Death And Denial

The massacre in Orlando was horrific. “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The words are those of John Donne. The thought reminds us that we are all united – or should be – in our humanity, and all equally vulnerable to its loss. There is no protection against inhumanity if we choose to view it as inevitable feature of our condition. And if we choose to hide from it, the bell will toll for us all.

But there are steps we can take to limit its effects if we do not bury our heads in the sand; we can minimize the risk if we recognize it and correctly identify it. If, however, we use such calamities as tools to promote political ideas, rather than as teaching tools that can help us avoid recurrences, we ensure their repetition. If we find that struthious behavior is useful for shielding ourselves against truths we don't want to accept, we're likely to seek false solutions to problems that we don't want to consider. And Orlando is an example of this reality.

Although it is unclear to me why the murders of attendees at a gay club by another frequenter of that club should be mourned as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, that is the narrative that is being promoted by too many of our leading figures and by too many of the organs of the media. According to an editorial in today's New York Times (June 15, 2016) , “the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear [and the perpetrator] was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians.”

The shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and had already evaluated other possible sites, but these facts are omitted in the editorial. They would detract from the message of political correctness that the paper promotes. And they would remind us of our county's enemy which they fear to identify.

There is no denying the fact that a gay bar was chosen for the action, but the idea that notwithstanding the perpetrator's own sexual status, and his other actions and claims of allegiance, the shootings took pace there as a “hate crime” against gays can only be viewed as a distraction from the truth. Our President refuses to suggest that there is a stream of Islam that poses a threat to the present time and modernization, and to the existence of non-Muslim societies. He and his followers, including those in the press nationally and internationally, eschew such language as “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “jihad,” claiming that acknowledgment of such ideas will only strengthen the movement, since it will suggest that we are prejudiced against Islam, and that we take seriously the menace its violent stream poses. As we should.

For too long our government has tried to downplay any threats by those who oppose us, even to the point of seeking our downfall, while we court them and attempt to force our friends to defer to their demands. We are careful not to “[do] the terrorists' work for them” by confronting their hostility. We are less careful in our accusations against those who oppose gun control and those who promote homophobia. We have no concern that we are strengthening them by our naming and vociferously berating them.

Perhaps the reasons for our actions have little to do with the ostensible problems – at least as they are understood on the surface. Perhaps our greater fear is of terror, and refusal to name it is a denial of its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away. And reminding the voting public that the threat exists is counterproductive to the President and those with a similar political agenda – especially during campaign season.

Favoring and publicizing issues that will appeal to a large and sympathetic bloc, however, is a much more desirable goal at this time, and, for those seeking a “heritage” and friends, a far more profitable approach. “Preaching to the choir” is always a winning tactic.

At least it's a winning political tactic. It's certainly less likely to benefit our nation as a whole. Dividing our nation as the President, and both candidates for his job, have done, will ultimately result in our diminution. We have already lost prestige around the world and contributed to a willingness of other nations to ignore our needs and to follow the course of acceptance of evil. It's easier than opposing it – unless there are negative political consequences. And it's easier to accept the political aid of a “squeaky wheel” with increasing support by “fair-minded” advocates who feel virtuous by doing so. There's no need for them to worry about other problems that way.

Harsh and unfiltered words by one political candidate won't solve the problem, but neither will its conscious avoidance by the other. The longer we deny the threat, the more likely we are to face it. And then the bell will toll for us all.

The Olympics, Academia, And ISIS

The Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί αγώνες, Olympiakoi Agones, the Olympic Games. According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals were always met, but those were the goals.

When the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century, they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or political influence.”

Unfortunately, the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and, worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport. Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.

Academia has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other than that which they had met earlier. They would have the opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to them, but which they never completely understood before. They expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a formal setting or a bull session.

In recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,” “fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But you could speak.

However you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them – has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down (much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced, and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.

It's also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting college students may sometimes force university officials to apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more. There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity. Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain. There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.

Dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity.

Perhaps there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.

42

How is a compulsive like a multiplication table?

No. That's not the first line of a joke. It's the first line of a discussion of several matters that came to mind this morning as my children were preparing theirs for school. [This particular essay will be the first in a multi-part series, but, for the moment, I'm not sure how long it will be. In all likelihood it will have two or three parts, but I can't be absolutely sure at this time. We'll both find out as I go along.]

I'm an observant Jew. But I admire ISIS and atheists. ISIS would strip me of my life and atheists of my beliefs. Yet I respect them both – at least in one particular way. I'm in awe of them. They have views which they hold very strongly. Members of ISIS would kill or die for them,ⁱ though I suspect that most atheists wouldn't go quite that far. But they don't hesitate to expound their views and when they talk – especially ISIS – the world listens. And in the United States, especially in legal settings, the atheists usually get their way. It's almost as if the Constitution prohibits religion.

Yet the Constitution and the Bible are very much alike. Both are filled with absolutes in the form of laws and standards. Both are subject to interpretation, and there is considerable disagreement about how to interpret those absolutes.ⁱⁱ But there are absolutes. There are rules. And in a world in which virtually anything goes, the discipline provided by rules, however you interpret them, and the structure they give to our lives helps us work our way through our quotidian struggles, is the factor that makes our lives more understandable.

On my refrigerator, held on by magnets, is an aging, typed list of assignments which were the responsibilities of my children as we prepared for the Sabbath. (They – the children – have families of their own now, but the document remains and serves as a checklist for me of chores that have to be done each week. I usually remember them all, but it's a good crutch.) There were other sets of rules distributed or posted that solved many problems before they occurred. I'm in agreement with those “experts” who favor structure for growing children; who believe that even though children seek independence, the existence of firm control is reassuring to them. I favor that view not because of the experts but because it makes sense, and my children responded to it. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. They are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress.

But that approach isn't limited to parenting. In almost every profession there's a checklist that has to be followed by a practitioner so he can be sure he doesn't miss something. Take a pilot for example. There are certain things he must do every time, and every time he must do them in the same way. While that doesn't guarantee that every flight will be a safe one, it ensures that every precaution that can be taken has, in fact, been taken and the odds are better that there will be a successful outcome.

The same is true of the compulsive and the multiplication table. In both cases there is something that must be done the same way every time. There may or may not be a listing of precisely how – whether it's some particular act, as it might be for someone who's compulsive or, as with a multiplication table, the result of some specific act, but it should always be the same. People who straighten pictures, straighten pictures. Every one they see if that is possible. Multiply nine times eight and it will always be seventy-two. At least in base ten, which is the template usually used with children. Both compulsion and the multiplication table deal with some kind of absolute. It may be an absolute for a person or for everyone. But it is invariable. Gravity always brings things closer together. If it doesn't, it's not gravity.

Among the most important of absolutes – and I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱⁱⁱ – are right and wrong. Although it's not always obvious what is right, if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.

Next episode: “Incompatibility” – Competing(?) absolutes.

I        They've made meaningless the entire concept of “mutually assured destruction” as a method for discouraging future conflict. They welcome destruction.

ii        There are many writers of commentaries on both. They deny that they are changing the contents – albeit there are many who would like to do so – and insist only that their interpretations of those contents clarify the meaning.

iii      At least within a given society for many of them. For others, however, there is only the belief that what is absolute is absolute.