Smoking Out the Tobacco Problem

For the record, I am a nonsmoker, and my house is and has always been a smoke-free zone.

As detestable as the interventionist policies and practices of the government may be when it comes to the use of tobacco, the fact is that tobacco use is a severe health issue.  This is a matter in which none of the major players have clean hands:  Not the tobacco companies, not the smokers, and not the government. 

And understand that the victims include more than just those who are addicted to the substance.  The livelihoods of the small business enterprises such as retailers and individual tobacco farmers have been and continue to be manipulated by the government's inconsistent and contradictory policies.  And the cure purveyed by the government threatens personal autonomy within the walls of the homes of those who happen to be tobacco users.

It is difficult for me to draw solid bold lines on what my stance on the tobacco issues should be, but I do favor the free transmission of accurate and objective information.

Hamodia, a newspaper of the insular religious Jewish community, has published an article in its "Inyan" magazine [Hamodia, Inyan Magazine, August 22, 2012 / 4 Elul 5772] entitled "Smoking:  A Preventable Addiction."  The use of the Internet amongst the insular religious Jewish groups is a very controversial issue, but Hamodia does have a closely circumscribed Internet presence, including the aforementioned article (at least a part of which is not in the proprietary zone of the Hamodia website).

The article describes Rabbi Yechezkel Ishayek's efforts to reduce the incidence of tobacco use amongst the insular religious Jewish community, a practice I do applaud in light of his use of the objective accurate information model (though I am not totally unconcerned about the potential for coercion in future efforts by others which might conceivably follow on to Rabbi Ishayek's project).

A few matters in the article struck me as remarkable (and I am in good company, because my wife made similar observations when she read the article).  In no particular order:

A.  Rabbi Ishayek noted that he "heard testimony from world-renowned experts and came to the conclusion that one of the reasons why the smoking rate did not decrease in the religious world as much as it did in the general population is because, baruch Hashem, we are not exposed to the secular media. While it is a wonderful thing that we avoid the spiritual dangers inherent in that  media, we are also not adequately exposed to information about the dangers of smoking."

Yes, many of the people in the community truly lead very sheltered lives.  But then, on the other hand, there are many, many who have very excellent knowledge of world current affairs.  As valid as Rabbi Ishayek's observation may or may not be, methinks that it is an oversimplification and that there is more to the story.  Specifically, I will suggest that a social group which has effectively been taught from early age to hold science and the scientific method in contempt would be a natural for ignoring, minimizing and invalidating the information on the hazards of smoking which was in fact sent out amongst them.

B.  The rabbinical leaders of the various factions within the insular religious Jewish community, individually and collectively, have already demonstrated their ability to regulate the behavioral impulses of their followers when they so choose.  Knowing the tobacco usage habits amongst such social circles, I have to wonder just how much of a priority those rabbinical leaders place upon decreasing tobacco usage.  See "A" above.

C.  I will note that until relatively recently, the city of Bnei Brak in Israel, which is overwhelmingly populated by the insular religious groups, had a cigarette factory in operation on its main drag, Rabbi Akiva Street.

Steve Levy and the Religion Card

It is now clear that David Paterson will not stand for reelection to the New York Governor's office (and may even depart from the office before the election). The two announced candidates for the Republican nomination are Rick Lazio and Steve Levy.

This posting is purely speculative, purely "what if" conjecturing of an eventuality which at this point seems far less likely than not to ever occur, namely, the playing of the "Religion Card" in the political campaign.

Steve Levy is the son of a Jewish father and a Italian (Sicilian, I believe) Catholic mother. He was raised as a Catholic (including Catholic school in the earlier grades). To what degree he practices his Catholicism and/or the standing in which the Catholic Church holds him I neither know nor care, other than he married his wife in an Episcopal church. To the best of my knowledge, he has never purported himself to be Jewish.

Steve Levy has served as a County Legislator in Suffolk County, New York, and as a New York State Assemblyman. He is now the County Executive of Suffolk County. I have had occasion to shake hands with him at several Bar Association events, but that's as far as my personal familiarity with him goes. My objections to him are strictly political and not personal (for the record, my vote here now leans towards a Catholic named Lazio).

In Suffolk County, Levy's religious affiliation is, by and large, irrelevant. The Catholics in the electorate do not seem to care that his father is Jewish and that his name is Levy. The Jews in his constituency (who, with a few exceptions including myself, do not heavily practice their religion) don't really care that Steve Levy is Catholic (except for a few isolated exceptions who get themselves indignant about that kind of thing). It's a matter of everyone knows but nobody cares.

To be sure, Steve has visited Israel. In New York (at least New York City and Long Island), politicians of all religious backgrounds frequently do the "3 I's" (that is, visit Ireland, Italy and Israel).

As long as Steve Levy has a purely Suffolk County constituency, religion is a non-issue.

But now that Steve Levy is running for statewide office, I can envision a few conceivable situations in which the "Religion Card" might, perhaps, come into play. Again, the card may well never be played, which would suit me just fine.

If, for example, Steve tries to get the votes in Monsey or Williamsburgh or Kiryas Joel or New Square, or even Borough Park or Kew Gardens Hills or the 5 Towns, et cetera, he would have to be careful to not explicitly tout his Jewishness or else the issue will explode in his face. The typical voter in those areas would think that Steve Levy is a nice Jewish boy from Suffolk County, and might treat him as such. [Several of my friends and relatives from outside of Long Island who have read of Steve were of that mind until I set them straight.].

It is unlikely that Rick Lazio would bring up the issue because Rick is also a Catholic boy, and he has nothing "better" to offer voters in the aforementioned heavily Jewish areas. Most of the voters in those neighborhoods understand that Steve Levy himself is not to blame for his not being Jewish, and it would make Lazio look worse than Levy.


Likewise, an outsider to the Republican primary (i.e., a Democrat) would have little to gain by bringing up the issue.

But suppose the issue is brought up not by Levy or Lazio or any other candidate of any party, but by some loose cannon in the camp of one candidate or the other? Recall that during the 1884 Presidential election, it was the Rev. Samuel Burchard who, perhaps unwittingly, irretrievably sabotaged the campaign of James G. Blaine when he uttered his infamous "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" speech (Blaine was not exactly friendly towards Catholic education, and Jewish education is a big issue in the communities mentioned above, so the parallel hypothecized here would be strikingly apropos were it to occur).

Figuratively, the highways of America are littered with the bones of those who have tried to prognosticate political campaigns. I reiterate that the "Religion Card" will likely not be played in Steve Levy's quest for the Executive Chamber in Albany. But then again, some ideological descendant of Samuel Burchard might prove me wrong.

Portraying the Wrong Picture

The news story now making the rounds (as in here and here and here) is about how certain newspapers in Israel photoshopped the women out of the news photo of the new Israeli Cabinet.

The fact is that in some religious circles, portraying a woman in a photograph is considered immodest. The newspapers at issue here are published by and for such segments of the population, therefore, they do not publish photographs which portray women. In fact, some have been known to insist that all photographs of people, even of males, are prohibited.

This posting shall not now get into the issues of whether pixelating or airbrushing out the women out from the group photo is or is not more journalistically ethical than rearranging the positions of the entire group so as to exclude the women, or whether it would or would not be better to not publish the photo at all.

What this post WILL address is the implication, in news stories such as the one at issue, that those Jewish people who eschew photographs of women are somehow "more religious" than those who do not.

Imprimis, I detest the use of the term "ultraorthodox" to describe any Jewish person. The use of the "U" word serves only to fragment the Jewish people, and to subject those of us who adhere to the Torah commandments to ridicule.

There are many groups of religious Jews who, for many generations, chose to stay isolated to one extent or another from society at large. Even when contact and communication could not be avoided, such groups have retained costume and custom which differs from the general norm. They are, in a word, insular. They have always been around, but in today's world of rapid transportation and communication, these groups now are noticed by more and more people who, even twenty years ago, would have been oblivious to their existence. Many of their practices are based more upon group traditions than upon any mandate from the Torah.

I have no particular quarrel with such groups; indeed, I regularly interact with many to one extent or another. And I read several publications whose intended readership is such groups [N.B. The Israeli "Yated Ne'eman" mentioned in the story officially split from the American publication of the same title a number of years ago; let us say that they now are divorced but they still sleep together.]. Such newspapers -- and their readerships -- have the right to decide which photographs will or will not be published in their pages.

As for my religious observance, I daven (pray) three times each day, keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws, and, in a few days, will observe the Passover. For the record, I personally have no religious issues with photographs of women who are decently clad. And, not that it really, really matters, but I wear a kippah and my wife covers her hair with a wig or a snood. Those who happen to wear the black hats but who are sex offenders, tax cheats, womanizers, or even ordinary murderers may well be more insular than I am, but they are not more religious!

Do not confuse insularity with religiousity!

Flushing Remonstrance: 350th Anniversary

350TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FLUSHING REMONSTRANCE


Peter Stuyvesant, the Director-General of the Dutch colony of the New Netherlands , was most certainly not an exponent of religious freedom. In 1654, for example, he attempted to prevent Jews from settling in what was then New Amsterdam. Similar intolerance was shown by Stuyvesant for Lutherans and Catholics.

In 1657, Stuyvesant issued a ban on Quakers. On 27 December 1657, some Englishmen who resided in the Village of Flushing ("Vlishing" in Dutch), responded to Stuyvesant's prohibition with a letter, in which they informed Stuyvesant that people of all religious persuasions would be welcomed in Flushing. That letter became known as the Flushing Remonstrance.

The signers paid dearly for their audacity, but the people of Flushing continued to harbor Quakers.

Less than seven years later, it was Stuyvesant and his fellow adherents of the Dutch Reformed Church doctrine whose free exercise of religion was threatened when the British seized control of New Amsterdam. The 1664 Articles of Capitulation, negotiated by the Dutch with the grudging acquiescence of Stuyvesant, specifically provided that the "Dutch here shall enjoy the liberty of their consciences in Divine Worship and church discipline." The Flushing Remonstrance surely was recalled in the minds, if not on the tongues, of the Dutchmen who negotiated the surrender of their colony to the British.

In 1673, when the Dutch regained the colony from the British (who had named it New York), the Dutch reciprocally imposed the same surrender terms upon the British, including the religious liberty rights for Englishmen. In 1674, the Treaty of Westminster settled the disputes between the British and the Dutch, and in doing so returned New York to British control. Freedom of religion was once again guaranteed.

The spirit of the Flushing Remonstrance went major league when the American colonies broke free of England and drew up the United States Constitution. The New York delegation found nothing in the document to ensure the various personal liberties, including freedom of worship, which they had enjoyed for more than a century under colonial rule. The 10 Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights were New York's inducement to subscribe to the Constitution, and indeed, the very first provision of the very first Amendment continues to this day to guarantee Americans free exercise of their religious inclinations.

The signing and dispatch of the Flushing Remonstrance, then, was a key root of American religious freedom and other freedoms as well. The freedom environment so provided attracted (and continues to attract) people from diverse cultures, who, collectively, have made America the political and economic world power it is today.

And today, the neighborhoods of Flushing, New York are home to the most culturally diverse population in America, if not the world. Every day, thousands of individuals, representing diverse religious faiths, pass within a few yards of where the Flushing Remonstrance was written, all free to worship according to their persuasions.

As for the original Flushing Remonstrance document, it now is the property of the State of New York. From 5 December 2007 through 7 January 2008, the Remonstrance is on loan to the Flushing Library for public display, after which it is to be returned to the New York State Archives in Albany.

Many people in Flushing are now trying to arrange a permanent loan of the Remonstrance to the Queens Museum of Art in Flushing Meadows, so that the document can come home to where it belongs. I support that effort. [Disclosure: Though I do not reside in Queens County, I often work there.] For one thing, there are those who would take away our freedom of worship and impose their own religious regimens upon us. A strong tradition of religious liberty among the populace goes a long way towards preserving our freedom. It is vital that the public have a tangible and recognizable symbol of religious freedom ensconced in a place of honor. What better tangible artifact of religious freedom can there be than the original Flushing Remonstrance? Placing the Remonstrance document in the Museum will underscore the importance of the free exercise of our faiths, and further reinforce the tradition of religious liberty.

And, on a practical note, the folks at the New York State Archives have not been particularly good stewards of the document, what with the 1911 fire in Albany which scorched the Flushing Remonstrance. The museum curators in Flushing know how to exhibit things to the public, and can give the document a more dignified venue than the obscure and not-so-fireproof vault in Albany.

And so, on this 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance, I join the diverse chorus of voices to demand the return of the Remonstrance to Queens. Let the document serve as a symbol of freedom, an artifact of public reverence, and a light unto the nations of the world!

THE FLUSHING REMONSTRANCE BELONGS IN FLUSHING!!!

BRING IT HOME TO WHERE IT BELONGS!!!

Oversimplification

In Europe, over the course of many centuries, the Catholic Church sent its best and brightest to be monks and priests, while the best and brightest Jews learned in the yeshivas and became Rabbis. The Rabbis went forth and multiplied, but the monks and priests did not.

As Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, explains, this is an oversimplification, though the process probably did play a role behind the obvious and undisputed phenomenon of Jewish people being disproportionately overrepresented in the various fields of intellectual and scientific and financial achievement.

One Jewish disproportionate overrepresentation I have long wondered about is that of the field of leftist politics. Why are people of Jewish origin so commonly found amongst the activist elements of the Communists, the Socialists, or just plain liberals? It is very perplexing!

My own Jewish upbringing was, politically speaking, centrist (for the times) Democrat, though quite frankly, my parents had other personal and family issues which diverted most of their attentions and energies from the political scene. But their social circles included, though by no means exclusively, people of decidedly leftist political orientation.

More recently, with my increased dabbling into genealogical research, I now have strong reason to suspect (read proof positive) that some relatives, of whom my parents and grandparents rarely if ever spoke, acted solidly on the left side of the political stage.

One thing which all humans find very difficult is to imagine that there are those who do not share their perspectives and beliefs. Justice and charity are very strongly ingrained Jewish cultural norms. Seeing someone in an "underdog" position naturally elicits empathy from a Jew. What most of these Jews on the Left have trouble realizing (and what I myself for many years could not conceptualize) was that not all ethnic or social cultures share the Jewish values of justice, truth, charity and societal order.

For example, if everyone shared those values, then opposition to capital punishment would be entirely sensible. The trouble is that there are those for whom justice, truth and charity are irrelevant, and whose very existence imperils order in society. It is all well and good that the limousine liberal can oppose capital punishment on humanitarian grounds, but such will do little to induce the criminal element to abolish their own perverse variety of the death penalty.

This, no doubt, does play a role in many Jews' propensity to embrace Leftist causes, but it is an oversimplification.

What does induce people of Jewish origin to religiously pick up the cudgels of the Left? The word "religiously" is a tip-off. There is a very, very strong correlation (with certain exceptions, of course) for Jews of the Left to have long abandoned the Jewish religious practices (and in many cases, beliefs). Many Leftist Jews are not merely non-religious, they are anti-religious! There are many, many religious Jews (myself among them) who are solidly on the Right side of the political spectrum.

Nor is this phenomenon peculiar to Jews; the experience with Finnish immigrants to America, and their descendants, has notably strong parallels. The "Church Finns" hold strongly Conservative political values, while the "Red Finns" who have abandoned the religious rituals have flocked to the Left (including Gus Hall, who was the quadrennial Communist Party candidate for President from 1976 through 1984).

This does shine some light on the phenomenon of the disproportionate numbers of Jews on the Left, but it is an oversimplification. Jewish accomplishment and achievement is phenomenon that is both perplexing and intimidating to the world -- and indeed, to the Jews themselves.

Could it be that we really are G-d's Chosen People? I believe so! But this explanation, too, is a severe oversimplification.