Tony Kushner - Honor or Dishonor

Tony Kushner was initially "denied" an honorary degree by CUNY because of his perceived political views regarding Israel. Under pressure, according to the New York Times, the CUNY Board then reversed this decision. Benno C. Schmidt, Jr., the CUNY Board chairman was quoted in the New York Times as believing the board had "made a mistake of principle, and not merely of policy." He went on to say "it is not right for the board to consider politics in connection with the award of honorary degrees except in extreme cases not presented by the facts here." Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the board member who raised objections to Kushner stated, in a letter to the editor, that Kushner's accusation of Israel participating in "ethnic cleansing" "crosses the line."

Was Wiesenfeld wrong in raising this issue? Apparently a sufficient number of board members thought enough of his remarks to postpone Kushner's nomination (they did not "deny" him the honor), and tabled it until more information could be obtained.

The much honored (including a Nobel Prize) South African Bishop Desmond Tutu has been said to have made anti-Zionist remarks, accusing Israel of apartheid, and more! (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1742/bishop-tutu-is-no-saint-when-it-comes-to-jews). He is hardly the only honored personage to whom such remarks have been attributed - there are many!

Before we jump on the Kushner bandwagon and latch on to the concept of the separation of politics from honorary academic acknowledgment, we should remember Schmidt's own cautionary words about "extreme cases". Is Tutu an extreme case? Is Kushner?

Keeping History In Its Place

Today's edition of the New York Times includes an article about David Barton, whom the Times indicates is using "America's past to remake its future." According to the article, Mr. Barton advocates the fact that the United States was "founded as a Christian nation," and that the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court. The Amendment, Barton maintains, does "erect a wall of separation between church and state," but the original intent was to insure government non-interference in religious activities, rather than to prevent the use of public spaces for religious activities.

Let us assume, for the moment, that Barton is correct. So what! The whole process of social and political evolution is to move history forward. There is no doubt that Christianity played a large part in the formation of this country, as it did in Europe - but that was then! Certain principles may still apply, but evolutionary forces will always modify them. History serves as a background to the studies of these forces of change - forces which will always be present, and will generally serve to improve rather than to worsen the societies affected. As a matter of fact, what radical Islam is attempting, I believe, is somewhat similar to what Barton is advocating - a return to historic principles with little concern for how societies have evolved!

The same holds true for the church-state issue. He may very well be correct in his interpretation of original intent. But so what! It's over. Events have progressed as our society has evolved into one far different from the one that was founded on these shores by English and Dutch settlers some 400 years ago! What was a principle at that time, has evolved into new principles acceptable to the society that adopted them.

In addition to expounding on the Jeffersonian or Washingtonian writings of the 18th century, one should consider what these giants would be ideating were they around in the 21st century!

History is a wonderful place to start. But it is only a start. Societies evolve, and their principles will necessarily evolve as well in order to adapt to society's changes. This is not to say that there are not certain principles, Judaeo-Christian or otherwise, that will always hold true, but we have to realize that the society of today can never again be the society of yesteryear. Though history can teach us much, it must constantly be considered in light of the present.

We should never become the prisoners of history. Our past can never be our future.

Mistakes v. Errors in Judgment

There are two classes of "mistakes." There are factual "mistakes" and then there are "mistakes" that are retrospective judgmental errors. Factual "mistakes" include incorrect mathematical calculations, or spelling errors. Retrospective errors in judgment are a very different form of "mistake;" an error that is not objectively factual, but one seen only subjectively in hindsight.

If, after assessing all known variables, a decision is made to undertake a deliberate action, the result of this action can only be termed "mistaken" retrospectively - never prospectively.

Decisions to marry, decisions to change jobs, decisions to raise taxes, decisions to declare war cannot be considered "mistakes", if elected conscientiously after proper evaluation of the variables involved. Whether these decisions eventuate into retrospective errors in judgment may take many years - even decades - to determine.

Chou En-lai, the former prime minister of China who was highly regarded for his intelligence, reportedly, was once asked his opinion as to the long-term effects of the French Revolution. "Too early to tell," he is said to have replied!

The Concept of God v. The Existence of God

Can one be religious and a philosopher as well. Only if one can accept the fact that a believer in a god can be unbiased in his philosophy. I believe that this cannot be. To be a god-believer and to be philosophically impartial is not possible. This, of course, also holds true for the confirmed atheist. He, too, can not be impartial and his philosophy therefore is also biased.

But one can hypothesize the possibility of a god or no-god, and argue from this hypothetical base. But one cannot argue the philosophy of life, universe, morality, and more with the pre-existence of an absolute belief one way or the other.

Let me argue morality from the atheistic point of view. Is a moral and ethical code possible without a central belief in a supernatural power? Of course. One can advocate the principle of social Darwinism - that our ethical and moral codes can stem from our needs as human animals to survive as a group, as is the case for many other animal forms who have learned that within their herds or flocks, etc. there are social rules to be followed. Our ethics, morals, and laws can originate from such needs, as can our needs to "explain" what we otherwise cannot explain.

Gods exist to "explain" what we "cannot explain." The belief in a god helps assuage these needs, particularly our strong need to imbue our bodies with the concept of an everlasting spirit that will continue to exist beyond our deaths, or that will, at some distant point in time be resurrected into a living form. Human society also needs gods to form the idea of absolute good, as well as the concept of absolute evil. These, of course, are concepts which do not, and never have existed. But a future "heaven on earth," represented by the presence of absolute good and the absence of absolute evil, has always been the everlasting unachievable desire.

I am a non-believer, but, that said, I am an ardent supporter of the idea of a god as necessary for a society that exists in the presence of many unknowns. A god provides an ideal for good. A god serves as a concept that helps acknowledge that human thoughts and decisions are not always rational, but emotional as well. A god provides the "missing link" between matter and essence. A god provides strength under duress, and answers where none otherwise exist. God-concepts (religions) have existed, in one form or another, to provide such answers since the beginning of recorded time! I also think that a world without a god-concept would be a rather sterile world; bereft of the very strong human emotion that ties into who we are and what we are. Religion has been a central point of all surviving societies - it clearly seems to be a societal necessity. Religion plays a need in the "public square." It helps punctuate life.

The idea of a god and a heaven provides an everlasting reach for man. But this "reach" which will always exceed man's "grasp" is what helps stimulate us to be the remarkable beings that we are.

The Sacrifice of Youth for the Greater Good

Ancient civilizations were known to indulge in human sacrifice in order to appease the gods. As primitive, and as repugnant, as this policy may appear, perhaps we should analyze it more closely. Those ancient societies, simple as they may have been, were certain that the outcome - a greater good - clearly justified the offering. And the "chosen one" was always a male or female youth. The gods never seemed interested in a mature, or aged individual. What applies to those societies still holds true today.

Let us hypothesize that our society was threatened, but could be saved with the "sacrifice" of one of our young citizens. Would we? Should we? A society that has made the decision to sacrifice one or more of its members in order to achieve the greater good of survival, must, quite naturally, be certain the objective justifies the expense. Is it worth one "sacrificial gift"? Is it worth 100 such "gifts"? Is it worth, perhaps, 1,000 or more "gifts"?

In ancient days, when a "sacrifice" was necessary to save the civilization, the objective was clear and easily justified. But when the objective is unclear, significant questions regarding "sacrifice" must be raised. When intervening in conflagrations around us, it is never without human sacrifice, and any such sacrifice must be deemed significant - whether one soldier dies, or 1,000 soldiers die. Under conditions clearly threatening the survival of our nation, such sacrifice is acceptable. But should our youth be brought home in body bags for "humanitarian" issues such as Darfur, or the slaughter of innocents in Libya, or Egypt, or anywhere else a rebellion occurs? If so, should we intervene in another Tiananman Square, or in the suppression of a future rebellion in Tibet or North Korea, or Russia. I think not. The sacrifice would be far too dear! We choose our benevolent interventions "prudently," don't we.

We intervene in "merciful" causes when it appears it will cost us little in the way of human expense. But such action is never accompanied by a "get out of jail free" card! It had better be deemed truly worthy of the "sacrificial" cost that will surely be required.

Lionel Trilling wrote "good will generates its own problems, that the love of humanity has its own vices and the love of truth its own sensibilities."

Update on the Jewish Holiday of Purim

The Jewish holiday of Purim is rapidly approaching. This holiday commemorates the "saving" of the Jewish people from a Persian plot to annihilate them; a plot which was aborted by the famous Queen Esther, a Jew who had hidden her faith, and who was wife to the Persian monarch. When apprised of the plot by her cousin, she announces her faith and denounces the plotter, Haman, to the King, who subsequently has the schemer impaled on a stake of his own design. Additionally, 75,810 Persians were killed as a result of Jewish reprisal.

We learn here that though there were "bad" Persians who threatened the Jews with extermination, no Jewish lives were lost, but over 75,000 Persians (mostly innocent, I'm sure) lost theirs.

We should also recall that it was a later "good" Persian king, Cyrus, who, in the last two verses of the Bible, proclaims "The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and has charged me with building Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Any one of you of all His people, the Lord his God be with him and let him go up."

Similarly, it seems incumbent on us to remember that in Hitler's Germany there were the "bad" Germans as well as good Germans. And the Germany of 2011 is not the Germany of 1933. We Jews have not held the Persians forever guilty of a perceived plot of annihilation. So must we Jews not hold Germany forever hostage to its history. At some point, in our hearts and minds, Germany will have to be "set free." As a King Cyrus followed a Haman, so can a benevolent Germany follow a tyrannical one.

Is a Woman's "Right to Choose" always "Right?"

A couple engages a surrogate mother for implantation and gestation of their fertilized egg. Now, of course, we have two mothers here - the surrogate who is, in fact, providing the environment to bring the embryo to term, and the biological mother who has provided the genetic material to the product of conception. For the purposes of this discussion, lets ignore any legal and contractual issues that may exist, and consider only some moral ones.

Does the surrogate mother now have the moral right to electively abort the fetus she is carrying? After all, it has become, so to say, part of "her body." Or, does she now relinquish "moral" control of this fetus to that of the biological couple, i.e. it is not really part of her body, but belongs to the biological couple.

But if it does belong to the biological couple, does the couple then hold the right to have the fetus aborted? I do not believe than anyone would condone forcing the surrogate, at the donor's demand, to undergo an abortion to which she is opposed. If one agrees with this conclusion, then the final "right to abortion" must lie with the surrogate mother.

Should, then, a woman's right to choose be no different whether it affects her biological fetus or whether it affects a surrogate fetus? Should she legally have he right to abort in both situations? If not, then clearly she no longer has the absolute "right to choose." "Right to choose", then, depends on which products of conceptions are permitted to be removed and which are not - a limited choice.

If one believes that the "right to choose" trumps all, then to choose elective abortion of a surrogate fetus must be endorsed.

But does "the right to choose" really extend to this circumstance? Maybe the legal right does, but how about the moral right?