July 2, 2008
As I watched this evening’s edition of Nancy Grace on CNN, the story of the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old Vermont girl, Brooke Bennett, gripped me to the point of nausea. The facts of the case are sickening enough. The girl apparently had been sexually abused by her uncle and stepfather since the age of nine. Both men had trafficked in pornography and were known sex offenders. The uncle, who had no children, used his brother-in-law to gain access to Brooke. What is especially chilling is that the girl’s mother and aunt (sisters) were both married to men who they knew were sex offenders. The uncle, who was a convicted sex offender, had once even been allowed to share the family residence. And now a little girl is dead – probably at the hands of her uncle. He had gained access to her MySpace account to keep tabs on her, and possibly counted on her online activity to deflect suspicion from himself.
This is an all-too-common tragedy, and begs this question: Why are there so many women willing to sacrifice the safety of their children in order to have a romantic partner or provider? Is it that these women were themselves victimized and are even now in denial? Or do they let themselves be fooled by a respectable-looking man who’s only willing to cohabit with them in order to gain access to their children? They say the mother always knows on some level. How could she not? And knowing… how could she possibly accept it?
It’s a mother’s obligation to hold her companions to the most rigorous standards when it comes to contact with her children, and we assume most mothers have a finely tuned inner radar. Some women don't, but they're not always poor, uneducated, or outwardly vulnerable. Intelligent women you would consider genetic lotto winners will sometimes let themselves ignore a host of red flags when a prospective partner fits their “checklist”. Pedophiles come from all walks of life, too. They are often pillars of society – well-to-do, attractive, some with children of their own. They may be in professions where they have unquestioned access to children. This type of predator often specializes in sweeping a woman off her feet – often delivering a whirlwind courtship with such skill that he isolates his target (and her children) from all other friends and family. Some women preyed upon by such men will allow their judgment to fail somewhere in the area between the fantasy of "My Prince Has Come," and the realization of, "I’m in a financial mess and out of options."
I have heard firsthand accounts from several adults who, as children, had been left in the company of unknown adults or older children, and were then molested or worse. Sometimes the victimized child was simply in the same house with a much-older child without the close supervision of a trusted adult. Vigilance in this area is not paranoia, but it's often treated as such. Parents should be in the business of knowing where and with whom their children play and associate. They should be familiar enough with the parents of their kids’ friends to know (at the very least) which adults and teenagers are living in the home. Sadly, even the best safeguards are sometimes not enough, especially when predators hone their skills so well.
A few years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call “E”, told me she had chatted online and on webcam with a man she had never met, while holding her five year old daughter on her lap. When I mentioned the possibility of a pedophile scouting dating sites for a mother with young children, she was aghast – not at the realization this was true – but by the idea that I would doubt her judgment of online “friends.” After a hasty courtship, she moved with her two daughters halfway across the country to marry this man. Now, two years later, she is divorced again. I don’t know what happened in the marriage, but I saw firsthand how little vetting the guy was subjected to before she made this decision. I hear she is husband-hunting again. I marvel at her desperation and carelessness. I truly fear for her daughters.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sarah Palin Wastes Valuable Air Time (Again)
Sarah, there you go again, conducting your education in public. This is exactly what the country has come to expect from you. David Letterman is a comedian, fahcrissakes. Your whining is only providing fodder for those who can't take you seriously, anyway. Your daughter (whichever one he was referring to in his joke) doesn't need protection from him or any other public figures, except maybe you and your nitwit husband. Wasn't it right under your oblivious noses that Bristol did get knocked up? That's what Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol's baby, hinted at publicly, and his comments weren't made in jest.
1) Letterman's researchers obviously spotted your minor daughter in the press tape of the ball game and mistook her for Bristol. If you must criticize him at all, let it be for having sloppy researchers, not for picking on you or your kids.
2) He wasn't calling you "slutty", it was your "slutty flight attendant look," he referred to. Your deliberate rephrasing of his joke and your admonishing the public to show more respect for flight attendants, was disingenous by anyone's standards. Believe me, there are tougher women than you in that profession, fully able to handle an attitude or deliver a punch, if necessary. Your silly attempt at defending them probably got more laughs from the AFA than Letterman's line got from his TV audience.
3) You played along with your "Caribou Barbie" image on SNL, as long as you were in the running for VP. I had no intention of voting for your ticket, Sarah, but I sorta liked you then. You were a good sport, and made a believable effort at mature, self-deprecating humor. Now, even your longtime supporters must be wondering how, if you can't handle ribbing from a late night talk show host, you'd do any better with an openly hostile foreign head of state?
By responding to Letterman at all, and keeping this ridiculous topic in the news, you're confirming something the Republican party realized even before they muzzled you on election night: You're an intellectual lightweight who can't be trusted to speak on their behalf. Babbling indiscriminantly for any journalist with a camera, commenting on government policies you haven't bothered to research, and whining about the comments of a professional comedian is no way to build credibility.
How about educating yourself, so that you might one day have opinions worth listening to in the sphere of national politics? There's quite a lot of valuable insight you might have to share, if you didn't concern yourself with the superficial. The GOP began scouting around for someone to replace you five minutes after the polls closed, and my guess is, you're really angry about that -- you just can't say so.
Those who now insist that Cindy McCain never wanted to be First Lady, pose her as the wise procuress who selected you to become his arm candy. Interesting theory, that, and completely believable. Who else but you, Sarah, could've infused his campaign with so much excitement while deflecting attention from his boring old white guy persona? Who else could've held the public so rapt with attention, after cramming for the debate with Joe Biden? You're the smartest decision they made, but Cindy, a former Barbie herself, planted a landmine in her husband's campaign when she gave her consent. You were the publicly perfect consort who would guarantee his loss: Beautiful, folksy, sympathetic... but vacuous.
In reality, Sarah, the GOP hooked up with you for their equivalent of a booty call, then dumped you when you failed to deliver. So, if you can't make them include you in the short list of serious presidential contenders, at least try to be smart with what remains of your 15 minutes of fame -- use it to find a niche that suits your real talents. After all, you were pretty good on SNL...
1) Letterman's researchers obviously spotted your minor daughter in the press tape of the ball game and mistook her for Bristol. If you must criticize him at all, let it be for having sloppy researchers, not for picking on you or your kids.
2) He wasn't calling you "slutty", it was your "slutty flight attendant look," he referred to. Your deliberate rephrasing of his joke and your admonishing the public to show more respect for flight attendants, was disingenous by anyone's standards. Believe me, there are tougher women than you in that profession, fully able to handle an attitude or deliver a punch, if necessary. Your silly attempt at defending them probably got more laughs from the AFA than Letterman's line got from his TV audience.
3) You played along with your "Caribou Barbie" image on SNL, as long as you were in the running for VP. I had no intention of voting for your ticket, Sarah, but I sorta liked you then. You were a good sport, and made a believable effort at mature, self-deprecating humor. Now, even your longtime supporters must be wondering how, if you can't handle ribbing from a late night talk show host, you'd do any better with an openly hostile foreign head of state?
By responding to Letterman at all, and keeping this ridiculous topic in the news, you're confirming something the Republican party realized even before they muzzled you on election night: You're an intellectual lightweight who can't be trusted to speak on their behalf. Babbling indiscriminantly for any journalist with a camera, commenting on government policies you haven't bothered to research, and whining about the comments of a professional comedian is no way to build credibility.
How about educating yourself, so that you might one day have opinions worth listening to in the sphere of national politics? There's quite a lot of valuable insight you might have to share, if you didn't concern yourself with the superficial. The GOP began scouting around for someone to replace you five minutes after the polls closed, and my guess is, you're really angry about that -- you just can't say so.
Those who now insist that Cindy McCain never wanted to be First Lady, pose her as the wise procuress who selected you to become his arm candy. Interesting theory, that, and completely believable. Who else but you, Sarah, could've infused his campaign with so much excitement while deflecting attention from his boring old white guy persona? Who else could've held the public so rapt with attention, after cramming for the debate with Joe Biden? You're the smartest decision they made, but Cindy, a former Barbie herself, planted a landmine in her husband's campaign when she gave her consent. You were the publicly perfect consort who would guarantee his loss: Beautiful, folksy, sympathetic... but vacuous.
In reality, Sarah, the GOP hooked up with you for their equivalent of a booty call, then dumped you when you failed to deliver. So, if you can't make them include you in the short list of serious presidential contenders, at least try to be smart with what remains of your 15 minutes of fame -- use it to find a niche that suits your real talents. After all, you were pretty good on SNL...
KUDOS: FDA to Regulate Tobacco Industry
The tobacco industry has gotten by for decades peddling a product that isn't just potentially deadly, but deadly beyond a shadow of a doubt. As legal products go, tobacco is unique -- if you use it for its intended purpose, in the manner intended, you will likely become so addicted that you can't function without it. That addiction will, eventually, compromise your health or kill you. Since the tobacco industry effectively kills off its own customers, it must aggressively recruit new ones. The new legislation will limit the amounts of nicotine and flavorings tobacco companies can add to cigarettes, and limit the advertising targeted to minors. Well done.
Now for a little relevant rant. Many law-abiding, job-holding, tax-paying US citizens think it's laughable that smoking a little weed is still considered a crime... well, okay, a misdemeanor. Some physicians will even acknowledge that it's related to fewer health problems than either tobacco or alcohol. A recent national poll shows that minors have less of a problem buying pot than alcohol. Too bad it took our economic nosedive to make pundits sit up and consider a better way to halt the illegal import and distribution of marijuana: loosen restrictions on using it, license and regulate the growers, and tax it. Surely there are other more dangerous substances -- cocaine and meth -- coming across US borders, which deserve a larger share of the DEA's efforts. And, let's not forget all of the ancilliary illegal activity supported by trafficking in those drugs -- illegal gun trading, slavery of drug "mules" and forced prostitution of addicts, to name just a few.
Lest you think I'm advocating the use of marijuana, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only suggesting we claim the considerable revenues from folks are going to use it, anyway.
Unlike tobacco used for legal cigarettes, marijuana provides well-documented relief for those suffering from the effects of chemotherapy. It may be legally permissable for cancer sufferers to use it, they just can't get a prescription for it (or a recommendation, as it's called in California), and many have faced prosecution for growing their own, if they don't have the good fortune to live in California when they get cancer. Finding a "pot doc" in California, I hear, is as easy as finding a masseuse in Las Vegas. After a short interview, just about anyone can get a "recommendation" for a one-time fee of $200 or so, and it's good for a full year of unlimited purchases. You can get a "recommendation" for pot to treat anything from depression to chronic back pain, but a bad case of boredom is all some of the users really suffer. Big deal. We're going to deny them recreational use of pot while our laws let drivers drink and text? Priorities, people, priorities. I'd rather have a kid stoned at home than texting or drunk on the highway, and so would most parents. The munchies never killed anyone, that I'm aware of.
The barrier to actually prescribing pot as a treatment is that there isn't any recommended dosage. Users can take their recommendation to boutique "distribution centers" that offer cannabis in literally hundreds of strengths and varieties, and in bottled teas and baked goods.
Compare the benefit of a product that is occasionally used with the fact that cigarette smokers (even the pregnant ones) can currently get their 'nicotine high' legally while placing an undue burden on the non-smokers in their insurance pools. How many smokers accurately report their smoking habits when applying for insurance benefits? How does our current healthcare system incentivize smokers to quit? As our healthcare system is reformed and our medical records are digitized, it will become easier to regulate the use of tobacco. Legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana use would be simply adding another 'sin tax' to our coffers. Making it available in all states as a pain remedy to the desperately ill would be a blessing. It's not an unsupportable assumption that, minus the cost of administering the regulation, this new industry would still yield a tidy profit. This isn't raising taxes, mind you, it's snatching another source of revenue out of thin air.
There are many logical supply chains for such a crop. Can you imagine the revenues our federal prisons could generate by having their inmates do all the farming? Built in cheap labor, already existing security, plus a guaranteed way to keep the inmates happy! Here's another one: Native Americans run casinos on reservation land with the government's full blessing, so why not license this business to them as well? There would be a certain poetic justice in letting them raise a profitable crop on the land systematically stolen from them during the past two centuries. Finally righting past wrongs, making restitution that doesn't cost a dime -- what a PR coup that would be for Uncle Sam!
Our government needs to grow up, reassess, stop wasting our money on a fight that isn't working, and use this crop to defray some of the enormous debt currently being piled onto the backs of the next generation. When so many more important fights face us today, does it really make sense to continue fighting marijuana? When the time comes to answer that question, please, Just Say No.
Now for a little relevant rant. Many law-abiding, job-holding, tax-paying US citizens think it's laughable that smoking a little weed is still considered a crime... well, okay, a misdemeanor. Some physicians will even acknowledge that it's related to fewer health problems than either tobacco or alcohol. A recent national poll shows that minors have less of a problem buying pot than alcohol. Too bad it took our economic nosedive to make pundits sit up and consider a better way to halt the illegal import and distribution of marijuana: loosen restrictions on using it, license and regulate the growers, and tax it. Surely there are other more dangerous substances -- cocaine and meth -- coming across US borders, which deserve a larger share of the DEA's efforts. And, let's not forget all of the ancilliary illegal activity supported by trafficking in those drugs -- illegal gun trading, slavery of drug "mules" and forced prostitution of addicts, to name just a few.
Lest you think I'm advocating the use of marijuana, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only suggesting we claim the considerable revenues from folks are going to use it, anyway.
Unlike tobacco used for legal cigarettes, marijuana provides well-documented relief for those suffering from the effects of chemotherapy. It may be legally permissable for cancer sufferers to use it, they just can't get a prescription for it (or a recommendation, as it's called in California), and many have faced prosecution for growing their own, if they don't have the good fortune to live in California when they get cancer. Finding a "pot doc" in California, I hear, is as easy as finding a masseuse in Las Vegas. After a short interview, just about anyone can get a "recommendation" for a one-time fee of $200 or so, and it's good for a full year of unlimited purchases. You can get a "recommendation" for pot to treat anything from depression to chronic back pain, but a bad case of boredom is all some of the users really suffer. Big deal. We're going to deny them recreational use of pot while our laws let drivers drink and text? Priorities, people, priorities. I'd rather have a kid stoned at home than texting or drunk on the highway, and so would most parents. The munchies never killed anyone, that I'm aware of.
The barrier to actually prescribing pot as a treatment is that there isn't any recommended dosage. Users can take their recommendation to boutique "distribution centers" that offer cannabis in literally hundreds of strengths and varieties, and in bottled teas and baked goods.
Compare the benefit of a product that is occasionally used with the fact that cigarette smokers (even the pregnant ones) can currently get their 'nicotine high' legally while placing an undue burden on the non-smokers in their insurance pools. How many smokers accurately report their smoking habits when applying for insurance benefits? How does our current healthcare system incentivize smokers to quit? As our healthcare system is reformed and our medical records are digitized, it will become easier to regulate the use of tobacco. Legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana use would be simply adding another 'sin tax' to our coffers. Making it available in all states as a pain remedy to the desperately ill would be a blessing. It's not an unsupportable assumption that, minus the cost of administering the regulation, this new industry would still yield a tidy profit. This isn't raising taxes, mind you, it's snatching another source of revenue out of thin air.
There are many logical supply chains for such a crop. Can you imagine the revenues our federal prisons could generate by having their inmates do all the farming? Built in cheap labor, already existing security, plus a guaranteed way to keep the inmates happy! Here's another one: Native Americans run casinos on reservation land with the government's full blessing, so why not license this business to them as well? There would be a certain poetic justice in letting them raise a profitable crop on the land systematically stolen from them during the past two centuries. Finally righting past wrongs, making restitution that doesn't cost a dime -- what a PR coup that would be for Uncle Sam!
Our government needs to grow up, reassess, stop wasting our money on a fight that isn't working, and use this crop to defray some of the enormous debt currently being piled onto the backs of the next generation. When so many more important fights face us today, does it really make sense to continue fighting marijuana? When the time comes to answer that question, please, Just Say No.
KUDOS: Zahava Rahnavad
Women were allowed to register to vote for the first time in Iran's current presidential race, although none were deemed 'fit to run,' themselves, by the old regime. Zahava Rahnavad, an artist and activist for women's rights in Iran, is the first woman to actively campaign with her husband, the favorite to oust the incumbent buffoon, Ahmadinejad, from office. She is largely believed to be the brains of the outfit, ala Hilary Clinton. Maybe the Iranians, who are waiting hours in line to vote in record turnouts, with finally see adequate representation and freedoms for their women.
2:30 pm CST
This just in -- apparently the Iranians have just reelected Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming majority, even though they've not yet counted all the votes. I'm not holding my breath for a recount. By the way, anyone noticed Jeb Bush's whereabouts lately? Didn't he promise to "deliver Iraq" to the GOP? Oops, my bad. That was Florida. The middle east is learning something from the US, after all.
2:30 pm CST
This just in -- apparently the Iranians have just reelected Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming majority, even though they've not yet counted all the votes. I'm not holding my breath for a recount. By the way, anyone noticed Jeb Bush's whereabouts lately? Didn't he promise to "deliver Iraq" to the GOP? Oops, my bad. That was Florida. The middle east is learning something from the US, after all.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Rumination, by a wise 90-year-old
Written by Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio.
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone...
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first pay check.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you, no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets and wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion, today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34.. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Hell No, We Won't Go
A Jewish View of Heaven and Hell, by Rabbi Max Weiman
Interfaith groups notwithstanding, major religions of the world have a big problem with each other; it's called Hell. They don't bring it up at the meetings on religious tolerance, but the official Catholic policy is that Protestants, Muslims, and Jews go to hell. Protestants say that Catholics, Muslims and Jews go to hell. And Muslims say that Christians and Jews go to hell. Although on an individual level we can ignore this, theologically it is a wall that separates major world religions.
Many liberal-minded religionists are uncomfortable with this perspective, but that remains today the official dogma. This presents a difficulty in religions embracing one another as valid roads to the same destination. How can I walk arm-in-arm with someone who believes I am destined to pain and suffering for eternity, whether I am a decent moral person or not?
A man and woman who were dating came to me for counseling. She believed in Jesus, he was a traditional Jew. I asked her how she could consider marrying someone she thinks will burn in everlasting damnation. She laughed nervously, "Well, I haven't exactly worked that out yet."
From Jewish tradition, a different viewpoint emerges starting with the fact that there doesn't exist the concept of everlasting damnation and torture. The Almighty's justice is not served by punishing someone forever. Justice means the punishment fits the crime. Since we are finite and our sins are finite, then our punishment or atonement must be finite. To take it one step further, the very connection with wrongdoing is an act of connecting to that which is temporary, physical, devoid of Godliness. On the other hand, when you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal. Evil and bad by definition do not exist forever; therefore the atonement period for wrongdoing is a fixed period of time.
This temporary place of atonement is called Gehenom, and lasts for 11 or 12 months after someone passes away. (Which is the reason why Kaddish is said for that time period. The recitation of Kaddish atones for the soul, which mitigates the suffering of Gehenom.) Also, the suffering is not fire and brimstone, but rather something more directly related to the transgressions. There are those who suggest the nature of this punishment is actually the embarrassment of standing before God, aware of your transgressions. What could be more painful than that? This embarrassment wipes away the barrier you created between you and God when you committed the transgression, and therefore is a great benefit. The atonement process is not so much a punishment as it is a spiritual dry-cleaning to rid you of any blemishes you may have on your soul before you enter the next phase, oneness with God.
Phase Two is known as the World of Souls and consists of all the souls worthy of a connection with God. This experience is still somewhat lacking until the end of days when the entire creation is corrected and rectified. Until then, righteous souls exist in a minor temporary oneness with God. Even though it's not full oneness with God, this phase is still awesomely pleasurable. When you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal.
Good Seats
Getting back to judgment, Gehenom is not the same for everyone who goes there. Each individual experiences the atonement for his or her own specific transgressions. It's a uniquely personal event.
Heaven, known as the World to Come, is also a uniquely personal experience. You only have the closeness to God that you've created. Every mitzvah that you do is a piece of Godliness that's incorporated into your soul. In the next world you will realize what that closeness means for eternity. Each person will only experience the bond they have created.
Imagine a football game, there are the 50-yard-line seats, and different levels all the way up to the cheap nosebleed seats. If you've really blown it, you can end up in the hotdog stand forever. Therefore according to the Jews, it's not necessary for you to be Jewish to end up in Heaven; it all depends on your relationship with God.
This World and the Next
It's important to note that the World to Come and Gehenom are not mentioned specifically in the Five Books of Moses. It is spoken about only in the books of the Prophets, the Writings, and the Talmud. If it's such a crucial part of Jewish philosophy, why is it absent form the Torah?
Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right.
The answer is that we are not meant to dwell on the reward and punishment that awaits us in the next world. You can be a righteous person your whole life, do every single commandment, stop hunger, bring about world peace, save the ozone and cure all disease. But if you did it all for your reward in the next world, you've lived a selfish life, which is the opposite of being one with God. The Almighty needs nothing. He is infinite, and therefore every one of His acts is purely altruistic. Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right, and not for the reward, or to avoid punishment.
The Talmud relates many incidents of people who passed away making contact with the living and telling of conversations, debates, and other bits of information from the world beyond. Similarly, many people (myself included) claim to have seen a dead relative in a dream. Even with all these "eye witness" accounts of the world beyond, we still do not have a clear picture of what its like there, nor can we, until we shuffle off this "mortal coil."
One thing's for sure, returning our soul to its source is the ultimate pleasure a being can experience. Death, then, is not a tragedy from a kabbalistic view. It is a realization of our purpose, its coming home. The problem with death is that it cuts off any further spiritual growth. We delay death as long as possible, but once it happens, the soul is delighted to be reunited with God. For this reason some kabbalists have asked their students to celebrate at their demise. Lag B'Omer, the anniversary of the death of the greatest known kabbalist, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, is celebrated with great fanfare (and great bonfires) by people all over the world.
Life is precious. We wish for long life, to do mitzvot, grow spiritually, and gain the greatest closeness we can to the Almighty in this world. But when the time comes for us to leave this world, there's no need to fear the next step. It's merely a step along the path to the ultimate pleasure of being one with God.
Published: Sunday, May 31, 200
Interfaith groups notwithstanding, major religions of the world have a big problem with each other; it's called Hell. They don't bring it up at the meetings on religious tolerance, but the official Catholic policy is that Protestants, Muslims, and Jews go to hell. Protestants say that Catholics, Muslims and Jews go to hell. And Muslims say that Christians and Jews go to hell. Although on an individual level we can ignore this, theologically it is a wall that separates major world religions.
Many liberal-minded religionists are uncomfortable with this perspective, but that remains today the official dogma. This presents a difficulty in religions embracing one another as valid roads to the same destination. How can I walk arm-in-arm with someone who believes I am destined to pain and suffering for eternity, whether I am a decent moral person or not?
A man and woman who were dating came to me for counseling. She believed in Jesus, he was a traditional Jew. I asked her how she could consider marrying someone she thinks will burn in everlasting damnation. She laughed nervously, "Well, I haven't exactly worked that out yet."
From Jewish tradition, a different viewpoint emerges starting with the fact that there doesn't exist the concept of everlasting damnation and torture. The Almighty's justice is not served by punishing someone forever. Justice means the punishment fits the crime. Since we are finite and our sins are finite, then our punishment or atonement must be finite. To take it one step further, the very connection with wrongdoing is an act of connecting to that which is temporary, physical, devoid of Godliness. On the other hand, when you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal. Evil and bad by definition do not exist forever; therefore the atonement period for wrongdoing is a fixed period of time.
This temporary place of atonement is called Gehenom, and lasts for 11 or 12 months after someone passes away. (Which is the reason why Kaddish is said for that time period. The recitation of Kaddish atones for the soul, which mitigates the suffering of Gehenom.) Also, the suffering is not fire and brimstone, but rather something more directly related to the transgressions. There are those who suggest the nature of this punishment is actually the embarrassment of standing before God, aware of your transgressions. What could be more painful than that? This embarrassment wipes away the barrier you created between you and God when you committed the transgression, and therefore is a great benefit. The atonement process is not so much a punishment as it is a spiritual dry-cleaning to rid you of any blemishes you may have on your soul before you enter the next phase, oneness with God.
Phase Two is known as the World of Souls and consists of all the souls worthy of a connection with God. This experience is still somewhat lacking until the end of days when the entire creation is corrected and rectified. Until then, righteous souls exist in a minor temporary oneness with God. Even though it's not full oneness with God, this phase is still awesomely pleasurable. When you do a mitzvah, you become one with God who is eternal.
Good Seats
Getting back to judgment, Gehenom is not the same for everyone who goes there. Each individual experiences the atonement for his or her own specific transgressions. It's a uniquely personal event.
Heaven, known as the World to Come, is also a uniquely personal experience. You only have the closeness to God that you've created. Every mitzvah that you do is a piece of Godliness that's incorporated into your soul. In the next world you will realize what that closeness means for eternity. Each person will only experience the bond they have created.
Imagine a football game, there are the 50-yard-line seats, and different levels all the way up to the cheap nosebleed seats. If you've really blown it, you can end up in the hotdog stand forever. Therefore according to the Jews, it's not necessary for you to be Jewish to end up in Heaven; it all depends on your relationship with God.
This World and the Next
It's important to note that the World to Come and Gehenom are not mentioned specifically in the Five Books of Moses. It is spoken about only in the books of the Prophets, the Writings, and the Talmud. If it's such a crucial part of Jewish philosophy, why is it absent form the Torah?
Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right.
The answer is that we are not meant to dwell on the reward and punishment that awaits us in the next world. You can be a righteous person your whole life, do every single commandment, stop hunger, bring about world peace, save the ozone and cure all disease. But if you did it all for your reward in the next world, you've lived a selfish life, which is the opposite of being one with God. The Almighty needs nothing. He is infinite, and therefore every one of His acts is purely altruistic. Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right, and not for the reward, or to avoid punishment.
The Talmud relates many incidents of people who passed away making contact with the living and telling of conversations, debates, and other bits of information from the world beyond. Similarly, many people (myself included) claim to have seen a dead relative in a dream. Even with all these "eye witness" accounts of the world beyond, we still do not have a clear picture of what its like there, nor can we, until we shuffle off this "mortal coil."
One thing's for sure, returning our soul to its source is the ultimate pleasure a being can experience. Death, then, is not a tragedy from a kabbalistic view. It is a realization of our purpose, its coming home. The problem with death is that it cuts off any further spiritual growth. We delay death as long as possible, but once it happens, the soul is delighted to be reunited with God. For this reason some kabbalists have asked their students to celebrate at their demise. Lag B'Omer, the anniversary of the death of the greatest known kabbalist, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, is celebrated with great fanfare (and great bonfires) by people all over the world.
Life is precious. We wish for long life, to do mitzvot, grow spiritually, and gain the greatest closeness we can to the Almighty in this world. But when the time comes for us to leave this world, there's no need to fear the next step. It's merely a step along the path to the ultimate pleasure of being one with God.
Published: Sunday, May 31, 200
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
ARGUMENT: Going Green Includes Opting for Cremation
How many of you agree that "Going Green" means doing away with traditional burial? After all, a grave does require polluting the land with stuff that was never meant to decompose or be reused (liners, metal coffins, headstones, etc.) Would you be in favor of a deal like, say, free cremation from the Uncle Sam if you donate your organs? I think that's a pretty fair trade. We'd be solving two big problems, (1) the expensive maintenance of cemeteries and the pollution of said land, and (2) the dearth of usable organs, skin and bone that could save lives and advance scientific research.
Unfortunately, the outdated practice of preserving a human body -- which no modern culture has perfected -- is still widely practiced today. Burials can still be held without an intact body, and those who prefer the practice (members of my own religion included) are comforted by the rite in many ways. After all, there's a physical place to pay respects, meditate, plant flowers -- often a monument with important information inscribed. I'd never advocate making any particular choice mandatory for anyone. All those reasons are valid, but this article will neither advocate for them, nor be reverent, so if you're tearing up already, better stop reading now.
I would prefer (for myself) an environment-preserving alternative which will probably become the norm anyway, in one more generation. The universal benefits of more organ donation should be reason enough. People who need new organs would spend less time waiting, and it would remove the worry of people donating kidneys for money or black market exploitation of the poor for healthy organs. I'm in favor of the "presumed consent" position that many other (more progressive) countries take regarding organ donation. If you don't have a clear-cut objection to it noted on your I.D., they presume that you give consent, even without contacting your next of kin.
There are lots of other options, too, for those of you who don't want your organs or other remains buried. Some enterprising individuals who have some artistic ability (and a really cool web site) can combine your ashes (actually pulverized bone fragments) with other substances into a kind of modeling clay, if you will, and mold them into a tchotchke worthy of display on your mantel. This is a wonderfully creative idea, but still presents a number of problems. Children of the deceased might want to do their own individual thing with their fair share of the ashes, or families members might still fight over custody of a single figurine, or it might get accidentally auctioned off with grandma's collection of Lladro, if you're not careful. And let's not forget about the housekeeper. She could knock grandpa off the mantel with one careless pass of the feather duster and toss the pieces out, mixing him for eternity with yesterday's coffee grounds. I like this idea for a Chia Pet, though. Less likely to get lost. Even a metal urn could be mistaken for an ashtray at some point, and could have a chilling effect on the love life of a surviving spouse. Let's not forget, somebody still has to schlep it, too, if they own it.
There's even a company that will, for a nominal fee, launch your ashes into space -- after first compressing them into a synthetic diamond. Cool idea, but what happens when the heavens start raining pieces of all the satellites we've sent into orbit over the past decades? It's bound to happen, given all the space-station scrap metal and lost tools collecting up there. Wouldn't my human-diamond bullet just add to the flotsom or knock some inoffensive meteor off course? Wouldn't I have to launch it from Cape Canaveral to get it safely to the outer limits of our universe? Nah, that's too expensive and too vain of a plan for me. I've got it. Maybe I can get one of my deer-hunting cousins to funnel my ashes into ammo for a 20-gauge and shoot me into a couple of tall trees that can easily withstand the assault. If I'm going to become a permanent part of nature when I pass on, I think I'd like the view from there, and the squirrels would be great company.
On the spiritual side, I'm rather proud of the members of my religion (Judaism) for arguing successfully for reversal of the hallakic ban on organ donation. Hold on, I can sense the puzzled look on your face. What Jews really object to is keeping a body around longer than sundown of the next day after the person, ah, expires. I can understand the reason for the rabbinic sages devising this rule in ancient Judea -- it was just more practical. And, they didn't want the Chosen People to imitate the Egyptians in any way -- especially not in the preservation of human remains. But the basis for hasty burial of an intact body was/is that the Almighty needs all your original parts to (eventually) resurrect you. Now the invisible imp that sits on my shoulder has always argued that my Creator is smart enough to reassemble me from ashes, if necessary. I can't seem to picture Him in a cosmic garage with a tube of glue and tweezers, muttering under His breath as He tries to reassemble me by lamplight. I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The ban on organ donation was reversed because the mitzvah (commandment) of saving a human life trumps the mitzvah of keeping the remains intact. Burying usable organs, a bunch of very smart people figured, was tantamount to burying valuable medical equipment. I agree with that. But neither would I have any peace if I thought I would be shut up, post-organ donation, in what amounts to a fancy Thermos and planted where I can't even fertilize anything. The plain wooden coffins and linen shrouds in which the Conservative and Orthodox of my tribe bury their unembalmed departed are pretty good, as far as non-pollutants go, but I still can't get past the idea of all that wasted land. Nope, I'm afraid donation and cremation is my preference. It's becoming something of a tradition in my family of origin, who have no religious objection to it. I've often told them (only half-jokingly) that I've been so scattered in life that it's only fitting I should be scattered in death. I do like to travel.
Thankfully, I've never had a relative in desperate need of a donated organ, never had a niece or nephew born without a strong heart. And if I had, I would've prayed for someone to sign over the organ that would save or prolong their precious life. If I don't put too much mileage on all my organs before I leave this world -- reuse them, please -- and anything else I leave behind that can make someone else healthier. As for the rest of it -- Bubba, go ahead and take aim for that big oak on the edge of the north forty.
Unfortunately, the outdated practice of preserving a human body -- which no modern culture has perfected -- is still widely practiced today. Burials can still be held without an intact body, and those who prefer the practice (members of my own religion included) are comforted by the rite in many ways. After all, there's a physical place to pay respects, meditate, plant flowers -- often a monument with important information inscribed. I'd never advocate making any particular choice mandatory for anyone. All those reasons are valid, but this article will neither advocate for them, nor be reverent, so if you're tearing up already, better stop reading now.
I would prefer (for myself) an environment-preserving alternative which will probably become the norm anyway, in one more generation. The universal benefits of more organ donation should be reason enough. People who need new organs would spend less time waiting, and it would remove the worry of people donating kidneys for money or black market exploitation of the poor for healthy organs. I'm in favor of the "presumed consent" position that many other (more progressive) countries take regarding organ donation. If you don't have a clear-cut objection to it noted on your I.D., they presume that you give consent, even without contacting your next of kin.
There are lots of other options, too, for those of you who don't want your organs or other remains buried. Some enterprising individuals who have some artistic ability (and a really cool web site) can combine your ashes (actually pulverized bone fragments) with other substances into a kind of modeling clay, if you will, and mold them into a tchotchke worthy of display on your mantel. This is a wonderfully creative idea, but still presents a number of problems. Children of the deceased might want to do their own individual thing with their fair share of the ashes, or families members might still fight over custody of a single figurine, or it might get accidentally auctioned off with grandma's collection of Lladro, if you're not careful. And let's not forget about the housekeeper. She could knock grandpa off the mantel with one careless pass of the feather duster and toss the pieces out, mixing him for eternity with yesterday's coffee grounds. I like this idea for a Chia Pet, though. Less likely to get lost. Even a metal urn could be mistaken for an ashtray at some point, and could have a chilling effect on the love life of a surviving spouse. Let's not forget, somebody still has to schlep it, too, if they own it.
There's even a company that will, for a nominal fee, launch your ashes into space -- after first compressing them into a synthetic diamond. Cool idea, but what happens when the heavens start raining pieces of all the satellites we've sent into orbit over the past decades? It's bound to happen, given all the space-station scrap metal and lost tools collecting up there. Wouldn't my human-diamond bullet just add to the flotsom or knock some inoffensive meteor off course? Wouldn't I have to launch it from Cape Canaveral to get it safely to the outer limits of our universe? Nah, that's too expensive and too vain of a plan for me. I've got it. Maybe I can get one of my deer-hunting cousins to funnel my ashes into ammo for a 20-gauge and shoot me into a couple of tall trees that can easily withstand the assault. If I'm going to become a permanent part of nature when I pass on, I think I'd like the view from there, and the squirrels would be great company.
On the spiritual side, I'm rather proud of the members of my religion (Judaism) for arguing successfully for reversal of the hallakic ban on organ donation. Hold on, I can sense the puzzled look on your face. What Jews really object to is keeping a body around longer than sundown of the next day after the person, ah, expires. I can understand the reason for the rabbinic sages devising this rule in ancient Judea -- it was just more practical. And, they didn't want the Chosen People to imitate the Egyptians in any way -- especially not in the preservation of human remains. But the basis for hasty burial of an intact body was/is that the Almighty needs all your original parts to (eventually) resurrect you. Now the invisible imp that sits on my shoulder has always argued that my Creator is smart enough to reassemble me from ashes, if necessary. I can't seem to picture Him in a cosmic garage with a tube of glue and tweezers, muttering under His breath as He tries to reassemble me by lamplight. I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The ban on organ donation was reversed because the mitzvah (commandment) of saving a human life trumps the mitzvah of keeping the remains intact. Burying usable organs, a bunch of very smart people figured, was tantamount to burying valuable medical equipment. I agree with that. But neither would I have any peace if I thought I would be shut up, post-organ donation, in what amounts to a fancy Thermos and planted where I can't even fertilize anything. The plain wooden coffins and linen shrouds in which the Conservative and Orthodox of my tribe bury their unembalmed departed are pretty good, as far as non-pollutants go, but I still can't get past the idea of all that wasted land. Nope, I'm afraid donation and cremation is my preference. It's becoming something of a tradition in my family of origin, who have no religious objection to it. I've often told them (only half-jokingly) that I've been so scattered in life that it's only fitting I should be scattered in death. I do like to travel.
Thankfully, I've never had a relative in desperate need of a donated organ, never had a niece or nephew born without a strong heart. And if I had, I would've prayed for someone to sign over the organ that would save or prolong their precious life. If I don't put too much mileage on all my organs before I leave this world -- reuse them, please -- and anything else I leave behind that can make someone else healthier. As for the rest of it -- Bubba, go ahead and take aim for that big oak on the edge of the north forty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)