Political Correctness: Boat People, Balaam and Muslims

The objection to political correctness is often used to justify insensitive, divisive and destructive speech. A man approached me this week at the Synagogue to say he supports the relentless, harsh rhetoric in the media and by some of our politicians about Muslims and terrorism because he doesn’t believe in political correctness. I disagree. While political correctness should not be allowed to stifle purposeful debate or criticism of specific people who do wrong, speech that generalises or disproportionately emphasises the negative, is unjust and irresponsible.

Elizabeth Ban, a giant spirit who passed away last week, facilitated dialogue between Jews and Muslims. This helped people in both communities develop a more realistic as well as positive understanding of each other.

Elizabeth had one last task she wanted to accomplish before she died. She sought to change the conversation about asylum seekers in the Sydney Jewish community. She made a good start by initiating an event at which 60 members of the community connected with asylum seekers (1). The following joke might help continue her mission: Dark- skinned young comedian, Suren Jayemanne, gets asked if he is a “boat person”? No, he replies, I am a car person actually. I’m really into cars, I hate sailing. It reminds me of the 7 months it took me to get to Australia… A pause, a little shock, and then everyone laughed: the “othering” term, ‘boat person’, is made to sound ridiculous.

The danger of negative speech plays out in our Torah reading (2). A man named Balaam faced a dramatic and successful attempt, involving a talking ass (3), an angel and God himself, to silence him. 

The colourful story begins with the one-eyed (4) sorcerer, Balaam, being asked to curse the Jews. While Balaam is on his way to do this, an angel is sent to stop him, he is reprimanded by his donkey, and finally God, Himself, puts words in his mouth that force him to bless and praise the Jews instead of cursing them.

The story is puzzling. Why would it have mattered if Balaam cursed the Jews?! Surely, only God decides if curses can have any impact (5).

There are four ways to think about this, all useful.

a) The impact of the curses would have caused distress to the target of the curses. “People then and now are impressed by sorcerers. The Israelites in those times, particularly the women and children (6), would have been greatly affected by the maledictions of such a renowned sorcerer (7)”. The impact on the Muslim community, particularly the young people, of being continually demonised, is substantial, unjust and unhelpful.  

b) The impact of the curses, had they been allowed to be spoken, would have been to embolden the enemies of the Jews (8). Again, this has relevance. The relentless, harsh rhetoric by politicians and the media encourages citizens who harbour prejudice, to express it both verbally and physically. In the case of asylum seekers, it reinforces prejudice and antipathy to the “boat people”.

c) Words have a spiritual, self-fulfilling impact. Negative speech can elicit negative behaviour from the targeted person, while praise strengthens the positive elements and potential in the person being spoken about (9).

d) At the literal level, our tradition clearly sees the prevention of the curses as being a protective and loving act by God for the Jewish people. “But the Lord, your God, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the Lord, your God, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord, your God, loves you” (10).

Words matter. There are times when circumstances legitimately call for criticism of specific or even systemic problems and the people or groups responsible for these problems. Serious debate between philosophies, world views and even faiths can serve to tease out the truth, and this requires disregarding political correctness. However, often, negative speech serves no legitimate purpose while being quite destructive. If one has nothing nice to say, it might be time to “open both eyes” to see the full picture of both the admirable qualities alongside the faults, rather than seeking to verbally destroy like a “one- eyed” Balaam.


Notes

1)    http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/closing-empathy-gap-with-unlike.html
2)    Numbers 22-25
3)    Ralbag suggests that the whole encounter between Balaam and his donkey was a dream
4)    Talmud Sanhedrin 105a, states that Balaam was blind in one eye
5)    Ralbag
6)    The sexist implication in this explanation needs to be seen in the context of the time, centuries ago, when this was written.
7)    Ibn Kaspi, Joseph, Tirat Kesef, cited in Lebovitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar
8)    Abarbanel
9)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe
10)    Deuteronomy 23:6

Blasphemy discussion on ABC TV Compass

This week, I joined Sheik Wesam Charkawi, the Venerable Thubten Chokyigoing and David Marr on a panel discussing Blasphemy which goes to air on ABC TV’s, The Moral Compass, on Sunday night 22 March 6:30pm. The question behind the discussion is about the right price for interfaith harmony. Do we need to trade off freedom of expression to get along? Many people think that that price is too high. They argue that free speech is sacrosanct and Muslims and others just have to cope with insults. Many Muslims and others don’t agree that ridicule of religion should be allowed. I think a reasonable compromise would legally allow ridicule in the interest of free exploration of truth but would also develop ethical conventions of tact and cost benefit analysis that weigh up the expected benefit of mockery against the hurt caused.  The following are some of my thoughts on Blasphemy in this context.

A question at the core of a modern discussion of blasphemy was suggested by a member of the audience in advance of the program: “Is it blasphemy if the person is not a believer?” Over 800 years ago Maimonides stated that one who hears someone curse God must tear their clothing in mourning just like one would if a parent died. Yet this law only applies if the person blaspheming is Jewish, but if the blasphemer is an idol worshipper one is not required to perform this display of grief (1). This ruling is also confirmed in the code of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch (2), and extends this to also apply to a lapsed Jew (3). One commentator takes a practical view of this, “if we were to tear our clothes for (the blasphemy uttered by) idol worshipers, all the clothing will be full of tears (4)”.

I place great value on the freedom to believe differently and to express my beliefs. In the middle ages Jewish scholars would be invited to the royal court for staged debates with Christian leaders. Debating religion in the presence of a Christian monarch was dangerous because the Jew could easily be accused of blasphemy and put to death. The freedom for people to express their beliefs is imperative and must be permitted. While speaking against the God one believes in is forbidden in Judaism, this is not the case for the beliefs of others. A theme I explored in my blog post on Mockery (5). 

The British writer and comedian, Stephen Fry, has recently shared the angry attack he would unleash on God if he ever met Him on account of all the suffering he created in the world. The Archbishop of Canterbury has rightly defended his right to express these views. The substance, rather than the style, of Fry’s comments about questioning God would be embraced by some religious Jews. A dramatic example of this was at the huge outdoor funeral of a Rabbi and his wife who were murdered by terrorists in Mumbai in 2008. Kfar Chabad’s Rabbi Ashkenazi cried out bitterly in the voice of their orphaned son Moshe, Lamah! Why? Why? The words echoed off the hills. After Rabbi Ashkenazi, another Rabbi asserted that we had no right to ask why. Yet, Moses himself argues with God, asking why did you do evil to this people (6)? 

Alongside our considerations of the need to protect free speech, we must consider the impact on people arising out of unrestrained speech, and particularly which people are likely to be most significantly impacted (7) by our decisions to either self-censor or throw insults. I had a discussion with a group of Muslim young men in September 2012 after the media widely reported on a group of Muslim who rampaged through the city of Sydney demonstrating against a film mocking the prophet Mohammed. The reports included an image of a child holding up a sign that said behead those who insult the prophet. There was an intense backlash against Muslims. I thought the boys would feel bad about being misrepresented, or stereotyped. I was surprised by the deep personal hurt they felt from the film, ‘why do people mock our religion and prophet’ they asked. It was an intense sadness, rather than anger. We can’t avoid offending some people some of the time, but if we are considering hurting people, the benefits must outweigh the harm. Otherwise we would do well to tactfully refrain from the mockery.  I think this is an appropriate price to pay for preserving interfaith harmony. Essentially it is what most of us are doing already.

Notes:
1) Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, laws of Idol Worship, chapter 2:10
2)  Karo, R. Yosef, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:37
3) Rabbi Moshe Iserrlis- Rama, comment on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:37
4) Turei Zahav, TAZ,  Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 340:22
5) http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/mockery.html
6) Exodus 5:23
7) Gross-Schaefer, Arthur, A Suggested Strategy for Ethical Decision Making, Reform Judaism Magazine, November 1997

Mockery

At times like this, murder casts a long shadow over any discussion about the mockery of religious symbols. Before I comment on mockery, I cry out emphatically: all life is sacred! Murder is evil! This is true, regardless of the motives or the identity of the victims, be they people who drew cartoons, a Muslim policeman protecting the cartoonists, Jewish shoppers, Nigerians, Assyrians in Iraq or Syrians. Closer to home, I am outraged by the domestic violence murder of Leila Alavi by her ex-husband. Enough! Enough! It is disappointing to me that some of these murders have failed to galvanize the world or communities while the free speech of the cartoonists is front and centre. Clearly, the issue of free speech relates to broader questions about extremist interpretations of Islam and, more broadly and problematically, to Muslim and non-Muslim relations in general.

As a bridge- builder and a student of the Torah, I think it is worth exploring the issue of mockery.  I am in two minds about this issue and it seems that traditional teachings are as well. The bottom line for me is that we need to uphold freedom of expression as well as peace and interfaith respect. I don’t know where to draw the lines and I don’t have the answer, but I see value in exploring the question.

The case for mockery:
Abraham is a hero to Jews (1) and Muslims (2) for his mockery. In a story that is found in both traditions, Abraham smashed the idols in an idol- worshipping society and then satirised the people’s beliefs by sarcastically setting up the scene to make it appear that the biggest idol smashed the smaller ones.  Rather than criticize him for his rudeness or disrespect of the religious symbols of his neighbours, we see this violent expression of intolerance of “wrong religion” as virtuous. Elijah, the prophet, sarcastically taunted the worshippers of Baal at a public gathering. "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is chatting or he is chasing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken (3)”. Perhaps, God Himself used some harsh humour. When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he told him that there will be resistance, followed by miracles.  “I will place my signs (or miracles) in his midst and so that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son’s son, how I toyed (4) with Egypt…(5)”. Humour and mockery can be a tool in the battle of ideas. Because we value truth, we must allow cartooning and satire as one means of teasing out the truth.

The case against mockery:
Despite the value of robust pursuit of truth, Moses seemed to call for tact toward the religious sensibilities of the Egyptians. When Pharaoh suggested that the Hebrews could worship in Egypt, Moses objected to this, stating that “it is not right to do it like this” (6). Moses had two reasons for his assertion that is was “not right”, both relating to the fact that, at that time, Jewish worship involved slaughtering sheep which were worshipped by the Egyptians. One reason was “on principle and out of respect… being that they worship the constellation of Aries and sheep are holy for them, it is not proper to denigrate their faith in their faces… the second, and a separate reason, was the danger of a violent response by the Egyptians”. The respect that Moses calls for, is not an absolute principle of interfaith respect. A short time after Moses asserts the inappropriateness of the Hebrews’ disrespect for the Egyptian God, the Hebrews are instructed to slaughter a lamb for each family (8). Tact, it would seem, is more important in some circumstances than others.

Response to Mockery:
There can be no justification for murder as a response to blasphemy on the part of non-adherents to any particular faith in a world with differences of belief. (Whether punishment for blasphemy is ok within single faith populations is a separate question.) My unqualified outrage against murder motivated by intolerance, does not prevent me from seeking to understand why someone who does not share my perspective on this, might see it differently. The Pope compared the cartoonists to someone insulting his mother and suggested that he would be tempted to punch someone like that in the nose. In the case of the possible Egyptian reaction to the provocation of seeing their gods slaughtered, Jewish scholars suggest that “by law and by right, the Egyptians would pelt us with stones (9)”. In my view, this sort of violence can be understood AND is absolutely wrong.

Conclusion: Navigating the rights and wrongs of mockery is difficult and contestable. Anger about opposing views about what to allow or not allow is to be expected, especially from those on the receiving- end of mockery. Wherever people stand on this issue, they are entitled to hold their strong views, but no one is entitled to use violence or threats of violence to impose their views on others. At the same time, no one should use this debate or the crimes of some people as justification for generalised hatred. We can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Notes:
1) Bereishit Rabba 38:13
2) Qur'an 21:51-70
3) Kings I, 18:27
4) Rashi, Chizkuni, also Ramban who refers to psalms (2:4) “the one who sits in the heaven, will laugh, the Lord will mock them”. Haemek Davar suggests that Pharaoh was given the opening to follow the path he had chosen for himself, the path of Mockery of the Hebrew slaves, but he was now the butt of the joke.  Another view is that the Hebrew word התעללתי that these commentators translate as ‘mocking’, actually means “deeds” – Rashbam or miracles – Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
5) Exodus 10:1-2
6) Exodus 8:22
7) Malbim
8) Exodus 12:3
9) Targum Yonathan Ben Uziel, Biur Yonasan, Sechel Tov

Freedom and Multiculturalism a Passover Perspective

This week Jews will celebrate Passover marking the deliverance of freedom to the Hebrews in ancient Egypt, which also links strongly to Easter. I was surprised to learn that the story at the core of Passover also features in the Quran. At the heart of the Passover story are undeniably powerful universal messages, not only the right for freedom, but also about how cultures need to avoid the ‘us and them’ trap with particular relevance for Australia with its newly confirmed freedom to offend.

I must disclose that I am employed by a Christian-Jewish-Muslim diversity education organisation. At my family Passover feast I will be telling of a Pharaoh that at first resisted the dog whistle politics of division. The Pharaoh was quickly removed in a leadership coup but reinstated when he showed a willingness to portray the small community of Hebrews as an existential threat to the nation. The contribution of the most prominent Hebrew, Joseph, was “not known” to Pharaoah, or Firaun as the Quran calls him. Instead the Hebrews became the “other” that needed to be managed.

The recently released bi-partisan parliamentary Inquiry into Multiculturalism in Australia reported that “despite majority comfort with diversity, 41 per cent of survey respondents had a narrow view of who belongs in Australia”.  In the work of the organisation I lead, Together for Humanity, we have asked 60,000 young Australians to guess which members of a panel typically consisting of a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian are  Australian? The vast majority always assumes that the Muslim is not Australian.

I recall the  year 11 student in Mudgee, who confidently declared  that anyone can become an Australian (citizen) but to be an Aussie you had to have your BBQ in front of your TV and wear thongs. And of course be White and Anglo Saxon. To its credit the bi-partisan report gave prominent voice to the multiculturalism-sceptics and included their concerns in a snap shot of Australia’s response to diversity. In combating prejudice we need to honestly explore the fears and assumptions we make if we are to develop thoughtful resolutions to some of the problems we face.

A Lebanese Muslim year 12 student we worked with some years ago, was recently asked to fill in a question on a form about his identity. His teacher asked him, do you see yourself as Lebanese? Australian? “It depends on the context, Miss” he replied. This young man understands what many Australians don’t. Our identity is multilayered. 

In recent days proposed strengthening of anti-discrimination legislation has been shelved out of concern about freedom of speech. The freedom of an Australian to replicate the Youtube video that ridiculed the prophet has been protected. Perhaps this is the necessary price to protect freedom in general. It comes at a high cost. I was deeply moved when talking about the US made film and its aftermath with young Arabic Muslim students in Western Sydney. There was no hostility or menace. Instead the young men quietly and politely expressed a deep hurt about something so precious to them being desecrated and ridiculed

This attitude of the young Muslims might especially annoy people who take religion lightly, yet if we as a nation are serious about pluralism we need to find room in our hearts for differences not just of belief itself but also how deeply held it can be.

The parliamentary report recognises that “freedom to maintain one’s cultural and linguistic inheritance is an important factor in developing a confident sense of self and a sense of belonging”. This is an important bi-partisan repudiation of the assimilationist approach. There were probably some well-intentioned Egyptians who insisted that the Hebrews were not really that different and it would all be sorted within a few generations. Indeed, the Hebrews adopted some local customs but other Egyptians must have recognised that the Hebrews clung to their own language, distinctive dress and foreign sounding names and   congregated in Goshen. The report calls for greater interaction between people of different beliefs and cultures, a view Together For Humanity strongly endorses and have found highly effective.  We hope we can count on strong bi-partisan support in promoting just such interaction so that we can all enjoy freedom within our great multicultural Australia.