Plebiscite Restraint, Stigma, Gay Men, and a Blaspheming “Bastard” (Emor)

Last week I participated in a panel with Anthony Venn-Brown, Anglican Priest, Rod Bower, and business leader, Peta Granger, regarding the relationship between LGBQTI people, business and religion. The session was facilitated by LGBT rights campaigner Tiernan Brady, who concluded the discussion with a plea for civility and restraint during the upcoming debate in Australia about broadening the legal definition of marriage. I agree that this is extremely important in order to avoid the negative impact on LGBQTI young people of a slanging match that would demonise and denigrate proponents of both change and the status quo.

In preparation for the panel I read; A Life of Unlearning: a preacher's struggle with his homosexuality, church and faith by Brown which he had given me. I found it quite unsettling. The impact that shame made on his life over a period of many years has been devastating. The secret life he led as a gay person left him exposed to exploitation, prone to making self-destructive choices and caused him terrible suffering. Eventually, when he disclosed his sexuality, he was shunned and his family was abandoned by the Christian community of which they had been a part. 

One aspect of Brown’s story, as well as the broader history of the experience of gay men in the 60s and 70s, led me to revisit something I had written in 2011. At the time, I was critical of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s view expressed in a letter written in 1976 that “the whole world despises homosexuals...”... and that gay men also despised each other[i]”. While no one needs to pretend that the Torah does not prohibit homosexual acts, I argued that it was “hard to believe that this conclusion was based on intensive interviews with a representative sample of homosexuals[ii]”. Yet, Brown writes about the significant impact of stigma, and shaming on gay men in the early 70s that led to a split between activists who wanted to focus on politics and others who sought to focus on improved self-image.

I must concede that Feinstein did have some factual basis for his assertions that were at least true at the time he wrote his letter. Where this Halachic authority and reality part company is in his wishful conclusion that stigma would lead same sex attracted men to avoid homosexual sex[iii]. Brown’s experience illustrates that stigma had no such impact on him, but that it did have an extremely damaging impact on his life. Negative self-perception has also been linked to diminished religious adherence[iv], which is another reason some orthodox Rabbis who are concerned about alienating LGBQTI people have opted for restraint.

The relationship between stigma and alienation from religion comes up in commentary at the end of our Torah reading last week. We read about “the son of an Israelite woman, and he was the son of an Egyptian man, went out among the children of Israel, and they quarrelled in the camp… The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] Name and cursed. ...They took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him[v]”. Commentary tells us that the blasphemer of mixed heritage ‘was known until shortly before this episode, as the son of an Israelite woman among the other Israelites he had chosen to identify with. His mother had concealed the truth about her son’s birth by an Egyptian father that she slept with while married to another man, because of her honour. Somehow people began to talk about the fact that he was, in fact, “the son of an Egyptian”’[vi].  At that time, he sought acceptance and dignity by being allowed to pitch his tent among his mother’s tribe. However he was rejected and this lead him to lash out against God and ultimately to his death. 

While I am pleased that capital punishment is no longer practiced in Jewish law for blasphemy or any other crime, I think there is a lesson in this story about stigma and its impact on LGBQTI people. Drawing on Brown’s experience as well as the Biblical blasphemer, I think there is a particularly strong lesson relating to those who also seek a home within orthodox Jewish communities and other conservative faith communities. The Israelites in the desert lost a man who desperately wanted to belong within their faith community but instead turned to blasphemy. There is a big difference in tone between Feinstein’s writing in the 70s and the empathy shown by Rapoport, an orthodox Jewish scholar whose book was published thirty years later[vii]. 

Also at the forum, leading politician Penny Wong talked about the importance of considering where public figures’ words land and their impact. She could have quoted the Talmudic advice; “Wise people, be careful with your words[viii]”. I hope Tiernan’s call for civility and restraint on all sides of this debate will be heeded.  

---

[i] Feinstien, R. Moshe, (1976) Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim 4, p. 206, in a letter dated 1 Adar II, 5736

[ii] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/torah-based-responses-to-homosexuality.html

[iii] Feinstien, R. Moshe, (1976) p. 205 and 206

[iv] See Tanya chapter 1

[v] Leviticus 24:10-23

[vi] Abarbanel p 281

[vii] Rapoport, Rabbi C, (2004) Judaism and Homosexuality, Vallentine Mitchell, London & Portland

[viii] Pirkey Avot 1:11

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

Outcast Offenders – Understanding and High Expectations

From The Age newspaper

A white newspaper columnist called it “a Textbook case of society’s failure to save a child[1]”.  “Diane[2]” is a 15 year old Aboriginal girl who will be sentenced by an Australian court next Monday, 14 May 2012. She has repeatedly brutally attacked girls and women, stomping on one girl’s face before robbing her. She is illiterate, has trouble hearing and has an IQ score in the lowest 1 per cent. She is a regular drug user suffering unresolved grief who had thought of killing herself. The Columnist suggests that this case points to “a deeper failure to resolve the legacy of indigenous dispossession and alienation”.

This is not about what the courts should decide in these cases. It is about the broader moral question of how we think about alienated offenders with difficult circumstances be they black, brown or white. I think there is a lot of merit to the understanding approach that takes into account the horrific things done to Aboriginal people, the impact of the collective memory and ongoing issues and the individual hardship that people like Dianne experience. Still, I also worry about communicating a message to people of her situation that society is prepared to accept violence and robbery from them, because we think they cannot help themselves. What is the right response?

Death of the Blasphemer-Outcast-half-Breed-“Bastard”

There was a man of mixed heritage, son of Egyptian father and an Israelite mother named Shelomit of the tribe of Dan who quarrelled with an Israelite man[3]”. The Torah does not tell us the name of either of the flawed men who were quick to fight[4], but as a device let us call our Protagonist by the name Ben.

I feel for Ben, a half-Egyptian among the recently liberated Israelite former slaves. His mother Shelomit is described as a flawless beauty[5] that was a bit of a flirt, happily chatting with anyone[6]. Ben’s Egyptian father was an Egyptian task master who came to see his mother’s husband Dathan[7]. When the Egyptian official came into their tent Shelomit, flirted with him. The Egyptian hid behind a ladder[8] and when the husband went out he raped her[9]. Ben was the result of their encounter and according to one view his status was like that of a “Bastard[10]”. The Egyptian realised that the husband, Dathan, knew what happened, so the Egyptian beat him and tried to kill him. Moses appears on the scene at that moment and miraculously kills the Egyptian by pronouncing God’s name[11].  Dathan survives and divorces Shelomit. Shelomit’s brothers are furious and seek to kill Dathan[12]. What a load of baggage for a young man trying to find his place in the world.

Ben first identified with his absent Egyptian father but then decide to convert[13] and join his mother’s family[14]. The Israelites camped according to their tribes and Ben approaches the Dan camp[15] to join his mother’s tribe.  He receives a hostile reception, a Dan man fights with him, he degrades Ben’s mother[16], he tells Ben “you are a Bastard and the son an Egyptian[17]!” Ben asks the Israelite man, “where is my Egyptian father?” He is told that his father was killed by Moses by use of God’s name. Ben has been deeply humiliated by this stage, contrary to the idea “don’t rush out to fight[18]” he hurries[19] to the court of the great prophet Moses, his father’s extra-judicial killer[20], to resolve the issue but he loses the case[21].  Utterly rejected and furious, Ben pronounced the same Divine Name used by Moses to kill his father and blasphemes. He is promptly imprisoned and obeying divine guidance, he is executed, the whole camp stoning him.

How serious is Blasphemy?

The first objection the modern reader would raise is about Blasphemy being punished by death. I must be honest that I am glad that the laws relating to Blasphemy and punishments are not in force today. To try to imagine how seriously Blasphemy was taken it useful to read a description of the procedures of a Blasphemy. “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a euphemism for the divine name, ‘may Yose smite Yose.”  When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments (a sign of mourning), which were not to be resewn….[22]”. For the purpose of this discussion, it is useful to put to one side, the question of the harshness of the punishment or even the question about whether Blasphemy should be a crime. Instead let us focus on the moral question about how someone like Ben is to be approached can be considered in the light of this story and its commentaries.

Difficult Circumstances Defence

I would think Ben would be entitled to some understanding for his situation. We find that Job is not judged for his complaints against God[23], because, “Job, not with knowledge does he speak[24]”. Out of the difficulty of his pain, he is considered to not be of sound mind[25]. Based on this, our sages have concluded that a person is not punished for what s/he says in a situation of pain[26]. I wonder why Ben, is not let off the hook?

The bigotry/personal animosity motive?

Traditional commentary rejects the idea that the killing of the “son of the Egyptian” was motivated by hatred in the heart related to the fight with the “Israelite man[27]”. The Torah repeatedly emphasises equal treatment between the stranger and the long-standing “citizen”. It raises this point again twice! along with a few other laws in middle of the story of the Blasphemer[28]. We are then told, “the Israelites took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him…just as the Lord had commanded Moses[29]”.  The motive was solely to obey God’s command.

Combination of Understanding with high standards 

One approach to this issue combines genuine humility and understanding with high expectations. “One should not judge his fellow until being in their place[30]”. For it is literally his “place” i.e., his physical environment that causes him to sin, since his livelihood requires him to go about the market-place all day…(or) he is of those who sit at the street-corners. Thus his eyes see all sorts of temptation; and “‘what the eyes see, the heart desires….”. In addition a person who had the benefit of religious knowledge is encouraged to consider him/herself “lowly[31]” in comparison with an uneducated sinner. One must also avoid judgement based on other factors including individual temperaments. Alongside these teachings sits the following statement: In truth, even he who is extremely passionate by nature, and whose livelihood obliges him to sit all day at the street-corners, has no excuse whatsoever for his sins…For he should have controlled himself and restrained the feeling of desire in his heart….[32]”.  

Conclusion

I still have trouble with the whole sad episode of Ben, from his rejection by the tribe of Dan to the confirmation of that rejection by the court of Moses and Torah law, through to his execution. How do we reconcile this story with teachings about the importance of caring for the vulnerable and human dignity? Returning to the original question about the offender-victim, I will not make any attempt at offering solutions to the problems that led up to Dianne’s scheduled court appearance. But I will repeat what an Aboriginal community worker I have great respect for told me in another context, that it is vital that young people in her community learn that they have choices about their future.

---

[1] Horin, A, When all else fails, society can too. Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, 5-6 May 2012

[2] Not her real name

[3] Leviticus 24:10

[4] Klei Yakar

[5] Shemot Rabba 1:32

[6] Vayikra Rabba 32:5, Midrash Hagadol, also cited in Rashi, Her name is taken as a clue that she was a loose woman, “Shelomit” which is related to the word Shalom/peace and this is interpreted as asking everyone how they are, the name Dibri is closely related to the word for talking Daber and is also taken as reflecting her chattiness.

[7] Shemot Rabba 1:32

[8] Vayikra Rabba

[9] Midrash Hagadol

[10] Torat Cohanim, Vayikra Rabba 32:4

[11] Shemot Rabba 1:34

[12] Sefer Hayashar, and Midrash Divrei Hayamim L’Moshe cited in Torah Shelaima vol 8, p.77

[13] Torat Cohanim

[14] Hizkuni

[15] Torat Cohanim

[16] Zohar Vayikra, 106a, cited in http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/92077274.html

[17] Hizkuni

[18] Proverbs 25:8

[19] Yelamdenu

[20] There is an implied criticism of this killing in Midrash Petirat Moshe in which God asks Moses “did I tell you to kill the Egyptian?” Moses counters by pointing out God’s killing of the first born Egyptians, to which God retorts, “are you like me, to make die and make live, can you give life like I do? Cited in Torah Shelaima vol 8, p.81

[21] Torat Cohanim

[22] Mishna Sanhedrin, 7:5

[23] Job 9:24 “The earth has been given into the hands of a wicked one; he covers the faces of its judges. If not, then who is he?”

[24] Job 34:35

[25] Metzudat David

[26] Talmud Bava Basra 16b

[27] Ohr Hachayim, Ramban and Seforno on Leviticus 24: 23

[28] Leviticus 24: 16 & 22

[29] Leviticus 24: 23

[30] Pirkey Avod 2:4

[31] Pirkey Avot 4:10 combined with Talmud Bava Metzia 33b as explained in Tanya 30

[32] Tanya 30, translation text taken from Lessons in Tanya http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7909/jewish/Chapter-30.htm