Thoughts on Parasha Emor
Menachem Mirski
Towards the end of this week’s Parasha we find a short story related to the topic of blasphemy:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian. And a fight broke out in the camp between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses—now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan— and he was placed in custody, until the decision of the LORD should be made clear to them. And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the whole community stone him. And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt; if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; stranger or citizen, if he has thus pronounced the Name, he shall be put to death.[/perfectpullquote] (Leviticus-Vayikra 24:10-16)
In recent days in Poland a scandal has erupted in relation to the actions of Elżbieta Podleśna and the images of Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, portrayed with rainbow halos. I won’t comment in detail on this particular case, but I would like to discuss this issue in more general terms, since I believe this case is quite symptomatic.
First of all, I do not believe that the penalization of blasphemy should necessarily be inscribed in the state’s legal system, which makes blasphemy a statutory crime which must be prosecuted by the state (as is nowadays the case in 32 countries around the world.) First of all, there is no precise line (and I don’t think such a line can be objectively and independently drawn) allowing for the distinction between criticism and blasphemy. Secondly, in reality the concept of blasphemy is part of the ideological conflict – and at times war – about identity, and this should be the subject of public debate rather than of a unilateral dictate of the dominant social group or a tool of moral blackmail used by minority groups. However, there should be access to civil legal instruments allowing for the protection of the values we believe in – in case if someone is publicly deriding them, slandering them or disrespecting them in a symbolic way. The aim is first of all to maintain social order and a civilized level of social debate.
However, contrary to what some modern-day trends claim, identity is not made up only of its subjective determinants. In other words, the identity of a given subject is not determined only and exclusively by that subject; there are objective determinants of identity which are equally important and sometimes even more important than subjective factors. It is not enough to tell yourself and to believe that “I am X” in order to become “X”, while everyone around us see that I am in fact “Y”. And this is not only a matter of their perception – it is a matter of those objective determinants of identity and this is true with regards to all kinds of identity, whether national, religious or related to gender. We do not count someone as part of the minyan only based on the fact that they once mentioned that they were Jewish and only because they believe in it. We must get to know their story, and it must be trustworthy, regardless of whether it is the story of someone’s family or for example of their conversion. In this case that story (and its truthfulness) is the objective determinant of someone’s identity.
This is one of the reasons why debates about identity often touch upon the very foundations of our culture. Modern-day North America and Europe are, generally speaking, the most convenient places in the world for people to live in. This is due exclusively to the values on which our societies have been founded over the course of their historical development. These have been predominantly the values of great religious narratives of the Judeo-Christian culture regarding the meaning of human life, morality and social organization of life, as well as the Enlightenment values, including those related to all kinds of freedoms: individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, freedom of religious beliefs and so on. And these values did not come out of nowhere. Our forefathers died for these values and we owe respect not only to those people but also to these values themselves. And in our social life in the Western world that respect is declining, which some people view as a serious threat to the foundations of our civilization.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating a mindless obedience to the so called “wisdom of the ages”. Uncritical conservatism is just as foolish as uncritical progressivism. Our ancestors were not geniuses (some of them were, but globally speaking – probably not all) and they did make mistakes. Our role is to correct their mistakes, to rectify them rather than to reject their entire legacy or to deride it. The values and the world that they left us as an inheritance have shaped us and our identity. This world and these values constitute who we are. Yes, it does happen that we do not like something in ourselves. We want to change it and we do change it. But the key thing here is the proportion. People who hate everything about themselves simply hate themselves. Such people need help, perhaps even professional help. And certainly under no circumstances should they be entrusted with socially responsible functions.
It is only natural that people who are attached to the traditional values held by the society they live in will react with indignation or anger when someone treats these values in a way which puts into question their original meaning, especially if such actions are driven not by good intentions, but rather by someone’s anger or – even worse – resentment.
Our mission is to improve the world, the world that our ancestors left us, and not to deride, put into question or destroy their legacy. The idea that absolutely everything should be changed, even if this “everything” is related only to one sphere of human life (since everything that people previously saw as good was in fact incorrect and wrong) is not a belief of a rational and educated person. It is a belief of a madman, of an ideologically blinded person. This is a radical example, but I am using it here because such radical ideas have been creeping into our reality more and more often.
Therefore, if we don’t have any good ideas with regards to possible changes – ideas about which we can reliably say that they will work in practice and will bring positive results, then let’s not change the current state of affairs, let’s not wreck that which our predecessors or ancestors have erected. Wanting change just for the sake of change is nothing good. From a psychological standpoint it can be (and often is) simply a manifestation of intellectual, emotional and spiritual instability and – quite often – of resentment. And nothing good ever comes out of this. Therefore, let’s think about what we can offer the world and what we are de facto offering it before we come to the conclusion that the world is not the way it should be, because it has never been the way it should be and this claim is nothing new.
Shabbat Shalom
Menachem Mirski
Translated from Polish by: Marzena Szymańska-Błotnicka
Leave a Reply