April 15th: Freedom from Fear

Last night, the story of Passover was told around thousands of American tables. We talked about the enslavement of the Jews, the plagues that tormented the Egyptians, and the eventual Exodus into freedom.

The central theme of the Passover celebration is the intense focus on freedom. We, as Jews, were slaves, and we remember what it was like to live under the control of another. We also consider the meaning of slavery in a modern setting. While we have realized our freedom to practice our religion freely, there are others who are unable to taste the sweetness and the joy of freedom.

Even the Jewish community’s freedom is not complete. Many of our Passover meals had already begun to cook when a man walked into a Jewish Community Center in the Kansas City area and began what would become a deadly attack. His antisemitism was at the center of his hunt.

The Jewish community, both in Kansas City and across the country, banded together, attempting to console and help those who were immediately impacted by this man’s hatred. At the back of everyone’s mind, there was one emotion: fear.

Jews know the fear of antisemitism. We are raised to hide our Jewish star necklaces at the airport or in public places. We are taught to be suspicious of anyone who too bluntly asks us about our religious beliefs. Even those of us who have never actually had to stand up to hate targeted at our faith, we do know the fear that comes with being a chronically ostracized other.

This man’s violent outburst isn’t the only example of antisemitism that we find in today’s society. Every few weeks, another example makes the headlines, whether it be an act of vandalism or public shaming of Jewish community members.

We would like to believe that these are examples of ignorance by a tiny minority. We would like to think that no real people, none of our neighbors or friends still believe these terrible things about Jews. Yet, there is the fear that, if gone unchecked, your Jewish identity could eventually lead to conflict and, in terrible cases, violence.

Our freedom is, though, incomplete. We can see what it means to be free, we can tell ourselves our freedom is fulfilling and true, but our fear is what keeps us from our true liberation. We have been set free from Egypt, but the slavery to fear is still very much real.

We must not only look out for our own community. There is a limit to what can be done within the context of a homogeneous vacuum. The Jews in each community need to be willing to do education, to stand up against small levels of antisemitism, calling it what it is, and defend our right to exist free of fear.

At the conclusion of most services, we hear the invocation to look around and search out modern versions of slavery. We are meant to find them and do all that we can to help liberate those who still are bent over by bondage, whether it be physical, mental, or emotional. Sadly, it isn’t very difficult to find examples of slavery, especially those who are slaves to fear. There is plenty of work to be done to allow all humanity to feel the sweetness of freedom.

My thoughts and prayers go to all who lost their lives in the shooting at the Kansas City JCC. My thoughts also turn to those living in fear, slaves to the terror inflicted upon them by others. May we find freedom from each of our captors in the coming year, and, when we gather together a year from now, may the world be a place filled with the joy of freedom.

April 6th: Flooding the Box Office

“Noah was in his generations a man righteous and wholehearted.”

This is how the Bible introduces us to Noah, the biblical character who has made his debut on the silver screen.

Dan Aronofsky’s spin on the original zookeeper has exploded at the box office, making $44 million in the first weekend. The film has also received criticism from many in the religious right for its seeming departure from the biblical text, in favor of a more theatrical, dramatic telling.

The beauty of the film, though, is that it in no way changed any component of the text. Another reading of the biblical account backs up the idea that, while many pieces were added, and interpreted, there was nothing that was truly changed or desecrated.

A true telling of the biblical account would lack the drama necessary for a full-length feature film. Aronofsky knew that, so rather than dragging out the pieces that already exists, he worked to add pieces that would add to the moral and ethical principles that are paramount to the story, while maintaining the themes that make the biblical tale as significant as it is.

The central theme of Aronofsky’s version of Noah is the conflict associated with being asked to be the representative of mankind. How does a single individual hold the power, knowing that all other humans will die? How does that person fail to do anything to save the lives of those doomed to drown in the floods of God’s wrath?

The Noah of the movie was forced, in his interpretation of his task, to make some decisions that were fundamentally oppositional to his own ideals, but were what he believed was expected of him. Throughout the film, the embodiment of this challenge is a focal point, and the character is depicted as a flawed and tormented man. His dedication to the task at hand gets in the way of his relationships with members of his family, as well as his ability to find meaning in his own existence.

This is where the Biblical telling holds a subtlety that is so beautiful, and so paramount to our understanding of Noah as the complex individual that Russell Crowe portrays him to be. Noah was, in the first line of his introduction, described as a righteous man “in his generations.” There is an additional context. This surfaces in the telling of Abraham’s story, when Abraham, rather than allowing Sodom and Gomorrah to be annihilated, argues with God, begging for mercy for the two towns. How could Noah be righteous when he also did nothing to save the lives of those around him, as his counterpart several years down the road was able to do?

The greatest struggle with any Biblical story is the attempt for translation into everyday life. How can we, as 21st century people, take these ancient words and apply them to the difficulties we face in our world?

The concept of righteousness is one that we all strive for every day. We look for ways to make a difference in the world, to end the suffering and pain that is all-too close at hand. Yet, we also feel powerless, as if we cannot truly make the world any better. Things feel so screwed up in such fundamental ways, that it can feel too immense, too daunting to ever make a real difference.

This is where our interpretation of Noah has something to teach us. Noah was by no means perfect. He is a good man with a caveat. That caveat, though, doesn’t take away from his goodness. It puts his goodness in a context; Noah did the best he could in the environment which he was assigned. Noah was asked to do a nearly impossible task, and was able to do what he could to accomplish it.

We, too, must strive to be “righteous in our generations.” We will be judged by history not for our ability to make revolutionary changes to our social structure, but by the incremental advancements we can make, and our attempts to do what we can.

One of the most popularly-cited Jewish ethical texts is Pirkei Avot’s comment “It is not upon you to finish the work, nor are you free to desist from it.” The task of making the world better is too immense to fall on the shoulders of any one of us. Yet, it is through our ability to be good people within the context of our abilities that we are able to be the Noah of our generation: the righteous man, who did what he could with what he was given.

March 17th: Forced to Change

There is a section of my school’s newspaper reserved for reports of rape and sexual assault. It is right there on the front page, in the upper left corner. There is almost never a lack of content. Every day, there are new reports of abuse from Bloomington, both from the student body and the community as a whole.

The question arises, then: are there more occurrences of rape happening now than in the past, or is reporting of rape becoming more popular? The answer, as I believe, is both. While rape has been growing more “popular.” so too does it’s reporting.

An important distinction to be made is a definition of rape. You wouldn’t think you would have to identify what is and isn’t rape, but it is a pivotal part of getting to the root of the issue.

As a child, or pre-teen, when I learned about rape, I primarily was told about creepy men, psychopaths, who hid in alleys and forced themselves upon young, innocent women. To the young me, a rapist a mugger, thief, or murderer would all look alike. While this is sometimes the case, the more prevalent and harder to solve issue is the rapist who is a good student, or a caring son, or a devoted boyfriend. Rape is found in far more places than alleyways.

What is becoming more prevalent is the reporting of rape between people who know each other, even between individuals in a relationship. This is why definition is so important to understanding rape’s place in society and getting to the essence of how to eradicate it.

Rape is, at it’s most basic level, any sexual interaction that a person does not fully consent to. This opens the door for a wide range of examples, and, very significantly, different kinds of rapists.

As we gain a better grasp of what rape looks like, we have to understand that rape can result from a consensual interaction going a step too far. A perfect example of this is a situation where (For the purpose of this example) a man and a woman meet at a party. They hit it off and agree to go back to his place. Upon arrival, they begin to make out and things are going fine. When he attempts to go a step further, she seems unsure, and he tries to urge her on, we’ve already crossed a threshold. That’s all it takes. If he takes even one step she doesn’t want to take, he becomes a rapist. A very different rapist from the masked man in the alley, but a rapist none the less.

As if it wasn’t complicated enough, sexuality is adding an additional layer to the difficulty of the issue. Morso than ever before, women are taking ownership of their sexuality. Women are dressing in ways we’ve never seen before, they’re interacting with others in revolutionary ways, and they’re taking control of their sexual environments more than society has ever experienced. These are, of course, generalizations, but ones that seem to be based in real social progress.

In no way does a woman taking control of her sexuality justify or defend rape. There is nothing that justifies or defends rape. It is, though, important to acknowledge that all of these pieces have a connection to the situation, and can play a role in moving us forward toward a more healthy and meaningful interaction between people. There is a taboo about talking about rape, especially for a young man. To find a solution to the issue, though, we have to be willing to discuss it in a meaningful way, not just a “comfortable” way.

Disclaimer included, we return to the point. Women’s increased ownership of their sexuality is, rightfully, forcing men’s understanding of their own to change. This has proven, unfortunately, to be a slow process. Society still calls  woman who knows her sexual desires a “slut.” A girl who dresses provocatively is still looked at as begging for sexual attention. From this (wrong) perspective, these women are looking for it, and shouldn’t be upset when they get it.

We have, then, isolated two components of the issue: first, we are overly pigeonholing rape, and second, we are failing to move forward as a society. By “overly pigeonholing,” I mean that a young person who thinks of rape as a masked psychopath doesn’t include himself in the rape conversation. “I’m not a monster, I don’t hide and physically assault women, therefore I don’t have to be thoughtful about rape.” This mindset is what young men are learning and we’re suffering for it. As a response, we need to be teaching young men, sooner rather than later, about how to appropriately and thoughtfully get consent in a way that values the interaction with a partner, rather than being a buzzkill.

The second point, moving our society forward, comes with two additional pieces of education. We have to do a better job of communicating to young men the importance of appreciating a woman’s sexuality, rather than seeing it as an opportunity for personal pleasure. On the other side of the coin, young women need to be instructed how to remain safe in any and all situations. Many feminists love to say “we shouldn’t tell our daughters not to get raped, we should tell our sons not to rape.” That’s true. But it is an ignorant gamble to say we aren’t going to do some education for each.

Rape is a scary and uncomfortable topic for discussion. As it has become more and more popular to report, though, we are faced with the burden of finding ways to keep women (and men) safe. In recent months, we’ve seen no shortage of columns, commentaries, and blogs attempting to tackle an element of the complex issue. The roadblock, however, for any real understanding is our unwillingness to have the full conversation. We need to be having conversations with young men AND young women. We need to be more understanding of what rape really looks like, where it comes from, and how we can eradicate it.

March 9th: In Peace and Love

My phone has been a terrible problem for the past several months. I’ve been dropping calls, failing to send texts, and unable to do simple tasks using my apps (first world problems, I know). As a last ditch effort to try to make things move a little more quickly, I performed a factory reset on my phone.

While this action didn’t really help my phone much (it’s still most useful as a paperweight), I did get the opportunity to reload the apps that were important to me and leave certain things off that I had no intention of ever using again.

Another of the elements of the phone that went away with the clean reset was my autosignature. For the last four years, I have had a message inscribed at the bottom of all of my text messages. It simply read “BSVA AZ.” BSVA stood for B’Shalom V’Ahavah, a Hebrew phrase meaning “In Peace and Love,” followed by my initials.

This notion arose when, as a junior in high school, I wrote a service for NFTY that involved the intersection between text messaging and prayer. I gave a D’var Torah (a sermon) on the fact that we, as teens, have the opportunity to make a religious connection with all facets of our lives, and that something as basic or mundane as texting can hold a far greater significance to our lives. As part of this service, I added my autosignature to my phone as a way to embody what I was talking about.

For the next four years, it was a constant reminder. I was always able to see that, whatever was the root of my conversation, my religious identity was not far away. The URL of this very blog page, bsvaaz.blogspot.com, was derivative of my call to action, an action I too took up.

It wasn’t always an easy thing. There were times when my texting mates would get irritated with the repetitive message, and there were those who simply didn’t understand why this was an important part of my communication identity. I spent a good number of characters explaining to people why it was there and what it meant to me.

In recent months, I realized I was spending more and more time considering whether I even wanted to include the phrase. There are times when my religious identity would be a hinderance to the conversation, a distractor rather than helpful. I struggled with whether or not to keep what had become a significant part of my relationship with media.

With the clean slate phone, though, I’ve decided not to replace it. There are many reasons why I think this is best for me, but first and foremost is my relationship with my religious identity. As a young person, I have always needed to find ways to keep God and my religious relationship close at hand. As I grow more and more comfortable in my beliefs, they also grow more available to me. As a Jewish Studies major, a rabbinic hopeful, and an intern in the leadership of Reform Judaism, I don’t have a hard time remembering to keep Judaism in mind.

Another important element is my understanding of communication. The intersection between religious practice and media communications is something that religious teens and college students have been struggling with for a long time. There are a multitude of possible solutions and I’m excited to have the opportunity to go out and explore other opportunities to connect to my community, my religion, and my belief in God.

While my autosignature may no longer hang at the bottom of every text, I keep the sentiment clear in my communications. I can’t wait to see what I can do next to keep my Judaism and my faith close at hand.

BSVA AZ

March 2nd: Making the Separation

In case being considered racist wasn’t enough, Arizona now wants to add “homophobic” to their list of adjectives.

Earlier last week, the state was discussing the possibility of passing a law that would allow business owners the opportunity to deny service to any customer on the grounds of their own religious beliefs. While not explicitly stated, this would effectively allow an Arizona business to reject gay customers because, in their eyes, a patron’s sexuality is an insult to their moral integrity.

There have, of course, been a wide variety of reactions from the American public. On one side, a few states have joined in, including Missouri and Mississippi, attempting to write their own, similar pieces of legislation. On the other side, there were rumors that the NFL would refuse to host Super Bowl XLIX in Arizona’s University of Phoenix Stadium as it had originally planned, in protest of the bill.

This ridiculous law is a thinly veiled attempt to suffocate the people of Arizona within the context of the Christian religious values that the few in power hold. This is, though, a blatant violation of the idea behind the first amendment. While it can safely hide behind the fact that it doesn’t distinguish between faiths, it is the imposition of faith upon citizens in a baseless way that is contradictory to everything this country stands for.

One question, though, that comes to mind is how a religious Christian will identify a gay when they walk into a business. Are you going to deny someone service if they are holding another man’s hand? If they are wearing jeans that are a little too tight? If your gay-dar just kinda sends you that vibe? This looks like a heinously arbitrary way of allowing for terrible action against another human being with no basis in real business or economic success.

As an active member of a religious community, it drives me crazy to see religion used as a template for hate. This is, after all, what is going on here. Christian extremists have hijacked the social advancement of this country and need to be put back in their place. Not only are they imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, but they are giving all religious people of all faiths a bad rap.

There’s another piece of the puzzle, though, that the Christian right may not have fully considered: to allow this law to take effect, it would open the door to all religions and all views, not just the white majority. If this were to have happened, it would bring up the opportunity for a Muslim to refuse service to a Jews, a Jew to refuse service to a Christian, or any other form of otherwise baseless discrimination. The idea of a member of another religion using their faith to deny service would leave any soap box preacher crying.

Luckily, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. For the time being, this will not be accepted into the legislation of our country. That doesn’t mean, though, that we’re in the clear.

This all really comes down to power, and the fear of losing it. As society changes and move progressively forward, there is a small group of Christians (not all Christians by any means) that is afraid of growing impotent at the hands of the gays and the blasphemers.

Using religion as a basis for discrimination and hatred is a fundamental error in the understanding of faith. Anyone who uses the Bible in a way that causes another person harm or emotional distress is bastardizing the real meaning behind faith. Religion is a way that an individual can wake up in the morning and live a meaningful life. Religion is a way to do what is best for one’s own self. There is no way to read the Bible and come away with hate.

If there is a debate that the Christian right would like to have, let’s have it. We can talk, we can learn, we can move forward together. But using legislation to write discrimination and hate into our laws will not be accepted. If an individual wants to use his or her faith to make life more meaningful, by all means. I, of all people, understand. Religion as a means to ruin the life of someone else, though, will not be tolerated.

February 25th - Moving Right Along

Growing up at the turn of the century and the turn of the millennium has put my generation at something of a crossroads. We are the first generation to have easy access to the immense technological advancements of the late 2000s and the early 2010s.

One of the most meaningful pieces of social advancement in recent memory is not only the creation of social media tools, but the use of those media to discuss, analyze, and, in many cases, expose social issues and conflicts. Facebook is covered in links to blogs and articles, each one addressing a different issue. Comments spark debate and get some traction on the world’s feed.

It isn’t, as some may believe, that the world is a more screwed up or confused place than it has been in the past. There is, though, evidence that we are advancing too rapidly to actually come up with solutions to the issues that plague our society. Instead of finding ways to fix these problems, we all-too-often put band-aids over the issues.

A perfect example of this is our education system. Education in America is a hugely divergent resource, in that the product that a student from one school receives is quite different from the one from a different school. Not all high school diplomas are created equal. This is especially true in many urban areas, especially those environments with ethnic minorities. To attempt to provide a level playing field for all public school students in the United States, there have been many attempts to get better teachers into environments without good educators. There have also been attempts to use government funding to create charter schools, which have received equal amounts of praise and disdain.

Do either of these solutions solve the problem? Definitely not. In fact, according to some, we aren’t even sure that it is making any difference at all. That doesn’t mean, though, that we shouldn't keep trying to come up with something that does work.

This challenge is not unique to the education issue. We, as Americans, are confronting more social issues at one time than almost any other time in US history. Sexual orientation, disability awareness, poverty, race, the list goes on and on.We are constantly bombarded by the pet projects of our friends and colleagues. It can be next to impossible to actually do anything, rather than just taking it all in.

The challenge has three major solutions, none of which are easy. First, we need to develop some level of focus. Not everything can get solved in one lifetime by one individual. I find myself struggling to decide which issues I want to dedicate my time, energy, and attention to. I can blog about many of these concepts, but if I want to actually help to tackle one or two, I need to narrow my focus. At first, this sounds terrible. Why can’t I do everything I can to fix as much as I can?

This leads to my second call to action: we need to be more creative when evaluating the social and economic challenges of today’s world. In many cases, these issues are arising because of the changing times. Homesexuality wasn’t an issue that was discussed in the 1950s, or at least not very much. It is the confrontation between what is now and what we want the future to look like that causes these dilemmas. Why do we continue to look for past or even current solutions? The simple answer is that we lack the creativity to think outside of the context of the way society is currently. We are afraid of the discomfort that comes with leaving the perspective or context we are familiar with, in favor of one that will make the world better. Sometimes we don’t even realize how suffocating the social laws and rules we have created are. To actually go about making things better, we need to be able to think in new and different ways. If there was a solution using “conventional” methods, we most likely would have found it by now.

The final step is that we need to listen. We need to be willing to hear the ideas of others and share our own. We need to engage in dialog to attempt to figure things out.

The world is a complicated and often frustrating place. We are constantly bombarded with different issues and social conflicts that beg for our attention. We, as citizens of the world, have to confront how we will handle each of these issues. WIth a little bit of focus, creativity, and willingness to listen, we have a fighting chance of actually making our society just a little better.

February 17th - The Streets of Heaven

Just over a year and a half ago, a man walked into a movie theater and opened fire. Five months later, it was an elementary school. Since then, it seems as though every few weeks we hear about another gun being drawn and used to cause terror, pain, and, all too often, death.

At the 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama made a bold statement that something had to be done to prevent this kind of violence from tearing the country apart. He punctuated his speech by inviting the families of shooting victims to the speech and honoring the memories of those whose lives were cut so mercilessly short.

It turns out, one year later, Obama’s bark was worse than his bite. Congress did little to nothing to prevent such acts of violence, and killings didn’t stop. This year alone, in 48 days alone, there have already been several incidences of killings at the hands of gunmen. In fact, the number and frequency of public gun violence has increased, rather than decreasing the past year.

And Obama relented. Little to nothing was discussed during this year’s State of the Union to address the growing issue. Obama asked for legislation, Congress said no, and Obama backed off. A year after his initial call to action, Barack Obama’s second State of the Union of his second term barely confronted the notion of any form of gun control. It just didn’t make the list of things to discuss that night.

Here is the scary thought: maybe the violence is perpetuating itself. Copycats see others successfully (or at least what they believe to be successful) spread fear and create havoc. Some even may look at the attention a killer “earns” in a glorified way. All of a sudden, the notion of using violence may be implanted in the mind of someone who otherwise would never have considered it.

Although I don’t encourage the ownership of guns, I do understand the notion that the government shouldn’t be able to tell me what I can and cannot own. The arguments in defense of the second amendment grow more tired, though.

At its inception, the second amendment to the constitution was created for the purpose of allowing citizens to own muskets to maintain a militia in times of need. At the time, it was imperative for national security and defense.

Times have changed in the past 200 plus years, though. So too must our understanding of gun rights, and the right to bear arms. Those who use second amendment arguments fail to understand that the right to bear arms originates from the necessity to do so, which truly doesn’t exist. It is also important to note that very few people are arguing about the right to own a 18^th century musket. The weapons have grown far more terrifying.

This gets very well to the next argument which most gun carriers hold to: that carrying a gun makes one feel safer and allows for self-defense. There’s a fundamental error in logic. How can more weapons lead to less violence? Clearly people are still using their guns; it doesn’t appear as though concealed carry is being effectively used as a deterrent. And if you’re so worried about your safety, wouldn’t it be safer to eliminate the guns, rather than make everyone carry one?

I carry a pocket knife with me most of the time. I like having it with me. I use it to open boxes, cut through packaging, and other simple tasks. Could it be used as a weapon? Sure. But its purpose is to be used as a tool. The same cannot be said for a gun. The gun, especially the automatic weapon, was invented for the sole intent and purpose of killing. Even when used recreationally, it is still a killing tool. There is no ability to assume good will. A gun can be used for nothing but harm, or at the very least, intimidation and fear.

We had our chance to fix the problem. For 18 months, Congress has sat back and allowed things to continue with no significant gun control reform. But now, as each day of inaction passes, the blood is not only on the hands of the attackers, but also the bystanders. Congressmen and Senators are elected to serve the people of each state. They fail if their inaction leads to the unnecessary murder of those citizens.

We need to take away guns. We need to make them nearly impossible to buy. We need to make ammunition difficult to attain. We need to make things tough. I respected your right to carry a weapon right up until someone ruined it. And we ruin it when we continue to allow our peace of mind to lead to the destruction of human life.

The streets of heaven are too filled with angels. And we can keep those angels on earth. It’s our job to figure out how.

--Follow us on Twitter at @ZootPerspective for even more great content