Stout Zombies

                                                                                                                         

A few minutes ago I heard on the radio that there was a new world record for zombies.  Guinness had certified it, and that makes it official.  9,592 of our greatest citizens had dressed up as zombies and participated in the Jersey Shore “Zombie Walk” in Asbury Park, making it the largest assemblage of zombie wannabes anywhere.  Fortunately I wasn't there.  It's one of the many thousand of events each year seeking the certificate that Guinness gives to individuals or groups that have achieved the stardom of a “world's record.”  It really doesn't matter what nature of the “record” is,[i] nor the attitude of the person or groups accomplishing it.  He, or they, can claim to be “Number 1.”

It all began in 1954.[ii]  That's when Guinness first distributed its book of world records.  Although it was originally intended as a giveaway so that pub patrons could settle their disputes – presumably over a few more pints of Guinness Stout – it has, over the years, become an industry of its own, with tens of millions of copies sold, and with publication in, at last count, twenty-nine languages.[iii]  In addition it has spawned other books, television shows, at least one video game and, in cooperation with the Ripley industry,  museums.  The history of the publication is easily available and will not be reviewed here, only a consideration of the reasons for its existence and popularity.

But first, to get you in the spirit of the endeavor, in addition to the anticipated sports records and some documentation of superlatives in the natural world,[iv] the world is benefited by the knowledge of the identity of “the world's most tattooed person,” the longest egg tossing distance, the world's largest biceps, the fastest tightrope walk by a dog,[v] the greatest number of people gathered in their underwear, and scads of others.[vi]  These examples will give you some idea of the importance of the information contained in the book.

As to the reasons for the volume, there are three groups of people involved.  The first, of course, includes the producers of this valuable reference resource.  Their reasons are multiple, but even beyond the income from the tome, itself, there is the value of the advertising both for the book and the brew each time someone talks about some record certified by the Guinness book.  There are also the revenues from the Extra Stout, Foreign Extra, and Black Lager – with more drunk as citizens argue over superlatives, and settle their arguments with the validation of the book.

The second group consists of those who appear in the book.  In some instances their fame was not under their control or of their choosing[vii] while others have exerted great time, effort, or resources in accomplishing their goal.  They, too, can be divided: those who have set records in established events[viii] and those who invent categories that might be acceptable to Guinness.  They're narcissists chasing their fifteen minutes of fame.  Why else would anyone seek glory by making the world's largest hot dog?  One individual earned recognition for spending the longest amount of time playing a particular computer game.[ix]  It isn't that difficult to work out a category in which there is unlikely to be any significant competition (or, for that matter, an occurrence so narrowly defined that no one cares and it has no significance except as a statistic[x]).  Suresh Joachim Arulanantham broke the world record for ironing (55 hours and 5 minutes, though it may have been broken since) but I wonder how many people competed for that honor.  Or organized a larger flash mob at the Streetsville Bread and Honey Festival[xi] than that of those recognized for that achievement.  There are many who want to be part of something larger than themselves.[xii]  They're the kind of people who will dress up as zombies for a few minutes of participation in a record.  Others may not know of their participation, but they do, and soon enough they'll tell you about it.  They can't achieve something in any other way, so they hitch their wagon to a star event.   And I shouldn't omit those who seek the record for the most records.  In April, 2009, Guinness awarded that “honor,” "Person with the most records," to Ashrita Furman, who held 100 records.  It may have been broken since, but I don't really care.

The last group includes those who read and quote the book.  Having no lives of their own they cite the alleged accomplishments of others.  Some of them may have had a little too much stout and may be high, but if they can memorize and spout some of these meaningless statistics at the local establishment they're sure to win the admiration of their drinking buddies.  Most, however, like to read these snippets.  They're short and easily digestible, and those who can remember them will take pride in their knowledge of trivia.  But they're really zombies, wandering from place to place, scaring others with their “knowledge,” while they accomplish nothing worthwhile.

In the meantime, Guinness makes a fortune.

 

 

 

 

Next episode: “Me, Myself, and I” -- I'm for me first.

 

  

 

 

 

---

[i]       In all candor, there are a few things that, for ethical reasons, Guinness will not certify, but the chances are good that almost any quantifiable accomplishment will be considered for mention.

 

[ii]     Actually, it began long before that, but Guinness organized it.  People have always raised questions about the “best” in every field and often fought over it.  The book was first published formally and sold in 1955.

 

[iii]    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records

 

[iv]    It was a question about the speed of Golden Plovers that started the whole thing.

 

[v]     See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9L56vftdY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxDknJiaNo.

 

[vi]     For just a sampling (small in terms of records) see http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/09/25-weird-guinness-world-records.

 

[vii]     For example Zeus, the world's tallest dog.

 

[viii]   Like the Olympics and other professional sporting events.

 

[ix]     Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you want to challenge him.

 

[x]      Have you ever heard for example, while listening to a baseball game, the citation of the record for unassisted double plays in a Tuesday night-game  in August?

 

[xi]  http://www.mississauga.com/community-story/3126134-flash-mob-breaks-guinness-record-at-streetsville-bread-and-honey-festi/

 

[xii]     Similarly inspired people, though not seeking Guinness's recognition, were well described by Eric Hoffer.

 

Prometheus Bound

                                                                                             

Aeschylus bound him,ⁱ but Shelleyⁱⁱ cut him loose. In both cases they were alluding to physical binding and to the “crime” of bringing fire to mankind. Fire can be both an important aid to humanity, and a terrible danger. Fire is a two-edged sword – like so many of our treasures. The forest fire so feared by everyone can clear away the old dead brush and trees, leaving room for new growth. But there is much room for disagreement about fire's value and its risks, as well as about the way it was obtained. So, although Prometheus thought that stealing fire and bringing it to humanity was worth the risk, both binding and setting loose are understandable payments for Prometheus's enterprise.

But binding is not always a physical act. Less visible, while possibly more hindering, are the bounds set by society – those that limit what one can think or say or do. In the wild state, there are no external bounds set on what an animal does except, perhaps, fear of the consequences of our actions. An animal may set the boundaries of the territory that he will defend. The “State of Nature” is outside of society.ⁱⁱⁱ There is anarchy, and survival depends upon brains and brawn. Morality is not an issue.

Within a society, however, risk is largely mitigated at the cost of some of the freedom of action that exists outside; survival, stability, and security increase as anarchy is eliminated. There is law – not the “law of the jungle,” but man-made statutes for which we are all accountable. We are bound by the words of the law and of precedents, even if we had no say in their establishment. A government has been established to supervise and protect the lives and property of those in its jurisdiction.

But who set up that government? And what if we disagree with some of the rules they established? To what degree do those who preceded us speak for us? Whatever happened to Democracy?

Unfortunately we cannot relive the past. We have to live by it. Or maybe it's “fortunately.” Society^iv was instituted to protect us from each other, and to set the rules by which we live. We need laws to guide our actions. Those laws may have been made by those who preceded us and who, in that sense, speak for us. At least they speak for us as long as the laws last. It is a basic tenet of democracy that although we are bound by the decisions of the past, they are changeable – either by a modification in the understanding of what those decisions mean, or by absolute change in the law arrived at through an orderly, democratic, process. And we always have. We accept the constraints of international law (to some degree, at least), and of parental control and responsibility for infants, and of proxies in a variety of situations. From time to time the rules may have to change, but that is in our power. 

Our founding document, the Constitution, contains mechanisms for change and, within a year of its adoption, the process of amendment had already begun. The criteria for constitutional change, either by further amendment or by convention, are stiff – perhaps too stiff – but the Founding Fathers established the rules of the game and the states accepted them. And we're bound by them. 

 

That's the way rules work. It's the same if they are the rules of a game, an organization, or a government. For better or worse, it's also a pattern of human behavior and that may be the reason we accept it so willingly. We feel ourselves bound by the oaths we take, the promises we make, and by appointments.^v “That's the way we've always done it” seems to be justification enough for a rule. It's comfortable. Any deviation from what we've always done requires good justification. In the interim we yield to the ones who made the rules.

That's the weakness of the system though. We defer to the judgments of men^vi who may not be smarter than we but, whether we like it or not, they got there first, and it's sometimes harder to change the rules than to set them. It doesn't matter if the rules or laws are just or unjust. It's easier^vii to go along than to risk punishment for deviation. The deviation may be from the words of men in the past, or those who have power at present and can change the rules to suit their own purposes. Certainly there are those who willingly accept the penalties resulting from violation of the rules, but they are the minority.^viii Too many of us take a safer path, even if we consider it wrong. We fear the consequences. It is that kind of fear upon which any tyrannical^ix government is based.

Also troubling is the knowledge that whatever the origin of the rules,^x the interpretation of a few individuals – their determination of what the canons mean – is controlling, whether that was or was not the intent of those who framed them. We've accepted that also. In the case of our Constitution and its interpretation, for example, the Supreme Court can't be questioned, although constitutional amendment is possible and later on the Court may change its mind. And in the case of most of our laws, regulators make the rules by which we have to live. It's not always the decisions of the past that rule us but often current rule-makers.

But that's the system. And it doesn't apply to secular laws alone. The Bible, or Koran, or other foundational document, containing what believers accept as G-d's word, directs us to the path we must follow. (We live by the sweat of our brows, and we give birth in pain because our ancestors strayed from that path. We're bound by actions as well as words. History tells us that.) The explication of the details, however, is often decided by humans and we may thus be obliged to follow man-made, or man-“explained,” rules while we are trying to comply with divine ordinances. For those who attribute some or all of what is written in those books to their ancestors, the mediation of other men, as is the case with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, takes the process one step further from the intent of the author or authors. And since human viewpoints change from time to time,^xi the understanding of laws – secular or divine – is likely to change as well.

Is that the kind of system we want? Do we want to be obliged to follow rules in whose making we played no part, and with which we may not agree? It's a hard question to answer, and one with many parts. From my perspective, however, the bottom line answer is “yes,” but there are many exceptions, and it's probable that the exceptions will be different depending on where you live and what the rules are there. And it will depend on you – what are your core beliefs, whether you are an absolutist or relativist, and whether you are a martyr or not.

What approaches can you take? If you prefer the outlook of another society to your own, you should consider a change of location. If it is the religious beliefs with which you take issue, perhaps a change of religion or its abandonment is worth your consideration. But if you consider that the rules that you follow are, whatever their faults, basically appropriate, then you should be working to change them to the degree that you find them incorrect. It may require personal sacrifice of time or money or, if you feel strongly enough about the subject, civil disobedience and the penalties that follow. But if you believe, as I do, that society, on the whole, is an improvement on the chaos of the State of Nature, then you'll probably accept the idea that we are bound by the rules that have been set up, and they should be followed until we can change them. Laws are a two-edged sword. They can help us and they can hurt us. But until we can achieve a society in which they're all good, we'll have to accept the value and risks they bring.

Next episode: “Stout Zombies" -- High, not wide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i        “Prometheus Bound,” Aeschylus (at least it's usually attributed to him), probably the fifth century BCE.

ii       “Prometheus Unbound,” Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1820.

iii     Nature may still set geographical and meteorological bounds, but the rules of human interaction are up to us.

iv     Which is, according to Wikipedia, “the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the laws of nature generally.”

v        At least we should.

vi      Shorthand for “people.”

vii     And it requires far less thought. It's easier to do as you're told and defend your actions with the standard excuse: “I was only following orders.” It's not always right, however. In fact, it's usually wrong.

viii    Civil disobedience has a long and honored history. The example of Rosa Parks is one we should all remember.

ix     Whether fascist, communist, or one based on any other self-serving or undemocratic practice. When the governing power uses force freely to control those whom it rules, there will be few who protest. Most will accept the dictates of those in power rather than risk whatever consequences follow on their disobedience to the wishes of their rulers.

x       Some rules are made solely for the benefit of the lawmaker and his friends.

xi      And from society to society. We call that “cultural relativism.”

Rights And Wrongs

                                                                                            

According to Protagoras (490-430 BCE), “Man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras was a Greek and, according to Plato, a professional sophist. In view of his history, he qualifies as a dead white European male. Thus we reject everything he says. While that's not my automatic response, in this instance I accept the rejection of this particular declaration of the primacy of Man for several reasons. The most obvious is religious, but I won't get into that at this time. Rather I shall begin with Teddy Roosevelt.

It was the late President who said, in a State of the Union address,ⁱ “No man is above the law ... ”ⁱⁱ And that is the way our country is supposed to operate. Although crime exists and there are many who place themselves above the law, there are many who, less schooled in avoidance of the system and less able to afford sophisticated legal protection, come before what we term “the bar of justice.”

That's the way we work. According to the Constitution, Congress makes the laws and the courts decide on their just enforcement. In between is the executive power which provides the tools for the overall system, and it includes the mechanisms for bringing suspected violators to justice. But the bottom line is that the courts decide what the law is and what the law means. The courts (not Man) are the measure of all things. We know that is true because the Supreme Court has told us that it is.ⁱⁱⁱ

Sometimes it is difficult^iv to see the justice in a court decision. In one case,^v for example, the Supreme Court decided that it was in violation of interstate commerce laws for a farmer to grow wheat for his family's use if that exceeded what the government permitted. The Justices, however, decided that the part for his own consumption was illegal and the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture to fine him was proper and in keeping with the Constitution.

Sometimes the Court sees “rights” in the Constitution that are not obvious to those like me who are uninitiated.^vi Many designate it as “judicial activism.” That's a nice way of saying that it's politics for Justices. So it's important to be sure the right ones are on the bench – a high priority for every President.

Perhaps the courts shouldn't insert themselves in such matters. Perhaps they should. But one could surely argue that the court shouldn't “see” rights simply because they think they ought to be there. One might fear that such a procedure contradicts the idea of the rule of law. He might be concerned that however right a new “right” might be, it has been established wrongly. Perhaps this supports Protagoras's view: In this instance, Man (or Woman^vii) is the measure of all things. One of the more important issues each time there is a presidential election is the knowledge that the President (with the approval of the Senate) will choose candidates for open Supreme Court positions. Since the law is whatever the Justices say it is, choosing one with a particular political philosophy is an important means of making law conform to your own agenda. So an unelected Justice gets a lifetime appointment as a potential creator of rights. The original authors of the Constitution required ratification of their document. They needed to have their ideas approved. Supreme Court Justices do not.^viii

But that's enough quibbling. Back to the issue.

Okay. Griswold v. Connecticut taught us all some important lessons.^ix Privacy. Behind closed doors. Consenting adults. Keeping the government from intruding on our private beliefs and practices makes sense. You don't have to be a libertarian to want to keep public officials from deciding issues that you view as matters of morality. That, however, is coming to pass.^x More and more there is intrusion by the courts on matters of privacy and belief. The issues are no longer privacy and closed doors, or consent, or even adults. The key word is “rights.” The courts have discovered constitutional rights where they may not be apparent to most of us.

The Colorado Division of Civil Rights,^xi a civil rights court, has decided that it is discrimination to require that a transgender student – born a boy but identifying as a girl^xii – be denied use of the girl's bathroom. The use of the teachers' rest room or that of the nurse was deemed to be discriminatory. Fear was expressed that the child would be stigmatized. The consent of the other children in the bathroom was not the issue. Their privacy was not the determining factor even in a public bathroom.

What are the rights of the other children (and their parents) who are embarrassed by the presence in the bathroom of one they considers of the opposite sex? Suppose one of those children has been subject to sexual abuse and is traumatized by the presence of what she considers a member (sic) of the opposite. And what if parents simply don't want their children exposed (literally, figuratively, or both) to the anatomy of the opposite sex?^xiii

Does the ruling apply only to children or also to adults of what some might consider the opposite sex? If only children with “gender dysphoria” are involved, what is the upper limit of age? Do older individuals who identify with the opposite sex have any rights. Should those who object to the ruling or are not covered by it be permitted^xiv to use an alternative bathroom?

This is not the only case of its type but it is the first to specify that the rights of the transgender student trump the rights and beliefs of others. Various courts have affirmed the idea of equal rights for homosexuals, while the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that a photographic studio has no right to refuse the business of a same sex couple that wants their ceremony photographed. The personal and religious beliefs of the photographers are secondary issues. As the New York Times put it, “One of the justices, Richard C. Bosson, wrote: 'At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives, all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.'”

The issue is not any particular moral opinion. And the issue is not minority versus majority rights. The issue is whether the state has the right to impose its own morality on the rest of us. Notwithstanding “compromise … to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” however, at some point civil “rights” become “wrongs,” and the weight of judicial authority doesn't automatically mean that some rights can be sacrificed because of the current social milieu. It's a complicated balancing act in which the rights of the victims must be considered too. But it may be difficult to decide who is the victim. Too often there are instances in which the deciders of the law decide that President Roosevelt (Theodore) was wrong and their social agendas are (above) the law, and are guaranteed by the Constitution whether or not there is any mention of the issue in that document. And the rights that are clearly delineated are secondary to the ones they have “discerned” there, irrespective of what others may think. The judges too often view themselves^xv as the measure of all things.

There was once a view in the military: “Don't ask, don't tell.” It was a view that acknowledged that there was a right of privacy, and it was no one's business what consenting adults did behind closed doors. (The Supreme Court had already decided that what you did on your farm was the government's business.) It was, however, viewed as discriminatory because many considered it as denying their right to declare openly their sexual orientation. They took pride in their views and resented anything that might discourage their declaration. They won their point, and now the courts seem to have decided that their rights take precedence over others.

Score one for civil rights and for the measurers of all things.

Next episode: “Prometheus Bound” – Adam bound?

i       December 7, 1903.

ii       The same idea was expressed in various ways in earlier times (eg by Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero among others).

iii       Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

iv      At least for me.

v       Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942).

vi      When my wife and I were courting (it's like dating but if you've never heard the word it's not at all similar to “hooking up,” “shacking up,” “doing it,” or whatever the current slang is, since the risks of pregnancy, AIDS, or other STD don't exist) contraception was illegal in many states. Then came Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed 2d 510 (1965) and the rules changed. Griswold v. Connecticut established the constitutional right of privacy, a treasured and ineradicable right ever since, even though no such right can be found in the Constitution as it is written. It is hard to argue with a decision that sanctioned the use of contraceptives by a married couple – two consenting adults – behind closed doors, but it's harder to find that “right” in the words of the Founding Fathers. And labeling the decision permitting contraception as being supported by the constitutional “right of privacy” is hard for the layman to understand. It's established law now, however, and beyond question.

vii     Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was quoted in the New York Times (August 25, 2013) as declaring proudly, and positively, that the current Supreme Court was “one of the most activist courts in history ... stunning in terms of activism.” It is clear that Justice Ginsburg, and others, favor an activist approach and the establishment of their own social agenda as law, whether it corresponds to the Constitution they're sworn to uphold or not.

viii     As I noted earlier, if the Supreme Court says so it's true and we're all bound by it. In a few weeks I'll discuss the issue of our obligation to the words and thoughts of those who preceded us.

ix       See footnote vi.

x         I'll also offer an essay on secular religion in the near future.

xi       June 24, 2013,

xii      The syndrome is not limited to boys, but that was the case decided.

xiii     What should be the policy for the inevitable gym showers?

xiv     Or obligated? Or should they be forbidden because that, too, would stigmatize others?

xv      And their ideas about what ought to be.

The Bottom Line

                                                                                                 

Some time back I wrote about parentingⁱ and, in light of recent experience, I thought I'd address one aspect of the subject again. One point I made then was that I thought that properly administered corporal punishment (spanking) could be a useful and an appropriate tool.

Yes, I know that many consider it to be abuse. And I am also aware that there are many studies that condemn spanking, suggesting that it is associated with negative outcomes for the children, including aggressiveness as adults. Ever since the time of Dr. Spock – and probably well before – it has been the practice of many to speak to their kids rather than punish them; to treat them like adults. The reality, of course, is that they are not adults,ⁱⁱ though some who have survived many more years than they act like children.

But before I discuss the issue, let me relate the “recent experience” which I mentioned. No, I have not had any children lately. But my wife and I hosted my daughter and her family (one husband and five children between twenty-two months and twelve and a half years. They've gone home now after three weeks and my eardrums are recovering. I had small children once (a long time ago) so I know what's likely to happen, but my tolerance for such shenanigans isn't what it used to be. Testing is expected, but sometimes it goes too far. There was no striking of the children but there was much yelling and screaming – both from the parents and the children. The dynamic was very different from “the old days” when children would “be seen but not heard.” Perhaps spanking is now frowned upon, but that's the way it was.

In the interim, however, the practices of parents vis-à-vis their children have changed – largely in response to the opinions of “experts,” governments, the courts, social workers, and meddling neighbors. There are those who view children as small adults who should be treated as such, with logic rather than aversive therapy; with the tongue rather than the hand. Indeed, in the country where the children were born and are being reared,ⁱⁱⁱ corporal punishment of children by parents, is unlawful.^iv Whether or not that's the reason for the attitudes of parents and children,^v there are several countries that have accepted this kind of policy.^vi (It's of interest, however, that spanking is legal in all of the United States as well as most of the world.)

Let me clarify what I mean by “spanking,” since the reader may assume that I am calling for wholesale battery for all offenses by all children. First of all, spanking should never be the first line of defense. It should be used selectively and only occasionally. Most children act like children, and most make honest mistakes that they regret. It is important that adults not act like children and that they avoid mistakes that they might regret. Parents should be able to recognize such “normal” rowdyism and unintended actions and deal with them in a non-violent manner. In most cases a stern rebuke^vii will be taken to heart by a child who feels he is in a safe environment and has loving parents. A discussion of the problem may be all that is necessary to help both parent and child understand what happened, and it may lead to a fruitful plan for future behavior for both.

On occasion, however, further steps are necessary. For some, who are convinced that corporal punishment will turn their children into abusive bullies, the “further step” that is employed is yelling and threatening. I don't place much stock in it. Children who are testing are quick to learn when they are facing a paper tiger – when the bark is worse than the bite. We teach them to walk away from those who taunt them, with the knowledge that “names will never hurt you,” but the same (it won't hurt you) applies to parental screaming. It's full of sound and fury, but in the end it signifies nothing. Except for teaching them that yelling and screaming are acceptable tools. A child who is yelled at, but knows that he has nothing to lose, will yell back, and yell at other times.

Spanking, however, and sending a child to his room,^viii make it clear what is unacceptable, and demonstrate that there are consequences for that kind of behavior. I know that many – perhaps most – experts disagree, but I am convinced that there is a place for corporal punishment when other forms of control are ineffective. The parent is usually bigger than the child he is spanking, so fighting back will not be a very useful tool for the child. As for the punishment itself, in this instance I agree with most of the experts. It should usually be imposed on smaller children – between two and six years old – and with an open hand on the rump. And it should be used only occasionally. (If an older child requires punishment, other means should be sought, or if it is needed frequently, consultation with a psycholgist may be appropriate.) As I emphasized in my prior blog, “Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.”

It is normal for children to distrust authority. “Because I said so” won't seem a logical justification for some acts you require of them and which they are resisting, but there are many times, especially when danger is involved, when a long discussion is not reasonable and when the imposition of authority is necessary. Children may dislike and distrust authority, but they must learn to repect it and, on occasion, to fear it.^ix And they will usually benefit from the setting of limits and the imposition of enforced guidelines. In fact they probably seek them. That's what testing is all about.

One final word. If a child's behavior is too different from what you expect, consult your pediatrician. The problem may be your expectations, or it may be a condition involving the child – one that requires remediation. In either case, the sooner the situation is evaluated, the better for you both.

But, as to the bottom line, spanking, though not a first choice, should remain a choice.

Next episode: “Rights And Wrongs” – Depends on whose bull is gored.

i      “Parenting For Dummies,” February 6, 2011.

ii      That message was emphasized over and over when I was on my pediatrics rotation in medical school. They have different diseases, are in different stages of development, have limited experience, and very different interests from adults.

iii     Israel

iv     Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking.

v       I've never discussed this legislation with them so I don't know if they're aware of it, or if that it is the reason for their behavior.

vi      Wikipedia, ibid. See footnote iv.

vii     Rebuke, not yelling.

viii    Nowadays we impose “time outs,” but they're no different from the “Go to your room!” of old.

ix      There are many with whom such an idea will not sit well, but even those who practice civil disobedience, who violate the law in the hope of changing it for the better, expect to be punished by properly constituted civil authorities. The law is the law and should be respected, along with the authorities who imposed it.

The Power Of Prayer

                                                                                    

I recently read my son's blog for September 18, 2013, “I wish I was Donne,” and was moved by his words. I am reprinting it below, and I hope you will read it. [By the way, the blog's URL is http://rosends.blogspot.com/]  Please note that his hyperlinks won't work, but that doesn't take away from the power of his message.  Just cut and paste the URL for more of his thoughts.

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

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

I wish I was Donne

I heard recently about a tragedy last week. A young girl and her mother were hit by a car. The mom died. The girl was in surgery -- we hope she will pull through but she still lost her mother. As a community, various schools, synagogues and communal organizations banded together to raise money and pray for her.

Prayer. That's an important part of our response. We have faith. Sure it makes no sense to outsiders (how can prayer change a future if God has already ordained it? how can words have any effect on the divine? why would MY prayers have anything to do with this girl?) but praying on behalf of named parties is a consistent part of our practice. I also heard that a former teacher of mine was diagnosed with leukemia. Her name, along with the name of her mother [needed as part of the formula for invoking God's mercy and healing] was sent out and people were asked to recite psalms and pray for her recovery. Prayer.

So in synagogue, the next day, everyone quieted down and we recited a psalm (130 or 121, I forget which) and the person in charge said a special request for God's help in healing the girl. She was mentioned by name. We gave charity. We spoke in hushed tones. Then we moved on.

The next day, we said nothing.

That bothered me. The girl is still in the hospital. She has not miraculously and completely healed. My teacher is still sick. Why do we feel less today than we did yesterday? Why STOP praying? In fact, I know that when names are passed around to be added to lists recited during prayers, names often stay on for days and weeks and people either take them off after a given amount of time (say, a month) if no one asks to keep them on, or they stay on until someone is notified that the person has healed or died.

But we stopped.

I asked a local Rabbi about it. A smart man, one who leads his own congregation. He was skeptical about the practice on the whole, what with names passed across the internet and this notion that a group's prayer in one state for a stranger elsewhere has any efficacy at all in God's eyes. When I asked about why, if we thought it had value, we would stop, he spoke about how people become inured to it and that cheapens the prayers. We should save them for when we have the passion to infuse in the wishes a true and connected sincerity. In his community, a girl has cancer and they say prayers daily, because she is of the community and there is a constant connection. But here? In New Jersey? For a girl in Florida? People don't have a reason to feel like it matters so the prayers are useless.

I thought about this. It seemed more a concession to a large and communal failure than a reasonable reaction liturgically to the facts of life. Why don't we care? He said "People are sick everyday. Are we supposed to pray for everyone all the time?" I thought (very loudly, verging on speech), "YES!" We are supposed to care so deeply and intensely that we can't do anything BUT pray for others. We should have to be torn away from prayer if we truly think that prayer is effective at petitioning the Almighty and we really believe that we are all responsible for each other as brother in the house of Israel. He said "People can't do that."

So I asked about John Donne. He wasn't so familiar. I have a passing knowledge of a few of Donne's works so I quoted Meditation 17, the famous one.

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me..."

Donne's point is that we have to feel that everyone in our extended cultural or religious family is an integral part and the loss of any individual MUST sadden us in a profound way, as much as if a friend or relative suffered. We have to feel the sickness and death all the time. Depressing, but necessary. In the same way that we celebrate communally, we must have concern communally. We cannot simply say that so-and-so wasn't close enough to care about. We throw our hands up and then wash them (no doubt, then, dripping self-pity on our heads) of any moral emotional investment. But Donne says that any man's death diminishes him. He feels the pain all the time. It is part of his being alive and a member of the group called humanity.

The rabbi paused, and finally said "That Donne is a tzaddik (pious sage)."

I don't know if anyone has ever called Donne a tzaddik before but his attitude, to me bears consideration. I'm not saying he was completely right. In fact, to my mind, he ruins the moment in the next line. He says that that bell which tolls (yes, it comes from this. Hemingway didn't invent it) to tell of a tragedy and a death doesn't toll for the victim, but for the hearer. He says that it reminds us of our own mortality and our own sense of loss. It tolls as if we were dying so that we are stirred to sadness. I think that it tolls to stir us to remember our responsibility towards each other. It tolls to remind us that all is not always wonderful. It is the constant stepping on the glass from a Jewish wedding. When we think it tolls for another town, another community or another synagogue's members then we stop caring and that's the danger.

I know that in Judaism, the naming of an individual is important. Trust me, I know. I know that the talmud says that one who quotes something in the name of its source brings salvation to the world. And we learn that praying on behalf of someone else, a specific person, is powerful and merits the requests of the individual praying be answered first (read this for more, or pretty much, the same). But if we wait until we know the name, if we wait until we can make that connection, we have waited too long.

In college, I had a friend who would go to services during finals. It mattered then that he gave charity and prayed. I have met others who say certain prayers with more fervor when they finally make sense. "I have a test today, so the prayer for intelligence and wisdom is relevant, so I will focus on it this morning." That's a fine start but what about on another day. Is that prayer suddenly less important? Shouldn't we recognize that others still need that prayer said (our prayers are in the plural. We as for all, not just for ourselves), and that we have it as a request even if we don't overtly know it?

I believe not that we just, as a matter of religious compulsion, or even compunction, add in the saying of psalms on behalf of everyone, at every prayer. I believe that we should refine ourselves until we realize that we WANT to add in the prayers because we feel it is the most important thing we can do. Our religious fervor has its height when it inspires us to feel driven to do certain things without being commanded to, simply because they make the most sense to us (even, yes, in an illogical, faith based system).

I remember being taught some of the intricacies of the afterlife when I was a younger man. The question was asked, "Rebbi, will there be basketball in heaven?" I didn't ask it. I hate basketball. The Rebbi's answer was "Sure...but no one will want to play it. Given a choice of how to spend your time, you will want to learn in the presence of God."

Maybe our resolution for this year should be to try and bring some heaven to our earth and recognize that some things are worth doing, without being reminded by the bell that they are suddenly necessary. Maybe we should stop passing around names to say while we pray -- maybe their inclusion signals the exclusion of all the unnamed parties. Maybe we should start praying for everyone all the time, but not as a matter of rote or because it is part of the liturgy, but because, the same way we feel that we can make the difference in the life of one girl in Florida, we can make a difference in the lives of all the people, known and not known, who are suffering through their own tragedies daily.