Brad Hirschfield: October 2009 Archives

Over the past two days, I have posted about the appropriateness of hate crime legislation and about people's concern over anti-Semitism. Today's shooting at Adat Yeshurun Valley Sephardic Orthodox Synagogue in North Hollywood, in which two members were shot at close range, brings together both of those previous posts. And in what some might find surprising, does nothing to alter my previously stated views.

One commenter's observation on my hate crimes post, that I would change my tune if someone spray-painted a swastika on a synagogue and suddenly embrace such legislation, is now demonstrably wrong. This is a whole lot worse than graffiti, and I still resist the rush to label this a hate crime, let alone prosecute it as such. And in this case LA Mayor Villaraigosa is with me.

Having received numerous questions about the Coen brothers' most recent film, a contemporary commentary on the Book of Job, called A Serious Man, I am going to respond even though I have not yet seen the movie. How can I do that? I can do so because the comments have had little to do with the actual movie. They are really about the amazing level of insecurity which Jews feel about how we are portrayed in popular culture.

Most of the comments have focused on how the rabbis come off in the film. People are concerned that the apparently poor showing they make as counselors to the suffering Jew who turns to them in his time of need. Will, those who write me ask, audiences come to think poorly of Jews because of this?

For Starters, the questions assumes that most people think that all Jews are like rabbis, and that alone is a big presumption - one which gives rabbis far more status than is either real or appropriate. But the larger issue has to do with our fears about how we are seen, even as we live with greater acceptance in America than we have in any country other than Israel, ever in Jewish history.

One woman wrote: I have to admit that I was also becoming very concerned about how non-Jews would perceive this film, and whether this would encourage Anti-Semitic stereotypes. My 88 year old Yiddish speaking mother went to see the film with her 93 year old friend, and they were completely horrified and disgusted!!

My response:

The White House has announced that President Obama will sign new legislation which adds provisions to include Gays and Lesbians among the groups protected by special hate crimes legislation. It would be a great idea, if hate crimes legislation itself was a good idea, but it's not. Hate crime laws undermine the fundamental purpose of any healthy system of justice by using the penal code to address social issues instead of punishing those accused of committing particular crimes.

Such laws also may run afoul of the biblical commandment found in Numbers 15:15 that "there shall be one law for all". While we are not a theocracy, there is wisdom in that practice which we ignore at all of our peril.

While the problems which hate crimes legislation address are generally real, and in the case of Gay and Lesbian Americans who face specific dangers on a regular basis simply because they are who they are, such problems are all too real. Nonetheless, such legislation is not the way to correct this problem.

Punishing individuals for what they believe and not what they have done is a scary precedent which avoids the real cultural challenges we face and potentially devalues the significance of crimes not rising to the level of a hate crime. Just ask the victims' families.

Does it matter to victims' families why they are burying their loved one, or visiting them in a hospital? Of course not. And only those who seek to politicize a particular crime would distinguish between crime victims based on their race, religion, or sexual identity.

And while hate crimes laws are not a good idea, the underlying problems which give rise to them must be addressed. Here are two possible ways to do so without undermining the cornerstone notion that we punish acts not thoughts.

Starting this morning adds begin appearing in New York City subways which tell us that for millions of people, the answer is 'yes'. Following past campaigns in Dallas, Chicago and other locations around the nation this advertising campaign for Greg Epstein's book of the same name, is clearly meant to provoke, not educate. That may be good for book sales, but renders this initiative far less interesting than it otherwise might be. In fact, it looks and sounds remarkably similar to the kinds of pro-God campaigns which annoy those who sponsored this one!

The add campaign is mounted by the "New York City Coalition for Reason", whose name alone is problematic. It suggests, in precisely the way that pro-God groups with names like "union for decency" and "coalition for American values" suggest that atheists are amoral, un-American, or indecent, that atheists are reasonable and theists are not.

What do you think? Can be people be good without God? I ask in two senses and eagerly await the discussion that follows. First, can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some kind of faith in some kind of being greater than themselves? Second, can people be truly happy, as in "I'm good with that", without believing in something they call God?

It's clear to me that the answer is 'no' to the first question, but that in which someone believes may be far different from the standard personal "Guy-In-The-Sky" which many people think of when talking about God. As to the second, I am really not sure. I think it depends upon the circumstances of one's life and how seriously they take the concept of gratitude. Ultimately, it is gratitude which is the key to happiness and although I feel deeply grateful to God, I think the gratitude part is more connected to my being happy than the being to whom it is directed.

Your turn....

Responding to both a growing anti-circumcision movement and her own hysteria surrounding the circumcision of her two sons, Hanna Rosin writes in the most recent New York Magazine about why the case for circumcision is good for everyone, at least all boys. Her arguments are interesting, but I am not sure they are correct.

I am Jewish enough that I never considered not circumcising my sons, (she writes). I did not search the web or call a panel of doctors to fact-check the health benefits, as a growing number of wary Americans now do. Despite my momentary panic, the words "genital mutilation" did not enter my head. But now that I have done my homework, I'm sure I would do it again--even if I were not Jewish, didn't believe in ritual, and judged only by cold, secular science.

Rosin goes on to bring lots of compelling evidence about the health benefits, both personal and public, of circumcision, including reducing HIV/AIDS, multiple forms of cancer, etc. And on that basis tells us that she made her decision "only by cold, secular science". But she also admits that she "never considered not circumcising her sons". So which is it, a scientific conclusion or a declaration of faith and belonging? Of course, the answer is that the two are inextricably linked. As is the decision for those who choose not to circumcise their kids.