FEATURE
 |
Is God a Republican? |
|
| A religious conservative explains the politics of ritual contamination | ||
 by David Klinghoffer, March 22, 2007 |
||
TAGS:
An overlooked enigma of political life is why there are distinct ideological groupings at all. We take the liberal/conservative divide for granted, rarely pausing to contemplate how mysterious it actually is.
The Hebrew Bible solves the mystery. The solution can be found in the unexpected context of the Torah's seemingly primitive and bizarre laws of ritual contamination. The relevant material is laid out in dense detail mainly in Leviticus, a.k.a. the stuff most Jews skip over in shul (as Christians do in church).
If you don’t see the mystery, consider the following: Doesn’t it seem equally if not more plausible to imagine a scenario where people’s opinions on the top-20 hot-button political issues formed no patterns at all? For example, there seems to be nothing that links Al Gore–style worrying about climate change with favoring state-sanctioned gay unions. Yet somehow, to us, they go together.
If you meet a partisan of abortion rights, it’s a good bet that person will be for gun control. The converse also applies. Conservatives are equally predictable. Curious, isn’t it?
With this in mind, we can turn to the Bible and so-called ritual “contamination” or “impurity,” which are two common but very dysfunctional translations of the Hebrew, tumah. The corresponding term taharah is translated, again unsatisfactorily, as “purity,”
According to the Torah, here is a list of things that will render you “contaminated” (tameh): Touching a human corpse or the carcass of certain animals; having a seminal emission; menstruating; giving birth; suffering the effects of a supernaturally induced skin affliction, tzaraat—unknown to medicine today but vividly described in Scripture.
It's How You Get Clean: Ritual immersion at a mikveh washes the tumah away
It’s all in Leviticus, with amplification across pages upon pages of Talmud, which in turn adds other activities to the list. For example, sleeping contaminates the hands.
In every case, a key to cleansing out impurity is ritualized immersion in water. It all starts to sound hopelessly arcane and backwards, like something out of Frazer’s Golden Bough. Don’t be fooled.
Modern secular Bible scholars, those geniuses, have figured out that contamination has something to do with death. That leaves much unexplained. A fuller illumination of the matter can be found in the famous Torah commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), a German rabbi celebrated as the chief early representative of Modern Orthodoxy.
Hirsch was a contemporary of Darwin, whose evolutionary theory challenges religion with the claim that material, natural, unguided processes alone account for the development of life. Darwin’s philosophical framework was that of materialism, the view that sees man’s situation in the world as being entirely determined by material forces, not spiritual ones.
Hirsch countered that the Bible, through the ritual-contamination laws, seeks to inoculate us against exactly that spirit-denying, nature-exalting worldview that achieved dominance in the 19th century—and still afflicts us.
Here’s how that comes out. Every source of tumah, contamination, bears a resemblance to death in that it conveys an illusory message that people are entrapped in nature, their consciousness determined by material forces, rather than their being free to make moral choices. A dead body has been robbed of any possibility of making free decisions. It has been defeated by nature. So a corpse is the source of the most severe contamination.
Hirsch similarly explains all the contaminating experiences. In each—birth, menstruation, seminal emission, the weird disease of tzaraat, sleep—the person temporarily loses control of his body. Any of these conditions could leave the damaging, materialistic, and false impression that we are slaves to nature.
In the biblical view, by contrast, we are free to choose to follow God’s commandments. We’d have to be, otherwise His commanding us to do right makes little sense. Rejecting materialism is essential to the moral life.
Hirsch wrote, commenting on Leviticus (11:46–47): “All these [contamination laws] are truths which, in the face of human frailty and the powers of the forces of nature which the appearance of death preaches, are to be brought again and again to the minds of living people, so that they remain conscious of their unique position of freedom in the midst of the physical world, and remain forever armed in proud consciousness of their freedom, armed against the doctrine of materialism.”
The “cure” for tu
The Anti-Darwin: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirschmah is immersion in water because this entails the free and conscious will to cleanse oneself. This is why, in Judaism, ritual hand-washing is accomplished by filling a cup with water and then pouring the water over your hands. Just putting your hands under a faucet would be too passive.
Here’s where it gets uncomfortable for Democrats.
The understanding of liberalism as the political expression of materialism will be familiar to many political conservatives. I first heard that formulation from Michael Medved, who laid it out in detail in a speech. But the Bible made the same connection millennia ago. Virtually every liberal position on a hot-button issue can be explained this way. Some lefty views emphasize, as Hirsch put it, the “powers of the forces of nature.”
Gay marriage: The implicit justification for this insists that gays are in the grip of nature. They have no choice about their sexual behavior. So let’s endorse their love in civil law.
Abortion: Here it’s women who are supposedly in the grip of nature, specifically sexual desire. The lady made a mistake and got pregnant. Liberals believe she can’t be held responsible for this, as denying her an abortion would do. The solution to unwanted pregnancy is a material one (ten minutes of vacuuming the uterus) over a spiritual one (taking responsibility for the outcome of sexual intercourse).
Gun control: A gun isn't a force of nature, but it's treated as if it were one. If this particular material object is found in the house, we are virtually compelled to abuse it, endangering ourselves and others. The only solution is to restrict gun ownership.
Global warming: We are in the grip of a vengeful, enraged nature! “Angry nature is holding a gun to our heads,” as the magazine of the Sierra Club warns.
Affirmative action: Racial discrimination, whether favoring a minority or not, is based on the assumption that people are trapped by naturally-determined limitations associated with their skin color.
Other liberal views don’t make an issue of nature as such but still implicitly deny what Hirsch calls our “unique position of freedom,” advocating material mechanisms to keep us safe and happy rather than relying on free choice.
Health care: Rather than leave health decisions up to the individual, liberals like Barack Obama would impose government-directed “universal health care.”
Health regulations: Laws banning smoking in public or the use of trans-fats in restaurant cooking take responsibility for one’s health out of the hands of the individual and give it over to the government. So long, “unique position of freedom.”
Education: Conservative education philosophy, expressed in the preference for school choice or home schooling, is all about giving freedom and responsibility to parents. Liberal philosophy transfers responsibility to the state, or to teachers’ unions.
Wash Me, Please: Tumah-thinker Howard Dean
And so on. Liberal views, far from being random, actually form the political expression of a comprehensive worldview—in Biblical terms, tumah-thinking. It was to counteract this perspective that the Bible proposed its system of ritual contamination and purification.
Notwithstanding the Jewish identification with liberalism, God established us as a people to make exactly the kinds of distinctions I’ve tried to highlight here. “For I, God, am He that brings you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God,…to distinguish between the pure and the impure” (Leviticus 11:45–46).
While of course I have simplified a bit, liberalism is the ideological faction that, of the two philosophies in American political life, is easily the more identifiable with tumah.
Which is why, looking to the future, it’s of interest that the Bible carries on with the theme of cleansing tumah. In the words of the prophets who foresaw the End of Days: “Son of Man, the House of Israel dwell on their land, and they have contaminated it with their way and with their acts.”
In the end, however, “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, that you maybe become cleansed; I will cleanse you from all your contamination and from all your idols” (Ezekiel 36:17–25).
Liberals, so it seems, will be in particular need of that shower.
 |
David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s program in Religion, Liberty & Public Life. His new book, |
Sixteen of the magazine's 75 Most Influential People are Jewis...
Rabbis want to ban unmarried women from the ritual bath.
Amy Sohn and Shmuley Boteach on the duties of modern parenting
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
Is this a joke? Funny, I thought it took two people to make a fetus...
I recommend reading "Eve and Adam: Genesis Revisited" and some of the hermanuetics. Not only has the Bible been corrupted, but the interpretation has been too. Often used by those in power to justify their own sins, the Bible is not an untarnished authority.
I truly hope you consider taking a theology course, possibly an unbiased one. Maybe explore world religions, an introductory anthropology course. I'm apalled by your bucolic ignorance.
tarzanman21
The author has totally skewed and manipulated both Jewish belief and the liberal point of view. First of all, he seems to be suggesting that not being logical and observant of the world around them is somehow impure. Abraham himself argued with god, and I don't think anyone would call him impure. I don't think anyone who's been to hebrew school hasn't been told that what we're supposed to take from that is that we're supposed to argue and grapple with our faith in order to make it stronger.
As far as his interpretation of the reasons behind liberal beliefs, the author is totally off base. here's a quick rundown of some of the key issues:
Abortion - it isn't about a woman not taking responsibility, I don't know of any women who use abortion as the primary mode of birth control. What about rape victims, broken condoms, or when the pregnancy threatens the mother? As a side note, Jews believe life starts at birth, not conception.
Global Warming - it's not about an angry nature, its actually about taking RESPONSIBILITY for humans putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Maybe he means it's a liberal cause because it involves listening to scientists and understanding evidence and observations.
Affirmative action - whether you agree with the policy or not, you must recognize that its about helping people who come from worst walks of life due to racism that have put a particular group of people into the lower parts of the economic scale. It's about recognizing REALITY, not disguising racism as letting people take "responsibility" for themselves.
Education - liberals don't ban private schools, or home schooling. However, they do believe in making public schools equal so everyone gets the same high quality education. I just don't understand what the author's point is on this one.
Health care - liberals want to make sure everyone has insurance. Is that impure? A large percentage of Americans don't have health care. Even if health care was nationalized, it would undoubtedly allow for private supplemental health care like in Canada. Once again, the author is skewing the facts.
These were just the highlights. I could go into detail with all of these, but I won't bore you. Needless to say, the author's premise is sketchy at best. There's a reason Jews are mostly affiliated with liberal causes; because Jews are generally taught to think critically. I don't think thats something we should stop now.
Anonymous
Disagree venemently with the article (why are all these conservative writers trying so hard to associate the Dems as 'the party of death,' in this case, literally?) although I love the smirking Cheney graphic...
Anonymous
I'm amazed by this. I can't even address his points, because I'm so absolutely in awe.
Anonymous
The better question is: Is Klinghoffer a propagandist for the anti-science, anti-critical thinking wing of the Republican party?
Elisa
all by herself!? holy cow, that's a miracle!!
Anonymous
Among other things your argument takes a reductivist approach that equates the rules in Leviticus with taboos related to death. All cultures have a taboo against mixing the living and dead. But what’s particularly interesting about Leviticus is how specific it gets over bizarre and seemingly trivial things like never eating “animals that neither walk nor fly but hop and crawl…,” etc. I remember reading a ‘structuralist’ analysis of Leviticus which argued that its various prohibitions are targeted at anything that threatens the clear demarcations in early-man’s categories in nature…(which really has nothing to do with materialism per se) My point is that multiple interpretations of Leviticus exist; indeed anthropologists love this text precisely because it defies the sort of oversimplification you exhibit above.
Also, your equation of liberalism and materialism reveals your narrow view of political philosophy (based on one Medved lecture apparently). Certain strands of liberalism became materialist (such as national socialism--especially Marxism) but the dominant strand, obsessed with ‘inherent’ human and individual rights, comes from varied thinkers like John Lock, Kant, etc. They were usually obsessed with ‘reason’ but on the whole their ideas were no more “materialist” than most post-Enlightenment movements…Besides, determinism and free-will are obviously in conflict but free-will and materialism are not mutually exclusive, let alone materialism and “the moral life.”
I find your examples unconvincing. According to liberals, homosexuality, promiscuity, violence and global warming are all miasmic “natural” forces, right? Well what about addiction? Why is selling drugs illegal? What about “temptation” to pornography on the internet? Sound like just a few of the many conservative “tumah” issues to me: “Goodbye unique position of freedom.” By the way, affirmative action is not about “people trapped by naturally-determined limitations associated with their skin color,” it’s about the social legacy of slavery, i.e. poor historical decision-making…. Anyway, in this section you start with a few selective examples meant to highlight the “materialist” thinking behind liberal issues, but then just resort to dull, undefended Libertarian tripe.
Anonymous
Mr. Klinghoffer that was just plain silly!
In addition to the other well made comments made above I would like to remind you that the Bible is a 'global' document and not soley relegated to the USA or for the exclusive use of its citizens. The comparisons you make between the hot button issues of conservative and liberal factions in the US just don't apply to the rest of the world.
For example the controlling party in The Netherlands are the Christian Democrats - a country that not only has legal abortions but export it with their abortion flotilla, have de-criminalized soft drugs and prostitution, have legalized euthanasia, gay folks can get married, and get this EVERYONE has health insurance (and if you are under the age of 18 its free!). So with all this 'liberal lawlessness' one would expect hell on earth. Interestingly enough though, the Netherlands has the lowest rate of drug addicts in Europe, the lowest rate of abortions and teen pregnancy in Europe and the UN just recently rated that Dutch children are the happiest in the world.
Maybe the big guy is a liberal afterall...
HR
Anonymous
I don't know which is worse: one that is willingly ignorant of a position or one that is so lazy and incurious as to not even remotely get a position correct.
The author's grasp of Dem/Liberal/Progressive positions reads more like Rush LImbaugh/Ann Coulter talking points as opposed to real understanding of what people like Barack Obama position's are.
You're statements only benefit conservatism in that it misleads like-minded people further down a path of ignorance making the divisions between Conservatives and Liberals all that more apparent. You are a real diservice.
Kling (ancient Greek for "to stick to", hoffer (early Latin for "female cow"), so literally you name means "stuck to a female cow."
See, I can be inaccurate and misleading too.
tarzanman21
I'm loving your translation of his name
Anonymous
Just look at where this gentleman is employed: The Discovery Institute. This is the "think-tank" bent on pushing on Intelligent Design as science. You know, Intelligent Design, Creationism coated with a veneer of vagueness and scientific sounding language that masks what is, by definition, not science.
Adam H
...Then this din proves Mr. Klinghoffer has struck a nerve of truth.
Apparently the only thing liberals hate worse than the accusation that their policies are atheistic is being proven that their policies act against G-d's commandments.
This piece demonstrates clearly, if admittedly concisely, that political positions reflect either a society's celebration of divinely imbued free choice or a people's perceived victimhood to natural impediments. Making fun of its author's (unchosen) name does not negate an essay's contentions.
You're either for Torah or against it.
Lys H
...you know what happened the last time someone said that ;-)
"Abortion: Here it’s women who are supposedly in the grip of nature, specifically sexual desire. The lady made a mistake and got pregnant."
Oh my word. Seriously. Well, I guess I better wash my hands good and well before the next time I get "in the grip of nature" with my badself, otherwise I might "ma[k]e a mistake and get pregnant". But then again, I guess it's not my hand's fault. Just mine for being a dirty whore, right?
Also, this article is completely sophmoric...or should I say sophmoronic? Next time you're going to try and pass yourself off as educated, please try reading something first. I suggest Mary Douglas's Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo and Daniel Boyarin's Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, because I think you don't know what you're talking about quite as well as you think you do.
Additionally, your periodic equation of liberalism with the state of being a Democrat just displays your inability to think outside of a binary system. What a total surprise that is...
Brian
It always upsets me when a Jew says something stupid.
If the Torah was as libertarian as Klinghoffer says, it wouldn't contain 613 mitzvot. Laws exist to keep the strong from trampling the weak. To say that liberals/Democrats coddle the irresponsible at the expense of honest Americans' liberties while conservative/Republicans advocate responsibility and the consequences therein is just a recitation of a classic Republican trope. It would be just as unfair to say that Republicans are more God-like because they are more powerful and quicker to crush their opponents. Ultimately, I think Mr. Klinghoffer's skewed generalizations are just a canard to hide the fact that he likes Republicans better because he thinks they're more pro-Israel.
Anonymous
We're no different than someone who sacrifices a chicken in order to divine the future from its entrails. If there is a god, she's nothing like any religion imagines.
Anonymous
It is amazing that a person could claim their intellectual superiority to the author when they state with such hubris:
As a side note, Jews believe life starts at birth, not conception. --tarzanman21
Was that written on manna or the stone tablets? I did not receive that info in my Jew manual either. Perhaps, there is a secret url from above that informs you. Let us know. You know what, I just burned a couple extra brain cells by re-reading your opening comment tarzanman21--have you taken your stupid pills yet today?
Since you are an expert on all things global warming/cooling/du jour... explain to us the significance of: the Holocene Maximum; solar activity as proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature; water vapor and increases and decreases in CO2 emissions. You don't know. What you do know the author proved. You have a political agenda, not based in science, but a world-view that is opposed by Torah.
And to Adam your comment "You're either for Torah or against it" was all that was needed to be said. Perfect. Unfortunately, most here, like the former "Jew" Kerry were for Torah before they were against it.
Anonymous
Yeah, God really loves the rich, burning on a spit, in the deepest parts of Hell. The republicans worship money, and just use the bible as a pulpit to preach their duplicitous deceit. A Christian one day a week and lying greedy lobbyist or politician or corporate executive very other day of the week, really defines your true Christian spirit, or the reality of a complete lack there of.
tarzanman21
Ok! This is a response to Mr. anonymous' post questioning my knowledge, so I will now elaborate on the points he questioned.
Abortion
Jewish tradition sanctions (or mandates) abortion under some circumstances, namely for medical reason. This is allowed in principle because Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. This is based partly on the Torah (Exodus21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage (in Jewish law the killing of a person cannot result in mere compensation, as the text continues to say that if the mother is also killed due to her injuries, then it becomes a capital case). Overtly, such a parable is not one of malfeascent murder. The sole act of deliberate aggression is the aforementioned quarrel in which the two men are engaged. The Jewish regard for the sanctity of life is exemplified throughout the prescription of this monetary compensation, as no punitive statute is invoked in the case of manslaughter, reiterated doggedly by Deuteronomy. Abortion, when necessary, must take place before the first 40 days, when the fetus is referred to as "mere water".
The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman. Later authorities have differed as to how far one might go in defining the peril to the woman in order to justify abortion, and at what stage of gestation a fetus is considered having a soul.
Global Warming
This is what Mr. Anonymous said:
Since you are an expert on all things global warming/cooling/du jour... explain to us the significance of: the Holocene Maximum; solar activity as proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature; water vapor and increases and decreases in CO2 emissions.
Ok, the Holocene Maximum was a period of warming that was part of the natural ebb and flow of the Earth's temperature. Increased solar activity is corolated with an increase in both CO2 and the earth's temperature because the oceans can no longer hold as much CO2 when the oceans warm. HOWEVER, the current warming trend we see in the past century is much quicker compared to any historical norms. Also, CO2 levels are higher than ever. In addition, positive feedback loops from these warming trends threaten to exponentially increase this warming. Don't make assumptions, idiot. I do know way more than you do. Deal with it.
tarzanman21
oh yeah, i forgot to mention that scientists have specifically looked for an increase in sun spots or solar flares and haven't found any increased activity that corresponds with the increased temperatures. Suck it.
Anonymous
The vitriol spewed by the frothing liberals here is hilarious, and yet again confirms, the truth hurts.
A couple of the funnier comments: " The reason most Jews are liberal is b/c they are taught to think critically". Hoo-boy, that's a good one. If Klinghofer was either black, female or homosexual, every one of you libs would be tripping over yourselves to proclaim him a genius. " Liberals think crtically". Please, spare us the nonsense.
Or how about this one: "Klinghoffer's points are Coulter Limbaugh talking points". How dumb can you get? Are your arguments nothing more than New York Times talking points? To paraphrase one of the other geniuses posting on this site, there's a reason millions of Americans listen/read these people. Becasue they know what they're talking about! ( But of course, the libs are smugly smarter than everyone else on the planet,)
As for all the claptrap about global warming, which by now has proven to be an absolute canard - well gee, most of the comments here came from before April. We are now in the middle of the coldest April on record. There's your "global warning" for you.
Sheesh.
Anonymous
I view Darwin as a just very sharp observer of the world around him. His materialist philosophy is irrelevant. He's a scientist, not a philosopher. His achievement was to analyse HOW nature works. We are still at liberty to view nature as G-d's creation, or not, just as much as before Darwin was born. Why is this such a problem for people? "So G-d made Evolution" is a valid position. In the Torah (Bible) G-d says "he made the world", but he does not say HOW. No problem. G-d loves science. Science should just increase people's awe of the Creation. Atheism cannot be found under a microscope, and faith cannot be found under one either.