It’s no secret that Glenn Reynolds dislikes the views of Leon Kass. Since Reynold’s radical libertarian views on bioethics (e.g., he favors reproductive cloning) are the polar opposite of the positions espoused by Kass it is inevitable that genuine disagreements are bound to arise. But to bring up Kass’ views on eating ice cream in public in order to cast aspersions on the man shows a deeper bias in effect:
As I noted earlier, Kass's views on this subject, while not specifically relevant to bioethics, "suggest a more generalized discomfort with the messy, physical side of life" that may explain his views in the bioethics arena. And it's a discomfort that puts him to the right -- if that's the proper characterization -- of Miss Manners, no less.
Well, no Mr. Reynolds, that’s not the proper characterization. Kass’ perspective is not based on politics but on religion -- he is, after all, a conservative Jew. You don’t have to be well-versed in the tenets of the religion to realize that regulations on food have a profound importance in Judaism. As one resource notes:
In his book "To Be a Jew" (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.
Donin also points out that the laws of kashrus elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew. [emphasis added]
Now compare that to the actual quote that Reynolds refers to (but, oddly enough, never quotes in full):
Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone --a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive.
I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many reader, people who will condescendingly regard as quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the street is for dogs. Modern America's rising tide of informality has already washed out many long-standing traditions -- their reasons long before forgotten -- that served well to regulate the boundary between public and private; and in many quarters complete shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of manners.
To cite one small example: yawning with uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or forgetfully as indifferently and "naturally"), unaware that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements (like sneezing, belching, and hiccuping and even the involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself, blushing). But eating on the street -- even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it is more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even to know what one is eating when the main point is to hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."
Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999) [emphasis added]
Reynolds hasn’t expressed much interest in religion so it is understandable that he might not have drawn the connection between Kass’ religion and his views on eating. But I still find it rather disconcerting. Perhaps its symptomatic of our era that someone as intelligent and educated as Reynolds can only draw on a political framework in order to understand a person’s rationale. I can’t say who should be more embarrassed: Reynolds for being so dismissive of religious-based reasoning or those of us who value a Judeo-Christian heritage for allowing this culture of disdain to flourish.
Update: Glenn Reynolds adds:
"...this whole issue seems to call into question Kass's core argument: "The wisdom of repugnance." Kass finds eating ice cream in public repugnant. Hardly anyone else does. Sounds like aesthetics masquerading as moral reasoning to me."
Actually, I've already addressed this issue of the "wisdom of repugnance" also.
2
Dear EO,
Generally I'm very much in agreement w/your defense of Kass against Reynolds' et al's mischaracterizations, innuendos, and diatribes. This particular defense, however, is itself misleading. Kass's Hungry Soul is a morally serious effort at philosophical anthropology; it defends the (old-fashioned) notion of "substantial form" (jettisoned by early modern philosophical-scientists such as Bacon and Descartes, but which is making a come-back among certain philosophers and biologists). The core anthropological position that Kass defends in the book is that man's unique "upright posture" nicely embodies and manifests/signifies his distinctive character among the other animals. (In this regard he expressly refers to the phenomenological biologist, Erwin Strauss's - not Leo Strauss's! - magisterial essay on our upright posture.) This character/characterization of our nature and our dignity is accessible to unaided human reason and is presented by Kass as such. It is not until the last chapter of the book that Kass turns to Hebrew Scripture in order to show the consonance (and complementarity) of Scripture w/that rationally available/discerned teaching about human nature and human dignity. One does not have to be a Jew, or religious believer of any sort, to understand and see the plausibility of Kass's discussions about our unique (rational) animality - our upright posture - and the consequences that bearing may have for how we attend to our "animal" functions, including eating and drinking, as well as intercourse and gregariousness. In short, it is wrong to present Kass as deriving his thoughts on eating (or just about anything else) from whatever Jewish faith he may have. On the other hand, it is quite true that he believes that there is a certain consonance between (some) faith and reason's deliverances. But the libertarians (and other Kass opponents) need to be schooled that Kass's views are neither expressly nor implicitly religiously-based.
(To my Evangelical brother, I would add that Kass's combination of philosophical anthropology and (his understanding of) the teachings of Jewish Scripture is, unfortunately, from time to time marred by a misunderstanding of New Testament Scripture and teachings. But that's a story for another time.)
All the best. Keep up the good work monitoring the imprecisions and worse the L-L's (liberal Left-libertarian Right) inflict upon a fine man and wonderful Council.
Paul Seaton
posted on 03.23.2004 9:41 AM3
(...the desire for protracted youthfulness, hedonism, and sexual license would seem to be hallmarks of American culture. They may or may not be desirable, but they're certainly mainstream.)
Let's take Reynolds' comment one step farther and say "hallmarks of Christian culture":
It’s the year 3,000 A.D. Children, accompanied by their parents, are walking proudly in their new clothes, brightly adorned with painted paper tubes, filled with candy, strapped around their waists. Leading them is a group of teenaged girls wearing dresses giving them the appearance of pregnancy.
The pope smiles as the group marches to the Vatican balcony and he delivers his address which begins the remembrance of the reunification of the Catholic and Protestant churches, called the Feast of Saint Yazzer.
In Heaven, the God of Israel weeps in anger as He gazes down and remembers the number of Jewish and Palestinian children who were killed during the beginning of last century’s homicide bombings.
Far fetched?? Totally absurd???
The real Nimrod founded most of the cities in post-diluvium Mesopotamia. He became a mighty man on the earth. The tower of Babel is being built... Here's Nimrod, the mighty hunter, founder of the cities.
Nimrod died, but now in heaven, he impregnated the goddess of fertility, Semiramis, with a ray of light and became his own son with a new name of Tammuz.
The names of the gods changed as they moved from culture to culture, but the story remained the same. Tammuz went out hunting. Although he had been a great hunter in his real flesh-and-blood life as Nimrod, a hairy boar killed him. Dead again, but not out, his next reincarnation is still celebrated today in some cultures as the rebirth of the sun god.
Somewhat later, Semiramis died to come back inside an egg floating on the Euphrates River and washed ashore in a basket of reeds. Her name was now Ashtoreth, Ishtar, Oestre, Estre, Astarte, or Easter.
Emerging from her shell, she chose to give a nearby rabbit the ability to lay eggs of fertility.
Pagan priests commemorated her rebirth annually by impregnating virgins, freshly adorned in their finest new clothes, on high altars at the rising of the sun on the day of the Vernal (Spring) Equinox.
A year later, the three-month-old infants would be sacrificed, and eggs symbolizing fertility would be dipped in their blood. Then came feasting on the boar of vengeance, served in honor of Tammuz and Ishtar...
Some years later… Roman emperor Constantine devised a way to appease his mother, who had discovered the “True Cross” in her travels of the Empire and liked the concept of a Messiah. So he took the reigns of Jewish Messianic worship as recorded in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and blended it with the worship of the sun – he became the first to declare himself, “Pontiff Maximus.”
After creating Christianity, he had his wife and son murdered and seated his mother, Helena, as the Queen of Heaven. Eventually, the church transferred these titles to others - the Bishop of Rome became the Holy Father, and following the creation of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, blessed Miriam the hairdresser became the Holy Mother of God.
Helena and Constantine’s many churches spread across the Holy Land. The “Church of the Holy Sepulcher” is located atop a Roman shrine to Venus. As it is within 2,000 cubits of the camp of Israel and not “outside the camp” (Numbers 15:35-36), this is an impossible site for the crucifixion, a long-standing claim by Christianity.
In the year 318 C.E., Pope Sylvester embarked on a crusade to set up Constantine’s vision of a Roman church-state. Until then, Messianic worship had been Jewish-based and led by direct maternal descendents of Y’shua. Sailing to the Promised Land, Sylvester presented his already inescapable plan to the Jewish leaders.
The “Desposyni” were relieved that their followers were no longer being killed by the thousands resigned to Rome’s leadership. With little bargaining power at their disposal, they asked only to provide their own bishop, that Jews living in Rome send money to their “mother” synagogue, and that the ban imposed by Emperor Hadrian against Jews living in Jerusalem be lifted.
When these issues were presented to Constantine, he answered, “The Mother Church is now in Rome with the bones of the Apostle Peter and you will accept a Greek Bishop to lead you.”
This date “officially” marks the true beginning of the Christian church structure.
At the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., Constantine further accommodated the anti-Semitic bishop that it was the Jews that crucified Y’shua, and issued this decree: ‘Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries… “
This was NOT the Orthodox Rabbinical Jews (of which they had nothing to do with already as noted in no uncertain terms by Rabbi Sha'ul in Acts chapter 24): it was the Messianic Jews of which Constantine spoke against.
At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Julian calendar was adopted for matters of the new church. The seventh day Sabbath was changed to the “eighth day” Sun-day by "wise intuition" (see http://www.cin.org/jp2/diesdomi.html) and the other days would be referred to as the day of the Moon, Tiu (god of sky and war), Odin/Woden (supreme god, god of the Wild Hunt), Thor (god of thunder, rain, and farming), Freya (goddess of love and fertility) and Saturn (agriculture).
These days no longer started at sundown as directed by our Creator God; now they began at midnight according to Constantine. The months would no longer be as God’s lunar calendar; they were now solar with the first five months proclaimed Janus (sun god of beginnings); February (sacrificial offerings); Mars (war god); April (Etruscan Aphrodite, love goddess); Maia (mother of Hermes by Zeus).
- A sunrise service still marks Easter, although Messiah was raised up just before sundown.
- Nearly all Christian churches still proudly retain an Ashtoreth pole steeple.
- The Vatican still has a built-in sundial to confirm the exact day for Easter worship.
- Eastern Orthodox Catholics still die Easter eggs dark red.
- Christian children still dress in new clothes for Easter services.
- Christians still honor the Resurrection with an Easter ham.
Ezekiel 8: 14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.
Isaiah 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
Nimrod was highly revered: Pharaohs, Caesars, Japanese emperors and Hitler attributed to him powers of godhood, just as Christians worship the decrees of Constantine:
Ever wonder why the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures is still referred to as herme-neutics?
4
Oy, Steve, try for something original. This has "Jesus Fanboy" written all over it.
The "Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz" shtick comes from Two Babylons, a Victorian classic of anti-Catholic hate literature by some guy named Hislop back around 1850. In my experience, it's usually quoted by extreme Evangelicals to "prove" that Catholics Really Worship SATAN.
Every time you see "Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz" -- especially in connection with the phrase "Mystery Babylon" -- you're reading/listening to a direct knockoff of Hislop. And the rest of Steve's essay fits -- rapid lists of "Evidence of Mystery Babylon", too fast and furious for refutation, hitting hard and fast to get inside any opponent's decision cycle -- throw out accusations faster than The Enemy can answer them. Note also the Proof Texts from SCRIPTURE!, lifted out of any context and Quoted like a Calormene.
posted on 03.23.2004 11:55 AM5
Dear Ken,
Thanks for clearing up the previous post. I couldn't make head's or tail's of it and wondered what the heck was going on. Now I know - and that I don't have to give it a further second's thought. The virtues of the blogosphere at work, once again: real time answers to any-and-all (or many) questions.
Paul Seaton
posted on 03.23.2004 1:36 PM6
Jesus Fanboy? Frankly, Ken, I don't consider myself righteous enough to be a "groupie".
As far as your Calormine analogy goes, I only study with those who believe in Y'shua, not your tash and evol fans.
Your pope, Ken, says "The fundamental importance of Sunday has been recognized through two thousand years of history and was emphatically restated by the Second Vatican Council: "Every seven days, the Church celebrates the Easter mystery.
and
Therefore, if God "sanctifies" the seventh day with a special blessing and makes it "his day" par excellence, this must be understood within the deep dynamic of the dialogue of the Covenant, indeed the dialogue of "marriage".
Sounds like an admission of the superiority of the Jew above the non-marriage vows of the Church, who live above the Law. Yet, he continues:
This is the dialogue of love which knows no interruption, yet is never monotonous. In fact, it employs the different registers of love, from the ordinary and indirect to those more intense, which the words of Scripture and the witness of so many mystics do not hesitate to describe in imagery drawn from the experience of married love.
That seems more akin to "Mystery Babylon" than anything a Jewish kabbalist could conjure, so, if it's important for you to put me in that line of thinking: hide and watch - we'll see who's taking things out of context. I really HATE to use that kind of threat, but I won't have the God of Israel and His Son put to the kind of shame that you are throwing up without a retort.
There's no reference at all in my post to Catholics worshipping Satan, you pagan schmuck, so you can put that bull where it belongs. Dummy up, son, I said Christians:
- A sunrise service still marks Easter, although Messiah was raised up just before sundown.
- Nearly all Christian churches still proudly retain an Ashtoreth pole steeple.
- The Vatican still has a built-in sundial to confirm the exact day for Easter worship.
- Eastern Orthodox Catholics still die Easter eggs dark red.
- Christian children still dress in new clothes for Easter services.
- Christians still honor the Resurrection with an Easter ham.
Of those, only the sundial is uniquely Roman Catholic.
I'm ready to listen: Teach me, O' Jew-hating Cathurian, O' Prince of Agony; amaze me with your powers of rational thought. How did I use those unfulfilled prophecies out of context?
Understand, though, first you're gonna have to convince me that the hermenuetical random "sounds good, feels good" process is superior to Jewish Pardes (http://www.the-park.net/pardes/why.html)
Methinks you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag, son.
To continue somewhat on topic (for those who are interested), Rabbi Hershel Reichman has this to say about "Forgiveness for the Church" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3462
Some may misinterpret the Cardinals' visit as tacit forgiveness of the Church for past sins against Jews. Let us address this issue. Firstly, we have to seriously contemplate whether we Jews today have the moral license to forgive the Church for sins committed against Jews in the past, since we ourselves were not the victims of those crimes. Furthermore, even were we to assume the right to forgive, the Church has so far failed to rise to the standard which warrants Jewish forgiveness.
There is a very important misconception here that warrants elucidation. Both Judaism and Christianity preach forgiveness. However, these two concepts of forgiveness differ. The difference is in the basis for forgiveness. In Judaism, the basis is Teshuvah. In Christianity, it is Confession. According to classical Judaism, Teshuvah consists of four elements: 1) Hakaras ha'Chet -- recognizing the fact of a misdeed; 2) Charatah Lesh'avar - expressing regret; 3) Tikkun ha'Cchet -- fixing the sin - for example, returning a stolen item or paying for it; 4) Kabbalah L'habah -- sincerely committing oneself never to sin again and really assuming a new lifestyle.
Christianity, however, suffices with confessing the misdeed and having faith in Jesus. It proposes that through faith, the sinner is forgiven. We Jews, however, cannot change our basis for forgiveness for theirs. The Catholic Church may have belatedly admitted that innocent Jews have suffered because of the Church. It therefore asks for Jewish forgiveness. However, the Church has yet to say that the various Popes themselves and the Church were ever wrong and guilty of sins during millennia of persecution! This includes the incitement by priests, which was a major cause of all the pogroms, rapes, murder, and plunder done to us for centuries in the Church's name (See The History of Anti-Semitism, L. Poliakov, Schocken Books, p.47, 180, 330). We want to hear the full "Charatah Le'sh'avar" - the total expression of regret and acceptance of guilt for sins committed by the Church against Jews for 2000 years.
In addition, there is no "Tikkun ha'Chet" - Vatican crimes against our people continue. The Pope tacitly approves the film "The Passion," which will undoubtedly incite anti-Semitism. Additionally, the Pope and his Vatican spokesmen have consistently adhered to a policy of strict even-handedness, in effect equating Arab terror with Israeli self-defense, to the extent that he welcomed the chief terrorist, Yasser Arafat, to the Vatican after his expulsion from Lebanon by the IDF in the 1980s.
Furthermore, priceless Jewish artifacts and manuscripts - said to include items stolen from the Second Temple and original Rambam manuscripts - are hidden in Vatican vaults. Jews are not allowed to see them and certainly there is no intention to ever return them to our people. Would any normal victim forgive a thief who acknowledges that he has the stolen goods in his possession but refuses to return them to their owner? By any accounting, the Church has stolen billions of dollars of assets from the Jewish people for centuries - yet not a penny is now offered to pay victims, their families, or in lieu of that to pay the Jewish State of Israel.
We cannot forgive the Church even if it confesses and asks for forgiveness. The Catholic Church fails to meet the Jewish religious standard for forgiveness. For us to change Jewish standards of Teshuvah is to compromise our faith for theirs - which is exactly what the Church wants us to do in its agenda of compromising the Jewish religion.
Relating this to what Reynolds sees as hypocricy in christianity, Jews live and breathe God, whether they want to or not. Even agnostic Jews are constantly against Him.
Christians take it or leave it to your shame. It's a religion about Jesus Christ, not walking with Him.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
hitting hard and fast to get inside any opponent's decision cycle
Piss that one away, Ken. By all means, take your time. I've got a few good years left.
7
Guy's another Net Crank. Type 25(B), without the outboard motor but with the direct line to God.
More articulate than Mike Hirtes of alt.fan.furry/Usenet fame (and coming from the "Babylon Mystery Religion" wing of anti-Catholicism), but definitely cast from the same mold. Just take a look at some of the rants on a.f.f or archived at Kooks Museum and you'll see the same general style.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
posted on 03.24.2004 7:18 PM8
Amazing - you can't use one Biblical reference to make your point, can you Ken. Rave on.
Direct line to God? Where did I make that reference?
Troll? I spend no time in alt.fan.* - maybe more time in the Scriptures rather that a lot of time looking for flame wars is what you need.
General style? Your stereotyping again.
Let me sum it up for you, Ken.
Reynolds is libertarian. That's his religion: one step above anarchy, stopping at the point that HE decides is his moral limit.
Same as Christianity. Dispensational law: pick and choose, precept by precept, line by line.
So, your basis of judgment is flawed, because his basis for perception of law or lawlessness is no different than yours, your pope's or any of the other 1000+ denominations of Protesting Catholics.
The Romans began to throw off the Jews during the times of Ignatius; your church threw out the gold standard completely at the Council of Nicea.
Wise pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true "sun". Writing to the pagans, Saint Justin uses the language of the time to note that Christians gather together "on the day named after the sun",(30) but for believers the expression had already assumed a new meaning which was unmistakeably rooted in the Gospel.
JUSTIN MARTYR. “But Sunday is the day upon which we all hold our common assembly - - and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, He appeared to His apostles and disciples and taught them what we now submit to your consideration.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (the Jews)
Luke 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
posted on 03.24.2004 10:25 PM