11/25/2016
Heroes Part I

Not superheroes, but everyday heroes. Like this guy. Check him out. He looks totally ordinary, right?  But he’s not. I don’t even know who he is, but I know he’s not ordinary.  He might even be a hero.

I’ve been obsessed with heroes for a long time, probably since Air Florida flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River one icy January in 1982. The incidents of heroism mentioned in the immediate and retrospective coverage of that accident fascinated me. 

That fascination has expanded to focus on all kinds of everyday heroes: the people who run into burning buildings to rescue strangers, the people who stand up to tyranny, the people who take risks just to serve their communities, the people who risk their health to donate an organ to a stranger.  While I respect and admire professional heroes, like fire fighters and police officers and our military, it’s the amateurs who intrigue me.

What I’ve found in studying altruism is that these different types of heroes seem to have different motivations, different dynamics that drive their behavior.  Let’s begin with the guy above.  Here’s a little context.  

This is a Nazi rally in Hamburg in 1936. See our guy in the yellow circle?  He’s having none of it.  A dangerous and heroic statement of opinion in that time and place.

The photo above is one of the opening shots in Yoav Shamir’s appealing but sometimes disturbing cinematic exploration of “10%: What Makes a Hero”.  While we don’t know anything more about the man in the crowd, we know quite a bit about others like him.

The appalling history of the Holocaust is leavened by tales of individual heroism by ordinary people who had nothing to win and everything to lose, people who risked their lives for Jewish friends and even strangers. There is a special place at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel, the Garden of the Righteous Among Nations, that honors these people.

You probably know some of their names, people like Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg.  Schindler was able to save over 1,200 Jews from certain extermination by employing them in his factories. Wallenberg, a diplomat from Sweden, was able to save tens of thousands of Jews by writing exit visas for them.  Less well known are people like Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara, Portuguese consul Aristides de Souse Mendes, and Chinese consul general Ho Feng-Shan, all of whom wrote thousands of exit visas for people they didn’t know and possibly didn’t even understand.  They only knew that people were in danger and that they could help.

Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum

Side note: The history of the Jews who managed to escape to China, particularly to Shanghai, is fascinating in and of itself. Check it out. 
http://www.gluckman.com/ShanghaiJewsChina.html

But there were many more ordinary people who stepped up to hide Jews, to spirit them away, to keep them safe.  Why would they do this when the risks were so great?

Here’s a few seconds with Arlette Michaelis-de Monceau from Shamir's film. She, along with her parents and sister, aided in the rescue of many Jews. 

Another rescuer said almost the same thing: ''It is something you cannot plan, this horrible adventure with the devil. They came like a tidal wave. When a wave comes over a village, you are lucky to be alive and be able to save people. You do it! You don't sit down and ask, 'Can I do it?' It is part of your body - the will is part of your body - you feel it and you do it.''

Another story:

The people of Le Chambon (located in the southeastern part of France), led by their pastor Andre Trocme, refused to accept the invincibility of evil and brute power. These farmers, peasants and housewives took in Jewish refugees from all over Europe, risking their lives, and the lives of their families, to give protection to thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazis. This is a place where goodness happened.

Pastor Andre Trocme wrote the following in February, 1943:...in the course of the summer we have been able to help about sixty Jewish refugees in our own home; we have hidden them, fed them, plucked them out of deportation groups, and often we have taken them to a safe country You can imagine what struggles—with the authorities—what real dangers this means for us: threats of arrest, submitting to long interrogations...

Magda Trocme, the pastor’s wife, explained why the people of her community risked their lives to protect the Jews: Those of us who received the first Jews did what we thought had to be done—nothing more complicated... How could we refuse them?... The issue was. Do you think we are all brothers or not? Do you think it is unjust to turn in the Jews or not? Then let us try to help!

In the 1980s, two social psychologist, Samuel and Pearl Oliner, determined to uncover what made Holocaust rescuers different from others who were merely bystanders.  They interviewed rescuers, bystanders, and rescued survivors, looking specifically for things that distinguished the rescuers from bystanders.  Some of them are obvious – the rescuers were more likely to have friends who were Jews, for example.  But the overarching finding had to do with religion.

Rescuers were 12 times less likely to practice an authoritarian, paternalistic religion that required Old Testament obedience in the house.  Where religion was practiced, it was a democratic version that stressed the family-of-man rather than holy exclusivity.

This was notable in rescuers different definitions of “us” and “them”. Their “us” was extensive and included lots of people of different religions and beliefs.  And because they were all “us”, it made sense to work to rescue them.

Holocaust rescuers were also equally likely to be men as well as women.  The decision to step up often seemed to be spontaneous, but the long term, highly dangerous act of hiding Jews required a kind of uncommon moral endurance. As the Oliners say in their book,  ''Rescuers point the way. They were and are 'ordinary people.' ''

Doing extraordinary things.

11/18/16

An update on Islam in America

On 11/11/16 I posted a blog about the things I learned from my class on Islam in America.  In one of the comments, anonymous expressed some opinions about the Koran, which she expanded on in a private communication.  Specifically, wife beating and an injunction to kill Christians.  She gave specific verses to support her opinion.

I appreciate that, because it allows me to report what our instructor had to say and also some confirming explanations from various Internet sources. This has more detail and more context than many might want, but context turns out to be everything.

Please note: I'm very uncomfortable defending any organized religion.  I think they all have major problems, especially in their attitudes towards women.  However, an honest inquiry for information should be respected. That's why my husband and I are taking this class.

First, on wife beating: Primitive times, primitive mores. 

Koran 4.34
[Koran 4.34] Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Seems kinda like this:
[I Corinthians 14:34-35]  “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 
And this:
[Deuteronomy 25:11-12]“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” 


Koran 38.44
I assume this is a typo because these verses refer to the Book of Job:

38:41 And remember Our servant Job. When he cried to his Lord: The devil has afflicted me with toil and torment.

38:42 Urge with thy foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink.

38:43 And We gave him his people and the like of them with them, a mercy from Us, and a reminder for men of understanding.

38:44 And take in thy hand few worldly goods and earn goodness therewith and incline not to falsehood. Surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he (ever) turned (to Us).

And finally, the "Sword Verses", which turn out NOT to be an injunction to kill Christians.

Koran 9:5

9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Polytheists? Who the heck are they? Not Christians, not Jews, who are both monotheists, but apparently local pagan tribes.  And not just any pagans, but ones who had agreed to a treaty and then broke it.  And even then, if the treaty breakers ask for forgiveness, it should be given to them.  Here's the entire part that applies:

9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists (or idolators).
9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.
9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:8 How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:9 They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
9:11 But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.
9:12 And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun the attack upon you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.

You can find the original blog HERE.

11/13/18

Fear

There's a lot of talk on my message boards between liberals and conservatives on the aftermath of the 2016 election.  The liberals are stunned and devastated and afraid. 

Here's the best summary I've seen, from Brightstar:

Those who did not vote for Trump are sad, discouraged, sometimes fearful, and definitely appalled at what seems to be coming in our near future. We are sad because our candidate lost, a very normal response, but we are appalled at the winner's lack of morality, lack of knowledge, and reported lack of interest in listening to others and reading and learning things necessary to be the leader of the free world. We are horrified at his divisive remarks and his refusal to criticize those followers who display ugly behavior and horrible words. We are concerned about his seeming willingness to break our laws  and to disregard international principles and agreements. We are worried that all our gains in civil rights, LGBT rights,women's rights etc. may be lost. We see the people he surrounds himself with, and we are rightly concerned. We see no evidence that he has ever, ever cared about people who are out of his wealthy circle, or ever wanted anything more than money and power and fame. We see him wishing to lessen the freedom of the press, and we know that can be the first step in the decline of our democracy. This was not a normal election, and our reactions should not be expected to be "normal" post-election reactions.

The acting out we're seeing in nationwide protests is a result of those feelings. 

The conservatives are saying, welcome to the party. That's exactly how we felt in 2012.  Are they right?  Yes, mostly.

The vertical line on this graph represents the fear event and the resulting changes in happiness. The Republicans were more unhappy after Romney's loss than the folks in Boston after the Marathon bombings!

No one likes to have their candidate lose an election.  In 2012, the conservatives were concerned that a liberal agenda was in the works.  They were right about that, too.  Liberals over the last eight years have worked on expanding rights to all kinds of folks, tried to keep open access to reproductive rights, those "abstinence only" requirements in sex ed classes have diminished (along with unwanted pregnancies...), and so on.  However, conservatives' biggest fears seemed to have been that an Obama administration would institute Sharia Law (Muslim version) and take away everyone's guns.  That didn't happen.

I will contend, however, that it's worse for liberals this time. For liberals, our general fears are of the conservative agenda, things like:

• Putting belief ahead of science, thus ignoring things like climate change and evolution
• Believing that government is the problem
• Reducing taxes on the upper class.
• Instituting Sharia Law (Christian version)*

That's all going to happen and much more besides.  It's the way elections and democracy work.  However, we're also afraid of these things:

• The erratic behavior of a misogynist president with a serious psychiatric disorder
• Registration of citizens based on their religion
• Deportation squads
• Censorship of the press through changes in the libel laws

I sincerely hope that our fears of those latter four items turn out to be as groundless as the conservatives' fear of Second Amendment repeal and Muslim law, but nothing this week has been in any way encouraging.  

I've lost three pounds since Tuesday.  I'm calling it the Trump Diet.

*Sharia Law (Christian version).  

From the Republican platform:

We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage and further affirm the rights of religious students to engage in voluntary prayer at public school events and to have equal access to school facilities.

Hey, don't bring us Jews into this.  Besides, which version of the Ten Commandments? There are three versions alone in the Hebrew Bible.  Jesus only mentioned a few of the commandments  so maybe Five Commandments or Six? There are also differences in the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish versions.  So any time you go for this, you're picking a particular religion.  That's opposed by the First Amendment. 

Students can already pray any time they want, in school or anywhere else.  If they're thinking about organized prayer, then that needs to be off the table. As a social psychologist, I know enough about obedience, influence and persuasion to know that organized prayer is going to start affecting kids of different religions. It doesn't belong in public schools that our children have to attend. Unless they have to include the Church of Satan. Then I'm all in.  J/K

11/11/16

Islam in America

Last fall, my husband and I enrolled in a continuing education course at UNLV on Islam in America.  As the presidential election began to heat up, there was a lot of talk about Muslims and what Muslims believe.  It didn’t seem to us that any of those sources were authoritative.  So we signed up.

It was awesome!

Unfortunately, we missed a lot of classes because of previous plans, so we signed up again this year.  It is again awesome. However, what we’ve been learning bears little resemblance to the political rhetoric I've heard for the last year or so. I'm also reminded of some basic social psychology: We humans tend to stigmatize people we consider "other".  The more we realize that the "other" is "us", the better we treat each other. 

Caveats: First, you’re getting this filtered through me.  If there are problems, inaccuracies or inconsistencies, that's on me. Second, our instructor, Imam Abdullah, is clearly a moderate if not a progressive.

So here’s what I’ve learned.

The Koran. The Koran is made up of what Mohammad said that god said directly to him.  The words were written down at the time, so not oral tradition like my own Hebrew Bible.  I’ve read about half so far.  It’s not like the Bible, which contains mostly stories or history or literature, but more like Mohammad was channeling god.  Interesting.  It’s also not in historical order, which makes it more challenging. And it’s also not anything like what I’ve been hearing people say.

It is typically pretty benign, though there are violent parts.  Some of what I read had to do with lecturing the people on their practice of female infanticide and saying that god deeply disapproved.  Mohammad tells them that at the end of days those murdered daughters will rise up and accuse their parents, so stop it now. Are you surprised?  I was.  That's why I'm taking this class.  Besides, context is everything here.

Jews and Christians. Mohammad felt that his faith was merely an extension of the monotheistic tradition that started with Abraham.  Jews and Christians were "People of the Book" and worthy of special consideration.  The name "Allah" is closely related to the Hebrew "Elohim", which is one of the names of god.  (This is me: Historically, Islam has been far, far kinder to Jews than Christianity.  The problems of the last century or so are much more political than religious. I expect my Israeli friends to disagree.)

The Haddith. After Mohammad died, there was a circulating oral tradition of things that he had said or actions he had taken.  Lots and lots.  Some centuries later these were evaluated, and those considered most legitimate were collected into the Haddith. There are four separate traditions on what this actually means and what's important.  

Sharia Law.  Sharia is the legal extension of the Koran and Haddith.  No country actually tries to implement these rules. Like everybody else, they have their own laws based on their own traditions and customs. They're not trying to do letter and verse.  To give some perspective, think what would happen if Israel tried to legislate ALL the laws in Leviticus.  Like stoning people who carry money on the Sabbath.  Or re-instituting animal sacrifice.  Or not eating animal fat. And so on.

Shia and Sunni. Mohammad had no sons, so two different people claimed to be the legitimate heir to his leadership: his son-in-law, Ali (The Shia) and his father-in-law, Abu Bakr (The Sunni). Assassinations and conflicts ensured, and now these two groups are mostly at each other’s throats. The theological differences are complex. You can find articles on Wikipedia.  Geographically, many of the Shia are in Iraq and the Sunni in Saudi Arabia, Syria and so on, but the mix is spread all over.  The fight for Mosul is also a fight between Shia and Sunni.

These movements are split into tribes and groups and subgroups and sub-subgroups, all of whom have their own individual interpretation of what it means to be a Muslim. There are Chinese Muslims and Indonesian Muslims and American Muslims and so on.  Each group is flavored by not only their theological views but the culture in which they live. As our imam told us, there’s one group that says part of a particular prayer should be spoken loudly and another that says softly.  He visited a mosque that says it softly while he said it loudly. They asked him to leave! Said he wasn’t a Muslim.

Mosques and Imams in America. Typically, each mosque in the United States is independent.  They are often built by a benefactor who also hires the imam. If the benefactor is an immigrant, he usually hires from his home country.  Other mosques have a committee that hires the imams. Most of the imams in the US and everywhere else don’t read Arabic.

Let me repeat that:  A typical imam doesn’t read Arabic or understand the language.

He’s memorized the entire Koran, and knows what each part means, so what he tells his followers is what he learned from someone else or what he feels is or ought to be true. And who could gainsay him as the followers can’t read Arabic either, right?   (Only about 12% of the world's Muslims are Arabic anyway).  

Moreover, in this country, many of the imams don’t speak English well and have zero experience in dealing with public relations. As a result, there is no one to speak for the Muslim community because there isn’t a unified Muslim community nor an organization that represents them. (Me again: Here's an interesting article from Slate that looks at the issue.)

So Islam is a faith that started, like many others, with a charismatic leader who has left a legacy for others to interpret.  It should come as no surprise that sometimes their actions resemble the legacy more accurately than other times. Think of the differences between the Quakers and the KKK, both of whom claim to be Christians.  To demonize all Muslims as terrorists based on the actions of a microscopic few is like me judging all Christians as terrorists because of the actions of the Klan. 

Let me add as a final note that the members of many of these mosques are in a state of panic right now, not knowing if they’ll be forced to have identity cards, not knowing if they’ll be able to return to the US if they leave for vacation or business, not knowing what will happen next.  The mood, Imam Abdullah said on Thursday, is that they’ll give the Trump administration 100 days and then decide what to do. 

He also said that already neighbors are reaching out to their Muslim friends to reassure them of their support.  

NOTE: It’s a very different history for the Black Muslim movement in America, which we won’t get to till later in the semester.

ADDENDUM:  In response to Anonymous' comments below, I have posted an addendum to this blog.  You can find it HERE.