 |
| CC license |
Part of my
worked involves helping young Muslim Australians develop a sense of belonging
and awareness of their ability to contribute and participate in Australian
society. According to the academic literature, one of the obstacles standing in
the way of young Muslims is an external hostility that includes a perception by
some of the majority white Anglo-Saxon Australians of the Muslim’s inability or
unwillingness to integrate into the rest of Australian society and an
incompatibility with “Australianess”[i]. This set me thinking about my own tradition’s
teachings about integration and segregation from other communities.
Citizenship
There are
strong Torah teachings about loyalty to the land in which we will live, Jewish
exiles are instructed to “seek the peace of the city
where I have exiled you and pray for it to the Lord, for in its peace you shall
have peace[ii]”. In our synagogue we have a prayer for our government and
Australia on the Sabbath.
Just a temporary resident
This attitude of loyalty to one’s adopted country needs to be
emphasised because there are other ideas that appear to compete with it. In our
reading this week the Torah states “Like the practice of the land of Egypt,
in which you dwelled, you shall not do, and like the practice of the land of
Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do, and you shall not follow
their statutes[iii]”. One commentary which stretches the meaning of the verse
emphasises the word “dwelled” which he takes to mean settled in Egypt. He sees
this verse as including a reprimand for the Hebrews who thought of themselves
as permanent dwellers of Egypt rather than temporary residents there, who must
have an exclusive attachment to only one land the holy land of Israel[iv].
This attitude to one’s birthplace and national home, is far
from representative of the majority of Jews, but can be found in some
sub-communities such as the one I grew up in. This sentiment of distance from
the nation that welcomes us seemed to be reflected in a children’s camp song:
“Good bye America, goodbye inflation, Moshiach (the Messiah) is coming to save
the Jewish nation, good bye America, goodbye pollution…” I learned a similar song taught to children
in the former Soviet Union along the lines of ‘Moscow is not my Capital, Russia
is not my homeland… My capital is Jerusalem alone’.
Loyalty to Nation
While attachment to the holy land is important and perhaps in
the Soviet Union which did not list Jews as Russians in their identity cards it
is understandable that Jews felt less than deeply attached to the state that
persecuted them, the same cannot be said in countries like Australia or the US
which at a systemic level are generally supportive of their minorities. This
support can be seen in the financial aid provided to faith based schools,
particularly in Australia, and anti-discrimination legislation. In our work, we had a Sheikh explain to young
Muslims that the Prophet felt a loyalty to the Idol worshipping jurisdiction of
Mecca because he was from there and had a sense of citizenship. This is a
sentiment that most Jews would share and that non-Jewish and non-Muslim
citizens would rightly expect from all their fellow citizens as part of a
social contract.
Cultural Integration?
A sense of citizenship and civic duty is not the same as
seeking to integrate into Australian or other non-Jewish or non-Muslim societies
and adopt their customs. Muslim women in
hijabs have been a lightning rod for some with concerns about integration.
Thankfully, to the best of my knowledge, observant Jews have been spared that
kind of scrutiny. In The Torah reading
cited above in which we are instructed to avoid Egyptian and Canaanite
practices, the Torah does not make explicit which practices it is referring to.
One could take it to be an introduction to the sexual morality[v] laws that follow. However the Talmud applies the prohibition
to attending the theatres, stadiums and houses of “singing and drinking
alcoholic drinks” of the non-Jews.[vi] Jews are warned not to adopt the customs, formal laws[vii] and culture[viii] of either the Egyptians or the Canaanites. This view is also
reflected in Jewish laws about avoiding the “practices of the nations[ix]”. As an aside, one intriguing interpretation of the verse is
that from a Torah view the Canaanites had state sanctioned gay marriage[x], thousands of years before New Zealand. While Orthodox
Judaism cannot sanction gay marriage, one Orthodox Rabbi I spoke to this week
recognised the social benefits to gay couples of having their commitment to
each other recognised by the secular state. For more on the intersection
between homosexuality, empathy and literal interpretations of the Torah, please
see http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/torah-based-responses-to-homosexuality.html
Incompatibility with the Land
The notion of being either compatible or incompatible with
the land is dealt with poetically and dramatically in our Torah reading. I like the notion of a land itself developing
some kind of spirit or vibe for example I wonder if the Australian continent
absorbed Aboriginal traditions of equality between elders and others in the
community[xi] which then manifests in modern Australian
egalitarianism? In terms of the land of
Canaan/Israel the Torah has a similar notion, but not of the land absorbing the
mores of the people living in it but having its internal moral tastes and
vomiting out people whose behaviour is incompatible with the moral standard
required for this holy land[xii].
Conclusion
There is a danger that an emphasis on distinctiveness or on essentialized
and generalised qualities of groups can result in prejudice on the part of the
majority and also lead members of minority religious or cultural groups away
from positive relationships with the majority culture. These dangers need to be
addressed through education about the similarities and differences that exist
between groups and within them, civic responsibility and recognition of the
moral obligation one has to fulfil a reasonable social contract with the rest
of the nation one calls home as well through positive inter-group contact. There needs to be a strong commitment to respect
for the right for groups to be apart in certain respects, to preserve language,
moral and cultural practices and to enjoy the benefits of shared worship and
non-exclusive social interaction with members of the same group. Research has
found that a strong connection with members of the in-group does not detract
from positive relationship with the out-group[xiii], we can and must insist on both.
[i] Mansouri,
F., Wood, S. P., (2008) Identity, Education and Belonging: Arab and Muslim
Youth in Contemporary Australia, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press
[ii]
Jeremiah 29:7
[iii]
Leviticus 18:3
[iv] Klei Yakar
[v] Ramban,
Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel (Cited in Nachshoni, Studies in the Weekly Parsha) differentiate
between the Egyptians who he identified with witchcraft and the Canaanites with
sexual sin, the Maor Vashemesh suggests that it relates to the behaviour of brazen/Chutzpa
of the insignificant Dathan and Aviram who dared to defy the great Moses in
their statement “who appointed you as a leader over us”.
[vi]
Talmud Shabbat 67a & b, also cited in Rashi.
[vii]
Haamek Davar, differentiates between Maasim as accepted conduct and Chukim as
law enacted by the authorities
[viii]
Bula, Menachem, (1992) in Daas Mikrah, commentary on the Chumash in the Mosad
Harav Kook edition, Jerusalem
[ix] Shulchan
Aruch
[x]
Based on Lekach Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 169, that states that the
“Chukim” in the verse, was the practice,
of “men marrying men and women marrying women”, when combined with the view
cited in endnote vii of the Haamek Davar that the practices under discussion
are actually referring to government legislation.
[xi] A
Darug man explained to me that all would sit in a circle, the elder might say
something but if others in the circle thought it was out of line he would be
“knocked on the head”.
[xii]
Leviticus 18:24-28, note the Seforno suggests that at first the Canaanites were
not guilty of all the sexual sins enumerated in this chapter, they were not
careful about “mere closeness” to sexual sin, which I would take to mean a
reference to flirting or a general lax attitude which later led to incest and
the various sins.
[xiii]
Levi, S.R., West, T. L., Bigler, R.S., Karafantis, D.M., Ramizez, L., Velilla,
E. (2005) Messages about the uniqueness and similarities of people: Impact on
US Black and Latino youth. Journal of Applied Development Psychology 26
p.714-713
No comments:
Post a Comment