Category: Free Speech

What Does God Look Like?

The manger scene of the Baby Jesus swaddled in a Keffiyeh has created much commotion and attention.  Even though the Vatican has removed the display, the consciousness-raising alone means that the image has had the intended effect.

We are talking front and center through religion about the plight of the Palestinian people.

This is not the first time someone has reinterpreted something for their own purpose.  I have seen many iterations of Jesus: white, very white, swarthy, black.  Many religions that have Jesus at the center of their theology have him displayed realistically on the cross, his body cradled in his mother’s arms, lovingly gazing down upon us in a portrait or looking upwards in an icon. As a babe in mother’s arms, as a man spreading the Word, at a bountiful supper, and as a martyr.  And now swaddled in a keffiyeh.  We use religious symbols to motivate the audience toward a vision or narrative.  This is frequently for good and exemplary purposes and too often for malicious purposes.

The charge that this current manger display is Antisemitic is a particular, not universally shared Jewish perspective.  Some deliberately embrace that evil message.   I am sure that was not the intent of the Pope or the Church.  And if the manger is allowed to be a message of hatred, it will have failed miserably in its mission.

Raising awareness of the plight of the Palestinians is important.  Christmas is an essential Christian symbol of God’s love and our hope.  Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men is the universal message of the extraordinary celebration.

Can this awareness-raising symbol be channeled into constructive forces to promote the welfare of the Palestinian people, who have been victimized for too long? It is time for the people of goodwill to lay down their arms and reach out across the divide to each other.  May love supplant the hatred that has kept both sides at war for too long.  May the promise of Christmas resound in that troubled place of Jesus’ birth so that two people learn to live together in peace and security.

Merry Christmas!

What do you want? Clarity is critical.

What do you want? Clarity is critical.

There are many messages in the Campus protests; which is yours?  Divestiture, Ceasefire, rebuilding Gaza, developing a Palestinian State, or something else? What about peace?

The message of peace and the coexistence of two peoples will carry the day.

Without articulating what you stand for and what you do not, you are lumped into the “everything” category, which includes antisemitism and the elimination of Israel.

Israel is here to stay.  That is an indisputable fact.  If you refuse to accept this reality, you essentially oppose a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue. The region’s people must find a way to live together, for neither is going away.

Building trust and a willingness to accept the other’s presence and narrative must occur on both sides for Palestinians and Israelis. This will take time and effort- lots of each.

This pragmatic politics is problematic for idealogues to embrace. But if peace is the end goal, the ability to live in relative safety and security, this realpolitik must dominate the day. Otherwise, the people will continue to suffer and die.  And our tradition says, choose life.

Don’t Squander the moment.  The campuses have our attention.  They can be places where truth is spoken to power, not merely a place to advocate reductionist ideologies, where critical moral issues are advanced, recognizing the dignity of all people in the region.   Seize the moment.

 

Uncanceled, but Still Canceled

The news from Bryn Mawr is ambivalent.

There is good news and bad news.

First, the good news:

The courts intervened, and the BMFI must now show the film.

Now, the bad news:

Bryn Mawr Film Institute has not retracted its statement nor amended its thinking.

So, we get to see a movie in a place that is hostile to showing it.

The stakes have been raised on both sides as the film is now set to be shown.  Those supporting the right to see the movie and those protesting Israel will be out in full force.  I hope that each side can express their views without hindrance from the other.  Whichever side you are on, strive for peace.

You guys at BMFI need to rethink your leadership.  Whoever is in charge should be thanked for their past service and shown the door.  Until at least a meaningful apology is offered, consider me a former member.

 

Being Canceled

In response to the Bryn Mawr Film Institute’s decision to cancel the showing of the film The Child Within Me, I make the following statement:

To the Board of the Bryn Mawr Film Institute

You squandered an essential moment of leadership.

Until this decision, you were a cultural icon and an important voice in our community. But instead of devotion to keeping culture accessible through film, its thoughtful curation, and presentation, you cowed in the face of political pressure. You canceled a film thoroughly unrelated to the war.  The only controversy about this film is your decision to condemn it because the Israeli Film Festival sponsors it.  Shame on you.

People protesting against the showing of a film is an act of free speech.  It does not automatically devolve into violence, and using that as a pretense for canceling is a sign of it is either fecklessness or outright bias against Jews (also known as Antisemitism) and Israel.

Protesters are loud and obnoxious, but they are not violent. Those who attend the festival would find them uncomfortable, but they are not a physical threat. Further, the police of Lower Merion would have done an excellent job of keeping the peace even in this potentially testy situation.

BMFI was an important institution, one I enjoyed participating in and supporting. However, I am deeply disappointed that you have focused on other aspects, neglecting the crucial role of bringing influential films into our community. This decision has undermined the basis for our relationship.  I resign from my membership and call on everyone in our community to do the same.

Sincerely

Rabbi David Levin

It depends on the context

 

Yes, the presidents of Harvard and MIT should also resign. Because it really does depend on the context.

Free speech is not the unfettered ability to say anything.  Free Speech on campus should be balanced against the needs of the students to attend school without threat or harassment.

Advocating for Genocide is despicable.  Although the University is a free marketplace of ideas, calling out for the extermination of Jews on campus is the furthest from a safe and secure space for Jews as there can be.  For those presidents unaware of Jewish history, 6 million Jews were slaughtered during the Holocaust.  So, Genocide is an exceptionally loaded concept.

The inability to understand the context of this issue and articulate it during an appearance before Congress demonstrates the incompetence of these people to fulfill the role of president at these Universities.  If Harvard and MIT are okay with that, that is on them, but they also demonstrate shameful behavior and terrible judgment.

 

It is time for change- The Litmus Test

We need a litmus test.

It seems an unavoidable conclusion to reach- we are okay with slaughter by people using guns; it is the price we pay for our rights as we see them.

If this sentiment makes you cringe, there is only one thing to do:  vote out of office for anyone who does not support responsible gun legislation;  and do not vote for anyone unwilling to pledge support of responsible gun legislation. This litmus test is for local, state, and national figures as this issue transcends these boundaries. Then, of course, we can continue to argue over politics or other policy issues. Still, this binary choice is what we need to make any meaningful changes.

Murderers use assault weapons to mow down masses at a time with regularity; Others use handguns to slay individuals daily. This state of affairs cannot stand. Yet, lamenting the loss is an empty gesture if that is all we do. Our commitment to creating a safer society must confront and coexist with the issues of personal freedoms.   Only our vote will make change possible.

Good Job Dave

Dave Chappelle has us all talking.  That is precisely what he intended to do.

Chappelle performed a set for his SNL opening monologue.  It was incisive and insightful, sometimes hilarious, sometimes very uncomfortable.  He spoke things many people would prefer to remain unspoken, which is his job.  As a comedian, he observes the human condition and shares his observations.  Couched in comedy, he is acerbic, sardonic, and harsh, pushing against the boundaries if not busting through them.

Chappelle is a professional, a master of his craft.  He knew his audience, and he knew which buttons he was pushing.

Chappelle made us think, and he made us talk about what he said.  That is important.  You may have been offended, and that is okay.  There were times when I laughed with amusement, and a couple of times, he made me cringe.  But the value of his words was that I had to engage them and think about what was being said.

Thank you, Dave Chappelle, for using the power of your platform to make us think.  Yasher Koach!

 

 

And Justice For All

There is nothing like the threat of economic consequences to elicit a heartfelt apology.

Yes, that is as cynical as it sounds.  The recent antisemitic bile spewed from Kanye West and Kyrie Irving has met with pushback and outrage from the Jewish Community and severe fallout in the business community. And voila, apologies have started to cascade out.  But writer/activist George M. Johnson pointedly shared in a recent interview that West had been spewing hatred against the Black community for a while before turning his sights on the Jews.  That, however, did not provoke the same level of outrage from either Jews or businesses.  This is for reasons ranging from racism to the idea that such vile thoughts didn’t hurt anyone’s bottom line enough.

We all need to do better.

We all must enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in our society; that hatred against one group threatens everyone.  Businesses are rarely the bastions of moral virtue. But businesses will respond when we inflict economic consequences on bad behavior, such as not going to Nets games or buying West’s sneakers or clothing, because hatred directed at any group is unacceptable to all of us.  This is a call to all who find themselves in a group that has been “othered” in our society and those who enjoy the privilege of not being so ostracized.  Jews need to speak for the civil rights of all people, not just Jews.  Blacks likewise need to talk about injustice whenever it happens in our society, not just when Black people are affected. And so too with everyone.  To echo Langston Hughes, Let America be America for all Americans.

Some hate for hate’s sake and believe we live in a zero-sum game where a gain by me is at your expense. This is patently false.  A gain by me in the areas of justice and civil rights is a gain for all of us.  We measure the strength of our society not by the will of the stronger but by our ability to protect the vulnerable and give voice to the otherwise unheard and exploited.

I did not have much use for Kanye West before these recent rantings, and I have none now.  Irving’s comments are likewise repugnant.  And I do not need to patronize brands that undermine the “arc of justice” to which we as Americans should aspire.  I support the right to free speech even when it contradicts my values.  But words have consequences; Hate speech leads to violence and injustice. That is un-American, where all of us are called to draw the line.

We’re making Whoopi

I found Whoopi Goldberg’s recent comments about the Holocaust both ignorant and offensive, and in that, I am certainly not alone. However, that says a lot about both of us and our different perspectives. So maybe there is something to be learned on both sides.

I believe Goldberg honestly shared what she thought. It was her opinion. After substantial pushback and some time to absorb the response, she offered a sincere apology. It seems that she learned from that experience. Unfortunately, for those of us seeking to cancel her or supporting ABC’s gratuitous “time out” as with ill-mannered children, we squander an opportunity to learn from her about her perspective. Her view does not pose a threat, and it was not a voice of hatred. But it is rightly rejected. However, I would be interested in hearing more. Her comment on the Stephen Colbert show,  “I thought it was a salient discussion because as a Black person, I think of race as being something that I can see,” offers an interesting perspective on a deeply personal subject to the Jewish community. I doubt I would agree, but I am sure I would learn something from her.

I am looking forward to her conversation with Jonathan Greenblatt from the ADL.

Let’s get Whoopi Goldberg back on the air and walk forward together.