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 25, 2010
Happy Holidays?
According to a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service, Americans are split almost 50-50 what to say this holiday season — "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." Some Christian leaders and conservative commentators have declared "Happy Holidays" as a secular war on Christmas and say the greeting secularizes what should be a religious celebration. Others say it's a non-exclusive phrase that is better suited to a multicultural and multi-religious society. Do you think this is true, or do you think either phrase is applicable in this day and age?
During this season of religious holidays, I feel that Christians should be greeted with “Merry Christmas” and Jews with “Happy Chanukah” — just as people of other faiths should be greeted appropriately during their religious holidays.
I strongly believe that the strength of our nation lies in our ability to unite as a people despite our cultural differences. America's tolerant embrace of diversity is a tremendous asset, and so long as we all recognize our many common bonds, we don't need to weaken our various cultural traditions.
This country was founded upon the core principle of religious freedom, and as such, every citizen should be encouraged to celebrate their holidays as they see fit. Being proud of our religious beliefs and expressing them — even in public — does not weaken the multicultural aspects of our society. On the contrary, it strengthens our combined identity as Americans who share the key values of humanity enshrined in our Constitution.
I would not go so far as to claim that there is a “secular war on Christmas” (or Chanukah, for that matter) being waged in this country.
Many of those who seek to do away with religious phrases in favor of more generic well-wishes may have good intentions, but are either misguided or unaware of the positive impact spirituality has on our society. After all, religious principles encourage people to be charitable, to help others, and to involve themselves in improving their communities. At this time when so many of our fellow citizens are in dire need of basic assistance, it is more important than ever to encourage religious pride and promote its values of charity, caring, and brotherly love.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 18, 2010
What Good is God?
In his new book, "What Good Is God?" evangelical author Philip Yancey asks, "Does belief in God really matter when life gets tough?" These and other questions and answers form the basis of his book and are the result of a near-fatal traffic accident Yancey experienced. Doctors told him he would not recover from his injuries and that he should say goodbye to his family and friends. Although Yancey survived, he continued to ask himself those same questions. For his book, he posed these questions to people who had undergone a similar experience of being "broken in body and in spirit," according to an interview with CNN, from former prostitutes in Thailand to members of an underground church in China.
What do you think? What good is God? Does belief in him really matter when life gets tough? Or does it take more than just God to make things right?
With all due respect to Mr. Yancey and the challenges he's faced during his life's journey, the provocative title of his book implies that he may have misunderstood one of the fine points of spirituality. It seems like he expected manna to fall from heaven — and when it did not, he understandably became disappointed.
If we perceive God to be like a rich uncle who continually distributes gifts to us, when we then encounter difficulties a natural response would be to ask, "What good is God?"
However, a more mature understanding of religion enables us to realize that spirituality is a way of life that guides us through good and, more importantly, difficult times.
We are expected to partner with God in making this world a more hospitable place. At times we inspire others who are in need, and when we are facing hardship ourselves, we turn to others for inspiration. At all times, we rely on God and have faith that he will guide us appropriately and lead us down the proper path. Truth be told, not always is that path paved in gold and lined with rose petals. Sometimes we trip and fall and, although this is far from easy, it is important for us to recognize, and even appreciate, the positive aspects of life's problems. It is during these difficult times that we draw from the well of divine inspiration and turn to him for the support necessary to persevere.
Ultimately, embracing a constructive attitude during the most demanding moments of life makes us stronger, defines our character, and provides guidance and leadership to the next generation. Combining a deep faith in God's wisdom with a proactive, upbeat approach can help each one of us to endure and overcome the setbacks that are an inevitable part of life. While I have not read Philip Yancey's book, the reviews I've seen indicate that he ultimately does find grace shining through the darkness and celebrates the abundant goodness of both God and humankind.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 2010
When do we develop spirituality?
According to an article published last week in the Los Angeles Times, a long-term study conducted by three UCLA researchers and recently published in a new book reveals that college can be the best time for students to discover themselves spiritually. The study, which surveyed 112,000 American college freshman (14,000 of whom were surveyed again in their junior year) highlights several factors that lead students to discover their spiritual side on a deeper level (such engaging in the liberal arts or performing volunteer work), while other factors seem to reduce that possibility (such as engaging in the math and science fields, partying, or being overexposed to television and video games).
What do you think? Do you agree with the study? Could college be the best time for young people to explore their spirituality on a much deeper level, as opposed to, say, when they were in high school? Do you believe this period in a young adult's life is particularly crucial to his/her spiritual development? Or is spiritual development a continuing process? Is there one point in life where spiritual development is greater than another?
I believe that spiritual growth should be a life-long, continuous process, but it is clear that one's youthful years are definitely a crucial time for development.
Human beings must always nurture and care for the divine soul within.
Judaism teaches that we must constantly study and grow as a person until our very last day. Each of us should ask ourselves daily: How can I make today better then yesterday, what can I do to enhance my life and the lives of my family and friends, and indeed, how can I advance the welfare of all humanity? Our lives should be defined by perpetual progress, and we should challenge ourselves to always reach for higher and loftier goals.
At the same time, it is clear that greater emphasis is placed on study during our youthful years. There are various reasons for this. First, young people seem to have an easier ability to grasp and retain certain basic information that will then serve as a foundation for all further learning in life. Also, as we get older, the responsibilities of family and work grow more numerous, and our ability to spend significant time in study is greatly hampered. It is, therefore, a given that the "keys of study" are held by young people, and as a result, college students will be most receptive to the message of religion and spirituality.
It is for this reason that almost all religious groups have a strong presence on college campuses across the world, offering the seeking student a place where he or she can further their quest for spiritual fulfillment. Young adults often make fundamental choices and gain key insights that shape their characters for life. That's why I strongly support various on-campus religious organizations to help guide young people in productive directions and encourage them to become ethical, positive members of their religious communities later in life.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 4, 2010
Dealing with the holiday hustle
The busiest weeks of the year are approaching, as people hustle and bustle to get ready for the holiday season. Then there is Lobsang Tenzin Negi, a former Buddhist monk who presides over a Buddhist monastery in Atlanta. He teaches a form of meditation that he says enhances certain skills like compassion, attention, love. It is called compassion meditation, a type of meditation that is at the heart of contemplative practice.
As we approach the holiday season, what tips can you offer such that we become more contemplative so that we don't run the risk of getting caught up in the rush? What personal methods of contemplative meditation, if any, do you use in your own life?
The act of meditation — "hisbonenut," in Hebrew — plays a central role in the mystical teachings of Judaism. Ancient Kabbalistic texts call for daily meditation to facilitate proper focus on the important elements of life. We are instructed to recognize every morning that God has given us life in order to enhance life — ours and that of others.
The pilgrims who initiated this season of Thanksgiving gave humble gratitude to the almighty for all he had given them, and recommitted themselves to the selflessness and altruism that sustained them as a community. Without sounding too harsh, it seems that we Americans have recently transformed these days into frenzied food-fests and shopping sprees that have strayed far from their original intent.
My point is not to dampen the fun of the season — heck, I'm having a grand old time as well. What I would like to stress is that while we're enjoying ourselves by sharing great food and presents with family and friends, we also need to take a moment to remind ourselves that there are many people out there who are, sadly, not as fortunate as we are.
I sincerely hope that during this busy season, each one of us will pause for a moment to stop the merriment — if even for a very short time — and meditate on our responsibility to each another. Take the time to visit a sick child in the hospital and bring him or her a toy and some holiday cheer. Spend a few hours at an orphanage or stop by a home for the aged and offer some warmth and comfort to those unfortunate souls who don't have family to look out for them.
By doing so, you will really enhance the lives of these people — and equally important, you'll make own your life more meaningful by achieving the great spiritual objective of bringing happiness those who otherwise would not experience it.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 27, 2010
Can people be possessed?
A group of Catholic bishops gathered in Baltimore last week to examine what scripture and canon law have to say about exorcism. According to CNN's Belief Blog, bishops will look at what the Bible says, "paying careful attention to how Jesus responded to evil spirits or demons in the New Testament," and clarify the rules to provide "a pastoral response with people who may or may not be having demonic activity," said Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Illinois, adding that priests and bishops need to use a great deal of pastoral discernment when dealing with someone requesting exorcism. "Is it a mental disease that can be diagnosed, or is it demonic activity, or even is the event both?" Paprocki asked.
What do you think? Does possession have a basis in reality? Do you think people can really be possessed, or is it all just hogwash, made up by those not taking their medication? What are your faith's formal teachings on the subject of exorcism and possession? And have you ever been witness to an exorcism or participated in one?
The Bible contains several stories of people who were challenged or possessed by external “forces.” The book of Genesis relates how Jacob wrestled all night with a “mysterious man” who tried but failed to “overcome” him; although victorious in the struggle, Jacob was negatively affected and limped for the rest of his life. The Talmud, which was compiled in the second century AD, also describes some rather chilling occurrences of individuals who were possessed by strange powers and underwent attempts at healing.
All of this leads me to believe that there are indeed “powers” out there, both good and bad, that we don’t fully comprehend. What these forces really are - and whether and how they can “seize” a person - is one of the many mysteries of the complex world we live in.
Of greater concern to me is how so many people get carried away with the sensationalism of all this, and in the process lose touch with reality. Frankly, I feel it is counterproductive to spend too much time worrying or thinking about demonic possession. Getting caught up in the extremes of the unknown (and ultimately unknowable) behooves nobody. Instead, we should focus on what facts we do know, and what steps we can take to positively affect the world around us.
I would also caution religious leaders who are approached by the family of someone who seems “possessed,” and urge them to tread very carefully.
As a rabbi, I have been contacted several times about such situations, and I feel that in reality these people are invariably experiencing severe mental problems and should be immediately referred to a trained psychiatrist. A responsible clergyman would not try to heal a broken leg with a religious ritual; similarly, he should not try to cure a severe psychological issue but instead defer to those who are clinically trained to deal with such matters. The role of the clergy in these situations is to point those seeking help toward medical professionals who can truly assist them, and to provide spiritual guidance and assistance to help them get through difficult times.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 20, 2010
Should kids break records?
The news is filled with stories of young people performing record-breaking feats of athleticism, from Zac Sunderland and Jessica Watson, two teens who recently sailed solo around the world, to Jordan Romero, 13, who this year became the youngest person ever to summit Mount Everest. Now a boy from Nepal, 9-year-old Tseten Dorje, will attempt to break that record by climbing the world's highest peak. Some argue that these adventures should only be reserved for adults; that kids are in no physical condition to undertake such feats, feats that could take a severe toll on their young bodies (and are usually backed up by ambitious parents).
What do you think? Does inherently dangerous record-setting have an age limit? Or can these feats encourage kids to reach for their dreams? What would you say to parents who wish to send their kids on an adventure that requires the skills and stamina of someone twice their age?
In my opinion, this entire spectacle can be summed up in one sentence: adults acting like children, and children acting like adults.
The fact is that children aren't fully capable of understanding the ramifications and difficulties involved in trying to break athletic records and achieve extreme goals. It is almost always adults who convince innocent kids to undertake these dangerous challenges. I would, therefore, tell the parents of these youngsters to act their age, and recognize that their role should be that of protector and caregiver rather than daredevil trainer.
Inspiring a young person to believe in their own potential and to reach for the stars as they mature is one thing, but I fail to see how a loving, sensible parent would unnecessarily put their child in harm's way.
Encouraging a child to accomplish a world record — and in the process put their life in danger — is highly irresponsible. These extraordinary athletic feats test the extremes of human endurance, pushing against the limits of both mental skill and physical ability. I say let a child be a child, and when he reaches adulthood, let him make the decision of whether or not he wants to achieve a world record for himself.
I believe that much of this phenomenon of forcing children into impossible physical challenge is less about children "reaching for dreams" and more about the narcissistic aspirations of their parents. Several months ago, the world was riveted by the story of Abby Sunderland, a 16-year-old California girl who almost died while trying to achieve a world record in sailing. It turns out that it was her parents who pushed her to try this feat. This story, and several others like it, brought this outrageous trend of irresponsible parenting into the headlines.
When talking to parents about their obligations to their children, I stress the importance of recognizing that we don't own our children. God loans us these precious souls with the explicit understanding that we will cherish, protect, nurture and raise them properly until they reach adulthood and are able to stand on their own. Doing anything to the contrary is not only a breach of parental responsibility but also an affront to God, who has entrusted us with the most sacred task of child-rearing.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 13, 2010
A Rabbi and His Fantasy Religion
David Hartman, a Jerusalem-based rabbi and philosopher, recently sat down for an interview with CNN's Izzy Lemberg. In the interview, Hartman wonders whether religion is really helpful to the human condition. "There's a whole bunch of myths that religions use to sort of make reality not as overwhelming and as significant, "he said." Hartman argues that life is full of uncertainties, so "religion is in some way the battle against contingency, vulnerability, precariousness … you anchor your life in a god who in some way provides for you a picture, an opportunity to leave reality …"
Hartman believes argues that religion is a trip into "fantasy," a trip into "another world." However, when people encounter adversity, that fantasy quickly dissolves. Instead, he says, religion should offer a way for people to make sense of life's uncertainties.
What do you think of Hartman's comments? What's the real role, do you believe, religion should play in the human condition? And if religion is a trip into fantasy, as Hartman says, how can people avoid falling into this trap?
I strongly disagree with Rabbi Hartman's view, since I do not believe that religion is a trip into fantasy in any way, shape or form. I’m not sure what religious tradition Rabbi Hartman may be referring to, but it most definitely is not Judaism. Jewish texts emphatically stress that all religious ritual must be well grounded and lead to tangible, positive results for the betterment of mankind and the world that we live in. The Jewish books I study are replete with directly relevant lessons on how to properly manage various challenges and deal with life’s uncertainties.
Jewish teachings contain timeless wisdom that can and should be employed to elevate the real-world human condition. In fact, Judaism often stresses that those who employ spirituality as a vehicle to remove themselves from reality are in essence denying themselves the true light of divinity. This approach to religion is not only wrong, but is counter-productive and can lead to dangerous results.
Our environment is imperfect and flawed, and there is too much pain and suffering all around. God gives us the opportunity to partner with him and help heal those wounds. He expects us to do good deeds, be charitable, and assist those who need support — thus making us His active partners in the continuous process of creation. Those who are able to help others should look at it with pride, since it is a great privilege and honor to be able to partner with God in making this world a better and more hospitable environment.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 6, 2010
Pray alone, or in a group?
A study published in the September issue of the Southern Medical Journal, titled “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Mozambique” involved examining two groups of people --- 14 with impaired hearing and 11 with impaired vision --- before and after members of a local church prayed for their healing. The subjects reported a small but statistically significant improvement in hearing and vision following the prayers. Critics of the study say it did not account for psychosomatic factors (such as the placebo effect), the pre-existing beliefs of the patients, and the small number of patients studied.
What do you think? Is there strength in numbers? Do you believe group prayer works better than praying alone. Or does it all get to God either way, regardless of the numbers?
Prayers always reach God under all circumstances, and are heard regardless of whether one prays in solitude or with others. Nevertheless, Judaism does teach us that when one prays with others, there is an added strength to the prayer; in fact, Jewish law states that there are some prayers that can only be said with a quorum of ten. The reasoning behind this is that spirituality is meant to increase our interaction with others, thus making the community a central part of our lives. Being a part of a community is essential to our physical and spiritual well-being, and enables us to better cope with life's many challenges. When faced with a crisis, it is always so much easier to manage when you have others holding your hand and sharing their experiences from similar situations.
As this study shows, prayer is a very powerful medium for healing. Religious texts from many faiths have long presented the idea that prayers, in addition to invoking the mercy of God, also help the person praying and put him or her in a positive mood that is very conducive to healing. Praying to God and believing in His ability to heal gives a person the strength necessary to endure medical treatment and the hope required to persevere even under the most strenuous circumstances.
I would encourage anyone who finds themselves in a medical predicament — even more so if it is a dire one — to dust off that prayer book or Book of Psalms, take a few moments to meditate, and tap into that all-merciful, all-powerful healing spirit of the divine. Better yet, pick up the phone and call your rabbi, priest, minister or imam and ask him or her to join you. You will be surprised how much it will change your attitude for the better and help you transform despair into hope.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 30, 2010
Bigotry and Suicide
A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute asked 1,017 Americans their view on religion and homosexuality, between Oct. 14 and 17, in the wake of a highly publicized rash of suicides by gay people. The poll revealed that most Americans believe churches contribute to gay suicides. Churches, the poll said, communicate "a lot" of negative perceptions of gay and lesbian people. Do you agree with the poll's conclusions? And what grade would you give your church in its handling of the "issue of homosexuality"? Could your church or the church overall be doing a better job at handling the "issue of homosexuality"?
Polling is a tricky science in which results are often dependent upon how a question is asked and what population is being surveyed. Therefore, I would not jump to any quick conclusions based on this or any other poll.
Nevertheless, if there is a perception out there that houses of worship are influencing people negatively toward homosexuals, then that must be corrected, especially if there is a chance that this harmful atmosphere might lead to violence toward, or the suicide of, a gay individual. It is incumbent upon all religious organizations to make it perfectly clear that they do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Period!
This does not mean that a house of worship has to compromise its theological views or moral values. It is accepted in most religious circles that a homosexual way of life is not compatible with the Bible and its teachings — yet this very same Bible commands each of us to love our neighbors as ourselves. There are no asterisks after that passage, or footnotes to the verse stating any exceptions; you can disagree with a person's lifestyle, but you may never demonize or denigrate him or her.
Fundamental respect of another human being — who according to scripture is created in the very image of God — is mandatory regardless of circumstances.
Houses of worship must be very careful never to propagate animosity, and should always strive to remain open and welcoming of all people. Bigotry or prejudice of any kind is contrary to biblical teachings, and there should be no room for it in a spiritual environment. The recently publicized news reports of bullying and suicides in the gay community are very distressing to all people of good conscience, and clergy from all faiths should step forward to denounce acts of violence and hatred.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 23, 2010
Miracles For Money?
They come to be healed. They are people afflicted with everything from paralysis, cancer to blindness. Some travel great distances for a promise to be healed instantly in the name of Jesus Christ. ABC's "Nightline" this week aired a report titled "Turning to Revivals for Healing." In the story, reporter Bill Weir examines the validity of the revivals and interviews evangelist Nathan Morris and revival presider Pastor John Kilpatrick at a revival event held recently in Mobile, Ala. Do miracles really take place at these healing revivals? Are people really cured? Or are they simply "mirages," as the report states, organized it seems with only one purpose — taking people's money?
"People brought all their sick to him and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed."
I can understand why many may be skeptical about miracle cures taking place at revival events; nonetheless, I cannot comment on specific healing incidents as I simply don't know enough about them to make an educated decision.
I can, however, share my understanding of healing and miracles. Judaism teaches that we are forbidden to rely on miracles; when a person falls ill, they should never disregard doctors or medicine and simply say, "I will rely on God to heal me." It is incumbent upon us to utilize every medical treatment available. God, in essence, is found in medicine, since he infuses doctors with the ability to heal and medical scientists with the wisdom to innovate. He provides man with wondrous discoveries, and expects us to use them when necessary.
At the same time, we need to pair conventional healing with its spiritual dimension. Jewish texts tell us that even if we are receiving the finest medical care in the best hospital, we still need to turn to God and ask that he provide his guidance and infuse us with a healing spirit.
Ultimately, God is the one who gives the gifts of health and life, and doctors are but an extension of his grace.
And finally, once one has harnessed the full power of medicine and turned to God in prayer requesting his assistance, we should employ the essential principal of hope and belief that miracles can and do happen. Even if a person is facing a dire situation where all chances of recovery seem bleak, we must never give up hope or stop believing that the salvation of the Lord can come at any time and in any place.
There are three essential elements to the healing process: medicine, prayer and hope. In times of sickness, all three should be employed in order to achieve a wholesome healing experience.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 16, 2010
What about Cyber-Bullying?
Cyber bullying has become more and more commonplace in schools, seemingly replacing or becoming part of common playground bullying. This issue has been brought into the forefront on the heels of the suicide of 18-year-old Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi, who committed suicide after his roommate allegedly broadcast a Web video of him having a same-sex sexual encounter. Why do kids bully, do you think? What can parents and school officials do to put an end to it?
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why so many children do horrible things to each other, but my guess is that it's a combination of unrestrained human nature and exposure to negative influences.
Most children feel very strong emotions, and often act on impulse without considering any long-term consequences — which is a potentially volatile mixture. Kids have been taunting each other — and worse — since day one: the Bible relates that Cain and Abel, the two first children to have walked this earth, were at each other's throats — literally — even when there was precious little to fight over. They had the entire world to themselves, yet they turned to bullying and, ultimately, to fratricide.
This is a dark side of human nature that we must be cognizant of and try to reduce as part of our continuous quest toward the improvement of humanity.
And then there is the fact that young, impressionable minds often follow the patterns set by others. Adults should remember that children always learn by example and experience rather than by inherently grasping high principles. We can preach to a child for hours on end about the virtues of living a morally correct life, but all it takes is one glimpse of corruption to push that child toward bad behavior. Whether it's watching an adult behaving badly at home or feeling pressure from a peer group at school, children often absorb and mimic the influences they see around them.
I feel that a large part of the solution to this bullying problem lies in one simple word: communication. Parents should be proactive in their approach to child-rearing. They need to be continuously talking with their children about everything in their lives — even if it may seem "unimportant" — so that there is always an open line of communication.
In the event that a problem arises (and they always do), it then becomes so much easier to resolve it by engaging in a frank, honest discussion.
From the articles I read, it seems that most professionals are advising parents on ways to protect their children from cyber bullying. Curiously, I found very little mention of monitoring to ensure that your child is not the bully. Parents have a moral responsibility to watch over their children, ensure proper behavior, and discipline their kids when necessary to ensure a safe environment for everyone. Especially in the online world, where would-be bullies can pick on their victims from a distance — and sometimes hide behind a cloak of anonymity — we must be vigilant to ensure that new technology isn't used to perpetrate acts of cruelty.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9, 2010
Scoring on the Religion Quiz
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public life this week published a short, 15-question religion quiz. The quiz is a shorter version of the "3,412 sampled adults who were asked these and other questions in the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey." The poll was conducted on landlines and cell phones, in English and Spanish, from May 19 to June 6, 2010.
This week, the In Theory writers were asked to take the quiz, the results of which would not be known to the group until publication. The writers were also asked: Was it fair? Did it ask a broad set of questions? What advantages or disadvantages do you think a quiz like this will have on readers who did poorly? Who did well?
And the score is in!
I answered 14 of 15 questions on the quiz correctly, for a score of 93%.
According to the statistics, I scored 41 points above the overall population — although I was only 28 points ahead of my Jewish brethren. One of the more fascinating results was that my (relatively high) score was 41 points ahead of those who worshipped weekly, 45 points above those who worshipped monthly, and — get this — only 44 points over those who never worshipped at all. This statistic basically tells me that worship services may provide people with a religious experience, but they do not seem to provide much educational value.
In regards to gender, there is a four-point differential between men and women, which makes my score 41 points over the average man and 45 over the typical woman — nothing significant there.
Finally, when it comes to comparing the results based on educational level, it seems that the more educated a person is, the higher they scored on the test. What a revelation! Those who had post-graduate degrees scored on average 68 points, putting me a mere 25 points ahead of them. College graduates came in at 61 points; those with some college education at 54 points; and the lowest showing of all came from those with a high-school education or less, checking in at 40 points.
Regarding the actual fairness of the quiz, I felt that it was okay, though not particularly broad. I can definitely see why people whose knowledge is limited would not do very well on a test of this sort. In addition, people who know something about their own faith but have never been exposed to other spiritual traditions — either through comparative religion studies or diverse life experience — would find this quiz very challenging.
What does all this tell me? First, that rabbis (and I assume other clergy members) probably do fairly well on religious quizzes, since our occupation is focused on that subject. I would imagine that the same would be true with other specialized professions, so that a cardiologist would ace a test on the cardiovascular system. But more importantly, this quiz demonstrates that education is central to a wholesome religious life. The more one studies, the more likely he or she is to be religiously knowledgeable — and knowledge is the key to personal and spiritual growth.
I also think that our pluralistic, diverse society can only benefit from encouraging citizens to gain a general understanding of different faiths, since the result will be greater tolerance and respect for people of all backgrounds and beliefs.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 25, 2010
Balancing Science and Religion
According to physicist Stephen Hawking, theology is unnecessary when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe. "God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator," Hawking said on "Larry King Live." He goes on to say: "Science can explain the universe, and that we don't need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing, or why the laws of nature are what they are." Does Hawking's statement anger you? How do you, as a person of faith, balance theology and science when speaking about the origins of existence? Are religious responsible for knowing both sides of the creation equation?
I am not angered by Stephen Hawking’s statement, but I am a bit perplexed. His assertion that “the scientific account is complete [and] theology is unnecessary” is, in my opinion, extreme. Hawking may be the greatest physicist alive today, but I feel that it's wrong to make such a sweeping declaration.
I cannot claim to be a great scientist, nor can I claim to be a great theologian, but the fact is that many scientific truths of yesterday are being discarded today — and we can be fairly certain that the accepted science of today will be proven incorrect tomorrow. This is the very nature of the human — and by definition, imperfect — quest for scientific discovery.
As a person of faith, the way I reconcile the worlds of religion and science is by following the well-regarded path of the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses Maimonides. He stated that “there can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy.” This approach encourages us to discover divinity within the realms of nature and science.
It is all too easy and simplistic for a theologian to ignore science and blindly advocate belief; it is equally closed-minded for a scientist to ignore spirituality and claim as definitive the discoveries of man. There is no need for religion and science to automatically clash, and I feel that we're well advised to avoid any reflexive antagonism as we explore the profound mysteries of life and creation. In our efforts to gain true understanding, we often achieve the best results by objectively analyzing both sides of the equation, and seeking conclusions that are agreeable to both science and religion.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 18, 2010
Burning the Koran
A pastor whose plan to hold a Koran burning at his church Saturday has drawn the ire of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world. Up until he decided to cancel the event late last week, the Rev. Terry Jones had rejected the pleas of military officials and even the president himself who said the event would "serve as a major recruiting tool for Al Qaeda." If Jones has such a dislike of the Islamic faith, what alternatives could he have considered to get his message across that don't involve burning/desecrating a holy book?
The Rev. Terry Jones has gotten a lot of media attention this week about his threat to burn the Koran on Sept. 11. In the end, he backed off and didn't do it. In several other cases, Korans were burned or had pages torn out. What is the message in all of this? Was Jones a publicity seeker, or did he really have an important message? If the latter, was his method of conveying that message appropriate?
There are many ways to voice a difference of opinion without being offensive, hateful or insulting. The most apparent, non-provocative way of conveying a message of disagreement is to use respectful words that express a well-reasoned argument. Obviously, the Rev. Terry Jones does not intend to live peacefully with his Muslim neighbors or to listen to their views. This bigoted man has only one thing in mind: sensationalism. And thanks to the media, which seems to always gravitate toward the most outlandish and shocking stories, news of this stunt shot straight to the top of all the news bulletins. How sad.
Burning the Koran is simply wrong! I can't imagine that there are religious teachings that encourage the desecration of another religion's sacred texts. That a member of the clergy would even contemplate such an action is reprehensible. Frankly, any act of book-burning is very troubling — but to attempt to burn the holy book of a major religion is simply beyond the pale.
America is a country that protects and cherishes the rights of the individual to free speech. At the same time, however, our society must be very forthright with what is acceptable, and what is not, in the realm of free expression. Those who violate society's norms — although they may be protected by the Constitution — should be marginalized, especially if it is a leader who claims to represent spirituality.
In 1821, the German Jewish writer Heinrich Heine wrote about the burning of the Koran during the Spanish Inquisition, and said: "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." Heine's prediction tragically came true one century later when his books were among the thousands of volumes torched by the Nazis in Berlin's Opernplatz. That event was part of the prelude to the Holocaust and the incineration of millions of Jews across Europe.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 11, 2010
Is Medicine and Religion Compatible?
A study in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that doctors, independent of specialty, who described themselves as non-religious, were “more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life. …” The study concluded that “greater acknowledgement of doctors’ values “should be advocated when it comes to clinical decision-making.” What do you think? Do you agree with the findings of this study? Are a doctor’s religious values, or lack thereof, critical components of the practice of medicine?
I feel strongly that consideration of a doctor's religious and ethical values — or lack thereof — should be a key factor when choosing a physician. While the particular religious affiliation of a doctor is not really important, in my view it's essential that providers of medical care have a reverence for God or a higher authority, and a recognition that not everything is in the hands of humankind.
I believe that this guideline benefits not only the religious, but even those who don’t identify themselves as such. A doctor is in a unique position whereby he literally has control over the lives of other human beings. This immense “power” can sometimes be misconstrued, and has often led to extreme arrogance and a pompous demeanor. Such an attitude not only creates insensitivity toward a patient's emotional needs, but also undermine the ability of a doctor to develop and learn more about his profession. When a doctor’s approach to healing is one of caring and humility tempered by the recognition that he does not know it all, then there is continuous learning and positive growth.
Even with our increasingly sophisticated technology and many advances in medical knowledge, we must all realize that ultimate authority over life and death is in the hands of God alone. A physician is given the right to heal — not to take life. Judaism teaches us that we are under no obligation to employ heroic steps to keep a critically ill person alive, and that we should let each person transition with dignity and a minimal amount of pain and suffering; at the same time, we are prohibited from doing anything which would hasten death. Every single moment of life holds infinite value and must be respected. Let the Almighty who gave life be the one to take it back to his loving embrace.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 4, 2010
Is America Islamophobic
Last week's Time magazine cover story by Bobby Ghosh reported that "hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated," with protests against a mosque in lower Manhattan and the building of other mosques elsewhere not considered isolated incidents but part of a nationwide feeling of Islamophobia. A poll by Time/Abt SRBI found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Is America Islamophobic? What does the anti-mosque uproar tell us about how the U.S. regards Muslims? Have the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 — and the other attempts since — permanently excluded Muslims from full assimilation into American life?
I believe that no religious or ethnic group should be excluded from American life. The right of full inclusion in our society — including the freedom of worship —- is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and must be safeguarded by all who value our country's core ideals. I stand strongly against Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hate speech, or demagoguery of any kind.
There is no doubt that our Constitution protects the right of any religious organization to construct a house of worship on privately owned property. So if a Muslim group decides to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero, there really is nothing that can be done to stop them. The question is whether this plan is appropriately sensitive to the memory of the thousands of Sept. 11 dead and their families.
There are many fair-minded New Yorkers and a majority of citizens across the nation who feel that it is not.
The way I see it, there are various sects within Islam. The Wahhabis are extremists: they degrade women, encourage violence and abhor freedom.
And then there are moderate teachings of Islam to which it seems most American Muslims adhere. I feel that if Feisal Abdul Rauf — the imam of this congregation — would unequivocally place himself and his flock in the latter group, opposition to this new mosque would be significantly reduced. The problem is that he has declined to rule out funding from Islamic extremists, and at a debate earlier this summer refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and is on record making the shocking statement, "The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."
All of this is reason for concern. While Rauf has a right to build a house of worship wherever he pleases, others certainly have a right to protest the creation of a center that they see as insensitive — and that they fear could promote hatred and prejudice. To be sure, some voices in the current debate have oversimplified or obscured the facts due to political agendas or misinformation. However, I feel that this uproar is not about anti-Islamic sentiment or an attempt to exclude Muslims from American life. Rather, it is about people questioning the wisdom of this Muslim center's location near the site of a tragedy and trying to prevent the worst-case scenario that would introduce radical elements in their midst.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 2010
Do Humor and Religion Mix?
A recent op-ed piece published in The New York Times states that American clergy are burning out as they try to meet their congregation’s demands for more light-hearted messages. Is it possible for the clergy to tailor their sermons to a congregations hungry for a comforting, entertaining message or is there no room to do so without sacrificing the tenets of their faith? Do you find such challenges as you preach to your flock every Sunday?
As a rabbi, I certainly believe that it's possible to be true to my faith and deliver a sermon that includes a comforting, even entertaining, message. However, it’s far from easy to balance these two concepts without compromising one or the other — or even worse, delivering on neither idea. So one must take care when crafting this kind of sermon.
Particularly in challenging times, we naturally yearn to hear an upbeat message that offers hope for a better tomorrow. Whether we're facing a very personal crisis like an illness in the family, or coping with a broader, national issue like an economic downturn, our religious faith offers a welcome measure of reassurance. Beyond providing this basic sense of comfort and inspiration, our houses of worship also offer a sense of fellowship. And when gathered with others, most of us appreciate the chance to enjoy a lighthearted moment and share a laugh.
In good times and bad, the purpose of religion is to elevate people to a higher spiritual awareness. In order to accomplish this, it is sometimes necessary to remove people from their familiar, materialistic comfort zone and help them understand the plight of others. This is rarely a simple task, but many times the process can be made easier if delivered with a dose of humor. I therefore feel it is perfectly acceptable to deliver a sermon with light-hearted elements — so long as they do not compromise the necessary meaningful points.
I feel that it is incumbent upon the clergy to honor the core principles of their spiritual traditions while also speaking to the public in a way that resonates in the contemporary era. We need to recognize that we live in a “feel good” world in which our societies — and especially the younger members — gravitate toward self-gratification. This is a fact of life that we can either fight from the outside or come to terms with and try to change from within. I choose the latter approach, since it provides us with the ability to improve these negative attitudes and allows us to get our message to the masses.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 21, 2010
Is religion bad for women?
British theologian Daphne Hampson, author of "Theology and Feminism," argues that "religions have proved the ultimate weapon in keeping woman in her place." How would you answer the question "Is religion bad for women?"
In my view, a critique of religion claiming that all faiths are fundamentally oppressive to women is simply not accurate. Jewish texts actually teach that the feminine soul emanates from a higher spiritual source than a man's, and therefore their connection to God is innate and much stronger. Consequently, it is incumbent upon us to admire, value and cherish women — especially those in our lives — and to seek and rely on their wise guidance.
Jewish culture reveres women and places them on a pedestal since their role as nurturers in the child-rearing home is so much more important than a man's responsibility of being a breadwinner. Although today these roles are less defined, nevertheless the majority of women still shoulder most of the child-care responsibilities, thus ensuring that we will have a healthy and productive generation to come.
It is true that women in many parts of the world face stiff discrimination and mistreatment that is often rationalized by religious beliefs. Sadly, there are many countries and cultures that denigrate women and place them in a second-class status. Some societies don't allow women to vote, drive a car or walk in public without a male escort; strict rules often force them to wear restrictive clothing. The worst part of all this, however, is that these regulations form an attitude among men that women are inferior, which often leads to violent bodily harm being perpetrated against innocent women.
In the past few weeks, the press has published stories and pictures of women who have been terribly scarred — both physically and emotionally — as a result of this basic lack of respect. I find this terribly upsetting, and truly hope and pray that the belittlement and abuse of women will be seen for what it is: an abomination of religious values and an affront to spiritual truths. Although we live in a diverse world with many cultural traditions, we must never accept any excuses for the violation of human dignity.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 7, 2010
Reading into a Living Library
Ronni Abergel, a Danish antiviolence campaigner, has begun what is being called the Living Library. Already in 12 countries, patrons "borrow" people who represent stereotypes that often are the target of prejudice or hatred. Examples of these would be a Muslim, an immigrant, a transgender individual, a witch or an atheist, as was the case in an east London library. What do you think about the Living Library? Do you think it would work in the United States and, to some extent, our local communities? And would you participate?
I think the the Living Library is a wonderful concept, and I take my hat off to Abergel for this innovative, brilliant and powerful idea. I can certainly see this program working here in our country — and if asked, I would participate.
Tolerance studies are generally undertaken in an academic setting, using textbooks and classroom discussions. Many of us try to purge bigotry and prejudice from our midst by reading up about a particular culture and trying to better understand its lifestyle and challenges. However, there is only so much one can learn from a book. True appreciation and eradication of racism only comes from real, human interaction.
Often, bias comes as a result of dehumanizing a person or a group of people. When someone is made into an alien boogeyman from whom we must protect ourselves, we feel fear. And once we are afraid, it becomes much harder to think rationally — and much easier to hate.
Actually meeting someone from a group that we may harbor ill feelings toward provides a much better understanding of why racism of any kind is abhorrent. Seeing an actual breathing, walking, talking and smiling person can erase false assumptions and shatter the stereotypes that come from broad generalizations. A real-life encounter with another person enables us to find common ground, which in turn makes it so much easier to appreciate that person as an individual. This is a powerful tool for eliminating intolerance.
While American society may be more tolerant than many others, we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be enlightened.
The Living Library offers a creative approach to solving a very old and persistent problem. I hope it comes here to the United States to further cleanse our nation from the negative elements of bigotry.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 31, 2010
Labeling Israeli Policy Apartheid
Anglican Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu has announced that, after his 79th birthday in October, he is to resign from nearly all of his official commitments and withdraw from public life, the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper reported last week. He wishes to spend more time in reflection and prayer. Tutu is best remembered for his fight against apartheid and leadership of the Anglican Church in South Africa. If you had a chance to sit down with the archbishop, what would you say to him? What issues would you discuss?
First, I would sincerely congratulate Archbishop Tutu on his many accomplishments — especially the crucial role he played in dismantling apartheid in South Africa. I would say that he is a remarkable and inspirational figure for people around the globe. His historic struggle for freedom, equality and liberty is admirable and should be emulated by us all.
Since I am a proud supporter of Israel, I would also raise an issue that is very close to my heart: namely, the archbishop's troubling stance on the Jewish state and the various erroneous statements he's made over the years. While acknowledging the significant role Jews played in the anti-apartheid struggle, Tutu nevertheless was a prominent supporter of the bigoted "Zionism equals racism" idea. He even went so far as to label Israel's necessary protective measures on its borders as a form of apartheid.
The fallacy in this claim is obvious, since Israeli Arabs have more freedoms and civil liberties than any Arab throughout the Middle East.
They enjoy equal rights and identical citizenship as Israeli Jews. They participate fully in every facet of society, including exercising their right to vote; there are currently 14 Arab members in Israel's Parliament, the Knesset. So I would respectfully ask Tutu whether this really sounds like apartheid.
I would also want to discuss the fact that when he visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem in 1989, Archbishop Tutu implored Jews to forgive the Nazi beasts who murdered 6 million of our people. In my opinion, making that statement in that location was a gratuitous insult to Jews and all the other victims of the Nazis. How — I would inquire of Tutu — do I have a right to forgive those who gassed and cremated my father's Hungarian family in the ovens of Auschwitz? How can I forgive those who brutally machine-gunned to death my mother's Polish family in the woods on the outskirts of their shtetl? Archbishop Tutu's remarks may have been well-intentioned, but they caused pain for many people who still feel the tragic consequences of the Holocaust.
I believe that history should never be whitewashed. Archbishop Tutu is heading toward a well-deserved, golden retirement, and there are certainly many lessons we can learn from him. However, we should also recognize his mistakes — and I would hope that this period of reflection will also prompt Tutu to acknowledge those times when he exercised poor judgment. My prayer is that he will rectify these mistakes sooner rather than later. In so doing, he can add an additional positive gesture to his many accomplishments.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2010
Should an Islamic center be built near Ground Zero
Those for and against a proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero butted heads during a passionate three-hour hearing of New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission last week, CNN reported. At issue is whether a more than century-old building should be preserved and made into a mosque and community center at the site where the Twin Towers once stood. What do you think? Is it appropriate to build an Islamic center and mosque on the site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by Islamist hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001? If not, what should be done with the building instead?
I don't believe that that the primary motive behind the opposition to the proposed Muslim mosque is its proximity to Ground Zero. Naturally there is lingering pain and anger in New York from the tragedy of Sept. 11, but the suggested location for the building at 51 Park Place, which Google Maps indicates is two blocks away from Ground Zero — a significant distance in overcrowded Manhattan. Also, what is being built is not primarily a mosque but rather a Muslim community center that will also contain a mosque.
I feel that the fierce resistance of New Yorkers to this development stems primarily from the fear of creating a Muslim gathering place in their midst. A recent New York Post article states as much by declaring its objection to any mosque in New York City, citing concerns that the Islamic radicalization that has become common in Western Europe may take hold on this side of the Atlantic as well.
Over the past several decades, freethinking and altruistic European countries opened up their borders and welcomed millions of immigrants from Muslim countries. They hoped that the convergence of various cultures under the aegis of freedom would produce positive multi-cultured societies. In reality, the opposite happened. Instead of an open and tolerant Western Europe, today we see an alarming growth of religious extremism and frighteningly belligerent Muslim elements in almost every European country west of Poland.
Thankfully, Muslims here in the United States have generally integrated fully into our society and feel every bit as American as anyone else.
Nevertheless, when discussing the proposed building in New York, there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. I believe it is incumbent upon the Muslim leadership to take the first steps in discussing all relevant issues and alleviating the fears that are ever-present. It is also equally critical for those opposing this project to listen with an open mind and truly try to comprehend the other side's views. Hopefully, this approach will bear positive fruit, and an amicable solution will be found.
Although there are many obstacles along the path, there is merit to the notion of a Muslim community center that is sensitive to the memory of those killed in the attack, conducive to a spirit of peaceful tolerance, and symbolic of our nation's religious freedom — all of which would offer a hopeful contrast to the violent extremism of Sept. 11.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2010
A proposition on marijuana
Despite criticism from some religious leaders who have called on her to resign her post, Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP's California chapter, said last week that she will not retract her support of an initiative to legalize marijuana in the state, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News. She believes that Proposition 19 would "be a good first step in reforming marijuana laws," especially for African Americans who she feels are targeted, creating a "permanent underclass." What do you, as a religious leader, think about Proposition 19? Do you think it will reform marijuana laws, or do you side with Sacramento preacher Ron Allen, who says the NAACP's support of Proposition 19 "disregards the harm illicit drugs cause to the black community," and to a greater extent, other communities?
I fail to see the wisdom of legalizing "recreational" marijuana or any other mind-altering substance. Human beings are blessed with a brain more powerful than any computer ever devised. We are given the divinely inspired task of enhancing this world and making our environment more hospitable by harnessing the full power of our minds. Altering our ability to do so by using a foreign substance — even for a limited time — is not a good idea and should be strongly discouraged.
I feel that Alice Huffman's claim that enforcement of current laws against illicit drugs is the cause for the "permanent underclass" of the African American community is a disingenuous attempt to avoid addressing the real causes for the struggles of the black population. Many other figures in the black community strongly disagree with Huffman on this issue, and I hope that the national leadership of the NAACP would also disagree with its California chapter's support of Proposition 19.
Regardless of the arguments for or against legalization of marijuana — and there are some legitimate points on either side — claiming that enforcing anti-drug laws is a root cause of a community's longstanding social ills is simply ridiculous. Communities disintegrate and its members turn to drugs when their leaders fail to inspire, when their families crumble and when their opportunities shrink. This is true of all failing communities — not just African American ones — and nobody gains when the blame for social problems is shifted onto an illusory straw man.
If Huffman truly wanted to help the black community — especially its youth — she should stop worrying about easing marijuana laws and instead focus on meeting genuine needs such as better education, stronger family values, more responsible parenting and a real reduction in crime. This approach requires a committed effort, unyielding optimism and a coherent plan. It also requires a candid assessment of roles and responsibilities, and a hard look about why this part of our American family has faced such hardships.
There are many factors contributing to the struggles of African Americans, and they come from many different places — but enforcement of anti-marijuana laws is not among them.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 3, 2010
Muslim Anti-Semitism in Europe
A story published this week by the Associated Press chronicles an effort by Dutch police to combat hate crimes by using “decoy Jews” --- undercover police officers wearing yarmulkes. “Enthusiasm for the unusual idea is a sign of the ongoing tension between the Muslim minority and the rest of the Dutch population over issues of immigration and crime,” the story reports. The goal of the undercover operation --- while not completely fool proof --- is to capture offenders instantly, said Ronny Naftaniel, the head of the Center for Information and Documentation Israel, a pro-Jewish group that has lobbied for the idea. What do you think of this idea to use “decoy Jews” to capture offenders? Would it be offensive to you if undercover agents were posing as members of your respective religion? Why or why not?
I think this is a great idea! Anti-Semitism or hate crimes of any kind should never be tolerated — and therefore, all lawful means available should be employed to capture these disgraceful offenders.
It is truly sad that members of Holland's Muslim minority — a group which is well acquainted with prejudice — would turn around and perpetrate acts of bigotry against Dutch Jews. I believe that this trend is a direct result of the hatemongering and intolerance that is so common in the Muslim Middle East, and which has now been transplanted from these immigrants' home countries to the Netherlands. I would hope that in searching for a better life and a brighter future in an open society, these individuals would break free from the negative, fanatical ideas they acquired back home. But this does not seem to be the case. Instead of trying to build a Muslim society in Holland based on principles of understanding and tolerance, these individuals choose to vent their frustrations with Israel on local Jews. The stories coming from the Netherlands underscore the truthfulness of Dr. Martin Luther King’s words: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not unique to Holland; it is widespread in practically every country in Western Europe. My colleagues in France, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, and Norway report constant intimidation and harassment of Jews by their Muslim neighbors. This is very troubling indeed — especially considering that some of these Jews are Holocaust survivors or their descendants.
I find this in stark contrast to the Muslim immigrants here in the United States, who have largely managed to integrate into American society and do not seem to harbor ill will toward their Jewish — or Christian — neighbors. This is a something for which all Americans can be grateful; it is something our nation can be proud of. But we cannot ignore what is happening overseas. A mere 65 years after Hitler marched across Europe intent on murdering every Jew on the continent, we once again witness a rising tide of anti-Semitic hatred based on equally frightening genocidal ideas. It is high time that responsible leaders of the European Union acknowledge this dreadful cancer growing in their midst, and take appropriate measures to stop it.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2010
Dealing with apocalyptic thinking
Most scripture promotes our careful stewardship of the Earth. And yet, apocalyptic religious traditions welcome signs of the "end times" (environmental degradation, war, oil spills, etc.), considering it the fulfillment of long-awaited prophecy and the beginning of a new age of peace. What's the role of free will in the face of such prophecy? Should we celebrate these "signs" or try to do something to minimize the violence and destruction? If action is called for, how should we rally together to battle our "compassion fatigue" and heal the world's wounds?
I firmly disagree with those who claim to know the precise meaning of scripture and contend that massive calamity and great tragedy are portents of an Armageddon prophesied long ago. We often witness catastrophic events — some caused by nature, and some made by man — that are truly frightening. When faced with such challenging circumstances, it is essential that we remain optimistic and maintain a positive disposition. Instead of trying to unnecessarily decipher the meaning behind such disasters, we should instead focus our energies on assisting the victims — and, if possible, on working to ensure that such events do not re-occur.
The scriptures contain various prophecies and writings that are difficult to understand and hard to decipher in any definitive way. Many choose to interpret these cryptic passages as having apocalyptic meaning, and then proceed to forecast terrible events. These individuals often translate natural or man-made disasters as having been predicted by the prophets thousands of years ago. I feel that we cannot accurately understand the intent of the prophets or the true meaning of every mysterious passage. In my view, these current-day projections of massive calamity and suffering are wrong-headed and counter-productive; they accomplish nothing other than unnecessarily scaring the wits out of people.
I also believe very strongly that the road to peace is not necessarily lined with tragedy. On the contrary, we can find peace in our day by perpetuating a spirit of goodness and kindness, and by educating our children to respect one another regardless of race, religion, color or creed. It is these steps that will usher in an era of global peace and tranquility — not the scaremongering we occasionally observe among religious leaders. Our task must always be to take active, positive steps that will ease human suffering.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 12, 2010
Spiritual But Not Religious
The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing, according to a blog post by CNN writer John Blake. It is growing so much, the blogger writes, one pastor has compared it to a "movement." In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72% of people 18 to 29 consider themselves "more spiritual than religious." Some say the phrase hints at egotism: "If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?" asks one Jesuit priest. What do you think? What exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?
I understand religion and spirituality as being largely synonymous, since both refer to humanity's efforts to understand and follow the will of its Creator. Spirituality is a means by which one becomes closer to the divine source of the soul — and becomes a better person in the process. Religion is a specific (often predetermined) path one takes to reach that goal; it usually lays out a system of faith and worship as part of an organized structure. In my view, religious institutions should be configured in a manner that helps people reach their spiritual goals and achieve their full potential.
A central component of religion is being part of an organized, supportive community that engenders both benevolence and accountability. Establishing spiritual goals together with others creates a sense of responsibility through a system of accountability that is essential to proper spiritual growth. A religious organization also provides an opportunity to receive help from other people and assist those who may need support. And finally, a religious congregation offers opportunities for fellowship with others who share similar values.
The way I understand it, the “spiritual but not religious” movement seems to interpret spirituality as more of a “do it alone” project. I recognize that some very ethical people may not feel totally comfortable with organized religion — perhaps they disagree with certain rules and restrictions established in traditional teachings, or maybe they have been disappointed by the shortcomings of some authority figures. However, while I applaud any interest in spirituality, I feel that this movement lacks some of the positive elements that are essential for true spiritual accomplishment. My hope is that their spiritual quest will lead them toward the true fulfillment that can only be found when one interacts with others and is part of a greater community that shares a common purpose.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 2010
Is religion of justices important?
Elena Kagan's successful confirmation to the Supreme Court "would result in six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices. Many argue that because Protestantism remains America's largest religious affiliation, the top court should have at least one Protestant justice," according to a piece written by Corey J. Hodges, pastor of New Pilgrim Baptist Church, for the Salt Lake Tribune. What do you think? Is it really necessary for the court to have a Protestant judge simply because it is considered America's largest religious affiliation? Overall, does the court's religious makeup have a significant impact, in the end, on how it interprets the law and makes decisions?
Does a Supreme Court justice's religion matter? The answer is maybe.
Statistics tell us that slightly more than 50% of Americans identify themselves as Protestants. Therefore, if we were to use religious affiliation as a criterion of eligibility for the U.S. Supreme Court, then there should be at least four — if not five — justices who are Protestant.
Furthermore, if Elena Kagan is confirmed, she would be only the third woman sitting on the Supreme Court — which is not an accurate reflection of the country's population of slightly more than 50% women. However, I do not believe we need to be strictly bound by census data when determining the makeup of the highest court in the land.
As I mentioned recently in this column, an individual's specific religious affiliation or gender is really not important when considering them for higher office. What is essential, though, is that anyone filling a significant public post must have sound religious bearings and be committed to an ethical lifestyle. They also need to possess a firm belief in God and subscribe to the idea — central to Judeo-Christian belief — of a higher power that determines moral truths. Whether a Supreme Court nominee is Christian, Jewish or Muslim is far less important than the overarching necessity for a justice who is righteous, leads an honorable life and shows proper respect for people of all religious denominations (as well those who profess no faith at all).
Also crucial when considering a Supreme Court nominee is to gauge how well they will make the necessary transition from their previous occupation to their new role on the high court. A 1st century BC rabbi named Judah, the son of Tabbai, offered the wise advice that, "when sitting in judgment, do not act as an attorney." Many individuals are appointed to the bench having previously served as lawyers, and Kagan is currently the solicitor general of the United States. But the responsibilities of arguing one side of a case and serving as an impartial judge are vastly different. Whereas a lawyer generally defines the Constitution in a way that benefits his or her client, a judge — especially one on the Supreme Court — must be absolute in interpreting the intent of its framers. Using this approach will guarantee neutrality and ensure an equal application of the law regardless of the race, color, creed, gender or religion of the judge.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2010
Hoping beyond hope
A cover story in last week's Pasadena Weekly chronicles the work of Sam Lundquist, who, inspired by an Urban Plunge Community Service event at Eagle Rock's Christian Assembly Church, decided to begin a project gathering stories from each block of Los Angeles, getting to know people and serve them better with "The Hope Chronicles." With a video camera, audio recorder and journal, Lundquist would approach strangers in all walks of life to ask them one simple question: "What is your hope?" "It is my hope that we would start connecting more and talking more and really understand what it looks like to be neighbor, and be there for them if you can," Lundquist said in the Pasadena Weekly story. What would you say to Lundquist if he approached you? What is your hope?
Every one of us has things that we want very much in life. Most of us probably want to win the lottery, and many people yearn to travel the world to visit Paris, London, Venice and other wonderful places. Many of us desire better relationships with those we love. And of course, there is that slightly cliched but often expressed longing for "world peace."
Some of the above items are wishes, while others represent sincere hopes. A "wish" usually refers to an improbable event — akin to "wishful thinking" — while "hope" is generally an expression used when something seems possible and within reach. I may wish to win the lottery, but I have true hope that I can develop a better relationship with my loved ones. The former is out of my control; the latter is very much within my power.
So what is my hope? That people around the globe will look at world peace as an achievable, hopeful endeavor instead of a mere wishful thought. Over the course of history, humanity has witnessed far too much bloodshed, pain and suffering. The usual response to all of this tragedy is that global harmony is nothing more than a fantasy or pipe dream, and that realistically we must accept the status quo of war and belligerence. However, I believe that we owe it to ourselves — and our children — to never accept this sad situation as a permanent condition.
Every human being in every nation must realize that it is within his or her power to make the world a better place. It can start with telling your family members how much you love them, or making up with that co-worker with whom you had an argument. Perhaps you can lend a helping hand to a total stranger, or take steps to brighten your community. These little acts of goodness and kindness can ultimately change the world and create a more hospitable environment for us all. These concrete actions can turn a hope into a reality.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 22, 2010
Excluding the Children of Homosexual Parents
Progressive Catholic groups are up in arms over reports Friday about the decision of a Roman Catholic school in Massachusetts to rescind the admission of an 8-year-old student because his parents are lesbians. The child was accepted to St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham, Massachusetts, for the fall was told he couldn't enroll after the school learned that his parents are gay. Since then, the school has been heavily criticized. What is your opinion on the overall treatment of gays and lesbians in churches --- and perhaps even within your own faith? Do you believe that gays and lesbians are treated equally and fairly in some of the major faiths, or is there much progress to be made on reaching out to these particular members of society? If so, what must we do so that we do not exclude our homosexual brothers and sisters?
I feel that the decision made by the Catholic elementary school in Massachusetts was wrong and inappropriate for a religious institution. I assume that the St. Paul School rescinded the boy’s admission because of their view that his lesbian parents are living in sin. However, even if the school administration does not approve of a homosexual lifestyle, why should an innocent child suffer as a result? Religious teachings forbid making a child bear the sins of his parents. I was pleased to read that once Church officials at the Archdiocese of Boston learned of the school's action, they pledged to help find a new Catholic school for the boy.
At the heart of this matter is the basic question of how we treat people who lead lifestyles that may make us uncomfortable, or who engage in actions with which we do not agree. The reality is that the same Bible which states that homosexuality is incompatible with religious piety also clearly teaches us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” We should reconcile these two — seemingly contradictory — ideas by recognizing that although we may not approve of a person’s particular lifestyle, we should never act hatefully or harbor negative feelings toward that individual.
I believe that religious institutions and houses of worship have a responsibility to accept all members of their faith, even when those individuals may not be in full compliance with the organization's spiritual teachings. We must remember that every human being on Earth is fallible. Who amongst us is completely faithful and does not occasionally transgress? We need to treat others in a kind, understanding manner — just as we would like to be treated ourselves. For those who believe, as I do, that we are all God's children, it follows that we should strive to act with compassion for our brothers and sisters.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2010
Corporal punishment in schools
It’s the 21st century. Gone are the days of teachers wielding rulers and wooden paddles in order to discipline misbehaving students. Or are they? A man in Dallas is pushing the local school district to bring back corporal punishment. A former tutor in the Dallas Independent School District, Gilbert Leal argues that the threat of corporal punishment — along with better classroom management and training teachers how to defuse situations — have “helped decrease disciplinary problems,” according to a story published by Dallas’ WFAA-TV. What do you think? Is corporal punishment on its way in again? And does it really work? Or are we taking a step backward in the discipline of our children? In what situations is corporal punishment appropriate, if at all?
In my opinion, corporal punishment is counter-productive and should not be used as a disciplinary tool for children — and in any case, such action should never be part of a classroom setting. The only conceivable scenario where corporal punishment would be acceptable is when the person administering it does so entirely for the benefit of the child — not for any kind of tension relief or self-aggrandizement — and when the child fully understands why he or she is being struck. The problem with this scenario is that it basically does not exist.
I can understand why a frustrated teacher might want to “paddle” a child who is repeatedly misbehaving in class, but this method is very short-sighted.
Such action will not only fail to encourage positive behavior, it will most certainly yield a more tense environment and likely lead to an escalation in negative conduct. Furthermore, I believe that there is simply too much potential for abuse if teachers are granted the authority to strike a child, which is why I don’t feel that corporal punishment should be implemented in our schools at all. A teacher hitting a student is never acceptable (unless they are literally acting in self-defense to fend off a physical assault).
We all agree that maintaining proper decorum and discipline in a classroom is essential to creating a positive learning environment. However, there are various techniques that can help foster this kind of educational atmosphere. The most effective is to consistently reinforce positive behavior as a safeguard against negative actions. In the event that it is necessary to punish a child, a non-corporal approach such as detention should be used, with the child being fully cognizant of why he or she is being punished and what kind of behavior is expected in the future.
Regardless of the situation, we must all remember that children thrive when they feel loved. Therefore, even when we are forced to punish, our children should always know that whatever we do is for their benefit and is motivated by the deep love and concern we have for them.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2010
Is Arizona's Immirgation Law Racist?
Arizona's new immigration law, signed last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, has sparked furor and protest all over the country. The new Arizona law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally. Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. People are rallying support for a boycott of Arizona in protest of the new law. Some say the law goes too far in protecting the country from illegal aliens. Defenders of the law --- angry over the charges of racism permeating the debate --- say it is needed because the federal government has failed to enforce border security with Mexico, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to move into in the state. What do you think? Is the new law a step forward in combatting illegal immigration to the U.S., or does it go too far? What are the moral and/or ethical dilemas that you see here that may arise or have already arisen from this new law?
I feel strongly that America must display zero tolerance for racial discrimination or ethnic bias of any kind. The United States was founded on the bedrock principles of equality and tolerance, and any laws to the contrary are not only unconstitutional, but threaten the moral fiber of our nation.
There are many potential pitfalls associated with trying to enforce immigration laws in a region where the majority of the illegal immigrants share a similar ethnic origin. Racial profiling and other discriminatory abuses become a real concern when law enforcement officials are given a mandate to question and detain people who fall into “certain categories.”
At the same time, the citizens of Arizona have a right to protect themselves from what they deem to be a threat. Apparently this law replicates some existing Federal regulations on a state level, so in that sense nothing has changed aside from a commitment to greater enforcement by state authorities. Hopefully a combination of proper oversight, strict monitoring, and a strong commitment to negate bias will ensure that the new law is applied properly, without the taint of racism.
It's troubling that Arizona felt the need to circumvent current Federal immigration strategy and enact laws in their legislature to safeguard their citizenry. This development highlights a serious rift between Washington and the government of a state of the union. I fear that this disconnect is endemic, and it’s only a matter of time before other states take a unilateral approach to issues they feel Washington has not properly addressed. We must avoid this trend, since such discord can weaken our nation at a time when we need to be unified in our approach to the various challenges, both internal and external, that we face. I would suggest that President Obama and Governor Brewer come together for a face-to-face meeting and work out their differences in person — not via the press — to help restore faith in the Federal-State relationship.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2010
Blending religion, politics
Christian organizations in the United Kingdom are pushing for candidates to become more open about their religious beliefs, the BBC reported this week. With an election coming up May 6, would it be worthwhile for candidates to open up about their beliefs “if it means a few more votes?” the article asks. While religion plays a big role in the funding and organization of politics in the U.S., the article says, in the U.K. it is less influential; as such, some believe that having candidates talk about their religious beliefs publicly would turn around British politics — “doing God” would not be such a rarity anymore within the political spectrum of the U.K. What do you think? Should the U.K. candidates play the God card in an effort to gain more votes even if it means going against the grain of U.K. politics? How much influence do you think this would have?
While I understand that the U.K. has a different political culture than the United States, I think that those seeking office should be proud of their spiritual and ethical principles, and ought to offer these traits as a positive reasons to vote for them.
I believe that religious sincerity and morality define a person’s character, and can determine if he or she will properly represent their constituency as an honest public servant. It is vitally important that individuals who hold public office possess a solid spiritual compass to guide them along a path of wisdom and justice.
However, while I feel strongly about a candidate having sound religious bearings, I don’t think that his or her specific religious affiliation is important. Regardless of their faith, a man or woman who believes in God as a higher authority — and therefore displays humility and adheres to a principled way of life — should qualify for our vote. Whether the person is Christian, Jewish or Muslim is far less important than the overarching necessity for a candidate who is righteous, leads an honorable life and shows respect for people of all religious denominations, as well as for those who profess no religion at all.
I am confident that the overwhelming majority of our elected officials are principled, honest, hard-working individuals. Nevertheless, the political world is continually rocked by one scandal after another, and every conceivable moral failing seems to find its way into the halls of government. Bribery, kickbacks, sexual depravity, self-aggrandizement and shenanigans of every kind are commonplace among some of our politicians. As a result, a significant part of the public has grown cynical and distrustful of our officials — and many good people are deterred from entering the political arena at all since they feel that the whole thing is a dirty business.
For all of these reasons, it’s high time for us to ensure that only those who are competent and ethical reach positions of authority. The public and the press have an obligation to properly vet individuals seeking office and ask seriously challenging questions of them before they get our vote. Again, I think a politician should never be expected to hold one particular faith — and they should always display tolerance for those of different backgrounds. But it is not too much for us to ask about a candidate’s fundamental moral principles considering the potential influence they have on our lives.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 24, 2010
"Bribing" Our Children
An article in last week’s Time magazine chronicled an experiment run by Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. In the experiment, students in hundreds of classrooms in multiple cities were bribed with different amounts of money to achieve good test scores and not fight with one another. The experiment was run in schools in Chicago, Dallas, Washington, D.C., and New York. What, in your opinion, are the advantages and/or disadvantages of this strategy? Or do you side with the critics who say kids should not be rewarded for things they should be doing anyway?
The word "bribe" generally has negative connotations, bringing to mind the act of paying off someone to perform an unethical or criminal deed. The term is often used to characterize illegal behavior, such as "bribing a judge." Therefore, I would first of all replace the word "bribe" with "reward" as we debate the merits of this experiment giving students special incentives for good behavior and academic achievement.
When I hear about psychiatrists and other professionals who take counter-intuitive positions about child-rearing and seem to know it all, I sometimes wonder if they actually have children of their own. As a father of school-age children, I can tell you from first-hand experience that rewarding children for performing well academically and behaving nicely — in school or at home — is a key component of effective parenting.
In my opinion, regardless of whether a child is already expected to read and write or to behave properly, offering an incentive to excel is a good idea that works remarkably well. We often forget that children have human emotions and are motivated in similar ways as adults are. We wouldn't expect an adult to get up every morning and work his tail off all day without proper compensation — even though he is expected to provide for his family anyway. We should therefore not be averse to giving a reasonable, appropriate reward to a child for doing well on a test or behaving courteously during a three hour ceremony.
Most important of all, however, is recognizing that every child is unique and has his or her own way of learning. As parents and educators, we must appreciate this fact and shape every child's education accordingly. As King Solomon states in Proverbs (22:6): "Teach a child according to his way, so that even when he grows old, he will not turn away from it."
Unless we can communicate effectively with our children and tailor our guidance to fit each one's individual needs, no amount of rewards — or bribes — will achieve the results we desire.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 2010
Observing the Sabbath in a Wired World
A group of Jewish entrepreneurs observed a National Day of Unplugging, lasting from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Reboot, a nonprofit organization aimed at reinventing the traditions and rituals of Judaism for today's secular Jews, hosted the event. The event was based on 10 principals of the Sabbath Manifesto, an ongoing project designed to hopefully lessen the hold technology has on people. “Avoid Technology” is one of the principles. How important do you believe it is for people to unplug and reboot from time to time? How do you teach, in your respective place of worship, ways people can put down the cell phone or laptop without this utter “disconnectedness” that some may feel at no longer being attached to their electronic devices?
In today's hyper-charged, technology-saturated environment, it seems that people are constantly focused on anything and everything except that which is really most important: one's own family and friends. While the advances in communication and information sharing certainly have many benefits, a host of recent studies have also shown that the relentless barrage of hi-tech stimuli is having a deep, negative effect on our society. The unfortunate reality is this environment makes it fairly easy to get lost in the world of digital interaction — at great cost to our direct, face-to-face relationships with our spouses, children, family and friends.
That's why I believe that the National Day of Unplugging is a fantastic idea! I actually put this concept into practice every single week from sunset on Friday until darkness falls on Saturday. During this 25-hour period, I do not carry my BlackBerry, check my e-mail, surf the Internet, or use the computer — and I generally avoid all apparatuses that ring, beep, whirl, hum or otherwise disturb the quiet. I've found that this weekly routine does wonders for my family and myself. It provides for us an oasis amid a chaotic work and school week, enabling us to nurture positive relationships and spend quality time with each other.
I find it fascinating that the ancient Biblical tradition of observing the Sabbath — which was first mentioned in Genesis — has become ever more important in our contemporary digital age. A mere century ago, there were those who reasoned that a day of rest was only pertinent in a farming era since it provided a respite from back-breaking agricultural labor. But we are now well aware that a day of "unplugging" and taking a break from it all is arguably more critical than ever — in fact, it is vitally important for our social and mental well-being.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 3, 2010
Religion and health care
The health-care-reform measure passed by the House and signed into law by President Obama this week is being challenged by religious-rights groups who claim that “the law treats religions unequally and forces adherents to be part of a health-care system that violates their religious beliefs on abortion.” One lawsuit has been filed that claims “that forcing individuals to participate in a health-care system that supports abortions violates their 1st Amendment right to freely follow their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Another lawsuit claims an “unconstitutional entanglement between government and religion” because some religious groups are exempt from participation in the new reform effort. What do you think? What serious religious implications exist here, if any, as a result of this new measure? Are there any moral or theological issues in the new measure?
The 1st Amendment of our Constitution restricts Congress from enacting laws that favor one religion over another.
It is my understanding that after the passage of the health-care-reform legislation, President Obama signed an executive order specifically barring the use of federal funds for abortions. Even so, the mandate that everyone must have health insurance and “participate in a health-care system that supports abortion” does not violate the 1st Amendment.
While abortion is contrary to the religious beliefs of many Americans — and millions feel it is utterly offensive — the proposed law nevertheless applies equally to all citizens.
In my view, one aspect of the health-care plan does raise a serious red flag when it comes to religious beliefs: the portion of the law exempting members of Amish and Mennonite communities from participating in the national health-care system.
This clause seems to be a clear case of government favoring the religious beliefs of some groups while ignoring the spiritual sensitivities of others. I feel this is an issue that Congress must address, since their constituents deserve an honest answer to this dilemma.
There are valid positions supporting universal health care, as well as compelling arguments against it. On one point we can all agree: This new law will have a profound effect on our country. Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, however, at this early stage of the game none of us can claim that we can predict exactly what this program holds for Americans and in what direction it will lead the nation. Stating otherwise, in my opinion, is foolish and simply irrational.
Those who argue that the plan will usher in Armageddon are obviously overstating the case, just as those who believe the measure will resolve all problems regarding access to quality health care will surely be disappointed.
Although it may be the law of the land, it seems that our national discussion on health care is just beginning. And if what we’ve seen are only the previews, we can be certain that we’re in for a long, loud, hardy and lively debate. So long as the dialogue remains civil and stays focused on facts, this debate is a healthy — and vitally important — part of our democracy. It will help ensure that we reach the best possible result for all of our citizens.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passover Reflections
As Jews across the world celebrate the holiday of Passover this coming week, we once again focus on the birth of our people and our long, rich — often tragic — and remarkable history.
In the March 1898 edition of Harper’s Magazine, Mark Twain published an essay titled “Concerning the Jews.” He concluded the piece with the following paragraph: “The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”
The answer to the question of Judaism’s survival is found in the liturgy of this holiday, when we proclaim at the Passover seder that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but God liberated us from bondage and brought us to the promised land. During the Exodus, the Jewish people made a pledge that we would never be slaves again. We were subsequently driven from the land and repeatedly persecuted by various nations and wicked tyrants, but we never again allowed our spirit to become enslaved.
You see, slavery is more about a mental state than a physical one. There are billionaires who have every material possession one could desire, yet they feel trapped and tormented by their own minds. Then there are people who are physically incarcerated and even tortured for many years, yet their unyielding spirit grows stronger with each passing day.
The resolve to never succumb to oppression has allowed us to persevere in the face of great challenges — possibly greater challenges than any other people in history. It gave us the courage, strength and ability to look beyond a particular moment — no matter how painful — and hope for a brighter tomorrow. It is this determination that galvanized a people utterly crushed by the Holocaust, enabling us to rise like a phoenix from the ashes, and in 1948 rebuild in Israel our ancient and eternal homeland.
Mark Twain’s essay, however, was wrong in one important respect: The immortality of the indomitable spirit is not unique to the Jewish people. We simply had a more pressing need to utilize this strength. The willpower to look beyond imprisoning shackles — of either body or spirit — is a universal part of the human psyche. All the people of the world — Jew and non-Jew alike — should celebrate this spirit. This vital trait will allow humanity to endure, helping us overcome whatever hardships we may face.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 27, 2010
Helping those with HIV/AIDs
This past Monday and Tuesday, the first-ever religious summit on HIV/AIDS was held in The Netherlands, according to a report on United Nations Radio. The two-day Summit of High Level Religious Leaders on the Response to HIV brought together Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders. Participants addressed the realities of how stigma and discrimination are perpetuated both in religious communities and in society at large. If you had a chance to attend the summit, what ideas would you offer to strengthen the voice and action of religious leaders and bring about collaboration among the different faiths with other sectors involved in the response to HIV/AIDS?
On Monday and Tuesday, the first-ever religious summit on HIV/AIDS was held in the Netherlands, according to a report on United Nations Radio. The two-day Summit of High Level Religious Leaders on the Response to HIV brought together Bahá’í, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders. Participants addressed the realities of how stigma and discrimination are perpetuated both in religious communities and in society at large. If you had a chance to attend the summit, what ideas would you offer to strengthen the voice and action of religious leaders and bring about collaboration among the different faiths with other sectors involved in the response to HIV/AIDS?
Judaism has a long and rich tradition when it comes to saving lives and preventing bodily harm.
The Bible states in Deuteronomy 4:9 that everyone must carefully safeguard their health, and the Talmud further expounds on this idea by stating that one who saves a single life is like one who saves the entire world.
Our belief system places much emphasis on protecting life and staying healthy — and certainly a critical component of maintaining our well-being in the modern era is through education and preventive measures to impede the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.
An obvious challenge in the battle against HIV/AIDS is the stigma and discrimination often associated with this disease, which prevents the open dialogue needed to share information on how to prevent it. It is true that in many religious communities — as in our society at large — there is a cloud of fear and ignorance surrounding this issue.
I therefore feel that the recent international conference of religious leaders is a great idea, because it provided valuable learning opportunities that will no doubt lead to lives being saved. This constructive summit is a good beginning, and I strongly believe there should be many more like it.
The unfortunate fact is that HIV/AIDS and other diseases are indiscriminate, affecting all of humanity equally. This summit is a positive model of how people of various religions can come together to address issues that concern people of all backgrounds and beliefs.
We should learn from this inspiring example of ecumenical harmony, and strive to apply it to other matters of global importance. We are all God’s children, and we all share a single planet — therefore, we must work together to address our common challenges.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2010
Miracles and Religion
A February episode of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” reported that a survey from the Pew Forum on Religion showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles. The results are from a wider study, "Religion Among the Millennials." What is, in your opinion, the definition of a miracle? What does your religion teach about miracles? And have you ever been witness to one?
The Bible abounds with miraculous events such as the parting of the Red Sea, manna falling from heaven, and Joshua making the sun stand still. Part of being Jewish is believing in the authenticity of the Old Testament, including the many miracles it tells us transpired. Nevertheless, the Talmud states that one is "forbidden to rely on a miracle." In other words, a person should not live a life in which they ignore their responsibilities and always count on God to provide miracles. Doing so is reckless, and does not fit into a positive spiritual lifestyle.
I feel it's also important to realize that miracles are not only those huge, Steven Spielberg-style special effects moments that we read about in the Bible. There are so many daily occurrences in each of our lives that we will recognize as miraculous if we only take a moment to contemplate them. The mere fact that we get up every morning to live a new day is in and of itself an incredible phenomenon, and our amazing bodies are more intricate and complicated than any mechanical device created by a human. We often take these facts for granted until we face our final days, or confront a medical problem that frustrates the normal function of the body.
And then of course there are those incidents in which we, our family members, or our friends clearly see the hand of God — such as an escape from a dangerous situation or an encounter with a near-death experience. When these occurrences happen, we should recognize them for what they are: God watching over us and telling us he genuinely cares for us. Our birth itself is a miraculous event, and I believe all of us are blessed with miracles great and small throughout our lives.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 13, 2010
Maintaining a dialogue among religions
The Tidings (the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles) writer Anne Hansen last week wrote about a symposium held at Loyola Marymount University recently designed to encourage dialogue “among believers of many faiths.” The symposium focused on dialogue especially within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. However, in the larger scheme of things, how important do you believe it is for brothers and sisters of other faith traditions to work together for unity? How does an open dialogue between faith traditions manifest itself in your particular faith?
In my view, it is vitally important that we maintain an open, ongoing dialogue between people of different faiths. Thankfully, in the United States our behavior is generally guided by the principles of civility and tolerance — and for the most part, Americans of varying belief systems get along just fine with each other. Sadly, people who live in other countries are not always so fortunate. Many parts of the world suffer from daily religious strife and recurring cycles of violence. Often, this conflict is a direct result of suspicion and gross misunderstanding.
Having a candid, respectful discussion might avert bloodshed and illuminate the path toward peaceful coexistence.
I also feel it’s essential for people representing various traditions within the same faith to communicate with each other. Within Judaism, there are many different groups and sects that practice our common tradition in different ways. For instance, Jews who originate from Europe
(Ashkenazim) will follow a religious ritual one way, while our brethren who come from the Middle East (Sephardim) will do it differently. We all, however, have one unifying factor: our belief in the Torah as a central component of our spiritual existence. In the same way, I feel all people of the world can unite around the essential idea that although we may have varying religious viewpoints, we are all children of the same God.
Today, I write from Israel — the Holy Land — a place that many of the world’s religions recognize as sacred. Its majesty, beauty and sheer spiritual power are unparalleled. Ironically, this is also a site where so much blood has been spilledover the centuriesbecause of an unwillingness to put aside differences and find commonality.
It is high time that humanity reach some basic consensus and rally around our shared values of respect, honesty, and peace. Rather than dividing us, our spiritual principles should help us join together to work toward our collective goal of creating a brighter tomorrow for our children and ourselves.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 2010
Dueling religions at home
The Los Angeles Times ran a story Feb. 19 about an estranged Chicago couple and their fight with each other over which faith to raise their 3-year-old daughter in (the father is Catholic; the mother is Jewish). The mother recently filed a restraining order against the father after he baptized the girl Catholic, against a pledge he had taken to raise her Jewish. A judge then barred him from exposing the girl to any faith other then Judaism — he defied the order after taking his daughter to Mass. Should the courts be dictating which religion parents should teach their children? Did they go too far in this case? Should this be something private, something that only the parents should decide among themselves without the court’s influence?
In a more perfect world — one where all children are cared for by responsible parents — the courts would never be called upon to dictate what religious beliefs should be observed in the household.
However, this specific case in Chicago is about more than a simple divorce and unwarranted judicial intervention. It seems that this girl is being used as ammunition in a divorce that has turned into a bitter feud between her parents.
The salvos have become a televised public spectacle, thus prompting a judge’s forceful intervention.
Moving beyond this unseemly tug-of-war, the fact remains that the father promised to raise his daughter in the Jewish tradition, and it seems that he himself also converted to Judaism.
Given these events, I feel that the child in this case should be raised in the Jewish faith; to do otherwise would be morally wrong.
This incident highlights a common issue that young people of different faiths often fail to foresee when considering marriage. Many times I have had starry-eyed, love-struck couples — one Jewish, the other not — come to me for advice.
The fact that they approach a rabbi indicates that religion is important to one or both parties.
I explain to the couple that this concern will inevitably become problematic — possibly seriously so — when children enter the equation. I try to impress upon them that, putting other considerations aside, raising a child in a dual-religious environment is probably unrealistic.
When the holidays arrive, will they gather at a Hanukkah menorah or a Christmas tree? Placing both in the home simultaneously may seem open-minded and cool, but I believe that will ultimately confuse a child, and possibly leave him or her with no religious identity at all.
In today’s day and age, strong spiritual character is central to raising a healthy child. It’s unfair for parents to create an environment for their children that leaves them mystified and without clear direction. Caring, thoughtful adults will keep this issue in mind when they raise their children.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 2010
The President and the Dalai Lama
President Obama welcomed the Dalai Lama to the White House last week. The visit had been postponed since last year, due to concerns that it could "trouble the waters ahead of a U.S.-China summit last fall," according to a story which aired on "Which Way, L.A.," a program on NPR-affiliate 89.9 KCRW. The Dalai Lama visited the White House as an internationally respected religious leader, not as a statesman. The Dalai Lama also appeared alongside musician Sheryl Crow in a visit to Southern California over the weekend, where his holiness spoke on behalf of a nonprofit organization. Both visits represented a "mixing of two worlds": international issues and rock stars, the program noted. Do you think there is any danger in the Dali Lama appearing with a rock star? Could his appearance, in some ways, commercialize or, perhaps, even diminish his message?
For decades, the Chinese government has attempted to marginalize the Dalai Lama and his just cause. Officials in Beijing are constantly pressuring world leaders not to meet with him, hoping that he will just go away and that the quest for Tibetan independence will then be forgotten. For this reason, the Dalai Lama has worked to keep the plight of his people front and center. In my view, the best way to accomplish this worthy goal is by utilizing the assistance of famous people — such as Sheryl Crow — who are regularly in the spotlight and whose name will guarantee good press coverage. I don't view the mixing of these two worlds as anything other than a noble attempt to intensify a good message.
China is a major world power; it is an important country that cannot be ignored, and must be reckoned with. Yet, we must not forget that Beijing is still a repressive regime that seriously limits the freedoms of its citizens. In the case of Tibet, a truly unique cultural and national identity is at risk of being systematically erased as Chinese officials strive to absorb that distinctive land. The free world has moral responsibility to stand up to this type of behavior and demonstrate our displeasure with tyranny.
I therefore give credit to President Obama for meeting the Dalai Lama at the White House. Although the Dalai Lama may have been officially welcomed as a religious leader and not a statesman, Mr. Obama clearly demonstrated to the Chinese and the world at large that we Americans are a principled people. Our nation must always place enduring moral values above short-term political concerns. And when it comes to Tibet, people of conscience must remember its plight; while we should appropriately acknowledge China's international status, we should never be bullied into silence.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 20, 2010
More than just a Games
The Olympics offers the very best of athleticism and sportsmanship from all over the world. The XXI Winter Olympic Games will feature athletes from all over the world, including Africa, North and Central America, Europe and Asia. What are your thoughts as the Olympics enters its second week of competition? What do you believe the Olympics means to the world?
The Olympics are a wonderful — and most welcome — expression of global harmony. Almost everything related to the Olympics is geared toward bringing different people together and making the world a more peaceful place. The competition’s central creed asserts that “the most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle.”
Even the five colored rings that make up the Olympic symbol — which is among the world’s most recognizable images — represent unity of continents and include colors drawn from the flags of every nation.
For two weeks every two years — alternating between the winter and summer games — citizens of diverse countries gather together, united with a singular cause, and display extraordinary solidarity and sportsmanship. Considering the state of world affairs, this remarkable event seems like an impossible dream come true. Representatives of nations which may be at great odds with each other — possibly even at war — put their differences aside and demonstrate how, regardless of disagreement, we can be civil and respectful to one another if we possess a strong enough will to do so.
I believe this unusual display of camaraderie among the world’s most talented young athletes can serve as a template as we strive toward world peace. Looking at the Olympics, all citizens of the world should be asking themselves the following question: If we can put aside all our grievances for the purpose of winning a few medals and gaining some national pride, is it not far more important to find common ground for the sake of our children’s future?
If an athletic competition can achieve this feat of unity, surely we can work toward the same goal when the stakes are our children’s education, prosperity and safety. Indeed, if we want to ensure a bright future for humanity, the nations of the world must see the light of the Olympic torch and follow the example it so brilliantly illuminates.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 13, 2010
Weighing in on Ugandan bill
The Glendale News-Press reported that Glendale City Seventh-Day Adventist Church was one of 17 churches across the country to commemorate the day of prayer to the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. A bill being considered in that country would sentence LGBT people to life in prison for “engaging in homosexual acts, which are already illegal,” the News-Press reported. Penalties would also be imposed against companies that promote gay rights. What are your thoughts on this bill? Do you believe that events such as City Seventh-Day Adventist Church’s are enough to make a difference? What should be done?
I think the bill being proposed in Uganda is wildly extremist and clearly inhumane.
This measure should be vociferously condemned by our State Department, and a formal diplomatic objection should be made at the United Nations. I assume that the ostensible source of the proposed law is the biblical admonition against homosexuality — nevertheless, that very same Bible requires us to be tolerant and accepting even in circumstances of disagreement.
The real reason such draconian measures are being considered is probably not religious in nature; instead, the bill is likely fueled by bigotry and prejudice. These elements of hatred should have no place in any moral society.
Unfortunately, Uganda is by no means exceptional in the harsh way they treat their homosexual citizens, and there’s a strong chance that any international effort to condemn the move will fail in the General Assembly. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, homosexuality is already punishable by death. In fact, the only country in the entire Middle East where people who are gay are treated with respect and given equal rights is Israel.
The 19th century English historian John Dalberg-Acton said: “The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.”
I find it interesting to note that countries that treat their citizens unjustly always seem to be lagging in economic and political progress.
Uganda’s leaders need to get a good lesson in history, and should be reminded that, in the end, civility and humanity define a nation before God.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30, 2010
A question of retribution
A nation of desperate and grieving people showed the fervency of their faith this past weekend. Haitians mourned an archbishop, prayed in an open-air revival and, later in the day, witnessed a miracle. But some have said that the fate that has befallen Haiti is the ire of God. Others, like Archbishop of Santo Domingo Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez, “has firmly rejected the idea that the tragedy in Haiti was a punishment from God,” according to an article in Catholic News Agency. What is your opinion? Was the earthquake in Haiti a punishment from God to the Haitian people? What does your religion teach about “punishments from God?” And is there such thing as being “punished” by God?
The catastrophe in Haiti was absolutely not a punishment from God, and the claims that this tragic event represented some kind of divine retribution for perceived transgressions are deeply offensive.
How can any rational, thinking human being justify the death of countless innocent men, women and children? Is there any conceivable crime or sin that could validate pain and destruction on such a grand scale?
Of course not.
How then are we to understand this terrible occurrence? Whenever we see innocent human beings enduring such agony, men and women of conscience ask why good people are made to suffer. When we witness 100,000 Haitians perishing so tragically, our very core senses that something terribly wrong has happened. We naturally wonder how a benevolent, moral creator could permit so much anguish.
The Bible dedicates an entire book to this difficult topic — the book of Job. After enduring one horrible challenge after another, Job turns to God and poses the eternal question, “Why?” Interestingly enough, God never answers this question. Instead, in a revelation, he tells Job that there is no way the human mind can logically understand these events.
When it comes to human suffering, there are no intelligible answers. In regards to Haiti, it is wrong for any man to play God and offer explanations for the inexplicable; we should not try to rationalize that which is beyond our comprehension.
After delivering a public address concerning Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, survivor Elie Wiesel was once asked, “How did God allow it to happen?” Wiesel responded: “My son, if I were to tell you the answer, will you sleep better tonight?”
Judaism teaches us that when faced with tragedy we must respond with empathy and offer a helping hand to those who are affected. Instead of wasting time trying to figure out why something happened, we must roll up our sleeves and provide immediate assistance. Thankfully, that was the response from most of the civilized world. Within hours of the earthquake, there were airplanes with food, medicine, search crews, field hospitals and more heading toward Haiti from the U.S., Russia, Japan, Israel, France, England and other nations. People from around the globe joined together to try to help the Haitians in every way possible.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 23, 2010
The Holocaust and Pope Pius XII
Pope Benedict XVI visited Rome’s Central Synagogue on Sunday, but his visit was not without controversy. Benedict is being criticized for his moves to push World War II Pope Pius XII toward sainthood. According to an AP story published last week, some Jews and historians have accused Pius of “not doing enough to stop the Holocaust.” Given what you may know about Pius XII, do you believe the criticism Benedict faces is justified?
As we try to evaluate people’s conduct during a horrible situation like the Holocaust, it’s wise to keep in mind two profound principles: The first is that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing, and the second is that silence can imply consent.
Because the Vatican is obstructing the release of information about its activities during World War II, not much is known about what Pope Pius XII did — or did not do — to help Jewish people doomed by the murderous Nazis. One thing, however, is certain: Pius never explicitly protested the dreadful treatment of the Jews by the Germans. In wartime Europe, the pope stood out as one of the only “untouchable” leaders and was therefore in a unique position to initiate a public uproar. Yet he remained silent.
I believe that this in and of itself is reason enough to withhold sainthood from him.
During his visit to Rome’s Central Synagogue on Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI stated that Pius “performed actions of support, often hidden and discreet” to assist the Jewish people during the dark days of World War II.
If this is indeed the case, I wonder why the Vatican refuses to open up its archives, which may corroborate this statement. Blocking access to those documents only serves to bolster the suspicion that there is something to hide, and that there may be damning evidence that would reflect unkindly upon the legacy of the wartime pope.
I fail to see the wisdom of awarding sainthood upon someone who has an ambiguous record of protesting human rights abuses, and around whom there is a dark cloud of controversy. Furthermore, the last person who should be pushing this agenda is Benedict, who as a teenager was a member of the Hitler Youth, a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party. To put it bluntly, he should be imploring our people for forgiveness rather than opening up our deep wounds.
Pope John Paul II — Benedict’s mentor — made a great deal of sincere progress toward healing thousands of years of painful Jewish-Catholic relations. John Paul’s words and deeds were very positive, and very welcome. It would truly be a shame if all that hard work were undone by his successor’s inconsiderate actions.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 16, 2010
Taking a look at profiling
In light of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist bombing, the U.S. government has imposed additional scrutiny on people traveling from 14 countries considered “security risks” — 13 of which are Muslim countries. Arsalan Iftikhar, legal fellow for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, calls this a “clear use of ethnic, racial and religious profiling.” What do you think? Do you agree with Iftikhar? And if this is racial profiling, does it achieve greater security in the long term for our country?
I disagree with Arsalan Iftikhar’s argument that these new security procedures are “ethnic, racial and religious profiling.”
Rather, I would call the new measures “agenda profiling,” because the fact is that significant parts of the population of these 14 countries harbor radical agendas intended to harm the United States.
This is not about Islam at all, since there are many upstanding, law-abiding Muslims in this country and elsewhere who will not be subject to these new searches. More accurately, this is all about identifying geographical areas of concern and putting in place extra levels of security to hopefully stop those who embrace violent, anti-American ideas. If a blue-eyed, blond Jewish person from Syria (they exist) were to come to LAX, he would be subject to the same security checks as anyone else from that country.
I don’t like waiting in long lines and then being patted down at the airport any more than an innocent Pakistani or Yemeni on his way to visit relatives in this country. The unfortunate reality is that we live in a dangerous world with many people who want to do us harm — as we just witnessed last month.
As long as there are people out there with radical agendas, we will need to protect ourselves with “agenda profiling,” airport queues and a host of other uncomfortable procedures. As unpleasant as these steps may be, we have few alternatives.
I also feel that profiling alone will not achieve the security we require.
I believe that these new procedures must be part of a multi-pronged approach to weed out potential terrorists. In addition to “agenda profiling,” we should also be looking for criminal behavior patterns, odd demeanor and a host of other indicators that may suggest evil intentions.
And even as we focus on the specifics of boosting airport security, we must continue our broader foreign policy efforts; hardened extremists are already beyond the point of reason, but our diplomatic representatives must reach out to engage at-risk groups in a constructive dialogue to steer them away from the path of violence.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2010
Some New Year’s traditions
Black-eyed peas, baked ham, grits, collard greens and ham hocks are some examples of New Year’s Day food traditions. What fare brings you luck, or at least memories, on New Year’s Day?
The book of Psalms (87:6) states that God himself counts the first day of a new year as special.
Although I personally don’t have any New Year’s dining customs, I believe that the practice of celebrating a holiday with traditional foods can be an important way to imbue the day with extra meaning. Eating is a central part of the human experience, so it makes sense to utilize a special meal as a way to positively influence our lives as we face a new year.
As a person of the Jewish faith, I not only mark Jan. 1 but also celebrate the Jewish New Year called Rosh Hashana in the fall.
Interestingly, there are many foods that are specifically eaten during this holiday to express our hope for a positive year. Among the foods traditionally consumed during this two-day holiday are carrots, whose name in Yiddish means to “increase” — symbolizing a wish for prosperity. We also eat the head of a fish (or at least taste a morsel) to represent our hope to get “ahead” in life. And finally, to help ensure a “sweet” new year without any sorrow, we don’t eat bitter or sour foods during the holiday.
When it comes to celebrating new beginnings, I imagine that all Americans regardless of cultural background share one thing in common: We want to infuse the experience with positive energy. Whatever methods are applied, the most important common denominator is to be optimistic, upbeat and confident that only good things are coming our way in 2010.
Amen!
Rabbi Simcha Backman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2010
Biggest memories of the 2000s
The first decade of the 21st century is coming to a close. For you, what has been the most memorable experience so far this decade? What advice can you share with our readers to make this new year and decade a prosperous one?
Once the final decade of the 20th century had come to a close, we had seen many extraordinary events that provided cause for great optimism.
We witnessed the crumbling of the totalitarian Soviet Union, the end of South African apartheid, and the initiation of the Middle East Oslo peace accords. It was also a time of exceptional advances in technology with the advent of the Internet, and in medicine with the emergence of advanced DNA mapping.
I recall thinking at the end of 1999 that after the two catastrophic world wars and various genocides of the 19th century, a new era was about to dawn. I truly believed that we were seeing a profound movement toward world peace and an improved atmosphere for all mankind.
I hate to sound negative, but now that we have lived through this first decade of the 21st century, I must admit the sad truth that I was wrong.
Many of the remarkable and over-arching events of the past 10 years have been negative in nature. America is presently embroiled in two wars, the Middle East is as far from comprehensive peace as ever, Islamic radicalism threatens our freedoms on a daily basis, and nuclear confrontation is once again a real and present danger thanks to Iran’s blatant contempt of the international community.
In light of these challenges, my advice to make this new year (and new decade) prosperous is very simple: We must never give up hope. No matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, the most important character trait for a person is an optimistic belief in a better tomorrow.
Our best chance at making our dreams into realities is to always stay positive and strive for justice.
As I write these words in the final days of 2009, I once again express my sincere conviction and complete faith that this coming decade will truly bring world peace, harmony and brotherly love among all of God’s children.
This time, I will be right!
Rabbi Simcha Backman