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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 11, 2011

TV's Negative Effect on Children

The 10th Commandment says, "You shall not covet" but in this day of almost 24-hour exposure to advertising it's becoming increasingly difficult not to covet the things you want, or the things you think you want - especially if you're a child.

A 1999 study concluded that "[Y]oung children - younger than 8 years - are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising." On average, a child in America will see around 20,000 TV commercials a year, 55 per day. Add billboards, magazines and the Internet and the figure rises to 3,000 adverts a day. Children have long been seen as a target for advertisers: in 1983, companies spent $100 million advertising to children; by 2009 that figure had risen to $17 billion. Kids aged 8-12 have a huge influence over their parents and are responsible for them spending around $150 billion a year. And it's not just commercials that are holding sway over children: the Disney Channel, for example, has been criticized for being little more than a day-long advert for the company's products and stars.

The Federal Trade Commission studied the effect of TV commercials on children in the 1970s but concluded that banning them would be impractical. Other countries have taken measures: since 1991, Sweden has banned all TV advertising aimed at children under the age of 12, even trimming some shows it feels contain stealth marketing, such as the jingle "Gotta catch 'em all!" that ends Pokemon cartoons. Norway, Greece and Belgium have similar rules, and the UK banned adverts for junk food in 2008.

Given the ubiquity of advertising and its effects on children, is it possible to raise a child not to covet when they're surrounded by messages specifically designed to make them do just that?

I definitely believe it’s possible to raise a child so that he or she won’t covet junk food or every toy or gadget that’s out there.  This is done by effectively “cutting the cord” and getting rid of the TV with its manipulative advertising -- and its violent shows and glorified depictions of risky behavior.  Wholesome educational programming or other shows that are kid friendly can easily be TiVo’ d, rented, downloaded via Netflix, or otherwise obtained.  There is absolutely no reason to expose a child continuously to the tube -- and no reason for a parent to allow a child unsupervised access to modern mass media.
 
Study after study has shown how television can adversely affect young minds and hamper children's ability to learn or properly digest information.  It's ironic how parents who are usually so careful to feed their children healthy foods, and who encourage sports and proper exercise, can fall short in their responsibility to know what their children are watching on the TV or computer.  When it comes to parents being engaged and informed about the daily viewing habits that are so influential on the development of the young brain, it seems that we are often lacking.
 
The amount of television watched by an average child in the US is astounding.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, two-thirds of infants and toddlers watch a screen an average of 2 hours a day, children under age 6 watch an average of about 2 hours of screen media a day, and kids and teens aged 8 to 18 spend nearly 4 hours a day in front of a TV screen and almost 2 additional hours on the computer (outside of schoolwork) and playing video games.  These numbers are frightening.  The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that children under two years of age should not watch any TV, and those older than that should be limited to a maximum of 1 to 2 hours a day of quality programming -- not the junk that is readily available on commercial stations.
 
For the sake of our children and the future scholastic achievement of our country, I truly hope that more parents will come to their senses and drastically -- or entirely -- limit the quantity of TV their children watch.  And monitoring the quality of that programming is equally important.  Part of being a responsible parent in the modern age is being aware of the messages your child is absorbing via TV and computer, and limiting their exposure to unhelpful or unwholesome content.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 4, 2011

Intimacy and Religion 

Gary Chapman, a 73-year-old Southern Baptist preacher, is trying to bring sex back to Christianity. Chapman, who authored "The Five Love Languages" holds gatherings with hundreds of congregants to dole out advice on marriage, love and what he calls Christianity's "great sex swindle". At a recent conference in Nashville, Chapman said, "[There's] this idea that good Christians don't talk about sex... Dr. Ruth did not invent sex. Sex was invented by God," and discussed the bible's support for conjugal sex.

Chapman began offering marriage counseling as a young pastor and was so surprised by how many people wanted his advice that he decided to concentrate on it and over time developed his theory of "love languages". He points to cases where he says couples are speaking different love languages - for example, the man might do the cooking and cleaning and feel like he's helping his wife, whereas the woman might just want to spend time with him. He is dismissive of academic studies into marriage and believes most people just want plain advice that will help their relationships. "The key is," he says, "we have to learn to speak the language of the other person."

Chapman's advice has certainly been taken to heart by his followers, with his books selling millions of copies with little to no publicity. TV host Elisabeth Hasselbeck credits "The Five Love Languages" - the proceeds from which he donates to charity - with saving her marriage. The book has garnered some criticism for a passage in which Chapman encourages a wife to submit sexually to her husband to save their marriage, but he defends this by saying that the idea of submission has been misunderstood by Christians and that Scripture says both husband and wife should be submissive to each other. "If both of you ask God to help you express your love every day... you will continue to grow through the years," he says.

Do you think Chapman's ideas fit in with the framework of marriage? And does Christianity preclude discussions of sexual matters between its adherents?

I feel that Gary Chapman is correct when he states that the Bible has a healthy attitude toward sex and encourages physical intimacy when it's practiced within the framework of a loving marriage.
 
Judaism views the act of intimacy as a “mitzvah” -- an obligation and a good deed.  We do not consider sex to be sinful, shameful, or obscene.  On the contrary, according to Jewish teachings, the primary objective of sex is to reinforce and strengthen the marital bond of love between husband and wife.  Therefore, sexual relations within the context of marriage and commitment are a spiritual union of the highest degree.
 
I believe Mr. Chapman is trying to counter the sexually-charged environment in which we live, where almost anything and everything sexual has become acceptable.  It's certainly true that the Internet and major media outlets flaunt this hyperactive view of sex, and the trend is unfortunately becoming more prevalent in our schools and youth organizations as well.  I believe this ongoing shift is extremely dangerous since it ultimately cheapens something which is so important, and creates a negative, destructive attitude toward sex among our young people.  This casual, self-indulgent mindset causes a lack of respect for any long-term commitment and undermines the institution of marriage.  It also diminishes respect for women.
 
We need more voices to join the chorus promoting healthy sexual attitudes while at the same time opposing the trends which are so detrimental to our moral values and community cohesion.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 26, 2011

Responding to Domestic Abuse

In Glendale, 339 cases of domestic violence were reported to police in 2010. The department's latest figures, for Sept. 2011, are 238. But many women don't report assaults to the police and others report them to organizations like the YWCA. With this in mind, the Safe Family Task Force, the YWCA of Glendale and the Glendale Religious Leaders Assn. are holding a workshop on Dec. 15 on family violence for local clergy members to attend. The workshop is designed to help clergy learn about domestic violence, what resources are available, and how to respond to a case.

Paula Devine, the chair of the Glendale Commission on the Status of Women, said, "In 2005 the police had 422 reports of domestic abuse but the YWCA had more than 900. Domestic violence is a learned behavior -- the abuser more than likely has experienced this violent behavior at home while growing up. Most women don't like to call authorities out fear of repercussions for reporting their partner and a feeling of shame for being seen as a victim of domestic violence."

Linda Pillsbury, a clinical social worker who is active with the Safe Family Task Force, said, "A lot of people can't understand why abused women don't leave the relationship. The truth is that leaving is the most dangerous time and if the abusive partner discovers the woman is planning on leaving, the violence may increase. The workshop will help clergy learn more about what domestic violence is and how to talk to victims. We're also hoping they can help spread awareness of it to their communities by speaking out in the pulpit."

Have you encountered victims of domestic violence in your work? If you have, did you know how to handle it? Can clergy play a role in ending domestic abuse?

Yes, unfortunately I have encountered victims of domestic violence -- and I suspect that many of my colleagues have as well.  Whenever I become aware of such a situation, my response generally depends on the level of abuse.  In one instance, an enraged husband threatened his wife with a knife.  In that particular case I immediately had the police remove her and their two year-old child from the home, and had them placed in a secretive women’s shelter.  As scary as it sounds, such a case is relatively easy to deal with since it represents an open-and-shut scenario of extreme spousal abuse; the situation is resolved by removing the victim from her abusive partner and convincing her to never go back.

What I find far more difficult to handle are the many unhappy situations where there are no overt threats or acts of physical violence.  The majority of the cases that I've come across represent emotional abuse, where one party in the relationship mentally tortures the other -- often in a cruel, relentless manner.  This unbearable behavior can go on for many years, and generally it escalates as time passes.  I’ve seen people who have remained in these types of relationships for 25 years or more, suffering each day yet always hoping that tomorrow will be better.  But it almost never is.

I believe that the clergy can -- and should -- play a decisive role in ending domestic abuse.  Whenever these poor, hurting souls come to us for help, we must first and foremost be understanding and compassionate.  Second, we need to identify with the victim and empower her to seek the refuge and assistance necessary to break free from the heavy chains of oppression and move ahead in life.  This is often the most difficult step, since the abuser is often manipulative and conniving, and starting an independent life presents challenges of its own.

On this Thanksgiving weekend, as we spend time with family, friends, and loved ones, let us remember all those who suffer in silence.  Let us resolve to never tolerate the perpetrators of domestic abuse nor ignore its victims.  As a community, in unison, we must commit ourselves to obliterating this scourge from our midst once and for all.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 20, 2011

Occupy Wall Street?

With the Occupy movement spreading across the globe, faith leaders have been busy taking sides in the debate, with many seeming to support what the protests are trying to achieve. According to OccupyTogether.com, the protests were formed to oppose "the greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1% of America".

The protests have also drawn together members of different faiths, with Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and Buddhist congregations attending. Even the Wall St. Episcopal Church opened its doors to protesters in need of advice or just a rest.

Do you agree with what the Occupy movement is trying to achieve? Should spiritual leaders take a more prominent role in the protests?

To be honest, I find it hard to agree or disagree with the Occupy movement since I’m confused as to what precisely their goal is.  I have watched various interviews with protestors, and it seems as if every one of them has a separate agenda.  Some have rather zany ideas, such as abolishing money or forgiving all debt, while others come across as intelligent, sincere people with genuine concern for our nation’s future.  Most seem to take a determined stance against the current political system and financial establishment -- and while I respect their First Amendment right to free expression, I am concerned by those who occupy public property in an anarchic fashion, and troubled by those who would intentionally cause chaos.
 
I suspect that this phenomenon is an outgrowth of the age-old quarrel between the haves and have-nots, and that our national economic struggles have prompted this flare-up.  On one side of the line you have those who argue that vast amounts of wealth -- often created on the backs of the working class -- should be heavily taxed and redistributed to those less fortunate.  The rich will argue that a basic principle of this free country and its capitalist system is that every person has a right to spend their hard-earned dollars in whatever way they see fit.  I personally believe that a true, fair solution lies somewhere in the middle -- and can be found far from an occupied park or a Wall Street corner office.
 
Regardless, any unruly behavior or disorderly conduct by members of the Occupy movement reflects negatively upon them and their cause.  There are certainly many people who would listen to a reasonable argument against excessive greed and institutionalized corruption.  However, the path to winning over the hearts and minds of mainstream America is through intelligent discussion and civil discourse.  Thankfully, in our country the rule of law is paramount.  Anything that needs to be said or otherwise addressed must be done within the parameters of our governing laws.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 6, 2011

Does Bible Reading Engender Liberalism?

Eighty-nine per cent of American households own a Bible -- on average, four per home -- and a new study has discovered frequent Bible reading can turn people "liberal" -- at least in some ways. Research conducted by a Baylor University student discovered that the more a person reads the Bible, the more they oppose the Patriot Act, support abolishing capital punishment, and believe science and religion are compatible.

The "liberalism" cuts across political, economic and regional differences. While frequent Bible reading does increase opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage, most of those who read the Bible on a daily basis believe it's important for a religious person to seek social and economic justice in order to become a better person.

Do you think frequent Bible readings engender a more "liberal" attitude to social justice, punishment and science?

No, I do not think that frequent readings of the Bible would necessarily produce a liberal attitude toward social justice any more than they would prompt a conservative stance.  I find it counterproductive to skew the Bible one way or another in order to pigeonhole the words of scripture into a certain spot on the contemporary political spectrum.  Oftentimes, these distorted views -- in either direction -- about the true meaning of the Bible are a result of ignorance and incorrect interpretation.
 
Instead, our focus when reading the Bible should be on disseminating a moral code for all of humanity which applies equally to everyone.  These principles should be based on universally accepted values: revering human life, showing compassion for all living creatures, cherishing the family unit, respecting another’s property, and establishing courts of law.  Of equal importance is the recognition of a supreme deity, which includes not serving other entities or blaspheming.  If men and women around the globe dedicated themselves to these ideals, the result would be a world that is kinder, gentler, and more peaceful.
 
Frequent Bible reading is certainly a beneficial practice that should be encouraged for all who share the Judeo-Christian heritage, as well as for people of other backgrounds who want to learn more about this faith tradition. Contemplating the word of God inevitably leads an individual to reflect upon his real purpose in life, and it encourages positive interaction with other people and with the universe as a whole.  However, it is important for each of us to realize that God is neither conservative nor liberal, Democrat or Republican.  God is the universal deity for all of humankind, and nobody can claim a monopoly on holiness or divine blessing.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 30, 2011

The Dark Side of Halloween

Halloween is upon us again, and with the annual traditions of trick-or-treating and pumpkin carving in the air, many Americans are looking to alternate ways of celebrating the holiday.

Because of its pagan origins and emphasis on death, celebrating Halloween is out of the question for many. Others say they have a hard time explaining to their children why there are suddenly skulls and vampires on display, and that the kids are disappointed when they’re not allowed to join in the fun. Some use it as a chance to celebrate the harvest, or just stay at home and make pumpkin pie.

But ignoring the holiday when almost every item in stores is orange and black, racks of costumes take up all spare space in Targets and Walmarts and other stores. Halloween is massively profitable for retailers, with forecasts for this year putting the amount spent on candy, gifts and costumes at $6.8 billion – about $72 per person, a rise on last year’s figure. Some argue that Halloween has been so stripped of its pagan origins that it’s become just another excuse to sell cheap toys.

Can Americans come to an agreement with celebrating Halloween? And has the holiday lost its pagan roots?

To me, the Halloween dilemma is less about its pagan roots (although that is certainly an issue) and more about how the occasion is celebrated today.  The event's ever-increasing focus on death, the occult, and other violent and frightening elements seems contrary to the lessons that we usually try to inculcate our children with.  For that matter, what kind of message are we subtly sending our youth when we encourage them to go “trick or treat?”  That if you don’t give me what I want, I will damage your property with eggs or toilet paper?
 
Of course, I know many parents are careful to protect their children from the negative aspects of Halloween, and would never allow them to damage property.  Nevertheless, a holiday should ideally be a time when we teach our children moral lessons about life and instill within them the importance of family cohesion by celebrating together in love and harmony.  This does not seem to be the message of Halloween.
 
Judaism has a holiday in early spring called Purim, during which we also dress up in all sorts of fun and colorful costumes and go from house to house.  The major difference is that we give treats to others instead of asking for them.  Also central to this holiday is providing alms for the poor, and hosting a grand feast that family and friends enjoy together.  Purim teaches our children the importance of sharing with others and our responsibility to the underprivileged, and it demonstrates the significance of family unity.
 
I don’t want to sound like the “Grinch who stole Halloween” by suggesting that children be deprived of all the fun and excitement on October 31.  But I would suggest that parents ensure that the merriment is focused on positive acts of goodness and kindness, and that they stay away from the really scary stuff and instead have their children wear costumes with a gentler tone.  Chances are that this approach will be easier on the younger kids anyway, and it will help to ease the atmosphere of mischief and fright that surrounds the holiday.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 23, 2011

Getting Used to Carnage

Eight people were killed and another left in critical condition after a gunman opened fire in a Seal Beach hair salon. Police say the alleged gunman, Scott Evans Dekraai, is the estranged husband of one of the salon's employees. In looking for a motive for the mass shooting, the media has pointed to Dekraai's disintegrating marriage and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by a 2007 boating accident in which one of his colleagues died. Allegations are also being made that he was abusive to his estranged wife, Michelle Fournier.

As Seal Beach reeled from the massacre, the popular salon has been turned into a makeshift memorial by friends and relatives of the victims, and scores of people have placed flowers, candles and cards outside the building. One customer, Teri Young, said, "It wasn't just a hair salon, [i]t was a family." The shooting is the deadliest in Orange County's history.

The Rev. Peggy Price of the Center for Spiritual Living addressed mourners, saying, "Recognize that life is precious... Right in this place, just as yesterday right across the street was the presence of God ... and that presence of God is still here. It is in our sadness it is in our sorrow and it is in our anger," she said.

What response can spiritual leaders make in a case like this? Are you resigned to this kind of incident happening over and over in America?

We should never let ourselves become resigned to acts of violence, or grow so numb that we simply accept murders as a routine aspect of daily life.  In the Biblical book of Genesis, God states that he has created man in His image; once we recognize the fact that every human being has a divine spark within, it places immense value upon each one of our lives.  Whenever a person is killed, it is as if a part of God is lost from amongst us.  Tolerating bloodshed in any form is sacrilegious, for it is essentially tantamount to accepting the destruction of the divine spirit.
 
While the uniquely American phenomenon of mass shootings has many causes, I feel that one important factor is the lack of spiritual direction in our public schools.  To try to stem the carnage that has become too much a part of American life, we need to re-introduce religious and moral values into our schools.  It is crucial that our children are raised with an acute understanding of both the sanctity of life and the terrible ramifications of murder.  Although the primary responsibility for instilling ethical principles in children should rest with their parents, our educators in the classroom can play a vital role when parents fail to meet their obligations.
 
In keeping with this idea, I am a strong advocate of the Moment of Silence in our schools, a time which would provide children with a daily period of silent contemplation, prayer, reflection, or meditation.  These few moments give students an important opportunity to focus on their responsibility to each other and to the world at large.  If they would like to think about God, that is also their prerogative.  Most important of all is that our youth spend some time every day thinking about the bigger picture, how they fit into it, and how they can be productive members of society.  As adults, all of us -- whether we are parents, teachers, clergy, or just concerned members of the community -- must strive to raise a generation that will abhor violence and killing.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 16, 2011

Relying on God to Heal

Two members of an Oregon-based faith healing church have been convicted of manslaughter after failing to get medical help for their sick infant, David. Dale and Shannon Hickman instead rubbed olive oil on the baby and prayed over him after he was born 8 weeks early in 2009 with a bacterial
infection and underdeveloped lungs. David died nine hours after being born.

Medical experts called by the prosecution asserted that there was a 99% chance that David would have survived if given proper medical care. When asked why he didn't call 911, David Hickman said, "Because I was praying," and added that he and his wife never even considered calling for help. The
Hickmans' lawyers claimed the couple were brought to trial because of their religious beliefs but jurors took less than 4 hours to convict them.

The case, the latest of several to involve members of the Followers of Christ church in Oregon City, has spurred Oregon governor John Kitzhaber to remove legal protection for parents who rely on faith healing and eschew medical help. The repeal of the law will not affect the Hickmans' sentencing and they face up to 18 months in prison instead of the mandatory manslaughter sentence of 6 years.

Should religious beliefs and practices take precedent in such a case, or should authorities have the power to force parents to seek medical help?

Although some groups may urge individuals to rely exclusively on faith and prayer in times of sickness rather than seek medical help, in my view this approach is sacrilegious and represents an offense to God.  I believe that God requires each one of us to cherish and guard our health -- and when necessary, to get professional medical attention.  A person who circumvents proper medical care when needed is in essence destroying life, which is a divine gift that does not belong to us to mistreat.

The spiritual teachings of many diverse religious traditions pay tribute to the sanctity of life.  Treating this special gift disrespectfully is an affront to God Almighty.  Our Creator has graciously given us the
scientific knowledge to cure many illnesses, advanced medical equipment to assist the process, and hospitals where the two come together to provide us the ability to restore health.  Therefore, I feel strongly that legal authorities should prosecute and punish parents who use the cloak of religion as a cover for reprehensible behavior toward their children.

A case like this inevitably stirs powerful emotions, and rightly so.  Parents of a child who died or was harmed as a result of neglect are guilty of a crime -- regardless of whether they claim to be following some kind of religious code.  It is frightening to contemplate that there are mothers and fathers out there who would be so irresponsible and careless with the precious lives of their little ones.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

October 9, 2011

Q. A movement known as New Monasticism is drawing young evangelicals from established churches to city-based communities of faith. Inspired by traditional monks, New Monasticism is defined by its message of helping the poor, love of God and shunning materialism.

New Monasticism groups such as Amos House, in Tennessee, or North Carolina-based The Rutba House provide food and outreach facilities for the homeless in their communities, while others like the Blood: Water Mission dig wells in Africa and care for people infected with AIDS. But all are united in one ideal: that actively helping people is better than simply attending church. One member of a group called Castanea says, "I got annoyed with just going to church to worship and not doing anything."

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, author of "New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today's Church," says people in the movement are learning that money isn't everything and they can be happy valuing friendship and service over possessions. He also argues that "normal churches aren't taking church seriously" and that it's the sense of community provided by such groups that make them such an attraction to young people.

What are your thoughts on the New Monasticsm movement? Is it a good thing, or a threat to established churches?

In my view, any group that encourages individuals to help the poor and assist the needy deserves applause.  I don’t see how such groups can represent a threat to established religious organizations, since these institutions should be advocating the very same ideals.  After all, the principle of charity toward the less fortunate forms a cornerstone of religious belief, and is prevalent in the teachings and texts of almost every major belief system.

The good news is that numerous studies have demonstrated that people who regularly attend worship services tend to be more charitable and willing to help others.  If, however, there are houses of worship where young people are not hearing about their obligation to help others, then we do have a problem.  It is the responsibility of religious leaders to champion the cause of the destitute among us, and to ensure that the message of philanthropy and volunteerism is heard loud and clear.  We need to continually structure our prayer services in such a way that they galvanize participants to want to open their wallets and roll up their sleeves to aid those in need.

I also feel that while it is laudable and important to help the needy in Africa and other impoverished parts of the world, charity must start at home.  We should focus on needy people in other countries only if those efforts do not come at the expense of aiding those who are struggling right here at home.  The unfortunate reality of our current economic troubles is that there are now so many more families, children, and senior citizens right here in the United States who simply cannot afford the basic necessities of life.  I think these people ought to be first on our priority list, and only after we meet the pressing needs in our own communities should we focus on other areas around the globe.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 2, 2011

Banning the Burqua?

After banning the public wearing of burqua-style Islamic dress in public, France has fined two women a total of 200 euros ($270) for wearing a niquab, a face-covering veil. One of the women fined, Hind Ahmas, said she welcomed the fine, as it would allow her to challenge the ban in the European Court of Human Rights. Another woman who was arrested for wearing a niquab is to run for the office of President. Kenza Drider will run as an independent candidate, her campaign funded by pro-Islamic groups.
 
The law, which has proved popular with the French public, was condemned by some groups, with SOS Rascisme, a French anti-racism group, saying, it contravened the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and would stigmatize Muslim women. Human Rights Watch condemned the law, saying, "The... law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation." The governments of Syria and Iran have also condemned the law, and France has seen a sharp decline in tourists from Islamic countries.
 
Was France right to ban Islamic dress?

In truth, I have very mixed feelings regarding the French law banning the public wearing of the burqua and other Islamic-style veils.  On one hand, I understand the sentiment of the French people in outlawing a piece of clothing which they feel violates a woman’s intrinsic right to freedom.  This is especially true since it seems that Muslim men often force this religious law upon women.  And in a European culture that places a premium on the ideals of integration and egalitarianism, the argument can be made that showing one's face in public is a part of participating in mainstream society as an equal.
 
On the other hand, however, this law seems to violate religious freedoms and the ability to practice one's faith unhindered.  I believe that if a government assumes the authority to regulate religious ritual, then the line between government protection and religious persecution becomes blurred.  The same theory utilized to prohibit a burqua or face veil can ostensibly be used to bar the wearing of a Yarmulka -- an unassuming Jewish head-covering -- or other garments specific to religious traditions.  When a respected organization like Human Rights Watch argues that France's law represents a violation of the basic rights to freedom of religion and expression, that should give us pause.
 
The key to resolving this serious issue and to addressing similar controversies is to find a middle ground which does not threaten either the French commitment to civil liberties or the Muslim community’s right to practice their religion.  In all likelihood the solution will not come from the halls of government, but rather from grass-roots groups from both camps who come together for a reasonable dialogue and decide on the proper path forward.  What is needed is a level-headed discussion -- based on facts rather than misconceptions -- in which all parties strive for tolerance and understanding, and all involved recognize the legal and cultural ramifications of their actions.

Rabbi Simcha Backman 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 25, 2011

Chery Picking Religious Beliefs

A study by LifeWay Research has found that many Americans are moving away from clearly-defined denominations toward tailoring their beliefs to suit their own personal preferences. Also, a new survey of 900 U.S. Protestant pastors finds 62% predict the importance of being identified with a denomination will diminish over the next 10 years.

Judaism is also facing a similar issue, according to the editor of Moment magazine, Nadine Epstein, who says, "We live in an era where you pick and choose the part of the religion that makes sense to you. And you can connect through culture and history in a meaningful way without necessarily religiously practicing."

Is this cherry-picking of beliefs a good thing? And are pastors to blame?

I don’t think that "cherry-picking" of one's religious beliefs is a good thing.  While I suppose it could be argued that having "a little bit of religion" is better than none at all, I feel strongly that a person can find genuine fulfillment, happiness, and comfort within traditional modes of spirituality.  We do not need to create a personalized concoction of assorted ideas to achieve contentment.

In today’s day and age, everyone wants to feel good -- which is actually positive trend, since people who feel good about themselves will inevitably be able to be generous and kind toward others.  As a result of the emphasis on personal happiness, we find more and more people wanting to find their “comfort zone” in religious practice.  There is nothing wrong with that, so long as the basic tenets of the respective religion are preserved.  Jewish texts laud the pursuit of happiness and the quest for contentment.  We are taught that a spiritual lifestyle can be very rewarding and meaningful, especially if we do not tinker with its foundational teachings.

Finally, I am of the opinion that if there are so few people in our houses of worship and scores are being lost daily, it is incumbent upon the clergy to hear the message of the people and make some changes.  Members of the cloth have a responsibility to ensure that the spiritual message of their particular faith stays relevant and fresh.  In particular, religious leaders must strive to reach out to the young and affect them in a positive fashion.  By explaining how the age-old values of religion genuinely apply to the issues of today -- and by showing that traditional practices can create a rich, gratifying life -- we can revitalize our institutions and appeal to a contemporary audience.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 18, 2011

Has Money Become a Religion?

Q. As the current economic crisis continues, one religious commentator has come to see it as an issue of morals and values rather than as a strictly institutional failing.

Jim Wallis, the founder of the Sojourners, a biblical social justice group, wrote, “The Great Recession bears  some ‘religious’ reflection, as the market has gradually become all pervasive -- a replacement for religion and even for God.” He claims the free market has its own form of priests in the form of experts, that “greed is good” is its mantra, and that to decry its power is a form of heresy.

In another column, he writes of the “fundamental unfairness” of the recession: “The banks and other financial institutions whose behavior is most responsible for this crisis have been saved from failure by the American taxpayers, while many of those least responsible are losing jobs and homes.” He asks when the crisis will change Americans’ views that they “deserve” material goods.

Do you agree that the market has become, to some, a religion? And should morality and values play a bigger role in the actions of financial institutions?

I think it is fair to say that some people -- both in the past and in contemporary times -- have essentially come to worship "the almighty dollar."  The single-minded pursuit of financial gain can develop into an unhealthy obsession, with some individuals developing a downright dangerous infatuation with money. 
 
I often wonder if there is a discernible difference between playing the stock markets and shooting craps in a Las Vegas casino.  At least at the gambling table, most reasonable patrons are aware that the odds are stacked against them -- while on Wall Street, many well-educated, cultured people seem to be under the impression that market forces will always trend in their favor and seem thoroughly shocked when things don’t go their way.
 
In my opinion, morality and values must play a larger role in the dealings of America's financial institutions and big businesses.  This is even more important for those banks and corporations that have been deemed “too big to fail,” thus providing their executives with cover for all sorts of shenanigans.  It is high time that all of the powerful executives who drive hundreds of billions of dollars a day in business deals realize their decisions are not made in a vacuum; there are many millions of Americans who are affected in a real and tangible way by what goes on in the boardrooms.  Especially as we endure this very difficult economic period, so many previously stable middle-class households now stand only one paycheck away from destitution.
 
At the same time, I would caution that we must remember that these big businesses represent a major segment of our nation's economy, and their health -- or lack thereof -- determines many people's economic fate.  We therefore need to impress upon the banks and corporations the importance of moral values without undermining their ability to function in a free market environment.  In our natural frustration and anxiety over recent events, we need to be careful not to adopt ideas that lead to smothering government intervention in the private sector or a sense of excessive entitlement by the public, as that may very well destabilize our entire capitalist system and create havoc even greater than that which can be generated by a few greedy bankers.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 11, 2011

Rembering September 11 

As we mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. What are your thoughts on this day?

As I think back to that fateful day a decade ago, I recall sitting in my home here in Glendale and watching with sheer horror as the ghastly terror attacks transpired.  The devastation and destruction brought upon my hometown of New York City and on our nation’s capital, Washington, DC, was truly staggering.  I remember the shock and pain I felt when I learned that a good friend of mine, Navy Officer Michael Noeth, was killed at the Pentagon on that tragic morning.  Hearing this piece of news made it all “real,” and tore my heart to shreds.  The feeling of absolute helplessness is something I will never forget.

My initial response was to cower at home, the terror felt so overwhelming.  I was scared to take my children to school or go out to the market to pick up food.  I was virtually paralyzed.  Several hours into the day I called a fellow rabbi for some comfort, but all I heard from him were dreadful thoughts and fearful warnings. 

But then something very odd happened.  It was at that moment that the triumphant human spirit which we all share began to shine forth.  I turned to my wife and stated that if we react in this fashion, then the terrorists have effectively won.  We agreed that had a moral obligation to go about our lives and continue with our normal routine for our sake, for the sake of our children, and most of all for the memory of the thousands who were killed.

That was, in essence, America's response as a nation.  We mourned and we cried, but then we dusted ourselves off and resolved that we would not let these cowardly fanatics and their minions undermine the freedom and beauty of our lives in this great country.

We can proudly say that 10 years after the worst terrorist attack on US soil, we are today a stronger people and a more resolute nation.  Our enemies' wicked goals were not realized, and in fact the terrorists have been severely weakened.  Indeed, even the hopeful moments we have witnessed during the co-called "Arab Spring" contain a potential repudiation of the Islamic extremists' goals of establishing a harsh, theocratic rule across the region.

On this tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, as countless memorials take place across the nation, I call upon my fellow citizens to commit themselves to performing acts of goodness and kindness.  On this solemn day -- and in the days to come -- let us strive to be compassionate and understanding toward one another.  By doing so, we strengthen our moral fiber and send a loud message to all of humanity that although evil may strike, the power of good will always prevail.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 3, 2011

Abolishing the Death Penalty? 

A California legislator is advancing a bill to abolish the state's death penalty for the second time. Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) claims that the death penalty costs the state $184 million a year to keep more than 700 people on Death Row. Only 13 criminals have been executed since 1992; each execution costs about $300 million. An average prisoner spends 25 years on Death Row before being put to death.

"The death penalty is not the swift and certain punishment that experts tell us most effectively deters crime," Hancock told a state legislative panel, which voted 5-2 to approve the bill, SB490. If passed, the option to replace the death penalty with life without parole will be put on a ballot for voters to decide whether to get rid of it.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) opposes the measure, saying the state should instead reform the system to "speed up the process." Other opponents of SB40 say that getting rid of the death penalty would remove a deterrent.

Should California abolish its death penalty?

Conceptually, I support the Biblical idea of capital punishment for premeditated, intentional murder.  In theory, the death penalty can serve as a deterrent and it is truly the only equivalent punishment for committing this irreversible crime.  Nevertheless, I have very deep reservations regarding how the death penalty is implemented in today’s judicial system. 

The Bible requires of us to maintain honesty and integrity in our court systems, and ensure that a sentence as serious as execution is ordered only when there is complete certainty of guilt, and only as a last resort.  Unfortunately, the reality in our courts today falls far short of that ideal form justice.  It is common knowledge that an accused person’s sentence is often more dependent on the skill of his or her lawyer than the actual facts of the case or the veracity of the witnesses.  Plus, court proceedings frequently take on the atmosphere of a movie set or circus stage rather than the sober setting that reflects the gravity of the situation and the enormity of judging a life. 

Furthermore, because of the Biblical emphasis on the significance of life, the reliance on circumstantial evidence cannot be acceptable in capital punishment cases.  Our judicial system relies heavily on this indirect method of proof and will often assign guilt based on evidence which is not completely sound.  There have been a significant number of Death Row cases which have been reversed and the supposedly guilty parties released once new, incontrovertible proof of innocence surfaced -- often a result of extensive DNA testing.

Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty in the form in which it is currently practiced.  I feel that those convicted of murder should be given the harshest possible punishment short of execution, and must be incarcerated for life with no possibility for parole.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 21, 2011

Religious Training in the Military

The U.S. Air Force has withdrawn a training course for nuclear missile officers after complaints that the training was heavily religious in nature.

"Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare," which has been taught at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for 20 years, was led by Air Force chaplains and was investigated in July by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation after more than 30 officers - including Catholics and Protestants - complained about the religious content of the course. It had even been dubbed the "Jesus Loves Nukes" class by some attendants. Among the protested content were references to St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War" andexamples from the Old and New Testaments of biblical characters fighting "just" wars

Is there a place for religious teachings in military training courses?

I believe there is place -- and even a necessity -- for religious teachings in military training courses.  However, there should be no space allowed for the kind of lessons which were allegedly provided to nuclear missile officers by the U.S. Air Force.  The statements being attributed to the chaplains in this program are absolutely outrageous, and their cavalier attitude toward grave national and global security issues like nuclear warfare is downright scary.  Frankly, I would expect more integrity and honor from our nation's finest.
 
I would suggest that the offending officers be sent to special sensitivity training, and that they have some face-time with people who have survived the horrors of war -- both soldiers and civilians.  Hopefully these sobering discussions will help them better understand the nature of war, and the gravity of the issues they are tasked with teaching.
 
I feel strongly that military training courses should include genuine religious and ethical principles regarding warfare.  There are many Biblical verses that exhort the virtues of peace and describe war only as a last resort.  Religious teachings place the preservation of life (and even property) above all, and require these principles to be the guiding factors in any confrontation.  These ideas, if properly presented during the training of our men and women in uniform, will hopefully lead to a more peaceful world where people are able to respect each other and avoid conflict.
 
The prophet Isaiah states in the Bible that there will come a time when “they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”  Each one of us should do our part to help make this prophesy a reality.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

August 14, 2011

Can Muslims Thrive in the US?

Q. As Muslims around the world observe the holy month of Ramadan, a new survey shows that American Muslims are happier than ever. A Gallup study found that 60% of Muslim Americans surveyed reported they were "thriving,” slightly higher than for Americans of any other religion except Jews, and are optimistic about their lives.

Nonetheless, the poll also found that negative perceptions of Muslims are still strong, with half reporting racial or religious harassment or discrimination. About a third of Catholics or Protestants polled claimed Muslims aren't loyal to America and that Muslims should be more vocal in condemning terrorist attacks.
 
While the increased happiness of Muslim Americans is a good thing, can the community ever shake off its negative image?

Of course Muslim Americans can -- and will -- shake off any negative image that persists among certain segments of the population.  One thing that sets our country apart from others is our ability to effectively integrate immigrants.  Over the past 250 years, we have attempted many assimilation strategies -- and some have worked better than others.  This poll reflecting the Muslim American community's happiness and identification with America seems to indicate that we have finally gotten it right.

For a long time, our country was defined as a melting pot of ethnic minorities.  This metaphor was used to describe the process in which the immigrant -- like metal placed in a hot crucible -- allows him or herself to be “melted” into a formless liquid and then molded into the American way of life.  Many immigrants -- especially Jews -- embraced this model and along the way abandoned thousands of years of tradition.  The term “melting pot” was actually coined by a Jewish immigrant, the playwright Israel Zangwill (1864-1926), who said: "America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians -- into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."

However, I believe the melting pot theory is misguided, not only from a Jewish or religious point of view but also from a purely American perspective.  Unity that is achieved through obliterating diversity and minority culture is short-lived.  We cannot afford to form a superficial union that is based on denying our differences and insisting we're all identical.  Diversity, after all, is sewn into the fabric of human existence.  When we join hands and unite as one people despite our differences -- when we learn to appreciate and respect each other’s religion and culture -- then we have formed true unity.  A symphony composed of one tone is meaningless, but when diverse musical notes are combined they can form beautiful music.

In my opinion, this poll speaks volumes about our national character and our ability to preserve our respective traditions while at the same time being unequivocally American.  This is the bedrock of our national identity, and it distinguishes us from the rest of the world.  It is no secret that almost every Western European nation is facing a major challenge from an immigrant Muslim population that is becoming increasingly hostile and radical.  Perhaps our allies across the Atlantic could learn something about effective integration from America’s positive assimilation practices.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 7, 2011

Does Harry Potter Teach Religious Values?

With the Harry Potter movies wrapped up, a blogger has published an article calling the main character "one of the most Christian symbols of modern pop culture."
 
Others however believe the Potter books are a gateway to the occult. In an interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network, author Richard Abanes says that there is nothing in the series that is Christian and that Wiccans and other pagan groups are using the series' popularity to "to lure kids toward real world occultism."
 
Are the Potter books a good life lesson? Do they promote religious ideas, or are they really a gateway to the occult?

My candid reaction to people on both sides of this Harry Potter "debate" is: let’s get real! The Harry Potter stories are simply a form of very good entertainment. In my view, they neither promote positive religious ideals nor encourage practices of the occult. I feel that it is extremely silly and counter-productive to read too much into these books (pun intended).

I believe it is detrimental to spiritual growth to rely on cryptic, mysterious wording in a Harry Potter book for religious direction. If we are seeking ways to inspire ourselves or our youth, there are many books out there -- including the Bible -- that provide clear guidance on how to lead a good life and build a solid foundation of moral values.

Furthermore, although reading books on good moral behaviors and traditions is important, the surest way to teach a life lesson is to lead by example. Our children watch us very closely and quickly learn how to emulate our ways. If we adults lead exemplary lives, are tolerant of others, and act charitably toward our fellow human beings, then chances are our children will do the same. If on the other hand all we do is preach the ideals of love, tolerance, and charity while in the real world acting otherwise, then it's only a matter of time before our youth stumble into the same hypocritical trap.

Let us enjoy the Harry Potter books and films, and simply take them at face value. They offer escapism and entertainment. To learn the true lessons of life, we should turn to reputable, time-tested sources on moral and religious standards.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 31, 2011

Personal and private lives
 
A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute has revealed that religious Americans think a financial scandal is worse than a sexual one.
 
The poll was conducted in the wake of several high-profile cases of politicians making headlines for their sexual behavior, including U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who resigned after he lied about sexually explicit texts he sent to women he met online. More than 90% of respondents say that a public official taking a bribe is an “extremely” or “very serious” moral problem; more than 80% say the same for a politician who cheats on taxes. But fewer than 70% of Americans polled say it’s a serious moral problem for a public official to have sex with a prostitute. The poll also discovered that people were bothered more about a politician lying to cover up a sex scandal than about the transgression itself.
 
Daniel Cox, PRRI’s research director, said of the findings, “There’s a dramatic difference when people are evaluating public officials’ financial versus sexual misbehavior. A significant number of folks think they can separate public officials’ personal and public lives.” He believes that people tend to think of sexual misbehavior as personal, and therefore private.
 
Should religious Americans differentiate between misconduct in this way? And why do you think scandals involving sex are not believed to be as serious as financial ones?
 
I’m not really surprised by the results of this poll, since I believe I understand why financial misdeeds among politicians are generally perceived to be worse than sex scandals. We elect our public officials to represent us in various levels of government and serve our interests; we give these officials significant responsibilities, and trust that as recipients of our tax dollars, they will work on our behalf in an honest and effective manner.
 
Violating this trust through corruption in their public lives — by taking bribes that influence their votes, or by cheating on the taxes that we all must pay as citizens — in essence breaks the sacred agreement that was made when elected. While we would certainly like our politicians to be morally upstanding individuals in all areas, we often understand — and often forgive — if they fail in their personal lives. What is unforgivable is taking advantage of the public trust in the performance of their official duties. That is a sin the American people will not overlook.
 
In my opinion, the most interesting revelation of this poll is that the people surveyed were more bothered by a politician’s lying to cover up a sex scandal than by the wrongdoing itself. This speaks volumes about the character of the American people. As a whole, we are a very forgiving nation. We understand that our politicians are not angels, but imperfect human beings who can fail and commit moral sins. What most of us cannot understand or forgive is when an elected official tries to cover up inexcusable behavior by shamelessly lying to us, assuming that we are a bunch of fools who will actually believe outlandish stories.
 
The Bible relates that King David took Bathsheba as his wife by commanding her husband’s death via abandonment during a heated battle. David was subsequently confronted by Nathan the prophet, who rebuked him for his inexcusable behavior. Instead of justifying his actions, King David accepted full responsibility and repented for his misdeeds for the rest of his life. I would suggest that politicians heed the example set by King David. Never betray the public trust. Stay true to your moral bearings — and if you fail, come clean by admitting your failure and sincerely asking for forgiveness. Doing otherwise is a recipe for political suicide.
 
Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 24, 2011

Is agnosticism a valid way religious belief?

Lawyer and writer Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson and several members of the Manson Family in 1971, will appear at Glendale Central Library on July 27 to discuss his new book, "Divinity of Doubt."
 
Bugliosi argues in the book that both religious believers and atheists are wrong and that agnosticism is the most responsible position to take with regard to the existence of God. Among points of discussion will be the "disturbing vengefulness" of God in the Old Testament, the decline of belief in evolution, and how an all-knowing Creator would allow humans free will but do nothing to stop them persecuting and killing each other.

Is agnosticism a valid way of looking at religious belief, or is it simply a way of sitting on the fence?

While I would not go out of my way to criticize someone who is agnostic, I feel that agnosticism misunderstands the purpose of religion and the true essence of belief in God.  An agnostic will argue that God is unknowable -- and that is a fair point, since we are finite creatures and it is impossible for us to truly comprehend the infinite.  At the same time, however, God has compassionately bestowed upon us free will, thus allowing us to control and govern our environment.  That is the very reason why He does not intercede when we persecute each other.  Doing so would undermine our free will and reduce human beings to unthinking automatons.
 
Together with the immense power of free will, God has given us a code of morality -- found within the Bible -- and expects us to adhere to it.  Of course we are not perfect, and there are times when our obedience falters.  The results of these shortcomings, even among religious believers, are unfortunate and can even be disastrous when we harm one another.  But in all fairness, this phenomenon of cruelty or persecution is not unique to religious people.  Let’s not forget that the two greatest butchers in history, Hitler and Stalin, were anti-religious and did not take their ideas from the Bible.
 
My advice to Vincent Bugliosi when he promotes agnosticism is to be careful with what he wishes for.  Statistics show that those who adhere to the Bible are far more charitable than others since they follow a set of laws that demand kindness and benevolence.  Yes, Biblical verses may sometimes be taken out of context and -- as I suspect Bugliosi himself has done -- misunderstood.  But we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Better to educate those who have a warped understanding of religious philosophy than to undermine religion as a whole, since spiritual principles and faith-based ethics have brought so much good and justice to our world.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 17, 2011

Is Food and Water a Human "Right"?

Q. At a time of near-record food prices, Pope Benedict XVI has denounced speculation in commodities markets as "immoral" and called food and water "a basic human right." According to the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization, overall global food prices have risen by an average of more than 80% in the past 10 years, with sugar rising fastest. High food costs have sparked riots in Cameroon, Haiti, Mozambique and Egypt. The most recent FAO figures put the number of people in the world classed as "hungry" at 915 million.

Is it possible to see the global economy in moral terms? And should morality be imposed upon it?

I wholeheartedly agree that access to food and water represents a basic human right, and that morality dictates that there should never be a hungry man, woman, or child on this planet.  However, I disagree with the premise that hunger and exorbitant food prices are primarily caused by “speculation” or the abuse of an unrestricted global economy.  World food markets are simply reacting to a reality that is not their doing, and one which they can hardly change.  The real responsibility for the world’s food and water crisis rests with corrupt governments and evil dictators. 

One does not need a degree in economics or sociology to recognize that the majority of the world's starving people live under harsh, undemocratic regimes or (at best) terribly dysfunctional systems.  Across the globe, these immoral leaders and their puppet parliaments subjugate their citizenry, condemning their people to starvation while often enriching themselves in the process.  Every year the United Nations, United States, the European Union and other countries of goodwill send millions of tons of food aid to these impoverished countries.  Yet the impact seems to be minimal. 

Scandalous news stories reveal that quite often the recipient nation’s corrupt government hoards the food, sells it to the highest bidder -- or, perhaps worst of all, lets it rot -- rather than ensuring that it reaches its intended recipients.  For this reason, I believe that even if global food markets were more tightly regulated, it would not make a significant difference to those who are in dire need of basic food and drinkable water.  The only hope for these many millions of disadvantaged people is regime change, and that can only happen when it is a widely desired goal shared by a movement that begins at the grass-roots level. 

Recently, we have witnessed citizen awakenings in authoritarian countries across the globe.  I hope that these uprisings lead to the emergence of honest, competent individuals who will form honorable governments that have the welfare of their citizens as their primary concern.  If that change happens, I believe we will finally see a reduction in world-wide hunger and come closer to the day when every person on the face of this earth can enjoy their basic human right of food and water.
 
Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 3, 2011

Omitting God From the Pledge of Allegiance?

TV channel NBC has come under fire for omitting the words "under God" from a broadcast of the Pledge of Allegiance shown before the U.S. Open golf championship. The video montage of patriotic images including the American flag, was dubbed with children reciting the Pledge - without the phrases "under God" and "indivisible.” A second showing of the video also left out the phrase "one nation.”

NBC promplty apologized for the omission stating "It was our intent to begin our coverage of this U.S. Open championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship...Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance... was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it.

Does leaving out the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance concern you?

NBC promptly apologized for omitting part of the Pledge of Allegiance during its U.S. Open coverage and claimed that it was done in error, and we should therefore pursue this incident no further.  However -- in the immortal words of Ronald Regan -- we would be wise to “trust but verify.”  Viewers should keep a close eye on NBC and other networks, and if this or something similar happens again, those responsible should be taken to task.
 
Intentionally leaving out the words “under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance definitely concerns me since I have noticed a recent trend to sterilize any and all religious reference from the public arena.  I certainly understand the need for the separation of Church and State, but I feel that the current trend has less to do with respecting the Constitution than with taking a misguided swipe at the religious sensitivities of our nation.  Any deliberate effort to demean or insult people of faith contradicts the principle of tolerance that is so central to the American ideal.

It seems to me that many of those who call the shots in the glass towers of media (and the corridors of power in government) are seriously out of touch with the average American.  The fact is that our society is by-and-large spiritually oriented, and an overwhelming majority of us are religious in nature.  We may all enjoy watching our favorite sport -- whether it's golf, baseball, football, or basketball -- but equally important to us is the acknowledgement of God in our lives.  Trying to avoid this reality is wrong, should not be tolerated, and is ultimately bound to fail.

NBC may have made an innocent mistake, but I hope that this episode serves as a lesson to encourage those in decision-making positions to be respectful toward the religious sensitivities of the American people.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26, 2011

Is Assisted Suicide Murder?

British author Sir Terry Pratchett recently presented a BBC documentary called "Choosing To Die" about assisted suicide. Pratchett, the bestselling author of the "Discworld" series of fantasy novels, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2008. He is a patron of Dying In Dignity, a group that lobbies for the laws in the UK to be changed to give terminally ill people control over ending their lives, and has said, "I believe everybody possessed of a debilitating and incurable disease should be allowed to pick the hour of their death."

Should a terminally ill patient be allowed to choose the time and manner of their death? Is it more ethical to keep someone alive who wants to die than it is to allow them to die of their own choosing?

The question of assisted suicide is surrounded by tremendous controversy and stirs strong passions on all sides.  I believe that any discussion of the issue must begin with a basic understanding that life is a gift from God.  From there, we should accept that some things are best left in the hands of God alone.  We did not choose to be brought into this world, and in my view we should not be allowed to choose when the journey to the afterlife will take place. 
 
I feel that assisted suicide presents a grave danger that threatens the moral fiber of our society.  If we determine that death can be decided by mortals, then who is to regulate which life should be eliminated?  Some may determine that a 95 year-old with terminal cancer should be allowed to terminate his or her life.  But how about a 45 year-old man with unyielding, chronic depression?  He is arguably suffering more than the older individual, but would we allow him to end his life?  Or how about a newborn born in a vegetative state -- are we allowed to snuff out that life at birth since, it can be argued, this is not a life worth saving?  Where do we draw the line? 

This entire question puts us a very slippery slope.  Once we begin to descend, nobody truly knows what frightening end we may arrive at -- not to mention what terrifying turns we may encounter on the way down.  This is why I believe we are better off following the teachings of our Judeo-Christian tradition, which state unequivocally that all forms of life are sacred and must be preserved.  Every moment of life holds infinite spiritual value, and must be cherished.
 
Of course if someone is suffering we must provide them with all the medical care necessary to ease their pain, and we are not required to undertake heroic measures to prolong life.  But allowing one human to cut short the life of another is, in my opinion, immoral.  Assisted suicide poses an insurmountable ethical dilemma -- and the moment we endorse this practice, we weaken the decency of our society.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 19, 2011

Disagreeing With the Teachings of Faith

A study released June 9 by the Public Religion Research Institute: “Committed to Availability, Conflicted About Morality, What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars.”

Fifty-six percent of those polled say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases and 52% say abortion is morally wrong. A majority (72%) of religious Americans believe they can disagree with the teachings of their faiths on the issue of abortion and still be a person of good standing in their faith.

Do holy writings support this trend toward an intellectualization of religious issues? And is this new religious independence a good thing? Why, or why not?

Since its inception, Judaism has encouraged independent thinking and rigorous study, which has led to a plethora of detailed Biblical commentary and much vigorous debate.  As a rabbi who discusses issues of faith with people of all backgrounds, my approach is to avoid a sweeping, “take-it-all-or-leave-it” attitude.  I believe that an individual who accepts even a partial measure of something good is better off than one who accepts nothing at all.  Spirituality adds a sense of purpose and provides moral guidance for our lives.  Once a person takes upon themselves a bit of religious tradition and practice, my hope is that they will sense its value and eventually accept more. 

It is often difficult for the uninitiated to embrace all the tenets of a religion, but adopting some of the core principles can make life infinitely more meaningful.  For example, I often encourage people of the Jewish faith to honor the Sabbath by joining in services even though they do not observe Judaism’s kosher dietary laws.  If at some point they decide to start eating kosher, that’s great -- but even if they don't, participating in weekly services adds significant depth and spiritual energy to their week, and makes them better people.

As far as abortion is concerned, Judaism takes a middle-of-the road stance.  Our teachings hold that abortion should be legal in order to allow the procedure under certain life-threatening circumstances.  An unborn fetus is definitely a form of life, yet it does not possess the status of a fully born person.  Therefore, if the development of a fetus threatens the health of its mother -- physically or even mentally -- then an abortion would be mandatory.  Barring these situations, all forms of life -- including a fetus -- must be respected and protected from harm.

There is no question that the ongoing abortion debate is difficult and emotionally charged.  My hope is that people on all sides of this issue can maintain civility in their dialogue.  I also believe that we should carefully avoid a cavalier attitude toward abortion, since its abuse can pose a serious challenge to the moral status of our society.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 12, 2011

Words of Wisdom for the College Bound

Q. It’s that time of year again, graduation season, when many of our youth are getting ready to leave the nest to live away from home for the first time in their lives.

Do you have any words of wisdom for our college-bound graduates when it comes to balancing experimentation and self-discovery with maintaining the integrity of their value systems?  What should a parent say or do before he or she lets their son or daughter out the door?

The college years arguably represent the most important period of a young person’s life.  This formative time offers a unique opportunity to shape a young man or woman’s intellectual, social, and spiritual identity.  How these years are spent will help determine the future course of one's life, and can influence whether it will turn out to be exceptional, undistinguished, or somewhere in between.  The learning that takes place in a college setting -- both inside and outside the classroom -- will last a lifetime. 

However, we all know that some extra-curricular activities that take place on campus can be detrimental to one's welfare, and some are downright dangerous.  Often, these activities are illegal and immoral, and can seriously compromise a person's integrity.  My advice to our nation’s eager young people about to embark upon the journey to college is to be thoughtful and be careful.  Open your mind to learning new things, focus on gaining a sound education, and apply your newfound wisdom to all areas of life -- including those that fall outside of the classroom.

As for all the excited -- and apprehensive -- parents, I suggest they have a frank and honest discussion with their child before they head out the door.  Make sure that college-bound students truly appreciate how important the next few years of their lives will be, and how much knowledge they will gain from this opportunity.  At the same time, however, ensure that youngsters are aware of the perils that can befall them, and how one bad decision might endanger many hours of study and hard work.  Impress upon them that this new degree of freedom also comes with some new responsibilities.

Today, practically every college campus has faith-based organizations that cater specifically to the needs of students.  I strongly recommend that one of the first things incoming students do after arriving on campus is make contact with the organization representing their faith and to attend some events to ensure that their moral compass remains intact.  (Those students who may not identify with a religious tradition should also be aware of counseling services and peer organizations that can offer support.) 

One part of becoming an adult is practicing wise decision-making, appreciating the value of self-discipline, and recognizing the importance of ethical behavior even in difficult circumstances.  Students who absorb these principles will supplement all that they learn in the classroom, and will emerge from college as well-rounded, mature individuals who are ready for success and happiness in the years to come.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 29, 2011

Separating Church and State in the Classroom

Schools in White County, Tenn., have agreed to stop allowing the Gideons from distributing bibles in classrooms after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit. The Gideons entered a classroom at Doyle Elementary School in Doyle, about 100 miles east of Nashville, and invited students to take a bible if they wanted one. The ACLU became involved after one girl complained that she felt pressured into taking a bible.

Is blocking the distribution of bibles in class protecting or denying students' rights?

I have previously expressed my opinion in this column regarding the separation of church and state.  I believe that when America's founding fathers ratified the First Amendment of our Constitution, they intended to prevent the Federal government from establishing a central religion that would effectively favor one religious group over another.  However, the founders did not intend to eradicate every semblance of religion from schools and the public domain.  On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution were very cognizant of the essential role that spirituality plays in both private and public life; therefore, they strove to be pious in their personal lives and were extremely supportive of religious expression in public.

Of course there are some people and groups whose excessive religious activity or proselytizing are unduly imposing upon others.  In these situations, I can see why the ACLU should step in to protect the rights of all American citizens.  But the vast majority of religious people are good, wholesome individuals who simply wish to share with others.  There is no harm in that – quite the opposite -- and so long as their interactions remain respectful and tolerant of diverse opinion, I laud individuals who take of their time to help others find spiritual completion.

Generally speaking, I believe the ACLU is a well-intentioned organization that sincerely wishes to uphold the law and protect individuals from violations of their rights.  However, when the ACLU takes on a group like the Gideons, I question the wisdom of their leadership and wonder if they are allocating their contributions in a thoughtful manner.  The unfortunate fact is that every day there are true travesties of justice taking place across our country -- but by diverting their resources toward a silly case such as this one and confronting harmless Bible distributors, the ACLU is then prevented from making a real difference in our legal system and helping those who really need their assistance.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 22, 2011

Dominate Nature or Go Green?

An American evangelical group called the Cornwall Alliance has placed itself in the center of debate over the environment by taking a hard line against green groups. Using the Dominion Mandate - the verse in Genesis about God giving man dominion over all life on Earth - as its chief argument, the Cornwall Alliance is vehemently opposed to environmental groups, which it sees as being un-Christian and pagan, and which it has labelled the "Green Dragon."

Do you believe the Dominion Mandate gives humans the right to do what they want to planet? Or should we be exercising more care and responsibility over God's Creation?

The Bible does indeed give human beings dominion over the earth, but --contrary to the incorrect assumptions of the Cornwall Alliance --this unique status bestowed upon man makes us ever more responsible for our natural surroundings and the diverse creatures living beside us. Dominion does not grant man a license to act recklessly and endanger nature or other beings; instead, we are intended to serve as thoughtful stewards.

When Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden --understood to be a physical location on this planet --he is given clear direction in the book of Genesis 2:15 to guard and preserve it. Further emphasizing our unique relationship with nature, the book of Deuteronomy in 20:19 states that “man is like a tree in the field.” Although we hold a very prominent place, humankind is ultimately one thread woven through nature's intricate tapestry.

Human beings are by far the most intelligent creatures on this planet, and therefore we have a unique ability to affect the rest of the world. By acting responsibly and protecting our environment, we set the tone for the rest of creation and maintain conditions that enable all of us to live in peace and harmony upon this glorious world which God so graciously gave us.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2011

Bin Laden is Dead! Will America Find Closure?

Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000 people, has been killed by U.S. special forces at a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. He was shot to death in the raid, and then buried at sea.

President Barack Obama has hailed the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden as a "good day for America," saying the world is now “a safer and a better place,” although almost every U.S. embassy around the world has been put on high alert in case of reprisals. When news of Bin Laden’s death broke, crowds flooded the streets of New York and Washington, DC, celebrating the terrorist’s death.
 
Now that bin Laden is dead, will his death bring some kind of closure to America?

How do you bring “closure” to the hurt, pain, and suffering of the survivors of those murdered on the ghastly day of September 11, 2011?  I lost a good friend at the Pentagon on that fateful day, and I know how acute the pain still feels.  I can only imagine how much greater that pain must be for those who lost close family members during the attacks.  Can we truly expect a boy who grew up without the loving, warm embrace of his mother, or a woman who raised her children alone and without the caring support of her husband, to find closure now that Osama Bin Laden is dead?  I do not believe that is possible.  This development may bring some measure of healing, but the wound remains.
 
However, whether or not Osama Bin Laden's death brings final closure to this national trauma, it is still a monumental event.  His killing sends a clear message to all those who intend to harm innocent Americans that we will destroy their diabolic organizations and make their lives miserable; the terrorists will be forced to be on the run 24/7, and eventually we will find them and bring them to justice.  I believe that this milestone in the arduous war on terror ultimately does make America safer.  It sends a strong signal to our enemies -- and to the citizens of this country -- that we will remain ever vigilant as long as evil degenerates like Bin Laden prowl this world.
 
To Osama Bin Laden I gladly say farewell and good riddance!  Whenever he arrives at his final destination and takes his place in the rogue’s gallery of history’s most wicked men, he is welcome to say hello to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam.  He can let them know that despite their best efforts to sow violent hatred and obliterate the human spirit, we are alive and well.  He can inform these human monsters that the ideals of freedom, democracy, and the pursuit of happiness are growing ever stronger in America and around the globe.  There can be no doubt that our world is a better place when mass murderers such as these are gone.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 7, 2011

Are rabbis overworked?

Q. Stress among clergy is a little-noticed but growing problem in the U.S. According to reports, priests, rabbis and pastors suffer from rates of obesity, diabetes, depression and hypertension at greater levels than the average American, as well as higher usage of antidepressants.

Part of the blame for this is being put on the pressure to be successful, such as increasing congregation size, dealing with and increasing congregational finances, and general administration. Studies have also found that clergy don't - or feel they can't - take vacations because of the pressures and duties that come with their role.

Do you find the demands of your roles stressful? If so, how do you cope?

It's certainly true that the position of a rabbi – or any other clerical role – can be very stressful, but so can being the CEO of a construction company or the dean of a university.  In the end, every job has both positive and not-so-positive elements.  Statistics do indicate that work-associated pressures are often greater on a religious leader than on someone holding a similar position in a corporate environment, but I also believe that a clergy member often has a more rewarding experience than people in other vocations.  Statistics show that many religious leaders have higher overall satisfaction levels with their lives, which is something directly associated with their line of work.

Helping people to find meaning in life, assisting to heal those who are hurting, and providing spiritual direction to those who seek it are all extremely positive ideals.  Serving others in this manner ultimately provides a very wholesome and satisfying life experience that, in my experience, can act as a strong motivator and counter-weight to the inordinate amount of pressure associated with being a rabbi, minister, priest, or imam.

Since so many people rely heavily on their religious leaders for purpose in life and often even for basic sustenance, I feel that it is increasingly important for members of the clergy to be extra careful with their health and cognizant of their own well-being.  We must find the time to take it easy and relax -- and whenever our burdens reach a level where they feel unbearable, we must learn to reach out to members of the community and ask for help.  After all, our ability to effectively help others in need is only undermined when we ourselves are struggling with illness or exhaustion.

Of equal importance is the need for community members who are in leadership positions to pay close attention to their clergy and their needs.  If you are a congregant who feels that something is wrong, you should speak up; in a respectful, discreet and caring manner, you can inquire if everything is okay and see what you can do to help.  Often these small gestures of concern and offers of assistance can make a big difference in the welfare of those who are committed heart and soul to building a better community and caring for others.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 16, 2011

Are American Muslims Undermining Our Values?

The Congressional hearings into the possible radicalization of Muslims in America has stirred emotions on both sides of the debate, with one Muslim-American representative leaving the room in tears after testifying about an American Muslim killed on 9/11.

The investigations, started by Rep. Pete King (R - NY), are designed to focus on what he believes is a rising domestic terror threat from American Muslims. He also wants to look into what he sees as a distinct lack of cooperation from the U.S. Islamic community.

Is King right to hold these hearings? Is there a threat to the U.S. from American Muslims? And should the Islamic community do more to cooperate with law enforcement?

The simple fact that Mr. King’s own party hardly supports his hearings is proof positive that there really was little point in holding them.  We all know that congressional hearings generate media chatter for a short while and usually accomplish little more.  I suspect that Mr. King’s primary intent was not so much to secure our nation but to please his political base by creating an international commotion.  (And since Mr. King is also on record as an ardent supporter of the IRA before the group renounced terror attacks and joined the political process, he is a rather flawed messenger for an anti-terror campaign.)
 
I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims are good, law-abiding citizens who want this country to grow and prosper in peace.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are some radicalized Muslims who hold US citizenship and are determined to destroy our democratic way of life.  In the past few years we have witnessed first-hand how some of these “home-grown” fanatics have tried to create havoc in our urban centers.  Less than a year ago an American Muslim, Faisal Shahzad, tried setting off a car-bomb in Times Square.  Shahzad’s lack of remorse and inflammatory statements in court -- as he was being sentenced to life in prison -- are chilling to the bone.
 
I feel that so long as there are people like Shahzad among them, the Muslim community will have to bear the burden of acting above and beyond the letter of the law.  They will need to ensure that any form of radicalism is quickly eradicated from their midst, and those imams or leaders who preach hate or intolerance of any kind are thoroughly ostracized.  The Muslim community should create an environment that entirely rejects extremism and makes those who seek to perpetuate terrorism unwelcome.  By doing so, they will ensure that the theatrics of legislators like Peter King will be perceived by all Americans as truly meaningless.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 9, 2011

Does Religion Encourage Corpulence?

A study by Northwestern University claims there is a link between regular church attendance by young people and obesity in middle age.  The study tracked 2,433 men and women for 18 years and found that, of those aged 20-32 years with a normal body weight who attended a religious function at least once a week, 50% were more likely to become obese by their 50s than those who were not religious.

Do you think religious people are more susceptible to obesity? If so, why? Or is this just part of the wider societal trend towards corpulence?

I don’t know many details about the Northwestern University study that claims a connection between church attendance and obesity, and so cannot verify its accuracy.  It may very well be true that people who attend religious services are more prone to be obese, but the insinuation that religion or prayer services somehow cause over-eating and indulgence is, in my opinion, disingenuous.  Most religions counsel self-discipline and encourage both restraint and modesty, and in many cases the designated days of celebration and consumption are counterbalanced by periods of fasting and denial.

In any given situation, there can be many factors that lead to obesity, and inherited genetics is often a major cause of corpulence.  I could easily conclude that children who are raised in religious homes are more likely to attend religious services, and if their parents were overweight, then they will likely be overweight as well -- hence the trend toward obesity among those who are spiritually inclined.  Mystery solved!
 
Our country is blessed with agricultural abundance to the point where hunger is minimal.  The unfortunate flip-side of this blessing is Americans' tendency to indulge in this bounty, and to consume processed foods loaded with unhealthy ingredients.  I feel that it is incumbent upon religious leaders and organizations to help society face the challenges of overeating.  The fact is that while practically every vice is discussed and frowned upon in religious circles, overeating is usually not given much attention.  The sad reality is that Americans are steadily growing in girth, and this trend is alarming. 

According to various studies, illnesses linked to obesity pose the single greatest challenge to the American healthcare system today.  We are now more aware than ever of the dangers of obesity, and the clergy should lead the way in safeguarding their congregations by informing them of the dangers that lurk on a plate.  Life is a gift from God, and the Bible in Deuteronomy 4:15 cautions us to be very careful to properly safeguard out health.  Ultimately, a healthy body provides a sound foundation for a healthy mind, which is then more receptive to the positive message of spirituality.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 26, 2011

Martial Arts and Religion

Q. A growing number of evangelical churches are embracing Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as a way of attracting and converting young men. Pastors of these churches say that they're using MMA not only to toughen up the message of religion, but also to combat their fear that houses of worship have become too feminized, with too much emphasis on kindness and compassion and not enough on responsibility and strength.

Is combining a violent sport with a religious message the best way to spread the word? And does regligion really need to be "toughened up"?

Regular readers of this column know that I generally support innovative approaches to attract people to worship services and spread religious knowledge. In that context, I feel that offering traditional martial arts lessons or self-defense seminars as a way to bring people through the doors of our houses of worship -- or even simply as a community service -- is an idea with some potential. It’s good practice to have adults and even children learn various fighting methods in order to protect themselves and prevent personal harm. It is also a great way to exercise (which would certainly benefit our statistically overweight population), and many participants boost their self-discipline and powers of concentration.

However, today's brutal spectacle of mixed martial arts (also known as cage fighting) is very different from traditional forms of karate or judo; by combining elements of kickboxing, wrestling, and other physical combat, this sport seems to maximize bloody violence. Let’s face it: these fighting shows represent human nature at its most savage. Pitting two highly trained human beings against each other and watching them inflict physical harm brings to mind gladiators and their dreadful, sub-human sport in the Roman arena. This is no way to bring people closer to God.

I feel that the message coming from the churches that embrace mixed martial arts and use it to project a belligerent combination of “faith and fighting” is detrimental to the real meaning of spirituality. Frankly, I can think of 101 better ways to engage our youth and interest them in religion. I fail to see the wisdom in turning to such a base sport as cage fighting to attract new congregants. On the contrary, I believe that an aggressive approach to religion can be damaging in the long term and may even alienate many people who need to be brought in.
 
Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 19, 2011

Expelling Sports Stars for Violating an Honor Code

Q. Brigham Young University recently suspended its star basketball center Brandon Davies for violating the college's strict Honor Code. Davies admitted to officials that he'd had pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, an Arizona State University freshman. Although he currently remains a student, there is still a chance the 19-year-old will be expelled from the school. He has publicly apologized to his teammates and fans.

The Honor Code, which students are obligated to abide by, requires them to be honest, live a chaste and virtuous life, obey the law and all campus policies, use clean language, respect others, abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse, participate regularly in church services and observe a dress and grooming standard.

Was the university right to suspend Davies for an action that many would say was trivial, especially as he's not committed a criminal act? Or should they have swept it under the rug to prevent damage to the Cougars' championship chances and possibly putting off talented athletes from attending?

No, I don’t think that officials at BYU should sweep Brandon Davies' actions under the rug. After all, what kind of message would it send to the student body if the University ignored its own Honor Code whenever it became inconvenient to enforce? By suspending a star athlete, BYU is making the very strong point that moral values are more important than basketball wins. Whether a college team gains a championship trophy is far less important than imparting core ethical lessons to young people to help them navigate the often turbulent waters of adult life.

Every university has the right to determine what its social and moral standards are on campus. As long as these rules do not conflict with the civil liberties of its students, they are perfectly legitimate and must be honored. All students entering college --especially one this is committed to social conservatism as Brigham Young is --are fully aware of the various regulations they are subject to, and are even required to sign an affidavit acknowledging this. If Mr. Davies did not feel he could uphold the school's code of honor, he should have never enrolled. There are some elements of the BYU Honor Code which I myself find a bit stringent --for example, I must have my morning cup of coffee, and I am required by my religion to sanctify every Sabbath and holiday with a goblet of wine --so therefore I would not consider attending this university.

However, I believe the overall atmosphere of BYU is admirable and shines in stark contrast to the sometimes decadent lifestyles on many college campuses. Frankly, I don’t see what is so “draconian or outdated” about asking our young men and women to be honest, respect others, not abuse drugs or alcohol, use clean language, and dress and groom themselves appropriately. Come to think of it, is it really so bizarre to ask our young people to exhibit self-control and restraint when it comes to pre-marital sex? Certainly any responsible parent would strive to shield their teenage child from the possible psychological and physical consequences of sexual activity before a true commitment was made.

By holding Mr. Davies accountable for his actions, BYU is sending a clear signal about its commitment to principles and values; I hope that our country’s youth will take this lesson to heart and properly adjust their own lifestyles to reflect the ideals of honor and respect.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 12, 2011

Is Religion Under Assault?

Q. A Mormon leader recently made a speech in which he claims religious freedom in America is under assault from secularization and a growing gay rights movement.
In his speech, Elder Dallin H. Oaks warned of “an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the ‘rights’ of those offended by such speech” and believes that freedom of faith is under attack not by legal means, but cultural changes and the “ascendency of moral relativism”.

Do you believe Elder Oaks correct in saying that the faithful are “under assault”? And is secularization a real danger in a country where about 85% of the population regard themselves as religious?

There are undoubtedly some Americans who truly dislike religion and are engaged in activities that could be viewed as an “assault” against people of faith.  However, their numbers are so few and insignificant that they can hardly be considered a serious threat to basic religious freedom.  In the same vein, while a strong trend toward secularism could theoretically endanger this country’s religious foundations, this is simply not the case in reality.  The overwhelming majority of Americans either consider themselves religious, or respect religion and understand the importance of spirituality in both personal and communal life.
 
Frankly, I feel that the real threat to religion in this country today is apathy.  So many of our youth simply don’t know enough about their respective religious traditions to care about participating.  When asked about their beliefs, young people may indicate that they are religious, but that is usually where it ends.  Many lack any real knowledge regarding the historical, ethical, or moral teachings of their religious affiliations.  This lack of engagement is not only sad, but can be seriously detrimental to our country’s core foundations.
 
Of course there will be disagreements between religious and non-religious groups regarding various issues.  But as Americans, there is certainly more that we agree upon than we disagree about; there is a lot of common ground that we share.  For the wellbeing of the next generation and as a bulwark against indifference, it behooves us to stand strong and be vocal regarding the basic principles we all believe in.  We need to ensure that our dialogue on all public issues remains respectful, even when we hold very different viewpoints.  In a land that proudly embraces diversity and tolerance, there should be no room for denigration of any kind when we engage in discussion. 

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 5, 2011

God and the Grammy's

Q. Many successful sports, showbiz and businesspeople credit faith in God for their success. But a recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses winners at this year’s Grammy awards and their belief that it’s not just faith that’s driven them to the top of their profession – God actually chose them to be successful over other musicians. As Christina Aguilera’s mother says: “We thought there must be some divine intervention. Early on, I realized…God has plans for her.”

Do you think a strong religious faith can help people succeed in highly competitive fields such as sports and pop music? And is a multi-millionaire pop singer any more deserving of special attention from God than someone striving to find the cure for cancer, or for that matter anyone else?

Whether or not faith has fueled the success of superstar athletes and popular entertainers, I think that it is critical for people on the top of the entertainment and sports industries to have strong religious convictions so that they can keep their moral bearings intact.  The immense, daily pressures of entertaining and satisfying millions of fans can be crushing -- and the flood of money rushing in from multi-million dollar contracts can easily enable self-destructive behaviors.  It is no wonder that we see so many celebrities act ridiculously; it sometimes seems as if they are trying to out-do one another with their outrageous antics.
 
I don’t believe that these top performers are more deserving of God’s grace than anyone else.  I do feel that God chose them to attain fame and fortune -- and it now rests in their hands to determine if they will use these magnificent gifts of talent, wealth, and prominence to become a positive influence on our children and constructive members of society.  The sad reality is that to date, very few performers have actually mustered the courage to conduct themselves properly and act as shining examples for our youth.
 
In my opinion, a sincere religious faith would go a long way in helping these seemingly troubled individuals find proper footing and principled direction.  And more importantly, it would transform these personalities -- who are idolized by millions of young Americans -- and help them act in a way that they would worthy of both the adulation conferred on them by their fans and the celebrity and affluence bestowed upon them by God.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 26, 2011

Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?

Q. The pro-democracy revolts in Tunisia and Egypt have resonated around the world, with even the Wall Street Journal going so far as to headline one column "The Arab World's 1989?" Hosni Mubarak's resignation has resulted in the installation of a military government which is promising reform and free elections but is dogged by further protests, which are now spreading to more Middle Eastern countries.

But can democracy take root in an Islamic society? With the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in the protests, there seems to be a danger that even though the protesters may get what they want in terms of elections, they may end up trading secular rule for religious theocracy.

Is Islam, which in the West is inextricably linked with authoritarian rule such as that in Saudi Arabia, compatible with democracy? Is there anything American faith leaders should or could be doing to influence this change?

I firmly believe that any society or people can embrace democracy if they truly want to.  Islam may pose a challenge to establishing true freedom if the religion's tenets are intertwined with the institutions of government, but nevertheless, where there is a will there is a way.  A country like Turkey offers a hopeful example, for that nation has a Muslim majority but is nonetheless a secular state with a parliamentary democracy.
 
Over the past month, we have witnessed a monumental upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East; what began in Tunisia soon spread to Egypt, and in one country after another, people throughout the region are rising up against oppressive dictators to declare, “Enough is enough.”  As I write this column yet another aging tyrant, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, is on the verge of falling from power and being relegated to history’s trash heap of vile despots.  We can all hope that the recent demonstrations in Tehran signal that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will soon follow Gaddafi so that Iran also will be given a chance to join the community of responsible, peaceful nations.
 
All of these developments are positive since they provide a unique, once-in-a-generation opportunity for true freedom to take root in a part of the world which to date only has two democratic countries, Israel and Turkey.  But serious danger is lurking behind the joyous celebrations of these successful revolutions.  Islamic fanatics are waiting in the shadows for the right moment to pounce so that they can manipulate these vulnerable societies and introduce their abhorrent form of oppressive, theocratic government.  It would be tragic if ruthless groups like the Muslim Brotherhood came to power through democratic means only to subsequently dismantle the very institutions that allowed them to govern.  You can be sure that once the religious extremists took office, there would never be another election.  We saw this happen in Gaza with Hamas, and there is a real risk of this taking place in other Muslim countries as well.
 
At this time, well-meaning faith leaders of all religions should publicly encourage the courageous people of these newly liberated countries to abandon hatred and prejudice and embrace love and tolerance.  We should stress that the road to political liberty, economic prosperity, and judicial integrity is defined by the moral values of open, democratic countries like the United States and Israel.  And conscientious citizens around the globe who have felt inspired by these developments can all pray that these revolutions bring positive change to a region that has seen far too much suffering and strife.

Rabbi Simcha Backman 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 19, 2011

Virtual Religious Rites

A new app for the iPhone and iPad allows people to make confession with a virtual priest. According to its makers, the "Confession: A Roman Catholic App", which is on sale at Apple's iTunes store, offers "a personalized examination of conscience for each user".

Is this app a good idea and could it be a benefit to believers? Or does the idea of "confessing" to a piece of software devalue the sacrament and trivialize its importance? Are there any other similar religious rites that you'd like to see appear on phones and computers?

If leaders in the Catholic Church approved this app, then I guess it is a good idea for their religious objectives.  However, I personally feel that replacing a central, inter-personal ritual with a faceless, robotic computer program is not necessarily wise.
 
I strongly support using technological advances to aid spiritual causes and spread religious teaching, which is why I've been at the forefront of encouraging the development of Jewish websites, computer programs, and phone applications.  Longtime readers of this column are familiar with my involvement in the Chabad-sponsored website AskMoses.com, which offers visitors access to an extensive database of Jewish knowledge and the opportunity to have live, anonymous chats with religious scholars 24 hours a day, 6 days a week.  There is no question that the Internet, smart-phones, social networking, and other communications technologies have provided spiritual organizations with a plethora of powerful tools to aid those seeking divine inspiration.
 
At the same time, however, there is a hazardous side to all this progress.  When a person becomes heavily reliant on technology instead of humans for their spiritual (or any other) guidance, then detachment and remoteness can become a real threat to his or her mental wellbeing.  Humans are meant to interact with one another, and when this key component of life is missing, it can lead to negative results.
 
I therefore urge religious organizations to provide their followers with all sorts of technological aids -- including smart-phone apps -- that can enhance religious life and deliver new, exciting methods of spiritual improvement.  But great care is required to ensure that these programs simply support the religious experience rather than replace the personal, human dimension which is so critical to positive spiritual growth. 

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 12, 2011

Clergy Who Are Living Large

A recent Senate investigation into the spending habits of six high-profile televangelists has found no actual wrongdoing, but raises interesting issues about the lifestyles of such people.

The investigation found that the pastors of each church, and in many cases their spouses and families, live lavish lifestyles, travel in private jets and expensive cars, live in multi-million dollar homes and stay in hotels costing thousands of dollars a night when traveling the country.

All six investigated preach some form of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel." The Prosperity Gospel - which preaches the idea that God will reward the faithful with health and wealth - and its adherents are derided by many mainstream Christians for preaching what could be described as a message of greed masquerading as God’s word. But those who preach it claim that it works and that they’re living proof that God rewards the well-off.

What are your thoughts on the Prosperity Gospel? Is it a suitable subject for a church to base its religious mission on?

I do believe that God rewards the faithful.  A basic principle of Judaism is that God looks out for those who are committed to truth and morality.  Every day of the year, and specifically on the holy day of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), Jewish people pray and ask for the blessings of a good life both spiritually and physically.  We hope that our prayers will translate into health and prosperity in a real and tangible manner, but not always is that the case.

With this in mind, even if a house of worship does base its religious mission on the "Prosperity Gospel," I fail to understand how that justifies its clergy members indulging themselves with an ostentatious lifestyle.  Representatives of a religious group are given a sacred trust to protect and uphold their respective religion’s beliefs.  They are also expected to guarantee that the organization's resources are correctly appropriated by maximizing the positive effect on the community and assisting those in need.
 
Of course employees of a religious organization should be properly compensated for their time and commitment, and should be able to lead a respectable, comfortable lifestyle.  However, clergy members who "live large" by buying expensive cars, flying on private jets, and surrounding themselves with extravagant luxury are essentially violating their commitment to serve their communities.  In my opinion, these types of expenditures are a misappropriation of contribution dollars which should be directed toward improving communal life and aiding the less fortunate.
 
Although it is only a minute portion of the clergy that abuse their fiduciary duties, I truly hope that this government inquiry will shine a spotlight on the need for accountability and true commitment to the core ideals of our spiritual institutions.  Under the current laws, the actions of such pastors may not be technically criminal, but they are certainly shameful -- and such examples of corruption could cause great damage if they lead good people to become disillusioned during their quest for spirituality.

Rabbi Simcha Backman 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 5, 2011

Can Americans reconcile with Islam?

Q. A leading Islamic cleric has begun a tour of America urging American Muslims to help shape the religion’s relationship with the USA. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says Muslims should depoliticize their faith and that they should aim to make Islam be seen as an American religion, not an alien religion. Rauf, a Kuwait-born Muslim and an American citizen who has stated that he wants to improve relations between Islam and the West, is also the cleric behind the controversial Park51 Islamic center in New York, and has been criticized in some quarters for allegedly saying one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim audiences.

Rauf is also the author of “What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West,” a book which aims for a reconciliation between Muslims and Westerners by finding a common ground and by emphasizing what’s right with Islam, not just what’s wrong.

Do you think American Muslims can bridge the chasm that’s developed between Islam and the West since 9/11?  Or is Islamophobia so entrenched in American society that there will never be any kind of reconciliation? Could Imam Rauf’s tour be the thing America needs?

Yes, I definitely believe that American Muslims can — and should — help bridge the chasm that has developed between Islam and the West. The population of our country is made up of many different types of people who represent every culture, religion and ethnicity in the world. This serves as a powerful testament to the fact that Americans are at heart an accepting people who support integration and multiculturalism.
I disagree with the assertion that our nation is deeply Islamophobic — on the contrary, the foundation and strength of our republic lies in our ability to accept and assimilate people with different backgrounds and beliefs. However, this acceptance cannot come at the expense of our cherished values and vital commitment to liberty, equality and justice.

Our tolerance should not be automatically extended to those who are extremist or violent.
The unfortunate fact is that in most parts of the world today, Islam represents suppression of rights, religious fanaticism, and the demonization of the United States and Israel. The fear of these ideas spreading to our college campuses and population centers is real and present.

As I wrote previously in the column, I urge Feisal Abdul Rauf to unequivocally state his commitment to American and Western values.

Unfortunately, to date, he has failed to do so and has instead declined to rule out funding from Islamic extremists for his controversial center in New York. Furthermore, he has refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and has been quoted as saying that “the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”

Until Feisal Rauf comes clean and places himself squarely in the camp of American moral understanding, I fail to see how his tour will accomplish much. The idea of American Muslims launching a campaign to improve ties and deepen understanding between Islam and the West is certainly a good one. But Imam Rauf's efforts will likely ring hollow until he creates a genuine and sincere substructure to underpin his words.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 22, 2011

Is atheism on the attack?

Q. With the recent publication of books such as "god [sic] Is Not Great," "The God Delusion," "Letter To A Christian Nation" and "The End Of Faith" by so-called "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, atheism seems to have gone on the attack. Labeled "angry atheists" by believers, these authors and those who agree with them have been accused of not being able to get past their hate when dealing with religion. Believers also charge that many atheists regularly depict religious people as being evil, malicious and hypocritical, and that they use religion to either further their own agendas or enslave followers, among other charges.

Some atheists, on the other hand, believe that they're right to be angry and cite such things as the teaching of creationism in schools, the encroachment of religion into political life, the scandals involving high-profile Christian leaders and politicians, Islamic terrorism and the Catholic child-abuse scandal as valid reasons not only not to believe in God or Allah, but to be vehemently anti-religion as a whole.

Do you believe that atheism has become more "venomous," as one writer puts it? Are you worried that writers like Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins may "deconvert" religious people, or do you think the religious faith — whether on an individual or societal level — can survive such attacks? Do you know any atheists, and if so, could they really be described as "angry?" Do some of their points make sense?

All of the atheists I know are kind, thoughtful and decent people who have no problem with my beliefs and harbor no anger against religious people. They properly adhere to the important concept of "live and let live."

Regarding the so-called angry atheists, I don't think it's important for me or any other clergy member to analyze whether they're becoming more spiteful or examine whether they are increasing their attacks on believers.

Frankly, I don't believe it is a wise use of our limited time to expend too much energy trying to figure out exactly what it is about our way of life that perturbs this group, since they probably will remain unhappy regardless of what is done.

I do think, however, that it is important for religious organizations and houses of worship to seriously consider the various allegations lodged against their respective religions — whether they are made by atheists or anyone else — and to assess whether there is any merit to them. If they are baseless claims, then they can be ignored. But if there is truth to the contentions, then they should be addressed.

The unfortunate and painful reality is that many reports have surfaced in the media over the past few years regarding misconduct by clergy members and religious institutions. These stories are chilling and the victims are often helpless individuals or children — which makes the incidents even more heartbreaking. This type of activity is morally repugnant and totally unacceptable.

Religion should be kept pure and unadulterated. Of course there will always be some people who try to exploit the spiritual sensitivities of others in order to promote their own selfish or decadent agendas — but this should be a rare exception. Financial scandal, sexual misconduct, child abuse and acts of violence are despicable in any context and should have no place in religious circles. If and when immoral and destructive actions such as these are discovered, they must be immediately eradicated and those responsible should be properly disciplined.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 15, 2011

Does TV glorify Immorality?

Q. The Parents Television Council has released a report in which it claims prime-time TV shows sexualize the young girls portrayed in them. The report is based on a content analysis of the most popular television shows for viewers aged 12-17 in the 2009-2010 season and states, "when underage female characters appear on screen more sexual content is depicted; the teen girls show next to no negative response to being sexualized; and more sexual incidents occur outside of any form of a committed relationship... [as a result] real teens are led to believe their sole value comes from their sexuality."

Among other things, the report found that underage female characters are shown participating in a higher percentage of sexual depictions compared to adults; that 93% of the sexual incidents involving underage female characters occurred within a context that qualified as "unhealthy"; and 75% of shows that included sexualized underage female characters were shows that did not have an "S" descriptor to warn parents about the sexual content.

Do you think young girls are presented in a sexual manner on television and movies? Should such content be toned down, or should parents take responsibility for that their kids watch?

I think there is a dual responsibility when it comes to confronting this troubling trend. The prominent individuals and institutions that shape America's popular culture and social standards have an obligation to act in a responsible way. That means that our entertainment media must consider the consequences of consistently portraying young girls — and for that matter, any man, woman or child — in a less than respectful manner. At the same time, it is the distinct role of parents to keep a close eye on their children to ensure that that they don't come into contact with any kind of physical, psychological or spiritual danger.

The unfortunate fact is that today, practically all forms of media are fraught with immoral and psychologically unsafe material. Various prime-time TV shows depict explicit violence, shocking sexual innuendo and other forms of indecent behavior as the norm — and of course, feature films can push the envelope even further. Video games are often focused on carnage, aggression and bloodshed. Many kinds of pop music denigrate women and glorify destructive behavior ranging from drug use to sexual promiscuity. And the Internet may be the most perilous medium of all, since explicit pornographic material and various other forms of human depravity literally are "just one click away."

Recently, mental-health professionals began to recognize that an entire generation has been raised on a variety of negative brain stimuli that may adversely affect them for the duration of their lives. They are now realizing that a young man who is frequently exposed to violence and pornography as a teenager will very likely have difficulties developing a normal relationship with a woman when it comes time to marry, settle down and have children of his own. And common sense tells us that any young person who is constantly bombarded by extreme images of sex and violence gradually will be desensitized to reality.

In my view, we must adopt a dual approach to address this problem. First, we must summon our ability to come together as a nation and take strong action against those in the media who fail to care about the welfare of society and our children. Second — and this is equally important — every individual parent and teacher must exercise the necessary oversight and discipline to ensure that the next generation of Americans will grow up healthy in mind, body and spirit.

Rabbi Simcha Backman

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 8, 2011

Looking back, looking forward

Q. As you look back on 2010, what most affected you spiritually and challenged your belief system? And how will that impact you as you confront 2011?

The year 2010 was, to say the least, a very "interesting" one. The stress of challenging economic times like these can either bring out the best, or the worst, in people. I can thankfully say that I saw the positive elements of humankind shine forth in a powerful way. Much of what I experienced over the last 12 months enhanced my belief in the fundamentally good nature of people, and in the positive effect that religion can have on the individual. The result was that my own belief system, far from being shaken, was exponentially strengthened.

It is no secret that charities such as houses of worship and non-profit organizations are among the first institutions to be affected by an economic downturn. I have seen the levels of donations decrease steadily over the past two years, and this in turn has severely hampered our ability to reach out and assist others. At the same time, however, I've approached various charitable individuals who have been less affected by the recession and asked them to make up for the shortfall. Almost every single person I contacted gladly agreed to double, or even triple, his or her previous financial commitment. Even those who (through no fault of their own) were unable to meet their past commitments were very apologetic and adamant that they support our work in other ways.

These experiences left me with renewed confidence in humanity, particularly in its ability to rise to the occasion in tough times and help those who are less fortunate. Let us hope that this new year provides us with a new set of challenges — such as how to further assist our community with the abundant charitable donations that will result from our booming economy in 2011. And to that I say, Amen!

Rabbi Simcha Backman