- R' Fink discusses the BYU Honor Code after a top basketball player was kicked off the (#3 ranked) team for having premarital sex. I'm incredibly impressed with this standing up for values and the support it has gotten from everyone involved. The team isn't upset at the rule, the player is apologetic. Good for them all.
- David Davis (a British MP, I believe) has a very interesting piece on the GOP's fractured status and how it needs to coalesce before the next election.
- Aryeh Rubin (via SIL) discusses how despite liberal views, liberalism can't be a religion for Jews.
- Jewish Ideas Daily discusses R' Soloveitchik.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
EZ Reads 3/3/11
Just a few quick links today:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Re: BYU
ReplyDeletePart of their honor code:
Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.
Are you impressed with those values? I think they're disgraceful.
I've never read the code, but if the people signed it, it's great that they're honoring what they signed rather then retroactively complaining about it.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why Aryeh Rubin is a liberal. His article is very confusing.
ReplyDeleteFirst he says he is a liberal because he believes in liberal values; i.e. his principles are liberal in nature. Then he says that when it comes to Jews (his ethnicity) and Israel (the nation-state of his ethnicity) he is no longer a liberal.
What happened?
If he truly believes in his principles (liberalism), then he should believe that the liberal approach is the correct approach to solve all problems. And if he believes that liberalism is only good for solving problems that are not his own, it would seem he's being hypocritical. Very strange...
JA - It's not applicable to what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteVP - That's his point - he's a liberal but not a blind one. He doesn't feel a need to agree with every liberal stance.
>VP - That's his point - he's a liberal but not a blind one. He doesn't feel a need to agree with every liberal stance.
ReplyDeleteWell, what's a liberal stance? Is it just an opinion held by people he characterizes as liberals? In which case, all he's saying is that normally he identifies with people he believes hold certain beliefs, but in this case they are evil/stupid/misguided?
Or is a liberal stance a stance taken by one who possesses a certain perspective framed by experience and principles, which dictates a certain response to a given set of stimuli? In which case, his actual liberal values would dictate solution X, but given that he's nogea b'davar, he's favoring solution Y?
If it's the former, I think it's just question begging: What makes someone a liberal, then? If it's the latter, he's being a hypocrite.
JA,
ReplyDeleteDo you realize you most often only comment on issues, and leave comments about homosexuality :P
>VP - That's his point - he's a liberal but not a blind one. He doesn't feel a need to agree with every liberal stance.
ReplyDeleteWell, what's a liberal stance? Is it just an opinion held by people he characterizes as liberals? In which case, all he's saying is that normally he identifies with people he believes hold certain beliefs, but in this case they are evil/stupid/misguided?
Or is a liberal stance a stance taken by one who possesses a certain perspective framed by experience and principles, which dictates a certain response to a given set of stimuli? In which case, his actual liberal values would dictate solution X, but given that he's nogea b'davar, he's favoring solution Y?
If it's the former, I think it's just question begging: What makes someone a liberal, then? If it's the latter, he's being a hypocrite.
JA - It's not applicable to what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteFunny, it almost seems like you don't want to answer the question.
VP - Are you deleting comments? I keep getting via email but they don't show here.
ReplyDeleteJA - I don't see why I need to.
Ezzie - I posted a comment, and then when I checked on it later (and refreshed a couple of times), it was gone. So I reposted. And repeated the refreshing. Same result. It will show up when I first post, but then disappear. No, I'm not deleting them.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to respond via email, it's bloxpopuli@gmail.com.
Trying again:
ReplyDelete>That's his point - he's a liberal but not a blind one. He doesn't feel a need to agree with every liberal stance.
Ok, then how is he defining "liberal stance"? Is it just a stance that he attributes to people he calls liberals? In which case, if it's the people who hold by that stance that determine the character of the stance, this begs the question: What makes these people liberal?
Or, is a stance a perspective formed by principles and experiences that dictates a given solution to a given set of factors? In which case, he is saying that normally his values and experiences lead him to the following conclusion, since in this case he is nogea b'davar, he is ignoring those principles and coming to a different solution. This sounds hypocritical.
I believe it's the former, and that he's saying have more liberal stances on issues shouldn't turn into closed-mindedness - you shouldn't be required to have specific views on all subjects. You can be a liberal and not be in lockstep.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's break this down, then. He's criticizing American Jews, who are predominantly liberal, for being consistently liberal, even in regards to Israel. He's saying that's bad because they're not actually thinking the issue through and only signing up because they identify with the liberal faction in this country. Which he does too, except when it comes to Israel.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm getting at is it's silly to think that Jewish liberals on the Israeli issue just sort of delegate out their critical thinking on the matter to Big Liberal, because, well, while normally they'd like to think it through, gosh darn it, they signed up for Team Liberal, and that's the way it's gotta be.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to assume that people who subscribe to certain values are actually just applying the dictates of those values to the situation at hand, because they actually believe in those values, rather than assuming they are applying those values, not because they actually believe them, but for some other reason they self-identify with people who do believe them?
Not necessarily. It's an interesting viewpoint, though.
ReplyDeleteHe's criticizing American Jews, who are predominantly liberal, for being consistently liberal, even in regards to Israel. He's saying that's bad because they're not actually thinking the issue through and only signing up because they identify with the liberal faction in this country. Which he does too, except when it comes to Israel.
I don't think he does; I think he's saying that one can feel strongly about liberal values but think about each issue. He feels that Israel doesn't qualify in terms of those liberal values, and I think he's questioning why others are not thinking it through as well. His argument is that by their decision to side against Israel they're in lockstep with Team Liberal but not thinking.
>He feels that Israel doesn't qualify in terms of those liberal values, and I think he's questioning why others are not thinking it through as well.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean
a) liberal values don't apply to Israel, which floats above regular considerations of right and wrong? or
b) the real liberal opinion would be to support Israel, and it is all the "liberals" that don't support it who have suddenly become illiberal? Well, why did they all become illiberal? What would that even mean? They all just upped and decided to be antisemites, and the Jews unthinkingly went along?
Either (a) because there are other X Y Z factors to consider or (b) [the first part] and people don't realize it for whatever X Y Z factors, all of which he discusses in the past.
ReplyDeleteI think he puts it well in the piece - that humanist ideals don't mean Israel should abdicate its right to secure itself, or that there is a difference between good and evil and ultimately that results in different applications of ideals.
So either (a) hypocrisy, or (b) conspiracy and false consciousness.
ReplyDeleteLook, all I'm trying to say is that there's no contradiction between holding liberal ideals and supporting Israel, but you have to make that argument and square that circle. It's a tremendous abdication of rhetorical high ground to just say you're usually a liberal but since liberal values don't get you to where you want to go on issue X, you've decided not to be a liberal on issue X. It does two things: It makes you look like a hypocrite, and it concedes to everyone that holds liberal values, that, in fact, their precious liberal values, if they followed them principally, should make them anti-Israel.
(Obviously, by "you", I don't mean you, but someone like Rubin.)
I don't hold liberal views in general, usually. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't think those are correct at all. I think he's saying that being a liberal shouldn't mean being a Liberal - you should think about the application of those values and when they should apply and when they should not. He's viewing Israel as a clear exception for the reasons he states.
He's saying that being a Liberal typically means anti-Israel, and that's wrong, and that liberals should reconsider being a Liberal for that reason.
I don't think that's what he's saying. In the article he clearly says how his "pro-humanist beliefs" (not his allegiance to Big Liberal) must "give way to [his] commitment to the sanctity and security of Israel and the Jewish people." So, it's not being a team player that he rejects, it's his actual beliefs that he's chucking over the side when it runs up against his ethnic affinity.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, "my convictions take a backseat to my commitment to the well-being of Israel and the Jewish people." Again, contrasting his actual beliefs with his support for Israel.
I read this as him saying, that vis a vis liberal values, Israel is indefensible, or less defensible than he is willing to defend it, but he doesn't care. Values for thee, but not for me.
That's not how I read it. I think he's perhaps worded it poorly, but what he's intending is what I wrote.
ReplyDeletePro-humanist beliefs [which typically would make one be sympathetic to the Palestinians] give way to security, much as convictions [which would typically align with Big Liberal] take a backseat.
Again, it could be you are right, in which case it's inconsistent, but I read it as being consistent without being lockstep. But I'll agree that even if I am correct, he didn't word it perfectly.
Finally, I believe that one can be liberal without being anti-Israel, so even if he is inconsistent, I don't accept that a person cannot be liberal and support Israel's approach to self-defense.
A very agreeable disagreement, then.
ReplyDelete