Rabbi Backman is a participating columnist on the Glendale News Press, the La Cañada Valley Sun and the Burbank Leader weekly feature "In Theory". Below are some of his recent columns.
The above mentioned Times Community Papers are delivered daily with the Los Angeles Times. Copies can also be obtained free of charge at a number of newspaper stands throughout the city.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 31, 2010
Labeling Israeli Policy Apartheid
Anglican Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu has announced that, after his 79th birthday in October, he is to resign from nearly all of his official commitments and withdraw from public life, the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper reported last week. He wishes to spend more time in reflection and prayer. Tutu is best remembered for his fight against apartheid and leadership of the Anglican Church in South Africa. If you had a chance to sit down with the archbishop, what would you say to him? What issues would you discuss?
First, I would sincerely congratulate Archbishop Tutu on his many accomplishments — especially the crucial role he played in dismantling apartheid in South Africa. I would say that he is a remarkable and inspirational figure for people around the globe. His historic struggle for freedom, equality and liberty is admirable and should be emulated by us all.
Since I am a proud supporter of Israel, I would also raise an issue that is very close to my heart: namely, the archbishop's troubling stance on the Jewish state and the various erroneous statements he's made over the years. While acknowledging the significant role Jews played in the anti-apartheid struggle, Tutu nevertheless was a prominent supporter of the bigoted "Zionism equals racism" idea. He even went so far as to label Israel's necessary protective measures on its borders as a form of apartheid.
The fallacy in this claim is obvious, since Israeli Arabs have more freedoms and civil liberties than any Arab throughout the Middle East.
They enjoy equal rights and identical citizenship as Israeli Jews. They participate fully in every facet of society, including exercising their right to vote; there are currently 14 Arab members in Israel's Parliament, the Knesset. So I would respectfully ask Tutu whether this really sounds like apartheid.
I would also want to discuss the fact that when he visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem in 1989, Archbishop Tutu implored Jews to forgive the Nazi beasts who murdered 6 million of our people. In my opinion, making that statement in that location was a gratuitous insult to Jews and all the other victims of the Nazis. How — I would inquire of Tutu — do I have a right to forgive those who gassed and cremated my father's Hungarian family in the ovens of Auschwitz? How can I forgive those who brutally machine-gunned to death my mother's Polish family in the woods on the outskirts of their shtetl? Archbishop Tutu's remarks may have been well-intentioned, but they caused pain for many people who still feel the tragic consequences of the Holocaust.
I believe that history should never be whitewashed. Archbishop Tutu is heading toward a well-deserved, golden retirement, and there are certainly many lessons we can learn from him. However, we should also recognize his mistakes — and I would hope that this period of reflection will also prompt Tutu to acknowledge those times when he exercised poor judgment. My prayer is that he will rectify these mistakes sooner rather than later. In so doing, he can add an additional positive gesture to his many accomplishments.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2010
Should an Islamic center be built near Ground Zero
Those for and against a proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero butted heads during a passionate three-hour hearing of New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission last week, CNN reported. At issue is whether a more than century-old building should be preserved and made into a mosque and community center at the site where the Twin Towers once stood. What do you think? Is it appropriate to build an Islamic center and mosque on the site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by Islamist hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001? If not, what should be done with the building instead?
I don't believe that that the primary motive behind the opposition to the proposed Muslim mosque is its proximity to Ground Zero. Naturally there is lingering pain and anger in New York from the tragedy of Sept. 11, but the suggested location for the building at 51 Park Place, which Google Maps indicates is two blocks away from Ground Zero — a significant distance in overcrowded Manhattan. Also, what is being built is not primarily a mosque but rather a Muslim community center that will also contain a mosque.
I feel that the fierce resistance of New Yorkers to this development stems primarily from the fear of creating a Muslim gathering place in their midst. A recent New York Post article states as much by declaring its objection to any mosque in New York City, citing concerns that the Islamic radicalization that has become common in Western Europe may take hold on this side of the Atlantic as well.
Over the past several decades, freethinking and altruistic European countries opened up their borders and welcomed millions of immigrants from Muslim countries. They hoped that the convergence of various cultures under the aegis of freedom would produce positive multi-cultured societies. In reality, the opposite happened. Instead of an open and tolerant Western Europe, today we see an alarming growth of religious extremism and frighteningly belligerent Muslim elements in almost every European country west of Poland.
Thankfully, Muslims here in the United States have generally integrated fully into our society and feel every bit as American as anyone else.
Nevertheless, when discussing the proposed building in New York, there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. I believe it is incumbent upon the Muslim leadership to take the first steps in discussing all relevant issues and alleviating the fears that are ever-present. It is also equally critical for those opposing this project to listen with an open mind and truly try to comprehend the other side's views. Hopefully, this approach will bear positive fruit, and an amicable solution will be found.
Although there are many obstacles along the path, there is merit to the notion of a Muslim community center that is sensitive to the memory of those killed in the attack, conducive to a spirit of peaceful tolerance, and symbolic of our nation's religious freedom — all of which would offer a hopeful contrast to the violent extremism of Sept. 11.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2010
A proposition on marijuana
Despite criticism from some religious leaders who have called on her to resign her post, Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP's California chapter, said last week that she will not retract her support of an initiative to legalize marijuana in the state, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News. She believes that Proposition 19 would "be a good first step in reforming marijuana laws," especially for African Americans who she feels are targeted, creating a "permanent underclass." What do you, as a religious leader, think about Proposition 19? Do you think it will reform marijuana laws, or do you side with Sacramento preacher Ron Allen, who says the NAACP's support of Proposition 19 "disregards the harm illicit drugs cause to the black community," and to a greater extent, other communities?
I fail to see the wisdom of legalizing "recreational" marijuana or any other mind-altering substance. Human beings are blessed with a brain more powerful than any computer ever devised. We are given the divinely inspired task of enhancing this world and making our environment more hospitable by harnessing the full power of our minds. Altering our ability to do so by using a foreign substance — even for a limited time — is not a good idea and should be strongly discouraged.
I feel that Alice Huffman's claim that enforcement of current laws against illicit drugs is the cause for the "permanent underclass" of the African American community is a disingenuous attempt to avoid addressing the real causes for the struggles of the black population. Many other figures in the black community strongly disagree with Huffman on this issue, and I hope that the national leadership of the NAACP would also disagree with its California chapter's support of Proposition 19.
Regardless of the arguments for or against legalization of marijuana — and there are some legitimate points on either side — claiming that enforcing anti-drug laws is a root cause of a community's longstanding social ills is simply ridiculous. Communities disintegrate and its members turn to drugs when their leaders fail to inspire, when their families crumble and when their opportunities shrink. This is true of all failing communities — not just African American ones — and nobody gains when the blame for social problems is shifted onto an illusory straw man.
If Huffman truly wanted to help the black community — especially its youth — she should stop worrying about easing marijuana laws and instead focus on meeting genuine needs such as better education, stronger family values, more responsible parenting and a real reduction in crime. This approach requires a committed effort, unyielding optimism and a coherent plan. It also requires a candid assessment of roles and responsibilities, and a hard look about why this part of our American family has faced such hardships.
There are many factors contributing to the struggles of African Americans, and they come from many different places — but enforcement of anti-marijuana laws is not among them.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 3, 2010
Muslim Anti-Semitism in Europe
A story published this week by the Associated Press chronicles an effort by Dutch police to combat hate crimes by using “decoy Jews” --- undercover police officers wearing yarmulkes. “Enthusiasm for the unusual idea is a sign of the ongoing tension between the Muslim minority and the rest of the Dutch population over issues of immigration and crime,” the story reports. The goal of the undercover operation --- while not completely fool proof --- is to capture offenders instantly, said Ronny Naftaniel, the head of the Center for Information and Documentation Israel, a pro-Jewish group that has lobbied for the idea. What do you think of this idea to use “decoy Jews” to capture offenders? Would it be offensive to you if undercover agents were posing as members of your respective religion? Why or why not?
I think this is a great idea! Anti-Semitism or hate crimes of any kind should never be tolerated -- and therefore, all lawful means available should be employed to capture these disgraceful offenders.
It is truly sad that members of Holland's Muslim minority -- a group which is well acquainted with prejudice -- would turn around and perpetrate acts of bigotry against Dutch Jews. I believe that this trend is a direct result of the hatemongering and intolerance that is so common in the Muslim Middle East, and which has now been transplanted from these immigrants' home countries to the Netherlands. I would hope that in searching for a better life and a brighter future in an open society, these individuals would break free from the negative, fanatical ideas they acquired back home. But this does not seem to be the case. Instead of trying to build a Muslim society in Holland based on principles of understanding and tolerance, these individuals choose to vent their frustrations with Israel on local Jews. The stories coming from the Netherlands underscore the truthfulness of Dr. Martin Luther King’s words: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not unique to Holland; it is widespread in practically every country in Western Europe. My colleagues in France, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, and Norway report constant intimidation and harassment of Jews by their Muslim neighbors. This is very troubling indeed -- especially considering that some of these Jews are Holocaust survivors or their descendants.
I find this in stark contrast to the Muslim immigrants here in the United States, who have largely managed to integrate into American society and do not seem to harbor ill will toward their Jewish -- or Christian -- neighbors. This is a something for which all Americans can be grateful; it is something our nation can be proud of. But we cannot ignore what is happening overseas. A mere 65 years after Hitler marched across Europe intent on murdering every Jew on the continent, we once again witness a rising tide of anti-Semitic hatred based on equally frightening genocidal ideas. It is high time that responsible leaders of the European Union acknowledge this dreadful cancer growing in their midst, and take appropriate measures to stop it.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2010
Dealing with apocalyptic thinking
Most scripture promotes our careful stewardship of the Earth. And yet, apocalyptic religious traditions welcome signs of the "end times" (environmental degradation, war, oil spills, etc.), considering it the fulfillment of long-awaited prophecy and the beginning of a new age of peace. What's the role of free will in the face of such prophecy? Should we celebrate these "signs" or try to do something to minimize the violence and destruction? If action is called for, how should we rally together to battle our "compassion fatigue" and heal the world's wounds?
I firmly disagree with those who claim to know the precise meaning of scripture and contend that massive calamity and great tragedy are portents of an Armageddon prophesied long ago. We often witness catastrophic events -- some caused by nature, and some made by man -- that are truly frightening. When faced with such challenging circumstances, it is essential that we remain optimistic and maintain a positive disposition. Instead of trying to unnecessarily decipher the meaning behind such disasters, we should instead focus our energies on assisting the victims -- and, if possible, on working to ensure that such events do not re-occur.
The scriptures contain various prophecies and writings that are difficult to understand and hard to decipher in any definitive way. Many choose to interpret these cryptic passages as having apocalyptic meaning, and then proceed to forecast terrible events. These individuals often translate natural or man-made disasters as having been predicted by the prophets thousands of years ago. I feel that we cannot accurately understand the intent of the prophets or the true meaning of every mysterious passage. In my view, these current-day projections of massive calamity and suffering are wrong-headed and counter-productive; they accomplish nothing other than unnecessarily scaring the wits out of people.
I also believe very strongly that the road to peace is not necessarily lined with tragedy. On the contrary, we can find peace in our day by perpetuating a spirit of goodness and kindness, and by educating our children to respect one another regardless of race, religion, color or creed. It is these steps that will usher in an era of global peace and tranquility -- not the scaremongering we occasionally observe among religious leaders. Our task must always be to take active, positive steps that will ease human suffering.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 2010
Spiritual But Not Religious
The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing, according to a blog post by CNN writer John Blake. It is growing so much, the blogger writes, one pastor has compared it to a "movement." In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72% of people 18 to 29 consider themselves "more spiritual than religious." Some say the phrase hints at egotism: "If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?" asks one Jesuit priest. What do you think? What exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?
I understand religion and spirituality as being largely synonymous, since both refer to humanity's efforts to understand and follow the will of its Creator. Spirituality is a means by which one becomes closer to the divine source of the soul -- and becomes a better person in the process. Religion is a specific (often predetermined) path one takes to reach that goal; it usually lays out a system of faith and worship as part of an organized structure. In my view, religious institutions should be configured in a manner that helps people reach their spiritual goals and achieve their full potential.
A central component of religion is being part of an organized, supportive community that engenders both benevolence and accountability. Establishing spiritual goals together with others creates a sense of responsibility through a system of accountability that is essential to proper spiritual growth. A religious organization also provides an opportunity to receive help from other people and assist those who may need support. And finally, a religious congregation offers opportunities for fellowship with others who share similar values.
The way I understand it, the “spiritual but not religious” movement seems to interpret spirituality as more of a “do it alone” project. I recognize that some very ethical people may not feel totally comfortable with organized religion -- perhaps they disagree with certain rules and restrictions established in traditional teachings, or maybe they have been disappointed by the shortcomings of some authority figures. However, while I applaud any interest in spirituality, I feel that this movement lacks some of the positive elements that are essential for true spiritual accomplishment. My hope is that their spiritual quest will lead them toward the true fulfillment that can only be found when one interacts with others and is part of a greater community that shares a common purpose.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 2010
Is religion of justices important?
Elena Kagan's successful confirmation to the Supreme Court "would result in six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices. Many argue that because Protestantism remains America's largest religious affiliation, the top court should have at least one Protestant justice," according to a piece written by Corey J. Hodges, pastor of New Pilgrim Baptist Church, for the Salt Lake Tribune. What do you think? Is it really necessary for the court to have a Protestant judge simply because it is considered America's largest religious affiliation? Overall, does the court's religious makeup have a significant impact, in the end, on how it interprets the law and makes decisions?
Does a Supreme Court justice's religion matter? The answer is maybe.
Statistics tell us that slightly more than 50% of Americans identify themselves as Protestants. Therefore, if we were to use religious affiliation as a criterion of eligibility for the U.S. Supreme Court, then there should be at least four — if not five — justices who are Protestant.
Furthermore, if Elena Kagan is confirmed, she would be only the third woman sitting on the Supreme Court — which is not an accurate reflection of the country's population of slightly more than 50% women. However, I do not believe we need to be strictly bound by census data when determining the makeup of the highest court in the land.
As I mentioned recently in this column, an individual's specific religious affiliation or gender is really not important when considering them for higher office. What is essential, though, is that anyone filling a significant public post must have sound religious bearings and be committed to an ethical lifestyle. They also need to possess a firm belief in God and subscribe to the idea — central to Judeo-Christian belief — of a higher power that determines moral truths. Whether a Supreme Court nominee is Christian, Jewish or Muslim is far less important than the overarching necessity for a justice who is righteous, leads an honorable life and shows proper respect for people of all religious denominations (as well those who profess no faith at all).
Also crucial when considering a Supreme Court nominee is to gauge how well they will make the necessary transition from their previous occupation to their new role on the high court. A 1st century BC rabbi named Judah, the son of Tabbai, offered the wise advice that, "when sitting in judgment, do not act as an attorney." Many individuals are appointed to the bench having previously served as lawyers, and Kagan is currently the solicitor general of the United States. But the responsibilities of arguing one side of a case and serving as an impartial judge are vastly different. Whereas a lawyer generally defines the Constitution in a way that benefits his or her client, a judge — especially one on the Supreme Court — must be absolute in interpreting the intent of its framers. Using this approach will guarantee neutrality and ensure an equal application of the law regardless of the race, color, creed, gender or religion of the judge.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2010
Hoping beyond hope
A cover story in last week's Pasadena Weekly chronicles the work of Sam Lundquist, who, inspired by an Urban Plunge Community Service event at Eagle Rock's Christian Assembly Church, decided to begin a project gathering stories from each block of Los Angeles, getting to know people and serve them better with "The Hope Chronicles." With a video camera, audio recorder and journal, Lundquist would approach strangers in all walks of life to ask them one simple question: "What is your hope?" "It is my hope that we would start connecting more and talking more and really understand what it looks like to be neighbor, and be there for them if you can," Lundquist said in the Pasadena Weekly story. What would you say to Lundquist if he approached you? What is your hope?
Every one of us has things that we want very much in life. Most of us probably want to win the lottery, and many people yearn to travel the world to visit Paris, London, Venice and other wonderful places. Many of us desire better relationships with those we love. And of course, there is that slightly cliched but often expressed longing for "world peace."
Some of the above items are wishes, while others represent sincere hopes. A "wish" usually refers to an improbable event — akin to "wishful thinking" — while "hope" is generally an expression used when something seems possible and within reach. I may wish to win the lottery, but I have true hope that I can develop a better relationship with my loved ones. The former is out of my control; the latter is very much within my power.
So what is my hope? That people around the globe will look at world peace as an achievable, hopeful endeavor instead of a mere wishful thought. Over the course of history, humanity has witnessed far too much bloodshed, pain and suffering. The usual response to all of this tragedy is that global harmony is nothing more than a fantasy or pipe dream, and that realistically we must accept the status quo of war and belligerence. However, I believe that we owe it to ourselves — and our children — to never accept this sad situation as a permanent condition.
Every human being in every nation must realize that it is within his or her power to make the world a better place. It can start with telling your family members how much you love them, or making up with that co-worker with whom you had an argument. Perhaps you can lend a helping hand to a total stranger, or take steps to brighten your community. These little acts of goodness and kindness can ultimately change the world and create a more hospitable environment for us all. These concrete actions can turn a hope into a reality.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 22, 2010
Excluding the Children of Homosexual Parents
Progressive Catholic groups are up in arms over reports Friday about the decision of a Roman Catholic school in Massachusetts to rescind the admission of an 8-year-old student because his parents are lesbians. The child was accepted to St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham, Massachusetts, for the fall was told he couldn't enroll after the school learned that his parents are gay. Since then, the school has been heavily criticized. What is your opinion on the overall treatment of gays and lesbians in churches --- and perhaps even within your own faith? Do you believe that gays and lesbians are treated equally and fairly in some of the major faiths, or is there much progress to be made on reaching out to these particular members of society? If so, what must we do so that we do not exclude our homosexual brothers and sisters?
I feel that the decision made by the Catholic elementary school in Massachusetts was wrong and inappropriate for a religious institution. I assume that the St. Paul School rescinded the boy’s admission because of their view that his lesbian parents are living in sin. However, even if the school administration does not approve of a homosexual lifestyle, why should an innocent child suffer as a result? Religious teachings forbid making a child bear the sins of his parents. I was pleased to read that once Church officials at the Archdiocese of Boston learned of the school's action, they pledged to help find a new Catholic school for the boy.
At the heart of this matter is the basic question of how we treat people who lead lifestyles that may make us uncomfortable, or who engage in actions with which we do not agree. The reality is that the same Bible which states that homosexuality is incompatible with religious piety also clearly teaches us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” We should reconcile these two -- seemingly contradictory -- ideas by recognizing that although we may not approve of a person’s particular lifestyle, we should never act hatefully or harbor negative feelings toward that individual.
I believe that religious institutions and houses of worship have a responsibility to accept all members of their faith, even when those individuals may not be in full compliance with the organization's spiritual teachings. We must remember that every human being on Earth is fallible. Who amongst us is completely faithful and does not occasionally transgress? We need to treat others in a kind, understanding manner -- just as we would like to be treated ourselves. For those who believe, as I do, that we are all God's children, it follows that we should strive to act with compassion for our brothers and sisters.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2010
Corporal punishment in schools
It’s the 21st century. Gone are the days of teachers wielding rulers and wooden paddles in order to discipline misbehaving students. Or are they? A man in Dallas is pushing the local school district to bring back corporal punishment. A former tutor in the Dallas Independent School District, Gilbert Leal argues that the threat of corporal punishment — along with better classroom management and training teachers how to defuse situations — have “helped decrease disciplinary problems,” according to a story published by Dallas’ WFAA-TV. What do you think? Is corporal punishment on its way in again? And does it really work? Or are we taking a step backward in the discipline of our children? In what situations is corporal punishment appropriate, if at all?
In my opinion, corporal punishment is counter-productive and should not be used as a disciplinary tool for children — and in any case, such action should never be part of a classroom setting. The only conceivable scenario where corporal punishment would be acceptable is when the person administering it does so entirely for the benefit of the child — not for any kind of tension relief or self-aggrandizement — and when the child fully understands why he or she is being struck. The problem with this scenario is that it basically does not exist.
I can understand why a frustrated teacher might want to “paddle” a child who is repeatedly misbehaving in class, but this method is very short-sighted.
Such action will not only fail to encourage positive behavior, it will most certainly yield a more tense environment and likely lead to an escalation in negative conduct. Furthermore, I believe that there is simply too much potential for abuse if teachers are granted the authority to strike a child, which is why I don’t feel that corporal punishment should be implemented in our schools at all. A teacher hitting a student is never acceptable (unless they are literally acting in self-defense to fend off a physical assault).
We all agree that maintaining proper decorum and discipline in a classroom is essential to creating a positive learning environment. However, there are various techniques that can help foster this kind of educational atmosphere. The most effective is to consistently reinforce positive behavior as a safeguard against negative actions. In the event that it is necessary to punish a child, a non-corporal approach such as detention should be used, with the child being fully cognizant of why he or she is being punished and what kind of behavior is expected in the future.
Regardless of the situation, we must all remember that children thrive when they feel loved. Therefore, even when we are forced to punish, our children should always know that whatever we do is for their benefit and is motivated by the deep love and concern we have for them.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2010
Is Arizona's Immirgation Law Racist?
Arizona's new immigration law, signed last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, has sparked furor and protest all over the country. The new Arizona law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally. Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. People are rallying support for a boycott of Arizona in protest of the new law. Some say the law goes too far in protecting the country from illegal aliens. Defenders of the law --- angry over the charges of racism permeating the debate --- say it is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to move into in the state. What do you think? Is the new law a step forward in combatting illegal immigration to the U.S., or does it go too far? What are the moral and/or ethical dilemas that you see here that may arise or have already arisen from this new law?
I feel strongly that America must display zero tolerance for racial discrimination or ethnic bias of any kind. The United States was founded on the bedrock principles of equality and tolerance, and any laws to the contrary are not only unconstitutional, but threaten the moral fiber of our nation.
There are many potential pitfalls associated with trying to enforce immigration laws in a region where the majority of the illegal immigrants share a similar ethnic origin. Racial profiling and other discriminatory abuses become a real concern when law enforcement officials are given a mandate to question and detain people who fall into “certain categories.”
At the same time, the citizens of Arizona have a right to protect themselves from what they deem to be a threat. Apparently this law replicates some existing Federal regulations on a state level, so in that sense nothing has changed aside from a commitment to greater enforcement by state authorities. Hopefully a combination of proper oversight, strict monitoring, and a strong commitment to negate bias will ensure that the new law is applied properly, without the taint of racism.
It's troubling that Arizona felt the need to circumvent current Federal immigration strategy and enact laws in their legislature to safeguard their citizenry. This development highlights a serious rift between Washington and the government of a state of the union. I fear that this disconnect is endemic, and it’s only a matter of time before other states take a unilateral approach to issues they feel Washington has not properly addressed. We must avoid this trend, since such discord can weaken our nation at a time when we need to be unified in our approach to the various challenges, both internal and external, that we face. I would suggest that President Obama and Governor Brewer come together for a face-to-face meeting and work out their differences in person -- not via the press -- to help restore faith in the Federal-State relationship.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2010
Blending religion, politics
Christian organizations in the United Kingdom are pushing for candidates to become more open about their religious beliefs, the BBC reported this week. With an election coming up May 6, would it be worthwhile for candidates to open up about their beliefs “if it means a few more votes?” the article asks. While religion plays a big role in the funding and organization of politics in the U.S., the article says, in the U.K. it is less influential; as such, some believe that having candidates talk about their religious beliefs publicly would turn around British politics — “doing God” would not be such a rarity anymore within the political spectrum of the U.K. What do you think? Should the U.K. candidates play the God card in an effort to gain more votes even if it means going against the grain of U.K. politics? How much influence do you think this would have?
While I understand that the U.K. has a different political culture than the United States, I think that those seeking office should be proud of their spiritual and ethical principles, and ought to offer these traits as a positive reasons to vote for them.
I believe that religious sincerity and morality define a person’s character, and can determine if he or she will properly represent their constituency as an honest public servant. It is vitally important that individuals who hold public office possess a solid spiritual compass to guide them along a path of wisdom and justice.
However, while I feel strongly about a candidate having sound religious bearings, I don’t think that his or her specific religious affiliation is important. Regardless of their faith, a man or woman who believes in God as a higher authority — and therefore displays humility and adheres to a principled way of life — should qualify for our vote. Whether the person is Christian, Jewish or Muslim is far less important than the overarching necessity for a candidate who is righteous, leads an honorable life and shows respect for people of all religious denominations, as well as for those who profess no religion at all.
I am confident that the overwhelming majority of our elected officials are principled, honest, hard-working individuals. Nevertheless, the political world is continually rocked by one scandal after another, and every conceivable moral failing seems to find its way into the halls of government. Bribery, kickbacks, sexual depravity, self-aggrandizement and shenanigans of every kind are commonplace among some of our politicians. As a result, a significant part of the public has grown cynical and distrustful of our officials — and many good people are deterred from entering the political arena at all since they feel that the whole thing is a dirty business.
For all of these reasons, it’s high time for us to ensure that only those who are competent and ethical reach positions of authority. The public and the press have an obligation to properly vet individuals seeking office and ask seriously challenging questions of them before they get our vote. Again, I think a politician should never be expected to hold one particular faith — and they should always display tolerance for those of different backgrounds. But it is not too much for us to ask about a candidate’s fundamental moral principles considering the potential influence they have on our lives.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 24, 2010
"Bribing" Our Children
An article in last week’s Time magazine chronicled an experiment run by Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. In the experiment, students in hundreds of classrooms in multiple cities were bribed with different amounts of money to achieve good test scores and not fight with one another. The experiment was run in schools in Chicago, Dallas, Washington, D.C., and New York. What, in your opinion, are the advantages and/or disadvantages of this strategy? Or do you side with the critics who say kids should not be rewarded for things they should be doing anyway?
The word "bribe" generally has negative connotations, bringing to mind the act of paying off someone to perform an unethical or criminal deed. The term is often used to characterize illegal behavior, such as "bribing a judge." Therefore, I would first of all replace the word "bribe" with "reward" as we debate the merits of this experiment giving students special incentives for good behavior and academic achievement.
When I hear about psychiatrists and other professionals who take counter-intuitive positions about child-rearing and seem to know it all, I sometimes wonder if they actually have children of their own. As a father of school-age children, I can tell you from first-hand experience that rewarding children for performing well academically and behaving nicely -- in school or at home -- is a key component of effective parenting.
In my opinion, regardless of whether a child is already expected to read and write or to behave properly, offering an incentive to excel is a good idea that works remarkably well. We often forget that children have human emotions and are motivated in similar ways as adults are. We wouldn't expect an adult to get up every morning and work his tail off all day without proper compensation -- even though he is expected to provide for his family anyway. We should therefore not be averse to giving a reasonable, appropriate reward to a child for doing well on a test or behaving courteously during a three hour ceremony.
Most important of all, however, is recognizing that every child is unique and has his or her own way of learning. As parents and educators, we must appreciate this fact and shape every child's education accordingly. As King Solomon states in Proverbs (22:6): "Teach a child according to his way, so that even when he grows old, he will not turn away from it."
Unless we can communicate effectively with our children and tailor our guidance to fit each one's individual needs, no amount of rewards -- or bribes -- will achieve the results we desire.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 2010
Observing the Sabbath in a Wired World
A group of Jewish entrepreneurs observed a National Day of Unplugging, lasting from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Reboot, a nonprofit organization aimed at reinventing the traditions and rituals of Judaism for today's secular Jews, hosted the event. The event was based on 10 principals of the Sabbath Manifesto, an ongoing project designed to hopefully lessen the hold technology has on people. “Avoid Technology” is one of the principles. How important do you believe it is for people to unplug and reboot from time to time? How do you teach, in your respective place of worship, ways people can put down the cell phone or laptop without this utter “disconnectedness” that some may feel at no longer being attached to their electronic devices?
In today's hyper-charged, technology-saturated environment, it seems that people are constantly focused on anything and everything except that which is really most important: one's own family and friends. While the advances in communication and information sharing certainly have many benefits, a host of recent studies have also shown that the relentless barrage of hi-tech stimuli is having a deep, negative effect on our society. The unfortunate reality is this environment makes it fairly easy to get lost in the world of digital interaction -- at great cost to our direct, face-to-face relationships with our spouses, children, family and friends.
That's why I believe that the National Day of Unplugging is a fantastic idea! I actually put this concept into practice every single week from sunset on Friday until darkness falls on Saturday. During this 25-hour period, I do not carry my BlackBerry, check my e-mail, surf the Internet, or use the computer -- and I generally avoid all apparatuses that ring, beep, whirl, hum or otherwise disturb the quiet. I've found that this weekly routine does wonders for my family and myself. It provides for us an oasis amid a chaotic work and school week, enabling us to nurture positive relationships and spend quality time with each other.
I find it fascinating that the ancient Biblical tradition of observing the Sabbath -- which was first mentioned in Genesis -- has become ever more important in our contemporary digital age. A mere century ago, there were those who reasoned that a day of rest was only pertinent in a farming era since it provided a respite from back-breaking agricultural labor. But we are now well aware that a day of "unplugging" and taking a break from it all is arguably more critical than ever -- in fact, it is vitally important for our social and mental well-being.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 3, 2010
Religion and health care
The health-care-reform measure passed by the House and signed into law by President Obama this week is being challenged by religious-rights groups who claim that “the law treats religions unequally and forces adherents to be part of a health-care system that violates their religious beliefs on abortion.” One lawsuit has been filed that claims “that forcing individuals to participate in a health-care system that supports abortions violates their 1st Amendment right to freely follow their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Another lawsuit claims an “unconstitutional entanglement between government and religion” because some religious groups are exempt from participation in the new reform effort. What do you think? What serious religious implications exist here, if any, as a result of this new measure? Are there any moral or theological issues in the new measure?
The 1st Amendment of our Constitution restricts Congress from enacting laws that favor one religion over another.
It is my understanding that after the passage of the health-care-reform legislation, President Obama signed an executive order specifically barring the use of federal funds for abortions. Even so, the mandate that everyone must have health insurance and “participate in a health-care system that supports abortion” does not violate the 1st Amendment.
While abortion is contrary to the religious beliefs of many Americans — and millions feel it is utterly offensive — the proposed law nevertheless applies equally to all citizens.
In my view, one aspect of the health-care plan does raise a serious red flag when it comes to religious beliefs: the portion of the law exempting members of Amish and Mennonite communities from participating in the national health-care system.
This clause seems to be a clear case of government favoring the religious beliefs of some groups while ignoring the spiritual sensitivities of others. I feel this is an issue that Congress must address, since their constituents deserve an honest answer to this dilemma.
There are valid positions supporting universal health care, as well as compelling arguments against it. On one point we can all agree: This new law will have a profound effect on our country. Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, however, at this early stage of the game none of us can claim that we can predict exactly what this program holds for Americans and in what direction it will lead the nation. Stating otherwise, in my opinion, is foolish and simply irrational.
Those who argue that the plan will usher in Armageddon are obviously overstating the case, just as those who believe the measure will resolve all problems regarding access to quality health care will surely be disappointed.
Although it may be the law of the land, it seems that our national discussion on health care is just beginning. And if what we’ve seen are only the previews, we can be certain that we’re in for a long, loud, hardy and lively debate. So long as the dialogue remains civil and stays focused on facts, this debate is a healthy — and vitally important — part of our democracy. It will help ensure that we reach the best possible result for all of our citizens.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passover Reflections
As Jews across the world celebrate the holiday of Passover this coming week, we once again focus on the birth of our people and our long, rich — often tragic — and remarkable history.
In the March 1898 edition of Harper’s Magazine, Mark Twain published an essay titled “Concerning the Jews.” He concluded the piece with the following paragraph: “The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”
The answer to the question of Judaism’s survival is found in the liturgy of this holiday, when we proclaim at the Passover seder that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but God liberated us from bondage and brought us to the promised land. During the Exodus, the Jewish people made a pledge that we would never be slaves again. We were subsequently driven from the land and repeatedly persecuted by various nations and wicked tyrants, but we never again allowed our spirit to become enslaved.
You see, slavery is more about a mental state than a physical one. There are billionaires who have every material possession one could desire, yet they feel trapped and tormented by their own minds. Then there are people who are physically incarcerated and even tortured for many years, yet their unyielding spirit grows stronger with each passing day.
The resolve to never succumb to oppression has allowed us to persevere in the face of great challenges — possibly greater challenges than any other people in history. It gave us the courage, strength and ability to look beyond a particular moment — no matter how painful — and hope for a brighter tomorrow. It is this determination that galvanized a people utterly crushed by the Holocaust, enabling us to rise like a phoenix from the ashes, and in 1948 rebuild in Israel our ancient and eternal homeland.
Mark Twain’s essay, however, was wrong in one important respect: The immortality of the indomitable spirit is not unique to the Jewish people. We simply had a more pressing need to utilize this strength. The willpower to look beyond imprisoning shackles — of either body or spirit — is a universal part of the human psyche. All the people of the world — Jew and non-Jew alike — should celebrate this spirit. This vital trait will allow humanity to endure, helping us overcome whatever hardships we may face.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 27, 2010
Helping those with HIV/AIDs
This past Monday and Tuesday, the first-ever religious summit on HIV/AIDS was held in The Netherlands, according to a report on United Nations Radio. The two-day Summit of High Level Religious Leaders on the Response to HIV brought together Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders. Participants addressed the realities of how stigma and discrimination are perpetuated both in religious communities and in society at large. If you had a chance to attend the summit, what ideas would you offer to strengthen the voice and action of religious leaders and bring about collaboration among the different faiths with other sectors involved in the response to HIV/AIDS?
On Monday and Tuesday, the first-ever religious summit on HIV/AIDS was held in the Netherlands, according to a report on United Nations Radio. The two-day Summit of High Level Religious Leaders on the Response to HIV brought together Bahá’í, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders. Participants addressed the realities of how stigma and discrimination are perpetuated both in religious communities and in society at large. If you had a chance to attend the summit, what ideas would you offer to strengthen the voice and action of religious leaders and bring about collaboration among the different faiths with other sectors involved in the response to HIV/AIDS?
Judaism has a long and rich tradition when it comes to saving lives and preventing bodily harm.
The Bible states in Deuteronomy 4:9 that everyone must carefully safeguard their health, and the Talmud further expounds on this idea by stating that one who saves a single life is like one who saves the entire world.
Our belief system places much emphasis on protecting life and staying healthy — and certainly a critical component of maintaining our well-being in the modern era is through education and preventive measures to impede the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.
An obvious challenge in the battle against HIV/AIDS is the stigma and discrimination often associated with this disease, which prevents the open dialogue needed to share information on how to prevent it. It is true that in many religious communities — as in our society at large — there is a cloud of fear and ignorance surrounding this issue.
I therefore feel that the recent international conference of religious leaders is a great idea, because it provided valuable learning opportunities that will no doubt lead to lives being saved. This constructive summit is a good beginning, and I strongly believe there should be many more like it.
The unfortunate fact is that HIV/AIDS and other diseases are indiscriminate, affecting all of humanity equally. This summit is a positive model of how people of various religions can come together to address issues that concern people of all backgrounds and beliefs.
We should learn from this inspiring example of ecumenical harmony, and strive to apply it to other matters of global importance. We are all God’s children, and we all share a single planet — therefore, we must work together to address our common challenges.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2010
Miracles and Religion
A February episode of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” reported that a survey from the Pew Forum on Religion showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles. The results are from a wider study, "Religion Among the Millennials." What is, in your opinion, the definition of a miracle? What does your religion teach about miracles? And have you ever been witness to one?
The Bible abounds with miraculous events such as the parting of the Red Sea, manna falling from heaven, and Joshua making the sun stand still. Part of being Jewish is believing in the authenticity of the Old Testament, including the many miracles it tells us transpired. Nevertheless, the Talmud states that one is "forbidden to rely on a miracle." In other words, a person should not live a life in which they ignore their responsibilities and always count on God to provide miracles. Doing so is reckless, and does not fit into a positive spiritual lifestyle.
I feel it's also important to realize that miracles are not only those huge, Steven Spielberg-style special effects moments that we read about in the Bible. There are so many daily occurrences in each of our lives that we will recognize as miraculous if we only take a moment to contemplate them. The mere fact that we get up every morning to live a new day is in and of itself an incredible phenomenon, and our amazing bodies are more intricate and complicated than any mechanical device created by a human. We often take these facts for granted until we face our final days, or confront a medical problem that frustrates the normal function of the body.
And then of course there are those incidents in which we, our family members, or our friends clearly see the hand of God -- such as an escape from a dangerous situation or an encounter with a near-death experience. When these occurrences happen, we should recognize them for what they are: God watching over us and telling us he genuinely cares for us. Our birth itself is a miraculous event, and I believe all of us are blessed with miracles great and small throughout our lives.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 13, 2010
Maintaining a dialogue among religions
The Tidings (the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) writer Anne Hansen last week wrote about a symposium held at Loyola Marymount University recently designed to encourage dialogue “among believers of many faiths.” The symposium focused on dialogue especially within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. However, in the larger scheme of things, how important do you believe it is for brothers and sisters of other faith traditions to work together for unity? How does an open dialogue between faith traditions manifest itself in your particular faith?
In my view, it is vitally important that we maintain an open, ongoing dialogue between people of different faiths. Thankfully, in the United States our behavior is generally guided by the principles of civility and tolerance — and for the most part, Americans of varying belief systems get along just fine with each other. Sadly, people who live in other countries are not always so fortunate. Many parts of the world suffer from daily religious strife and recurring cycles of violence. Often, this conflict is a direct result of suspicion and gross misunderstanding.
Having a candid, respectful discussion might avert bloodshed and illuminate the path toward peaceful coexistence.
I also feel it’s essential for people representing various traditions within the same faith to communicate with each other. Within Judaism, there are many different groups and sects that practice our common tradition in different ways. For instance, Jews who originate from Europe
(Ashkenazim) will follow a religious ritual one way, while our brethren who come from the Middle East (Sephardim) will do it differently. We all, however, have one unifying factor: our belief in the Torah as a central component of our spiritual existence. In the same way, I feel all people of the world can unite around the essential idea that although we may have varying religious viewpoints, we are all children of the same God.
Today, I write from Israel — the Holy Land — a place that many of the world’s religions recognize as sacred. Its majesty, beauty and sheer spiritual power are unparalleled. Ironically, this is also a site where so much blood has been spilledover the centuriesbecause of an unwillingness to put aside differences and find commonality.
It is high time that humanity reach some basic consensus and rally around our shared values of respect, honesty, and peace. Rather than dividing us, our spiritual principles should help us join together to work toward our collective goal of creating a brighter tomorrow for our children and ourselves.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 2010
Dueling religions at home
The Los Angeles Times ran a story Feb. 19 about an estranged Chicago couple and their fight with each other over which faith to raise their 3-year-old daughter in (the father is Catholic; the mother is Jewish). The mother recently filed a restraining order against the father after he baptized the girl Catholic, against a pledge he had taken to raise her Jewish. A judge then barred him from exposing the girl to any faith other then Judaism — he defied the order after taking his daughter to Mass. Should the courts be dictating which religion parents should teach their children? Did they go too far in this case? Should this be something private, something that only the parents should decide among themselves without the court’s influence?
In a more perfect world — one where all children are cared for by responsible parents — the courts would never be called upon to dictate what religious beliefs should be observed in the household.
However, this specific case in Chicago is about more than a simple divorce and unwarranted judicial intervention. It seems that this girl is being used as ammunition in a divorce that has turned into a bitter feud between her parents.
The salvos have become a televised public spectacle, thus prompting a judge’s forceful intervention.
Moving beyond this unseemly tug-of-war, the fact remains that the father promised to raise his daughter in the Jewish tradition, and it seems that he himself also converted to Judaism.
Given these events, I feel that the child in this case should be raised in the Jewish faith; to do otherwise would be morally wrong.
This incident highlights a common issue that young people of different faiths often fail to foresee when considering marriage. Many times I have had starry-eyed, love-struck couples — one Jewish, the other not — come to me for advice.
The fact that they approach a rabbi indicates that religion is important to one or both parties.
I explain to the couple that this concern will inevitably become problematic — possibly seriously so — when children enter the equation. I try to impress upon them that, putting other considerations aside, raising a child in a dual-religious environment is probably unrealistic.
When the holidays arrive, will they gather at a Hanukkah menorah or a Christmas tree? Placing both in the home simultaneously may seem open-minded and cool, but I believe that will ultimately confuse a child, and possibly leave him or her with no religious identity at all.
In today’s day and age, strong spiritual character is central to raising a healthy child. It’s unfair for parents to create an environment for their children that leaves them mystified and without clear direction. Caring, thoughtful adults will keep this issue in mind when they raise their children.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 2010
The President and the Dalai Lama
President Obama welcomed the Dalai Lama to the White House last week. The visit had been postponed since last year, due to concerns that it could "trouble the waters ahead of a U.S.-China summit last fall," according to a story which aired on "Which Way, L.A.," a program on NPR-affiliate 89.9 KCRW. The Dalai Lama visited the White House as an internationally respected religious leader, not as a statesman. The Dalai Lama also appeared alongside musician Sheryl Crow in a visit to Southern California over the weekend, where his holiness spoke on behalf of a nonprofit organization. Both visits represented a "mixing of two worlds": international issues and rock stars, the program noted. Do you think there is any danger in the Dali Lama appearing with a rock star? Could his appearance, in some ways, commercialize or, perhaps, even diminish his message?
For decades, the Chinese government has attempted to marginalize the Dalai Lama and his just cause. Officials in Beijing are constantly pressuring world leaders not to meet with him, hoping that he will just go away and that the quest for Tibetan independence will then be forgotten. For this reason, the Dalai Lama has worked to keep the plight of his people front and center. In my view, the best way to accomplish this worthy goal is by utilizing the assistance of famous people -- such as Sheryl Crow -- who are regularly in the spotlight and whose name will guarantee good press coverage. I don't view the mixing of these two worlds as anything other than a noble attempt to intensify a good message.
China is a major world power; it is an important country that cannot be ignored, and must be reckoned with. Yet, we must not forget that Beijing is still a repressive regime that seriously limits the freedoms of its citizens. In the case of Tibet, a truly unique cultural and national identity is at risk of being systematically erased as Chinese officials strive to absorb that distinctive land. The free world has moral responsibility to stand up to this type of behavior and demonstrate our displeasure with tyranny.
I therefore give credit to President Obama for meeting the Dalai Lama at the White House. Although the Dalai Lama may have been officially welcomed as a religious leader and not a statesman, Mr. Obama clearly demonstrated to the Chinese and the world at large that we Americans are a principled people. Our nation must always place enduring moral values above short-term political concerns. And when it comes to Tibet, people of conscience must remember its plight; while we should appropriately acknowledge China's international status, we should never be bullied into silence.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 20, 2010
More than just a Games
The Olympics offers the very best of athleticism and sportsmanship from all over the world. The XXI Winter Olympic Games will feature athletes from all over the world, including Africa, North and Central America, Europe and Asia. What are your thoughts as the Olympics enters its second week of competition? What do you believe the Olympics means to the world?
The Olympics are a wonderful — and most welcome — expression of global harmony. Almost everything related to the Olympics is geared toward bringing different people together and making the world a more peaceful place. The competition’s central creed asserts that “the most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle.”
Even the five colored rings that make up the Olympic symbol — which is among the world’s most recognizable images — represent unity of continents and include colors drawn from the flags of every nation.
For two weeks every two years — alternating between the winter and summer games — citizens of diverse countries gather together, united with a singular cause, and display extraordinary solidarity and sportsmanship. Considering the state of world affairs, this remarkable event seems like an impossible dream come true. Representatives of nations which may be at great odds with each other — possibly even at war — put their differences aside and demonstrate how, regardless of disagreement, we can be civil and respectful to one another if we possess a strong enough will to do so.
I believe this unusual display of camaraderie among the world’s most talented young athletes can serve as a template as we strive toward world peace. Looking at the Olympics, all citizens of the world should be asking themselves the following question: If we can put aside all our grievances for the purpose of winning a few medals and gaining some national pride, is it not far more important to find common ground for the sake of our children’s future?
If an athletic competition can achieve this feat of unity, surely we can work toward the same goal when the stakes are our children’s education, prosperity and safety. Indeed, if we want to ensure a bright future for humanity, the nations of the world must see the light of the Olympic torch and follow the example it so brilliantly illuminates.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 13, 2010
Weighing in on Ugandan bill
The Glendale News-Press reported that Glendale City Seventh-Day Adventist Church was one of 17 churches across the country to commemorate the day of prayer to the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. A bill being considered in that country would sentence LGBT people to life in prison for “engaging in homosexual acts, which are already illegal,” the News-Press reported. Penalties would also be imposed against companies that promote gay rights. What are your thoughts on this bill? Do you believe that events such as City Seventh-Day Adventist Church’s are enough to make a difference? What should be done?
I think the bill being proposed in Uganda is wildly extremist and clearly inhumane.
This measure should be vociferously condemned by our State Department, and a formal diplomatic objection should be made at the United Nations. I assume that the ostensible source of the proposed law is the biblical admonition against homosexuality — nevertheless, that very same Bible requires us to be tolerant and accepting even in circumstances of disagreement.
The real reason such draconian measures are being considered is probably not religious in nature; instead, the bill is likely fueled by bigotry and prejudice. These elements of hatred should have no place in any moral society.
Unfortunately, Uganda is by no means exceptional in the harsh way they treat their homosexual citizens, and there’s a strong chance that any international effort to condemn the move will fail in the General Assembly. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, homosexuality is already punishable by death. In fact, the only country in the entire Middle East where people who are gay are treated with respect and given equal rights is Israel.
The 19th century English historian John Dalberg-Acton said: “The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.”
I find it interesting to note that countries that treat their citizens unjustly always seem to be lagging in economic and political progress.
Uganda’s leaders need to get a good lesson in history, and should be reminded that, in the end, civility and humanity define a nation before God.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30, 2010
A question of retribution
A nation of desperate and grieving people showed the fervency of their faith this past weekend. Haitians mourned an archbishop, prayed in an open-air revival and, later in the day, witnessed a miracle. But some have said that the fate that has befallen Haiti is the ire of God. Others, like Archbishop of Santo Domingo Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez, “has firmly rejected the idea that the tragedy in Haiti was a punishment from God,” according to an article in Catholic News Agency. What is your opinion? Was the earthquake in Haiti a punishment from God to the Haitian people? What does your religion teach about “punishments from God?” And is there such thing as being “punished” by God?
The catastrophe in Haiti was absolutely not a punishment from God, and the claims that this tragic event represented some kind of divine retribution for perceived transgressions are deeply offensive.
How can any rational, thinking human being justify the death of countless innocent men, women and children? Is there any conceivable crime or sin that could validate pain and destruction on such a grand scale?
Of course not.
How then are we to understand this terrible occurrence? Whenever we see innocent human beings enduring such agony, men and women of conscience ask why good people are made to suffer. When we witness 100,000 Haitians perishing so tragically, our very core senses that something terribly wrong has happened. We naturally wonder how a benevolent, moral creator could permit so much anguish.
The Bible dedicates an entire book to this difficult topic — the book of Job. After enduring one horrible challenge after another, Job turns to God and poses the eternal question, “Why?” Interestingly enough, God never answers this question. Instead, in a revelation, he tells Job that there is no way the human mind can logically understand these events.
When it comes to human suffering, there are no intelligible answers. In regards to Haiti, it is wrong for any man to play God and offer explanations for the inexplicable; we should not try to rationalize that which is beyond our comprehension.
After delivering a public address concerning Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, survivor Elie Wiesel was once asked, “How did God allow it to happen?” Wiesel responded: “My son, if I were to tell you the answer, will you sleep better tonight?”
Judaism teaches us that when faced with tragedy we must respond with empathy and offer a helping hand to those who are affected. Instead of wasting time trying to figure out why something happened, we must roll up our sleeves and provide immediate assistance. Thankfully, that was the response from most of the civilized world. Within hours of the earthquake, there were airplanes with food, medicine, search crews, field hospitals and more heading toward Haiti from the U.S., Russia, Japan, Israel, France, England and other nations. People from around the globe joined together to try to help the Haitians in every way possible.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 23, 2010
The Holocaust and Pope Pius XII
Pope Benedict XVI visited Rome’s Central Synagogue on Sunday, but his visit was not without controversy. Benedict is being criticized for his moves to push World War II Pope Pius XII toward sainthood. According to an AP story published last week, some Jews and historians have accused Pius of “not doing enough to stop the Holocaust.” Given what you may know about Pius XII, do you believe the criticism Benedict faces is justified?
As we try to evaluate people’s conduct during a horrible situation like the Holocaust, it’s wise to keep in mind two profound principles: The first is that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing, and the second is that silence can imply consent.
Because the Vatican is obstructing the release of information about its activities during World War II, not much is known about what Pope Pius XII did — or did not do — to help Jewish people doomed by the murderous Nazis. One thing, however, is certain: Pius never explicitly protested the dreadful treatment of the Jews by the Germans. In wartime Europe, the pope stood out as one of the only “untouchable” leaders and was therefore in a unique position to initiate a public uproar. Yet he remained silent.
I believe that this in and of itself is reason enough to withhold sainthood from him.
During his visit to Rome’s Central Synagogue on Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI stated that Pius “performed actions of support, often hidden and discreet” to assist the Jewish people during the dark days of World War II.
If this is indeed the case, I wonder why the Vatican refuses to open up its archives, which may corroborate this statement. Blocking access to those documents only serves to bolster the suspicion that there is something to hide, and that there may be damning evidence that would reflect unkindly upon the legacy of the wartime pope.
I fail to see the wisdom of awarding sainthood upon someone who has an ambiguous record of protesting human rights abuses, and around whom there is a dark cloud of controversy. Furthermore, the last person who should be pushing this agenda is Benedict, who as a teenager was a member of the Hitler Youth, a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party. To put it bluntly, he should be imploring our people for forgiveness rather than opening up our deep wounds.
Pope John Paul II — Benedict’s mentor — made a great deal of sincere progress toward healing thousands of years of painful Jewish-Catholic relations. John Paul’s words and deeds were very positive, and very welcome. It would truly be a shame if all that hard work were undone by his successor’s inconsiderate actions.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 16, 2010
Taking a look at profiling
In light of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist bombing, the U.S. government has imposed additional scrutiny on people traveling from 14 countries considered “security risks” — 13 of which are Muslim countries. Arsalan Iftikhar, legal fellow for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, calls this a “clear use of ethnic, racial and religious profiling.” What do you think? Do you agree with Iftikhar? And if this is racial profiling, does it achieve greater security in the long term for our country?
I disagree with Arsalan Iftikhar’s argument that these new security procedures are “ethnic, racial and religious profiling.”
Rather, I would call the new measures “agenda profiling,” because the fact is that significant parts of the population of these 14 countries harbor radical agendas intended to harm the United States.
This is not about Islam at all, since there are many upstanding, law-abiding Muslims in this country and elsewhere who will not be subject to these new searches. More accurately, this is all about identifying geographical areas of concern and putting in place extra levels of security to hopefully stop those who embrace violent, anti-American ideas. If a blue-eyed, blond Jewish person from Syria (they exist) were to come to LAX, he would be subject to the same security checks as anyone else from that country.
I don’t like waiting in long lines and then being patted down at the airport any more than an innocent Pakistani or Yemeni on his way to visit relatives in this country. The unfortunate reality is that we live in a dangerous world with many people who want to do us harm — as we just witnessed last month.
As long as there are people out there with radical agendas, we will need to protect ourselves with “agenda profiling,” airport queues and a host of other uncomfortable procedures. As unpleasant as these steps may be, we have few alternatives.
I also feel that profiling alone will not achieve the security we require.
I believe that these new procedures must be part of a multi-pronged approach to weed out potential terrorists. In addition to “agenda profiling,” we should also be looking for criminal behavior patterns, odd demeanor and a host of other indicators that may suggest evil intentions.
And even as we focus on the specifics of boosting airport security, we must continue our broader foreign policy efforts; hardened extremists are already beyond the point of reason, but our diplomatic representatives must reach out to engage at-risk groups in a constructive dialogue to steer them away from the path of violence.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2010
Some New Year’s traditions
Black-eyed peas, baked ham, grits, collard greens and ham hocks are some examples of New Year’s Day food traditions. What fare brings you luck, or at least memories, on New Year’s Day?
The book of Psalms (87:6) states that God himself counts the first day of a new year as special.
Although I personally don’t have any New Year’s dining customs, I believe that the practice of celebrating a holiday with traditional foods can be an important way to imbue the day with extra meaning. Eating is a central part of the human experience, so it makes sense to utilize a special meal as a way to positively influence our lives as we face a new year.
As a person of the Jewish faith, I not only mark Jan. 1 but also celebrate the Jewish New Year called Rosh Hashana in the fall.
Interestingly, there are many foods that are specifically eaten during this holiday to express our hope for a positive year. Among the foods traditionally consumed during this two-day holiday are carrots, whose name in Yiddish means to “increase” — symbolizing a wish for prosperity. We also eat the head of a fish (or at least taste a morsel) to represent our hope to get “ahead” in life. And finally, to help ensure a “sweet” new year without any sorrow, we don’t eat bitter or sour foods during the holiday.
When it comes to celebrating new beginnings, I imagine that all Americans regardless of cultural background share one thing in common: We want to infuse the experience with positive energy. Whatever methods are applied, the most important common denominator is to be optimistic, upbeat and confident that only good things are coming our way in 2010.
Amen!
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2010
Biggest memories of the 2000s
The first decade of the 21st century is coming to a close. For you, what has been the most memorable experience so far this decade? What advice can you share with our readers to make this new year and decade a prosperous one?
Once the final decade of the 20th century had come to a close, we had seen many extraordinary events that provided cause for great optimism.
We witnessed the crumbling of the totalitarian Soviet Union, the end of South African apartheid, and the initiation of the Middle East Oslo peace accords. It was also a time of exceptional advances in technology with the advent of the Internet, and in medicine with the emergence of advanced DNA mapping.
I recall thinking at the end of 1999 that after the two catastrophic world wars and various genocides of the 19th century, a new era was about to dawn. I truly believed that we were seeing a profound movement toward world peace and an improved atmosphere for all mankind.
I hate to sound negative, but now that we have lived through this first decade of the 21st century, I must admit the sad truth that I was wrong.
Many of the remarkable and over-arching events of the past 10 years have been negative in nature. America is presently embroiled in two wars, the Middle East is as far from comprehensive peace as ever, Islamic radicalism threatens our freedoms on a daily basis, and nuclear confrontation is once again a real and present danger thanks to Iran’s blatant contempt of the international community.
In light of these challenges, my advice to make this new year (and new decade) prosperous is very simple: We must never give up hope. No matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, the most important character trait for a person is an optimistic belief in a better tomorrow.
Our best chance at making our dreams into realities is to always stay positive and strive for justice.
As I write these words in the final days of 2009, I once again express my sincere conviction and complete faith that this coming decade will truly bring world peace, harmony and brotherly love among all of God’s children.
This time, I will be right!
Rabbi Simcha Backman
