This past Sunday Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
, Head of the Orthodox Union, addressed the Democratic National Convention during their Inter-Faith Gathering. The Rabbi's speech focused on the meaning of Loving Ones Neighbor As Oneself which he explained by means of the story of the Hillel and the Convert.
A Pagan approaches Hillel and tells him that he would like to
learn, the entire Torah, all of God’s teachings, while standing on one
foot. While others sent the Pagan away, Hillel welcomed the Pagan and said, 'Fine. Stand on one foot, and
I’ll teach you the entire Torah.' Speaking in his native Aramaic, Hillel told the Pagan 'Ma da’alach sanei, lechavrach lo sa’aveid. That which is
hateful to you do not do unto your neighbor.'
The story was received with great enthusiasm by the audience and at one point during the address the Rabbi's words were greeted with shouts of "Amen!" more common to a Gospel Church than a Rabbi's speech. The audience was even willing to shout "Amen" with a Hebrew accent for the Rabbi, to which he gratefully responded "Now I fell more at home."
Rabbi Jack Moline of Agudas Achim of Northern Virginia was "enormously impressed and grateful" for Rabbi Weinreb's willingness to participate in the DNC's Inter-Faith Gathering. "Seeing him sit graciously side by side with Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, brought a lot of credit to our people."
Rabbi Weinreb went on to explain explained that the concept of neighbor according to Judaism "is not merely the person who lives next door to us or across the street
or even down the lane. Our neighbor may be very distant from us... Our neighbor may be a victim of a tsunami
halfway across the world. Our neighbors may be the suffering people of
Darfur. Our neighbors may be those that are victims of the cruel war
now going on in the country of Georgia, so far away geographically. As
distant as they are, they are our neighbors."
In a nod to the policy goals espoused by the Democratic Party, Rabbi Weinreb called for a culture defined by loving kindness and by compassion that includes helping the unemployed as well as women who are treated unfairly in the workplace. He called for education reform, freedom of religion in the workplace and to unite to end violence in our society.
In words that many in the audience surely felt could be applied to Senator Barack Obama, Rabbi Weinreb explained that truly righteous people "are not crippled by doubt or despair, but they inspire faith and
encourage hope. And they are not defeated by darkness nor ugliness or
evil, for they shed light, they spread beauty, and they promote and
foster all that is good."
In connection with his participation at the DNC Rabbi Weinreb
stated, “I am honored to participate in the Democratic Convention’s
interfaith gathering because this gathering is, in my view, the
Democratic Party’s ‘endorsement’ of the critical role religious faiths
play in American life. Moreover, as it relates to my role representing
the Jewish community, it is a historic statement about the role Jews
and Judaism play in American life – with a degree of liberty and
autonomy unknown to our ancestors in any other country!"
While OU spokesman Howie Beigelman explained that Rabbi Weinreb's appearance was not an endorsement of Obama's Candidacy, still the sight of the head of the Orthodox Union wearing a yarmulka with the Obama '08 logo printed on it (A.K.A. an "Obamaca") will surely bring great happiness to Senator Obama's small but sincere group of supporters within the Jewish Orthodox community.
To see Rabbi Weinreb wearing an "Obamica" visit:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/24/democrats-pound-home-faith-theme-service/
For Rabbi Weinreb's complete speech visit:
http://www.ou.org/news/article/weinreb_address_democratic_national_convention/
Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:50PM
The New Yorker Owes Obama An Apology
According to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, Remnick claims it is satire aimed at making fun of all the rumors. The joke, according to that line of reasoning, is on those silly ignorant folks who believe all those unfounded and indeed slanderous rumours. But those "silly folks" who may have cost Obama the State of Ohio in the primary race are no where depicted in the cartoon. Certainly had that been his primary aim, the formidable Barry Blitt could presumably have come up with an idea that incorporated the primary targets of his satire in the piece.
Perhaps a split screen in which one side of the page has Obama leading the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate and the other side of the page montages into the computer screen of a spammer getting ready to e-mail his latest batch of slander. One could even drive home the message with Photoshop buttons and zoom-in detail labels - i.e. replace American Flag with Iranian Flag, erase flag pin, replace Bible with Koran, etc. Get it?
Instead what we have is a case of "satire once removed" which, while obviously tasteless and perhaps even worthy of boycott, also raises some much less obvious questions. If this new "genre" of "satire once removed" is legitimate might then we be tempted to draw the Pope in a Ku Klux Klan robe, thereby satirizing all those silly folks who believe the Pope is evil? There's a laugh. Perhaps we can satirize all those conspiracy theorists by showing a cartoon of President Bush ordering the 9-11 attacks '...and Dick, make sure it looks like Osama did it.' Hick, hick. Funny stuff. Or we could draw a cartoon of The New Yorker cartoonists dressed as buffoons or prostitutes in order to satirize, not the The New Yorker cartoonists, certainly not, but rather those silly souls who equate The New Yorker cartoonists with such occupations. Chuckle chuckle.
The whole point of satire is, through tasteful albeit at times ruthless use of humor, to call out the intended target and make a clear rhetorical point. This piece does the exact opposite. It's like one of those jokes that needs to be explained, ergo not funny, only with a darker twist in that this offensive joke makes the very opposite point of what is then rationalized away as "the explanation." Well, which is more real the joke itself or the outside explanation thereof?
All of this gives yet one more mask behind which the rumor mongers can hide. Who are these spammers/whisperers/slanderers ? No one knows, and the piece in question does nothing to call them to account. Indeed so absent are the "intended targets" of the "satire" that it's almost as if they don't exist. These same spammers could easily, and most probably will, use this very cartoon for their own defamatory ends; perhaps "quote" The New Yorker and then "prove the point" with the usual litany of lies with a touch of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. The more sophisticated among them could resort to satire twice removed, in which "those silly rumour-believing souls" cannot hear the sound of our laughter because they are too busy using our own joke to laugh at us "those liberal loonies who can't see Obama for what he truly is." Ha ha, the laughs on us.
Our good friends at TNR believe that the Obama Campaign was wrong to come out swinging on this one. I disagree. I believe this is exactly the kind of public discourse that must be called out into the open, especially in the era of anonymous e-lies and e-slander. The New Yorker owes both Barack and Michelle Obama an apology for their tasteless insensitivity, but no less a debt is owed to the public at large who look to such a publication for reflective opinion and discourse with the reader. To this end humour, shock, even obscenity are legitimate means for making a good point. But when obscenity and "shock-value" becomes ends in and of themselves for the sake of publicity, then such a piece remains merely shocking and obscene, more akin to cable TV shows such as Reno 911 and Punk'd than the true political satire we have come to both expect and respect from such a publication.