Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Are we hypocrites (or bigots) if we care more about Paris than Beirut?



Americans don’t like to acknowledge it, but history matters. Our feelings don’t develop out of nowhere. They have reasons and more often than not, they make sense. This doesn’t mean that our emotions are always appropriate, nor does it mean that we shouldn’t sometimes change how we react to things, but it does mean that our responses can be rational even when they are not ideal.

Much has been made of the fact that people on Facebook are expressing more grief over the attacks on Paris than the suicide bombings in Beirut. The subtext (and sometimes the super text) is that those who express solidarity with Paris are hypocrites or bigots because there is no meaningful difference between the two. Both assaults were horrible and both killed innocent civilians, so, the argument goes, our reaction should be the same. Advocates insist there should be as many Lebanese flags on our Facebook profiles as French ones. I disagree.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Yes, the attacks in Paris were about religion. Stop saying they weren’t.



I always tell my students that there is no such thing as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, that there are only Judaisms, Christinaities, and Islams. For example, I am a Reform Jew and while my tradition overlaps quite significantly with Hasidism, we have many fundamentally different beliefs. Any religion I commit to has to treat men and women equally. It has to welcome both gay and straight marriages, and respect modern scientific discoveries. It has to be tolerant and celebrate mixed-faith relationships. Hasidism does none of these things. It is mystical. It is messianic. It is reactionary. It makes no sense to me and when push comes to shove, besides our common historical roots, the religion I practice has much more in common with that of modernist Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians than it has with Hasidic Judaism. Many Hasids feel the same. It is not infrequent for ultra-Orthodox Jews to publicly assert that people like me are not really Jews at all.

All religions share this same tension. There are liberal Catholics who do not believe the Pope is infallible, who are pro-Choice, and who believe that all-religions are equally divine. Yet, there are many pre-Vatican II Catholics who think that the Church is the only path to redemption and that the Pope has absolute moral authority. There are Protestants who reject Martin Luther’s antisemitism and others who welcome climate change because they long for the apocalypse. Many from each group have been quoted as stating that the others are not “real Christians,” and from their own perspective, they are correct. Their religions have an internal logic. There are standards that have to be met.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Should we take Plato seriously? (Or, Should we be Attracted to our Professors?)

 
Danae, by Coraggio


This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio: "What is courage?" with guest Ryan Balot. Click here to listen to the episode. 

Many years ago, when I was in graduate school, I took a class in which we discussed Plato’s account of the desire to learn. The Greek word for desire is eros, so philosophy for Plato is, literally, erotic, and so is the relationship between teacher and student. In response, someone in the class presented a paper asking whether he himself had ever felt any erotic attraction to his own teachers. He said that he didn’t and concluded that Plato was wrong; philosophy and eros had nothing to do with each other.