I encountered two incidents in the last week that drove home how many commandments in the Torah protect us from emulating the moral shortcomings of other nations.
First, I was walking down the Avenue, and kept finding myself in shops that a particular non-Jewish woman was also frequenting. I happened to notice her because aside from her loud attire, she was yelling into the phone. As we went up the street after exiting another shop, we passed a fruit stand. She was still on the phone, but grabbed fruit from the stand and kept on walking. One of the owners happened to be outside the shop and told her she had to pay for the fruit. To which she yelled, "So call the police then". Then she continued walking, and for a full 2 blocks kept muttering loudly, "Pay for one cherry. One cherry! Damn fool!". To be honest, I was astonished that she couldn't comprehend that yes, even for one cherry- which are currently $4+ a pound- you do need to pay. If you take anything, even a pea, without paying for it, it's called stealing.
Then today I was on the metro going uptown. I made my connection and was glad to see that there was one seat available if I squeezed my little butt in between the two guys who were sitting, legs wide open, on the given bench. I consequently put my foot between them, pivoted and dropped myself into the space. Because I had put in my foot before pivoting, the men moved their legs and I was able to sit just as the train yanked itself out of the station. I had barely rested my back against the seat when a man and his female companion started in. "She doesn't say 'Excuse me', she just puts her foot there and sits down. No excuse me! Just puts her foot.", etc. etc. For 5 minutes. To be honest, perhaps I should have said "Excuse me". But in my mind, they were the ones being rude by hogging the space! In other cities, saying "Excuse me" gets you somewhere. On the MTA, good luck. Yet the irony was that, like the Cherry woman, this guy had no clue that it is actually very rude to keep your legs wide open when people are entering the train looking for a spot. But even more importantly, he felt that it was acceptable to attempt to publicly humiliate/embarrass me. Not that he succeeded, but the difference between his mindset and the frum mindset (aka that embarrassing someone is tantamount to murder) was apparent.
Let's just say that I'm really glad that I'm a Jew right now.
Showing posts with label Bnai Noach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bnai Noach. Show all posts
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Notes from the Block
Everywhere I have lived "out of town", I have been able to at least visually identify my neighbours, if not also know their names and other pertinent details.
Not so on my block. Save the:
So it came as not such a surprise this last layl Shabbos when I meet a young lady (Canadian no less!) who lives across the street and only 5 doors down from me. I had NEVER seen her before. That's almost as hilarious as how much she reminded me of myself at that age, down to the style of her skirt. A CANADIAN on my block and I was unaware. What a disgrace!
On a separate but related note, to all my male goyishe neighbours, young and old, the following is for you:
Please, please, please stop exiting your houses without your shirts. That behaviour is just gross. Same goes for shorts. I don't care how fabulous you feel you look (and I suppose, in turn, consider such displays to be a gift to the female population), I'm here to burst your bubble and inform you that the sight thereof is downright gag-worthy. In short, just put a shirt on already, and if you could throw on trousers as well, so much the better! Thought I would get that in before the heat wave this week.
Not so on my block. Save the:
- neighbours one door down
- Chinese family three doors down
- elderly Russian lady four doors down (who inexplicably started speaking to me last week after refraining from interacting these past 3.5+ years. [we now wave to each other])
- young thug who walks his dog while chain smoking
- two Chassidishe boys who gawk as they ride by on their bikes
- block yenta
So it came as not such a surprise this last layl Shabbos when I meet a young lady (Canadian no less!) who lives across the street and only 5 doors down from me. I had NEVER seen her before. That's almost as hilarious as how much she reminded me of myself at that age, down to the style of her skirt. A CANADIAN on my block and I was unaware. What a disgrace!
On a separate but related note, to all my male goyishe neighbours, young and old, the following is for you:
Please, please, please stop exiting your houses without your shirts. That behaviour is just gross. Same goes for shorts. I don't care how fabulous you feel you look (and I suppose, in turn, consider such displays to be a gift to the female population), I'm here to burst your bubble and inform you that the sight thereof is downright gag-worthy. In short, just put a shirt on already, and if you could throw on trousers as well, so much the better! Thought I would get that in before the heat wave this week.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Finally
As mentioned in my previous post, I gather that the mother of the Rosemary's Baby two-some on the block behind is probably overwhelmed by their personalities, and consequently unable to teach them appropriate behaviour. My assumption was based on the general traileresque screaming that is occasionally heard from her or her partner (a man with a penchant for the "F" word)- but mainly from the latter.
This morning, after a relatively subdued level of play, the woman finally lost it. I can only imagine that the level of "quiet" was in direct relation to level of horror they were unleashing. Suffice it to say that when she finally exited the house late morning to let them have it, people, it was quite something to hear. She reamed at them for well over half an hour, and managed to curtail any of their protests while simultaneously squelching any wailing from them.
I took solace in the fact that both she and I reached the limit in the same week. Is it quiet right now? Of course not, since other neighbours have taken the opportunity to fill the "silence" with some noise of their own. Still, in comparison the usual state of affairs, the day is still almost bearable.
TODAH HASHEM. And here's to hoping it'll last through the afternoon!
This morning, after a relatively subdued level of play, the woman finally lost it. I can only imagine that the level of "quiet" was in direct relation to level of horror they were unleashing. Suffice it to say that when she finally exited the house late morning to let them have it, people, it was quite something to hear. She reamed at them for well over half an hour, and managed to curtail any of their protests while simultaneously squelching any wailing from them.
I took solace in the fact that both she and I reached the limit in the same week. Is it quiet right now? Of course not, since other neighbours have taken the opportunity to fill the "silence" with some noise of their own. Still, in comparison the usual state of affairs, the day is still almost bearable.
TODAH HASHEM. And here's to hoping it'll last through the afternoon!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
On Mormons Et Al
For whatever reason, I've always been a magnet on the Mormon radar. Everywhere I've travelled, worked, etc., they've found me and given me the tap dance routine.
So I always wondered what it was about me that attracted that element. Did I look particularly alone and in turn vulnerable? A thinker (since I'm invariably lost in thought while taking public transpo)? And then this afternoon it hit me that's it's not me in particular. It's my essence.
What attracts Mormons and other evangelicals is precisely the innate holiness I carry within me, like all yiddin. It's that they pick up on and that they try to convert over to their side.
Sometimes, the answer is so obvious, and yet we just don't see it until it bangs us over the head...
So I always wondered what it was about me that attracted that element. Did I look particularly alone and in turn vulnerable? A thinker (since I'm invariably lost in thought while taking public transpo)? And then this afternoon it hit me that's it's not me in particular. It's my essence.
What attracts Mormons and other evangelicals is precisely the innate holiness I carry within me, like all yiddin. It's that they pick up on and that they try to convert over to their side.
Sometimes, the answer is so obvious, and yet we just don't see it until it bangs us over the head...
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Avian UN
This afternoon, I decided to take a work break, and glanced out my window to take in the pretty snowfall that had been happening all day. I noted that, as is commonplace, the tree in the backyard held some birds.
Then I looked a bit closer. The tree was full of birds, and held not one, but several species: Sparrow, pigeon, robin, and more. All were hanging out in peaceful coexistence with nary a peep, waiting out the storm together. Multiple species even occupied the same branch.
So listen, people, if the birdies can do it, why or why can't we???
Then I looked a bit closer. The tree was full of birds, and held not one, but several species: Sparrow, pigeon, robin, and more. All were hanging out in peaceful coexistence with nary a peep, waiting out the storm together. Multiple species even occupied the same branch.
So listen, people, if the birdies can do it, why or why can't we???
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Shabbos Thought
I was really wanting to go to sleep abysmally early last night, but felt embarrassed to be going to be at 6:30 PM at my age. So I forced myself to slog through the rest of my learning, and even cracked open a new sefer. While Hashem did reward my efforts with granting me a chiddish, I subsequently failed to remember it past this morning. So I suppose it's good nobody asked me to give a brief word at the lunch table. All that said, here is my feeble attempt to reconstruct my little thought.
When referring to Yaacov's bowing to the shechina versus Esav, Rav Dessler stresses that as opposed to the strategy of the secular yid, whose sole focus is seeking Esav's approval, Yaacov exemplifies the Toradik focus that one should maintain during galus. In a similar vein, Maharal relates the story of how the question was once asked why "the Chosen People" should be so fractured. Where's the national unity? Maharal recounts that galus requires this dissolution of unity, since it is this lack that is a critical component of the dispersion. Mental dispersion was required, and the end result was diverse outlooks that purposely interfered with brotherhood.
Indeed, this fracturing is appropriate given the reason that the second temple was destroyed, as again given over by Maharal. Unlike the first temple, the shechinah did not reside in the second temple. Rather, the second temple served as a sign of national unity; it was where the klal congregated as a people, and in that merit, stood until the people became divided. Thus Yaacov's bowing to the shechinah versus to Esav underscores how the klal, in galus, must remain focussed on a Toradik perspective, not pander and strive to placate the other nations. By doing so, we can remain in a mindset that enables us to create achdus in the community, and ultimately reunite as a people. In turn, by begetting a positive mindset, we can be zocher to once again have the shechinah dwell openly amongst us.
Good voch!
When referring to Yaacov's bowing to the shechina versus Esav, Rav Dessler stresses that as opposed to the strategy of the secular yid, whose sole focus is seeking Esav's approval, Yaacov exemplifies the Toradik focus that one should maintain during galus. In a similar vein, Maharal relates the story of how the question was once asked why "the Chosen People" should be so fractured. Where's the national unity? Maharal recounts that galus requires this dissolution of unity, since it is this lack that is a critical component of the dispersion. Mental dispersion was required, and the end result was diverse outlooks that purposely interfered with brotherhood.
Indeed, this fracturing is appropriate given the reason that the second temple was destroyed, as again given over by Maharal. Unlike the first temple, the shechinah did not reside in the second temple. Rather, the second temple served as a sign of national unity; it was where the klal congregated as a people, and in that merit, stood until the people became divided. Thus Yaacov's bowing to the shechinah versus to Esav underscores how the klal, in galus, must remain focussed on a Toradik perspective, not pander and strive to placate the other nations. By doing so, we can remain in a mindset that enables us to create achdus in the community, and ultimately reunite as a people. In turn, by begetting a positive mindset, we can be zocher to once again have the shechinah dwell openly amongst us.
Good voch!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
OMG- Fake Kosher Radio Caller
(I almost deleted this post, because the events of this past week have magnified the need for kindness and solidarity versus divisiveness. But the more I thought about what I had written, the more I realized that the mentality illustrated in the story is precisely the mentality that condones the Mumbai attacks. And so I'm posting it anyway, and I hope nobody gets offended by the initially "fluffy" nature of the story. Given that I have spent the last 72 hours in a somber mood contemplating the dire state of the world, perhaps a pulse-check of the insidious lines of logic that create an environment ripe for precisely such attacks, chasve shalom, is in order.)
I was listening to the radio Friday morning while I was cleaning and waiting for my non-existent next assignment to materialize in my inbox. I generally am not a fan of radio DJs and call-in shows, since I tend to enjoy less didactic, self-aggrandizing radio. As in, just give me the music, please and cut the chit-chat. But when I tuned in to my regular station, I caught the following, and remained transfixed in horror.
As I tuned in, good ol' Elizabeth was busy telling the abysmal saga of how she had fooled her family by getting takeout from Boston Market and passing it off as her own. I was busy trying to give her the benefit of the doubt in terms of why she might have tried to mislead her extended family about her cooking, when she dropped in a most self-satisfying tone the following shocker: "And the best part is that they keep kosher!". As caller after caller told her that what she had done was deceptive and wrong, she kept saying "I just don't see what the big deal is".
Since I don't see how, living in New York of all places, she could be so put out by stopping off for 5 minutes to get kosher takeout post-Boston Market, her decision to not offer any kosher food to her guests suggests a general hostility towards religion. Perhaps she had issues with organized religion prior to getting married. Or maybe she and her in-laws don't get along. (Given her personality, I could see why that might be.) In any event, the woman definitely has issues with her husband and/or his family, and decided to address things in a most passive-aggressive manner.
Anyhow, I found myself pondering this radio roadkill. And what I found particularly disturbing was the following.
First, dear Elizabeth seems to misunderstand the basics of respect. When you get married, you need to nurture respect for both your spouse and your spouse's family. I mean, that's just a given, lady. I'm sure she would understand what the big deal would be if she served meat to a vegetarian. And, I hate to refer to Emily Post, but general etiquette does dictate that one find out if one's guests has dietary preferences and then offer a few dishes to meet those requirements. Unfortunately, it would seem that Elizabeth missed the boat completely as far as standard good graces are concerned.
Okay, so the woman has issues with etiquette. Many people in this generation do, so she gets a free pass on that one. But even if she couldn't see the problem with not catering to dietary preferences, as in the case of the vegetarian above, let's think about the sitaution from a different angle. How might she react if say, having made a choice in her life, her family consciously attempted to subvert her choice? Would she not feel as if her trust had been betrayed? That their lack of faith in her choice was condescending and/or disrespectful? But I suppose that's the point- she is obviously self-absorbed and doesn't give a flying fatouey about anyone but herself.
So the real shame is that this woman seems to believe that life is only about her and her "needs". When you get married, you're supposed to understand that you're going to have make some concessions in order to build a relationship with your spouse and their family. But the Thanksgiving episode- and who knows if this is the first such antic she has pulled?- will not only end up alienating her in-laws, but her husband and their children while she's at it. Although, to be frank, she probably would continue to shirk her role in the disintegration of respect and trust that is the foundation of any healthy relationship. Repeat after me everyone: "I don't see what the big deal is"...
As for the duped in-laws, where to begin? No matter what level of kosher they keep, the reality is that they have wanted to keep in contact with their son and consequently agreed to participate in Thanksgiving with him and his non-Jewish wife (I say non-Jewish, because even if this woman converted, she obviously did so insincerely). Imagine their dismay when, having put their trust in their daughter-in-law they learn the truth about her disgraceful behaviour. Because, let's be honest- if you're brazen enough to go on the radio to maliciously gloat about putting one over your entire family, you just know that word will somehow get back to the family. I expect Elisabeth is desperate to get caught. As for why that may be so, I'll leave that to everyone else's imagination. My concern is her moral vacancy.
How does all of this tie into the Mumbai attacks? First, Elizabeth is unequivocally an anti-semite, as demonstrated by her blatant disrespect for Jewish "traditions". Secondly, call it a stretch, but the same intolerance for anything but one's own ideology is at the heart of all extremism. By disrespecting other people's way of life, Elizabeth is perpetuating intolerance. And it is precisely such intolerance that finds a way of targeting minorities, such as us Jews. For those of you who don't believe Jews are minorities by the way, you'll have to wait for a future post; suffice it to say though that all you need to do is google countries by population and demographics, then do some rudimentary math, and you'll see that, all the propaganda to the contrary, Jews remain a minority.
What else can I say? In a perverse way, her call was fitting given the events of last week. It helped explain why, in the aftermath of Mumbai, the media coverage minimized the terrorist link by referring to the terrorists as "hostage-takers", "external links", "Pakistani Militants", etc. In a world where a Chabad family and their guests gave their lives in order to provide kosher food for people who might or might not have otherwise kept kosher, this woman's joyous celebration of mocking her in-laws traditions is a sad, chilling reminder that we only exist due to Hashem's protection and Divine Mercy.
May His Protection and Mercy never wain.
I was listening to the radio Friday morning while I was cleaning and waiting for my non-existent next assignment to materialize in my inbox. I generally am not a fan of radio DJs and call-in shows, since I tend to enjoy less didactic, self-aggrandizing radio. As in, just give me the music, please and cut the chit-chat. But when I tuned in to my regular station, I caught the following, and remained transfixed in horror.
As I tuned in, good ol' Elizabeth was busy telling the abysmal saga of how she had fooled her family by getting takeout from Boston Market and passing it off as her own. I was busy trying to give her the benefit of the doubt in terms of why she might have tried to mislead her extended family about her cooking, when she dropped in a most self-satisfying tone the following shocker: "And the best part is that they keep kosher!". As caller after caller told her that what she had done was deceptive and wrong, she kept saying "I just don't see what the big deal is".
Since I don't see how, living in New York of all places, she could be so put out by stopping off for 5 minutes to get kosher takeout post-Boston Market, her decision to not offer any kosher food to her guests suggests a general hostility towards religion. Perhaps she had issues with organized religion prior to getting married. Or maybe she and her in-laws don't get along. (Given her personality, I could see why that might be.) In any event, the woman definitely has issues with her husband and/or his family, and decided to address things in a most passive-aggressive manner.
Anyhow, I found myself pondering this radio roadkill. And what I found particularly disturbing was the following.
First, dear Elizabeth seems to misunderstand the basics of respect. When you get married, you need to nurture respect for both your spouse and your spouse's family. I mean, that's just a given, lady. I'm sure she would understand what the big deal would be if she served meat to a vegetarian. And, I hate to refer to Emily Post, but general etiquette does dictate that one find out if one's guests has dietary preferences and then offer a few dishes to meet those requirements. Unfortunately, it would seem that Elizabeth missed the boat completely as far as standard good graces are concerned.
Okay, so the woman has issues with etiquette. Many people in this generation do, so she gets a free pass on that one. But even if she couldn't see the problem with not catering to dietary preferences, as in the case of the vegetarian above, let's think about the sitaution from a different angle. How might she react if say, having made a choice in her life, her family consciously attempted to subvert her choice? Would she not feel as if her trust had been betrayed? That their lack of faith in her choice was condescending and/or disrespectful? But I suppose that's the point- she is obviously self-absorbed and doesn't give a flying fatouey about anyone but herself.
So the real shame is that this woman seems to believe that life is only about her and her "needs". When you get married, you're supposed to understand that you're going to have make some concessions in order to build a relationship with your spouse and their family. But the Thanksgiving episode- and who knows if this is the first such antic she has pulled?- will not only end up alienating her in-laws, but her husband and their children while she's at it. Although, to be frank, she probably would continue to shirk her role in the disintegration of respect and trust that is the foundation of any healthy relationship. Repeat after me everyone: "I don't see what the big deal is"...
As for the duped in-laws, where to begin? No matter what level of kosher they keep, the reality is that they have wanted to keep in contact with their son and consequently agreed to participate in Thanksgiving with him and his non-Jewish wife (I say non-Jewish, because even if this woman converted, she obviously did so insincerely). Imagine their dismay when, having put their trust in their daughter-in-law they learn the truth about her disgraceful behaviour. Because, let's be honest- if you're brazen enough to go on the radio to maliciously gloat about putting one over your entire family, you just know that word will somehow get back to the family. I expect Elisabeth is desperate to get caught. As for why that may be so, I'll leave that to everyone else's imagination. My concern is her moral vacancy.
How does all of this tie into the Mumbai attacks? First, Elizabeth is unequivocally an anti-semite, as demonstrated by her blatant disrespect for Jewish "traditions". Secondly, call it a stretch, but the same intolerance for anything but one's own ideology is at the heart of all extremism. By disrespecting other people's way of life, Elizabeth is perpetuating intolerance. And it is precisely such intolerance that finds a way of targeting minorities, such as us Jews. For those of you who don't believe Jews are minorities by the way, you'll have to wait for a future post; suffice it to say though that all you need to do is google countries by population and demographics, then do some rudimentary math, and you'll see that, all the propaganda to the contrary, Jews remain a minority.
What else can I say? In a perverse way, her call was fitting given the events of last week. It helped explain why, in the aftermath of Mumbai, the media coverage minimized the terrorist link by referring to the terrorists as "hostage-takers", "external links", "Pakistani Militants", etc. In a world where a Chabad family and their guests gave their lives in order to provide kosher food for people who might or might not have otherwise kept kosher, this woman's joyous celebration of mocking her in-laws traditions is a sad, chilling reminder that we only exist due to Hashem's protection and Divine Mercy.
May His Protection and Mercy never wain.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
We are Family
With my library book due today, I was forced out of my self-imposed hermitship and left the house. I decided to take out Camus in English; that seemed to be suitably mindless summer reading, since I have previously read Camus in French. Of course, considering how complex his language can be, I may have to reach for a dictionary, so we'll see in the end if I made a wise choice, LOL.
The line to take out my book was BH very short; an Arab woman with her child was putting away her books ahead of me, and another Arab woman was a few feet away from her. I diligently waited a few moments since I couldn't tell if they were together; why assume, after all? So I looked for some indication as to whether she was in fact in line, without actually looking her way (I didn't want it to seem like I was staring or anything). The funny thing is, that's when I saw that she was, in fact, staring at me. Hard.
I tried to figure out if she was staring because I was doing something wrong, or if she was somehow just offended by my mere presence. I decided it didn't really matter, since her stare gave me the clue that she was not waiting in line, so I walked up to the checkout.
Last week, my friend in Florida sent a very disturbing video that I'm sure you've all heard about, FINTA. In brief, the film quotes passages from the Koran and shows how they are interpreted by extremists. Basically, the film contains scene after scene of disturbing images and sound bites about the impeding doom for Jews, Gays, etc that these given groups of Arabs are propogating.
While I do make comments on this blog about Brooklyn, and perhaps make statements about behaviour that I have encountered here, I do not favour generalizations or stereotypes. Indeed, if I have made such generalizations and have offended anyone, I am deeply sorry, because that is not my nature or my intent.
That being said, I do not believe that Muslims = Arabs, Arabs = Terrorists. Nor do I believe that all Arabs or all Muslims hate Jews. Rather, as in our own communities, different people think differently from one another. To be frank, that is what I am trying to point out, albeit occasionally with strong language: that sometimes we behave well, and sometimes we don't. Certainly that is the case for myself personally, I have good days, I have bad days, and on both types of day I can do mitzvahs or the opposite, chasve shalom.
But I could swear that the woman in the library today did in fact hate me simply because I'm Jewish. At least, that is certainly what her stare conveyed. I am still hoping that I somehow misconstrued the meaning of the stare because contemplating the alternative would be a very sad endeavour. As I have mention ad nauseum in other posts, since we are always judged as being representative of all yiddin, I am particularly careful when I am outside about what I say and how I act. My actions, in other words, can contribute to generating a positive or negative perception of yiddin. Therefore, while I hope that the woman in the library is above stereotypes, I understand that most of the world judges different social groups based on stereotypes and other such shorthand. To put it differently, she probably did hate me because I'm Jewish, and that is that.
But you know, I guess that the experience was good preparation for reading Camus...
The line to take out my book was BH very short; an Arab woman with her child was putting away her books ahead of me, and another Arab woman was a few feet away from her. I diligently waited a few moments since I couldn't tell if they were together; why assume, after all? So I looked for some indication as to whether she was in fact in line, without actually looking her way (I didn't want it to seem like I was staring or anything). The funny thing is, that's when I saw that she was, in fact, staring at me. Hard.
I tried to figure out if she was staring because I was doing something wrong, or if she was somehow just offended by my mere presence. I decided it didn't really matter, since her stare gave me the clue that she was not waiting in line, so I walked up to the checkout.
Last week, my friend in Florida sent a very disturbing video that I'm sure you've all heard about, FINTA. In brief, the film quotes passages from the Koran and shows how they are interpreted by extremists. Basically, the film contains scene after scene of disturbing images and sound bites about the impeding doom for Jews, Gays, etc that these given groups of Arabs are propogating.
While I do make comments on this blog about Brooklyn, and perhaps make statements about behaviour that I have encountered here, I do not favour generalizations or stereotypes. Indeed, if I have made such generalizations and have offended anyone, I am deeply sorry, because that is not my nature or my intent.
That being said, I do not believe that Muslims = Arabs, Arabs = Terrorists. Nor do I believe that all Arabs or all Muslims hate Jews. Rather, as in our own communities, different people think differently from one another. To be frank, that is what I am trying to point out, albeit occasionally with strong language: that sometimes we behave well, and sometimes we don't. Certainly that is the case for myself personally, I have good days, I have bad days, and on both types of day I can do mitzvahs or the opposite, chasve shalom.
But I could swear that the woman in the library today did in fact hate me simply because I'm Jewish. At least, that is certainly what her stare conveyed. I am still hoping that I somehow misconstrued the meaning of the stare because contemplating the alternative would be a very sad endeavour. As I have mention ad nauseum in other posts, since we are always judged as being representative of all yiddin, I am particularly careful when I am outside about what I say and how I act. My actions, in other words, can contribute to generating a positive or negative perception of yiddin. Therefore, while I hope that the woman in the library is above stereotypes, I understand that most of the world judges different social groups based on stereotypes and other such shorthand. To put it differently, she probably did hate me because I'm Jewish, and that is that.
But you know, I guess that the experience was good preparation for reading Camus...
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Fan Fare
To quote the old Peanuts comic strip, I just can't stand it! Every checkout and web portal screams a headline about the arrival of the Jolie/Pitt twins...
I understand that you can't look to the popular media for staunch morality, and that instead pop media turns a profit by focussing on the latest grand displays of immorality. But enough is enough.
First, there was the ripping apart of Britney Spears in the media. The girl displayed blatant signs of post-partum depression or some other chemical imbalance long before her public fall from grace. Yet the press displayed nothing short of intense cruelty by its choice to detail her every misstep. Their actions were self-serving, and uncalled for.
And now we witness the flip-side, i.e., the current fawning by media over the Jolie/Pitts, as vile a duo as there ever was. While I can appreciate dear Angelina's work with the UN and on the part of disadvantaged children worldwide, such work does not negate the immoral nature of her pairing with Pitt. She is, to put it differently, only 1 for 2 in the moral ball game.
As I mentioned in my earlier post (The 7 Noachide Laws), Bnai Noach are required to both refrain from sexual immorality and promote justice. One aspect of the Do not commit sexual immorality law is to respect the sanctity of marriage and, by extension, to refrain from adultery. While adultery is technically defined as relations between a man and a married woman, enticing a married man into having an affair that resulted in the final death knell to his marriage would probably be universally understood as a sexually immoral act. Moreover, one aspect of pursuing justice is to refrain from making vows in vain. As a woman who has gone on record stating that she would never commit adultery because of the impact that her father's infidelity had on her family growing up, it would seem that her behaviour the last few years is misaligned with this documented "promise".
You may ask me, why do I care? These are just actors. So let me explain the root cause for the bee in my bonnet.
Back in 2000, Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe had a tryst. A married woman herself, Ms. Ryan suddenly found herself in the position of being dethroned as America's Sweetheart. In fact, while certainly her career came to a standstill after news of the affair broke, Russell Crowe was also affected professionally. A mere decade ago then, the public still viewed such behaviour as a scandal, and that public reaction was in keeping with the long tradition of Hollywood. To rephrase, up until a couple of years ago, the American public was intolerant of sexual immorality of various kinds: adultery, homosexuality, pornography, etc. And now, the media glorifies precisely that immorality, which fuels public insensitivity to common decency.
Where is the respect for marriage? For G-d? For basic sensitivity (see Britney above)? In an era where a couple based in immorality is the Golden Couple of the media, what is someone who is a Bnai Noach or a yid supposed to do? The answer is, of course, right in one's pocket book. We should elect to spend our entertainment dollars supporting personalities who exhibit moral behaviour and tasteful work. In other words, when renting films or buying magazines, spend your money supporting talent that holds him/herself to a moral code that you can stomach.
I have one friend who proclaimed recently that she doesn't care about an entertainer's personal life; she just cares about whether the entertainer succeeds in entertaining her. While I can certainly understand her view, I humbly choose to take a different path when choosing my entertainment. I believe that by choosing to support certain entertainers over others, we can help elevate the bar in terms of moral entertainment. If we keep choosing moral entertainment over immoral entertainment, then in the end the entertainment industry will be forced to recognize that the public demands stories with moral backbone.
Thankfully, many stars still exhibit morality, as evidenced by the concurrent trend in Hollywood to marry and have children in wedlock. Moreover, one can find solace in the fact that the most bankable star in Hollywood last year was Matt Damon, an actor who in his acceptance speech for his latest reward thanked the people for recognizing a "suburban Dad". While he can admittedly be quite fowl-mouthed during interviews, Damon's films are blissfully tznius, showcasing no nudity, no excessive violence, and nary a curse word.
Maybe if that trend continues, we can one day raise up the standards of popular media as well.
I understand that you can't look to the popular media for staunch morality, and that instead pop media turns a profit by focussing on the latest grand displays of immorality. But enough is enough.
First, there was the ripping apart of Britney Spears in the media. The girl displayed blatant signs of post-partum depression or some other chemical imbalance long before her public fall from grace. Yet the press displayed nothing short of intense cruelty by its choice to detail her every misstep. Their actions were self-serving, and uncalled for.
And now we witness the flip-side, i.e., the current fawning by media over the Jolie/Pitts, as vile a duo as there ever was. While I can appreciate dear Angelina's work with the UN and on the part of disadvantaged children worldwide, such work does not negate the immoral nature of her pairing with Pitt. She is, to put it differently, only 1 for 2 in the moral ball game.
As I mentioned in my earlier post (The 7 Noachide Laws), Bnai Noach are required to both refrain from sexual immorality and promote justice. One aspect of the Do not commit sexual immorality law is to respect the sanctity of marriage and, by extension, to refrain from adultery. While adultery is technically defined as relations between a man and a married woman, enticing a married man into having an affair that resulted in the final death knell to his marriage would probably be universally understood as a sexually immoral act. Moreover, one aspect of pursuing justice is to refrain from making vows in vain. As a woman who has gone on record stating that she would never commit adultery because of the impact that her father's infidelity had on her family growing up, it would seem that her behaviour the last few years is misaligned with this documented "promise".
You may ask me, why do I care? These are just actors. So let me explain the root cause for the bee in my bonnet.
Back in 2000, Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe had a tryst. A married woman herself, Ms. Ryan suddenly found herself in the position of being dethroned as America's Sweetheart. In fact, while certainly her career came to a standstill after news of the affair broke, Russell Crowe was also affected professionally. A mere decade ago then, the public still viewed such behaviour as a scandal, and that public reaction was in keeping with the long tradition of Hollywood. To rephrase, up until a couple of years ago, the American public was intolerant of sexual immorality of various kinds: adultery, homosexuality, pornography, etc. And now, the media glorifies precisely that immorality, which fuels public insensitivity to common decency.
Where is the respect for marriage? For G-d? For basic sensitivity (see Britney above)? In an era where a couple based in immorality is the Golden Couple of the media, what is someone who is a Bnai Noach or a yid supposed to do? The answer is, of course, right in one's pocket book. We should elect to spend our entertainment dollars supporting personalities who exhibit moral behaviour and tasteful work. In other words, when renting films or buying magazines, spend your money supporting talent that holds him/herself to a moral code that you can stomach.
I have one friend who proclaimed recently that she doesn't care about an entertainer's personal life; she just cares about whether the entertainer succeeds in entertaining her. While I can certainly understand her view, I humbly choose to take a different path when choosing my entertainment. I believe that by choosing to support certain entertainers over others, we can help elevate the bar in terms of moral entertainment. If we keep choosing moral entertainment over immoral entertainment, then in the end the entertainment industry will be forced to recognize that the public demands stories with moral backbone.
Thankfully, many stars still exhibit morality, as evidenced by the concurrent trend in Hollywood to marry and have children in wedlock. Moreover, one can find solace in the fact that the most bankable star in Hollywood last year was Matt Damon, an actor who in his acceptance speech for his latest reward thanked the people for recognizing a "suburban Dad". While he can admittedly be quite fowl-mouthed during interviews, Damon's films are blissfully tznius, showcasing no nudity, no excessive violence, and nary a curse word.
Maybe if that trend continues, we can one day raise up the standards of popular media as well.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The 7 Noachide Laws
My husband commented recently that if a yid sins, chasve shalom, Hashem has mercy because we have 613 commandments to fulfill. No such luck for goyim, he pointed out.
That got me thinking about an unpopular topic, namely goyishe morality. Specifically, I started contemplating the way that goyim are judged, namely the 7 Noachide laws:
The question remains though: are most goyim engaged in deviations from the Noachide laws? Tolerance for such deviation has become more accepted in the past few decades in the Western world. But is this tolerance the true picture of goyim? Since non-Jews have historically followed these laws, is the basis for their cultures not rooted in them?
I am in the minority here in Brooklyn; I do not adhere to the popular view that there is no point in acknowledging goyim because they are unworthy of our consideration. Since Hashem created a world in which goyim exist, I believe He has a purpose for goyim just as He has a purpose for Klal Yisroel. In other words, let's not fall into the snare of an elitist mindset whereby all goyim are bad and low-level human beings. There is good and bad everywhere, and in all of us. The question is, which drive do we allow to prevail?
As yiddin, certainly we are meant to set an example, or rather be "a light unto the nations". Should such a people openly espouse vitriol about the rest of the world's inhabitants? I have met many, many goyim who are good, honest, kind people- people who intuitively follow the 7 laws. Last week on the metro (on Taanit Esther, to be exact), I saw a bunch of strangers leap immediately into action when a man fell down and began to convulse. The entire car was poised to help in any way that was necessary. Are these the goyim that my neighbours in Brooklyn openly condemn?
When I lived in the South, there was one family whose teenage daughters spent each Sunday afternoon handing out business cards on the street. The neighbourhood in which they performed this distribution was one notorious for its bars and club life. There they stood in the sweltering sun for hours, giving the cards to anyone who would take them. What did the business cards advertise? The 7 Noachide laws. On these cards were written the laws, and a brief explanation of their purpose. In other words, these girls devoted their time educating goyim of their spiritual duties in an effort to help them transform.
That is what a yid should be and how a yid should act, in my opinion. We should be concerned not only with yiddin, although obviously that should always be our top and most pressing priority. Yet this priority does not negate our responsibility to the other nations and inhabitants of this planet.
It is after all Hashem's world. And if our actions as yiddin determine the state of the world, then we also determine what happens to goyim. Why not then step up and help the goyim improve spiritually? It will only make the world a better place and help us emulate the very compassion that Hashem shows to none other than Klal Yisroel.
That got me thinking about an unpopular topic, namely goyishe morality. Specifically, I started contemplating the way that goyim are judged, namely the 7 Noachide laws:
- Do not murder
- Do not steal
- Do not worship false gods
- Do not engage in sexual immorality
- Do not eat the limb of a live animal
- Do not curse G-d
- Erect courts and effect justice
The question remains though: are most goyim engaged in deviations from the Noachide laws? Tolerance for such deviation has become more accepted in the past few decades in the Western world. But is this tolerance the true picture of goyim? Since non-Jews have historically followed these laws, is the basis for their cultures not rooted in them?
I am in the minority here in Brooklyn; I do not adhere to the popular view that there is no point in acknowledging goyim because they are unworthy of our consideration. Since Hashem created a world in which goyim exist, I believe He has a purpose for goyim just as He has a purpose for Klal Yisroel. In other words, let's not fall into the snare of an elitist mindset whereby all goyim are bad and low-level human beings. There is good and bad everywhere, and in all of us. The question is, which drive do we allow to prevail?
As yiddin, certainly we are meant to set an example, or rather be "a light unto the nations". Should such a people openly espouse vitriol about the rest of the world's inhabitants? I have met many, many goyim who are good, honest, kind people- people who intuitively follow the 7 laws. Last week on the metro (on Taanit Esther, to be exact), I saw a bunch of strangers leap immediately into action when a man fell down and began to convulse. The entire car was poised to help in any way that was necessary. Are these the goyim that my neighbours in Brooklyn openly condemn?
When I lived in the South, there was one family whose teenage daughters spent each Sunday afternoon handing out business cards on the street. The neighbourhood in which they performed this distribution was one notorious for its bars and club life. There they stood in the sweltering sun for hours, giving the cards to anyone who would take them. What did the business cards advertise? The 7 Noachide laws. On these cards were written the laws, and a brief explanation of their purpose. In other words, these girls devoted their time educating goyim of their spiritual duties in an effort to help them transform.
That is what a yid should be and how a yid should act, in my opinion. We should be concerned not only with yiddin, although obviously that should always be our top and most pressing priority. Yet this priority does not negate our responsibility to the other nations and inhabitants of this planet.
It is after all Hashem's world. And if our actions as yiddin determine the state of the world, then we also determine what happens to goyim. Why not then step up and help the goyim improve spiritually? It will only make the world a better place and help us emulate the very compassion that Hashem shows to none other than Klal Yisroel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)