill and a C for his ability to prescribe treatment. His acceptance speech last night was no different -- a grand expression of each of those traits. Yes, he laid out a bunch of specifics, but did so as a laundry list of policy visions which even he admitted were going to cost a great deal of money -- money which won't come from the taxes he promised to cut, and surely can not come from his promised "fine tooth comb" analyses of the budget ("hey look, I found billions of dollars!?).

So either last night was pandering, which I do not believe, or it was a gentle pitch for the kind of class-warfare based redistributionist policy in which he genuinely believes. Senator Obama has said numerous times, including in the recent Obamanomics article in the New York Times, that he believes not in fairness, but in equity. There is a world of difference between the two and I think that he should be taken at his word.

On the other hand, his sense of what most Americans are experiencing, of his opponent's out-of-touchness (however well meaning and sincere), and his desire to re-make the way we do politics, are all not only inspiring, but dead on. I challenge anyone to find a flaw in Obama's assessment of the challenges we face or his ability to frame them in a way that invites more people to face up to them. You may not like his way of responding to those challenges, and I would join you in that dislike for some of those ways, but his diagnostic skill remains stellar.

I wonder this morning, in light of the challenges we face at home and abroad, if we can better afford a president who is out of touch with the nation but sometimes more responsible in his approach to a specific challenge, or one who appreciates what we are up against but may sometimes respond in ways we don't like. What do you think?

I was asked by Sally Quinn and John Meacham of the Washington Post and Newsweek, what advice I would offer to Barack Obama and John McCain on the use of religion in their presidential campaigns. This was my response:

Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama,

As a person of faith, I hope that religion plays a role in your lives, and if it does, then I would expect that we see it reflected in your campaigns also. But if religion is not central in your lives, please don't make it central to either of your bids for the presidency. Either way, please do not allow religion, or the lack of it, to become a political issue about which you squabble or use to prove why any specific group of voters should vote for you. When religion is used that way, it is bad for both religion and politics, and ultimately for all of us as well.

America has some pretty big challenges ahead of it right now, and the typical religious posturing which passes for genuine faith, in American politics, is not going to provide any meaningful response to those challenges. However, politicians who are clear about the values for which they stand, and can help us appreciate the sources of those values, can shape a process by which to lead us toward the solutions we need. And I think that spiritual connection, religious wisdom, and ongoing practice can all contribute to that.

But that has nothing to do with standing up and telling us why God, the Bible, etc. endorse your position on anything from the war in Iraq to poverty in America or even abortion. Those are specific policies, and resorting to proof-texting for any of them has no place in making public policy for a country which reads a variety of texts and understands them in a variety of ways. Frankly, I am sick and tired of those on both the left and the right, invoking God's name to prove their point about any specific policy.

The following story from the Chicago Tribune, 'Jewish clause' divides a family, state courts weigh in on a man's will that disinherited any descendant who married a gentile, is proof not only of God's existence, but that God must love the Jewish people very much, because nothing else explains the ongoing existence of people behaving this badly! Okay, that's an exaggeration, but this story of greed, family fighting, and identity politics is truly sad. But because it raises so many issues that touch so many families, Jewish and otherwise, and the fights that they have, I share it with you. But where to begin the sordid tale?

Let's start with the deceased grandfather, Max Feinberg and his desire to see his grandchildren marry Jews. Okay, I get that. But holding money over them as an incentive? I actually get that too, it's the last redoubt of a desperate man, so I feel sorry for him, but don't endorse it his actions. He went so far as to describe such progeny who made a life with with a non-Jew as "deceased"! And that is beyond the pale.

Neither parents, nor grand-parents are obligated to prove their love by rewarding their kids equally when they have not all behaved equally. But to imagine that someone you love is dead because of a theological disagreement is pretty dangerous territory to stake out.

Suddenly, a speech by John McCain's brother, Joe, is making the rounds on the internet. I have received it over twenty times in as many hours. And although it's not new (it was given as an address to a synagogue in St. Louis in 2002), both it and the reception it is receiving are quite telling. I hope that you will read it in full and tell me what you think it means.

The talk includes the following lines:

There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now -- "Can Israel Survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize -- the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world doesn't come to understand that, then millions of Arabs are going to die. It's as simple as that....And many will die, mostly their attackers, I believe. If there were a macabre historical betting parlor, my money would be on the Israelis to be standing at the end. As we killed the kamikazes and the Wehrmacht soldaten of World War II, so will the Israelis kill their suicidal attackers, until there are not enough to torment them....The Jews will not go quietly again.

Frankly, I find his appreciation of the centrality of Israel to so many Jews inspiring, his sense of the ferocity with which Israelis would defend their state largely accurate, and his apocalyptic version of the story combined with a somewhat skewed history to support it, quite troubling. To begin with, his use of the term, "the Jews" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as "the Jews", except in the twisted fantasies of anti-Semites who imagine an annual conclave at which we all gather to elect a leader and spread across the world in some mutually agreed upon nefarious fashion.