This parsha contains the litany of blessings and curses which accompany observance and rejection of the Torah, respectively. At the end of, it, we read,
All that we have seen, even the greatest signs and wonders, are as naught if we fail to pay attention, and open our heart, and our eyes and ears, so as to comprehend them through G*d's eyes.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
A good person
Ableism.... We value abilities. In ourselves, in our children, in our civilization. We take pride in accomplishment, in reaching new heights.
As I have discussed last week, this is true even for people with disabilities. Parents of developmentally delayed children gush about how much more intensely milestones are celebrated in proportion to the struggle to achieve them. We hail the trailblazers who accomplish great things in spite of disabilities and hardships.
But at some point in raising our children, usually when they are one-upping each other, we take them aside and tell them that it is more important to be good than smart/strong/first/etc. It is more important to show each other grace, compassion and kindness than to "win" this or that contest.
Do we really mean that?
How often are people truly able to value the good person over the successful person? As a spouse? As a friend?
How often do we, by our very attitude, undermine that sentiment to our own children, when we emphasize measurable accomplishments while taking good behavior for granted or handing out only muted praise? How often do we ourselves model grace and compassion to our children?
Do we really mean that?
Next week is Rosh Hashanah. The ten Days of Awe will culminate in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It is traditionally a time of soul searching, seeking to repair our relationships both with G*d and with our fellow man. Let us examine what we truly value, both in others and in ourselves.
Let us recalibrate our yardstick by which we measure personal worth.
As I have discussed last week, this is true even for people with disabilities. Parents of developmentally delayed children gush about how much more intensely milestones are celebrated in proportion to the struggle to achieve them. We hail the trailblazers who accomplish great things in spite of disabilities and hardships.
But at some point in raising our children, usually when they are one-upping each other, we take them aside and tell them that it is more important to be good than smart/strong/first/etc. It is more important to show each other grace, compassion and kindness than to "win" this or that contest.
Do we really mean that?
How often are people truly able to value the good person over the successful person? As a spouse? As a friend?
How often do we, by our very attitude, undermine that sentiment to our own children, when we emphasize measurable accomplishments while taking good behavior for granted or handing out only muted praise? How often do we ourselves model grace and compassion to our children?
Do we really mean that?
Next week is Rosh Hashanah. The ten Days of Awe will culminate in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It is traditionally a time of soul searching, seeking to repair our relationships both with G*d and with our fellow man. Let us examine what we truly value, both in others and in ourselves.
Let us recalibrate our yardstick by which we measure personal worth.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Torah Connection - Ki Teitze
Another difficult parsha. I struggled with it all week, and now I need to start working on today's parsha..... so here goes!
This chapter contains rules that span many seemingly diverse topics, making it difficult to identify a coherent theme. Some of the rules cover aspects of sexuality in rather harsh terms: transvestism and transexuality are both condemned, virginity, marriage and rape are all simply parameters in the ownership of women, and certain ethnicities are excluded in perpetuity from intermarrying into the Jewish people. Nasty stuff.
On the other hand, there are these:
Compassion for humanity trumps "property rights" with respect to slaves, even in a society which accepted some forms of slavery. (Bear in mind also, that Leviticus already provided various protections for slaves, from codifying ethical treatment to legislating manumission on the Jubilee.)
Again, the needs of a hungry man override the property rights of the farmer, but not to the point of harvesting a significant crop -- just enough to sustain life.
What an important message for us to this day -- that we must be so attuned to others that we are not able to ignore their suffering and loss.
On the other hand, there are these:
Chapter 221 If you see your fellow's ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. 2 If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. 3 You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.Returning a lost animal or possession is seen as highly important. But the importance rests not in the value of the object, but in training ourselves in not remaining indifferent to suffering and loss.
4 If you see your fellow's ass or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him raise it. (emphasis mine)
8 When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it.Responsibility for others and their safety on your property. Is there a principle of accessibility here as well?
16 You shall not turn over to his master a slave who seeks refuge with you from his master. 17 He shall live with you in any place he may choose among the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not ill-treat him.
Compassion for humanity trumps "property rights" with respect to slaves, even in a society which accepted some forms of slavery. (Bear in mind also, that Leviticus already provided various protections for slaves, from codifying ethical treatment to legislating manumission on the Jubilee.)
25 When you enter another man's vineyard, you may eat as many grapes as you want, until you are full, but you must not put any in your vessel. 26 When you enter another man's field of standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand; but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor's grain.
Again, the needs of a hungry man override the property rights of the farmer, but not to the point of harvesting a significant crop -- just enough to sustain life.
14 You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countryman or a stranger in one of the communities of your land. 15 You must pay him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets, for he is needy and urgently depends on it; else he will cry to the Lord against you and you will incur guilt.Here we see the theme of ethical treatment of those most vulnerable members of society: the poor, the day-laborer, the stranger, the orphan and the widow. Again, we must not ignore the suffering in the world, but create mechanisms for the welfare and just treatment of those most likely to get "lost".
16 Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime.
17 You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the fatherless; you shall not take a widow's garment in pawn. 18 Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.
19 When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow — in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings.
20 When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 22 Always remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.
| 22:3 | You must do the same to a donkey, an article of clothing, or anything else that your brother loses and you find. You will not be able to ignore it. Vechen ta'aseh lachamoro vechen ta'aseh lesimlato vechen ta'aseh lechol-avedat achicha asher-tovad mimenu umetsatah lo tuchal lehit'alem. |
What an important message for us to this day -- that we must be so attuned to others that we are not able to ignore their suffering and loss.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Blogs I follow
There are a few blogs that I follow especially closely. I have read their stories back to the beginning of the blog, and have been following them for the past year and a half in real time.
First is the Musser family. Until their tenth child was born with Trisomy 21, they were just a large, rural, Christian family living in Amish country in Pennsylvania. Little Verity introduced her mom to the Down syndrome community, and opened her eyes to the plight of children with disabilities in foreign orphanages and institutions. While still learning the ropes of taking care of a special needs baby, they committed to adopting a little girl with T21 in Bulgaria. This child, whom they would name Katie, turned out to suffer from much more than a chromosomal variation. Warehoused in a substandard orphanage, she was literally starved, weighing less than 10 lbs. when they brought her home at almost 10 years of age. While they nurtured her and healed her from the years of neglect, the Mussers realized that many other children in the same institution are similarly suffering. Susanna Musser singlehandedly publicized the Pleven orphanage, inspiring dozens of families to adopt children with various disabilities from there, as well as bringing about structural changes in the orphanage itself. They recently adopted one more child from there themselves, a boy with Cerebral Palsy who was about to age out of the international adoption program. Susanna writes beautifully and passionately, not shying away from showing the tough side of special needs adoption, while also clearly portraying the beauty in it. She is highly motivated by her Christian faith, and refers to it often, but communicates her own experience independently of the New Testament quotes. She also includes many beautiful photographs of her lovely children.
Then there is the Alan family. Renee has professional background as a therapist, and she and her husband have fostered many children with and without disabilities before embarking on an adoption. They adopted a 5-year-old girl with severe Cerebral Palsy in early 2012. Unlike Susanna, Renee found her child's institution to be surprisingly good. The children appeared to be well taken care of, and well adjusted as a result. It was clear that they desperately needed families, though, as no opportunities awaited them once they would grow up. Like Susanna, she advocated tirelessly for the children she had met, until the vast majority of those eligible for adoption have been adopted. She writes in a more rambling, Hemingway-esque style, offering minute details and weaving multiple thoughts into each blog post. She also punctuates her writing with New Testament quotes, but the value of her writing is in the realistic picture she paints of the experience of special needs adoption. More recently she returned to Ukraine to adopt 3 more children with special needs, and has been writing extensively about FAS, CP, and other issues.
Finally, there is the Spring family. Their youngest child (from Leah's first marriage) has Trisomy 21. They were not expecting to conceive any more children, but after Leah traveled to Eastern Europe with her friend Shelley Bedford to assist with her adoption, they realized that adopting another child with T21 was the right choice for them. They have since adopted 3 boys from Serbia, all with T21. Like Susanna and Renee, Leah has been advocating for adoption of children from similar circumstances, in her case, Serbian orphans. Leah's writing is mostly conversational, offering a very comfortable perspective into her daily life. While she is also Christian, religion does not play a major role on her blog, which is refreshing!
There are many other stories I follow -- just look on the right side-bar! But these are the most consistently informative reads on this subject.
First is the Musser family. Until their tenth child was born with Trisomy 21, they were just a large, rural, Christian family living in Amish country in Pennsylvania. Little Verity introduced her mom to the Down syndrome community, and opened her eyes to the plight of children with disabilities in foreign orphanages and institutions. While still learning the ropes of taking care of a special needs baby, they committed to adopting a little girl with T21 in Bulgaria. This child, whom they would name Katie, turned out to suffer from much more than a chromosomal variation. Warehoused in a substandard orphanage, she was literally starved, weighing less than 10 lbs. when they brought her home at almost 10 years of age. While they nurtured her and healed her from the years of neglect, the Mussers realized that many other children in the same institution are similarly suffering. Susanna Musser singlehandedly publicized the Pleven orphanage, inspiring dozens of families to adopt children with various disabilities from there, as well as bringing about structural changes in the orphanage itself. They recently adopted one more child from there themselves, a boy with Cerebral Palsy who was about to age out of the international adoption program. Susanna writes beautifully and passionately, not shying away from showing the tough side of special needs adoption, while also clearly portraying the beauty in it. She is highly motivated by her Christian faith, and refers to it often, but communicates her own experience independently of the New Testament quotes. She also includes many beautiful photographs of her lovely children.
Then there is the Alan family. Renee has professional background as a therapist, and she and her husband have fostered many children with and without disabilities before embarking on an adoption. They adopted a 5-year-old girl with severe Cerebral Palsy in early 2012. Unlike Susanna, Renee found her child's institution to be surprisingly good. The children appeared to be well taken care of, and well adjusted as a result. It was clear that they desperately needed families, though, as no opportunities awaited them once they would grow up. Like Susanna, she advocated tirelessly for the children she had met, until the vast majority of those eligible for adoption have been adopted. She writes in a more rambling, Hemingway-esque style, offering minute details and weaving multiple thoughts into each blog post. She also punctuates her writing with New Testament quotes, but the value of her writing is in the realistic picture she paints of the experience of special needs adoption. More recently she returned to Ukraine to adopt 3 more children with special needs, and has been writing extensively about FAS, CP, and other issues.
Finally, there is the Spring family. Their youngest child (from Leah's first marriage) has Trisomy 21. They were not expecting to conceive any more children, but after Leah traveled to Eastern Europe with her friend Shelley Bedford to assist with her adoption, they realized that adopting another child with T21 was the right choice for them. They have since adopted 3 boys from Serbia, all with T21. Like Susanna and Renee, Leah has been advocating for adoption of children from similar circumstances, in her case, Serbian orphans. Leah's writing is mostly conversational, offering a very comfortable perspective into her daily life. While she is also Christian, religion does not play a major role on her blog, which is refreshing!
There are many other stories I follow -- just look on the right side-bar! But these are the most consistently informative reads on this subject.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Psalm 80:15-20
Seems like a double-meaning on the word אִמַּצְתָּ. Most translations, both Jewish and Christian, render it as "strengthened", but in common usage it means "adopted". Hmmm.
:טו. אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת שׁוּב נָא הַבֵּט מִשָּׁמַיִם וּרְאֵה וּפְקֹד גֶּפֶן זֹאת
:טז. וְכַנָּה אֲשֶׁר נָטְעָה יְמִינֶךָ וְעַל בֵּן אִמַּצְתָּה לָּךְ
:יז. שְׂרֻפָה בָאֵשׁ כְּסוּחָה מִגַּעֲרַת פָּנֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ
:יח. תְּהִי יָדְךָ עַל אִישׁ יְמִינֶךָ עַל בֶּן אָדָם אִמַּצְתָּ לָּךְ
:יט. וְלֹא נָסוֹג מִמֶּךָּ תְּחַיֵּינוּ וּבְשִׁמְךָ נִקְרָא
:כ. יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ הָאֵר פָּנֶיךָ וְנִוָּשֵׁעָה
Sunday, August 18, 2013
An easy life
We were visiting a friend in Pardes Hanna yesterday, and talked about our tentative plans to one day move back to Israel. He said, "Life in Israel is not easy."
It's true. Cost of living is higher here in comparison with average salaries, security is always an issue, and our children would be subject to military service, with all that that entails. Life here is not easy.
"But," said my husband, "there are things here which are very worthwhile, and which we want our children to have as part of their growing up."
The sense of belonging. The sense of owning one's history. The sense of really being part of the extended Jewish family. Even the connection to our own extended family here. All of these are worth taking extra risks and making the extra effort of a "not easy life".
Many other things in life are "not easy", but are so very worthwhile.
The "good life" is not necessarily the "easy life".
"Hard" is not "bad".
It's true. Cost of living is higher here in comparison with average salaries, security is always an issue, and our children would be subject to military service, with all that that entails. Life here is not easy.
"But," said my husband, "there are things here which are very worthwhile, and which we want our children to have as part of their growing up."
The sense of belonging. The sense of owning one's history. The sense of really being part of the extended Jewish family. Even the connection to our own extended family here. All of these are worth taking extra risks and making the extra effort of a "not easy life".
Many other things in life are "not easy", but are so very worthwhile.
The "good life" is not necessarily the "easy life".
"Hard" is not "bad".
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Ethical Risk
After Shabbat dinner with my Israeli aunts, uncles and cousins (and assorted children), we had a lively conversation on a variety of topics, ranging from politics to child rearing, from gluten-free cooking to history and speculations about Armageddon.
One of my cousins was recounting his personal experience in the Israeli army, hunting down terrorists who were using "human shields". That is, instead of protecting civilians from the risk of being caught in the crossfire by providing shelters away from the fighting, they shoot at the Israeli soldiers from populated civilian homes and neighborhoods, often specifically surrounding themselves with civilians. My cousin explained that any other army in the world would consider it acceptable wartime ethics to call out on a loudspeaker that all civilians should evacuate the premises, and then bomb the $#%& out of the buildings involved. Not so the IDF. My cousin and his peers were required - by Israeli rules of engagement - to enter the buildings and pick out the targeted individuals while sparing civilians. Mind you that these targeted terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, but guerrillas who are dressed in civilian attire (except for the automatic weapons they are carrying), and often wear masks or keffiyehs over their faces to obscure their identities. Fighting under these circumstances inevitably results in greater Israeli casualties, but the Israeli army considers this risk worth the civilian lives which are saved - even enemy civilians!
Once again: Standard Israeli policy is that saving enemy civilian life warrants risking the lives of Israeli soldiers.
====================================
How many children with disabilities are dying of malnutrition and lack of medical care around the world, not because they have ever threatened anyone, but merely because their lives are not considered valuable by the societies into which they were born?
Is there a risk associated with adopting such children? Is there a risk associated with volunteering with organizations that seek to improve conditions in the orphanages? Is there a risk associated with working to bring about social change, so that people with disabilities are seen as equal members of the human race?
Yes, there are risks associated with taking a stand for something. That risk may be as mild as the foregone opportunities for personal advancement, or as severe as long-term negative impact on one's family. Yes, these are risks, which must not be ignored! But can they be compared to the risk an Israeli soldier assumes when he goes into battle, putting his own life on the line to protect, not just his own countrymen, but the civilians on the other side, who are (voluntarily or under duress) harboring the very terrorists he is fighting? Not even remotely!
Now I am certainly not saying that we should seek to live our lives on the level of heroism practiced by Israeli soldiers (who, after all that, are almost universally vilified as war criminals!). But the ethical principles which drive the policy of putting vulnerable lives ahead of our own, taking on risks when we are able to in order to save those who are not able to save themselves, are ones which we can and should apply to our civilian lives.
How can we ask our soldiers to risk their lives for something that we are not even willing to risk material losses or temporary discomfort?
One of my cousins was recounting his personal experience in the Israeli army, hunting down terrorists who were using "human shields". That is, instead of protecting civilians from the risk of being caught in the crossfire by providing shelters away from the fighting, they shoot at the Israeli soldiers from populated civilian homes and neighborhoods, often specifically surrounding themselves with civilians. My cousin explained that any other army in the world would consider it acceptable wartime ethics to call out on a loudspeaker that all civilians should evacuate the premises, and then bomb the $#%& out of the buildings involved. Not so the IDF. My cousin and his peers were required - by Israeli rules of engagement - to enter the buildings and pick out the targeted individuals while sparing civilians. Mind you that these targeted terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, but guerrillas who are dressed in civilian attire (except for the automatic weapons they are carrying), and often wear masks or keffiyehs over their faces to obscure their identities. Fighting under these circumstances inevitably results in greater Israeli casualties, but the Israeli army considers this risk worth the civilian lives which are saved - even enemy civilians!
Once again: Standard Israeli policy is that saving enemy civilian life warrants risking the lives of Israeli soldiers.
====================================
How many children with disabilities are dying of malnutrition and lack of medical care around the world, not because they have ever threatened anyone, but merely because their lives are not considered valuable by the societies into which they were born?
Is there a risk associated with adopting such children? Is there a risk associated with volunteering with organizations that seek to improve conditions in the orphanages? Is there a risk associated with working to bring about social change, so that people with disabilities are seen as equal members of the human race?
Yes, there are risks associated with taking a stand for something. That risk may be as mild as the foregone opportunities for personal advancement, or as severe as long-term negative impact on one's family. Yes, these are risks, which must not be ignored! But can they be compared to the risk an Israeli soldier assumes when he goes into battle, putting his own life on the line to protect, not just his own countrymen, but the civilians on the other side, who are (voluntarily or under duress) harboring the very terrorists he is fighting? Not even remotely!
Now I am certainly not saying that we should seek to live our lives on the level of heroism practiced by Israeli soldiers (who, after all that, are almost universally vilified as war criminals!). But the ethical principles which drive the policy of putting vulnerable lives ahead of our own, taking on risks when we are able to in order to save those who are not able to save themselves, are ones which we can and should apply to our civilian lives.
How can we ask our soldiers to risk their lives for something that we are not even willing to risk material losses or temporary discomfort?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Ableism and Disableism Part 2
I realize that in my previous post, I talked about ableism, but what is dis-ableism?
There seem to be two contradictory streams in disability advocacy. One says (as I pointed out last time),
While the other says,
Of course, the two statements are not necessarily contradictory: People have value as individuals, and should STILL be celebrated for their accomplishments. People should be treated as equals, AND be given the opportunity to develop their abilities, whatever those are. As I said in the comments, I am severely nearsighted. I would NOT want society to "value" my disability by refusing to treat it. Technology -- from simple eyeglasses to laser surgery -- has made it possible for my disability to be fully mainstreamed. There are very rare occasions when it gets in my way. Yesterday I did some tubing with my daughter, so I had to leave my glasses behind. I was dependent on her to recognize the motorboat driver. That is not a disability "because society defines it as such" -- it is something very useful that I was not able to do for myself. I imagine that it is similar with most disabilities: They can be compensated for by increased dependence on others in society, either individually or collectively. And certainly, dependence on others is preferable to isolation -- if I could not find the motorboat driver, I would have missed the ride! Society should absolutely work on inclusion and valuing all individuals regardless of ability. But valuing individuals with disabilities is NOT THE SAME as valuing the disabilities themselves. Options should be offered for people with disabilities to ameliorate them, just as options are available for nearsightedness. Not all people would choose them. There are some people with mild vision problems who choose not to use corrective technologies. But that is an individual choice. Likewise, society should strive to give people with other disabilities options for overcoming those disabilities. These may well include societal changes, but most people benefit from actual treatment, as well. Refusing to treat disability under the guise of "valuing" it is what I think of as dis-ableism.
Part of this feeds into the value we assign to "diversity". What does diversity mean? I don't really think that people are truly capable of "celebrating diversity", nor would it necessarily be good if we did. Diversity refers to a collection of "others". In an inclusive society, we see each other's common humanity first, and the differences as minor. But that means that the commonality is what is valued. We find the differences interesting, but not crucial. However, even in a closed society, there are many differences which are discounted. In both cases, it is not the "other" which is celebrated! It is just different characteristics which are "othered". Basically, a community that values diversity maximizes that which it sees as common, and minimizes that which is seen as "other". But that which is seen as "other" is still shunned, not celebrated (e.g. a Republican at most Liberal colleges....) If we see people with disabilities as "other", then ableism is a justification for discrimination. However, if we see them as "same" as anyone else, then ableism can spur research and development of technologies and therapies that expand the options available to people who would otherwise be dependent on others (individually or collectively) to function equally in society.
People with disabilities are CAPABLE!
Their ABILITIES are worth celebrating!
Look at all that our kids CAN DO!
There seem to be two contradictory streams in disability advocacy. One says (as I pointed out last time),
Never mind what these children cannot do -- look at all they CAN do!
While the other says,
It's not about ability at all! They have value as individuals even if they can do nothing at all!Which camp you are in affects which treatments you will pursue, which educational opportunities you will endorse, and in general color every aspect of your advocacy.
Of course, the two statements are not necessarily contradictory: People have value as individuals, and should STILL be celebrated for their accomplishments. People should be treated as equals, AND be given the opportunity to develop their abilities, whatever those are. As I said in the comments, I am severely nearsighted. I would NOT want society to "value" my disability by refusing to treat it. Technology -- from simple eyeglasses to laser surgery -- has made it possible for my disability to be fully mainstreamed. There are very rare occasions when it gets in my way. Yesterday I did some tubing with my daughter, so I had to leave my glasses behind. I was dependent on her to recognize the motorboat driver. That is not a disability "because society defines it as such" -- it is something very useful that I was not able to do for myself. I imagine that it is similar with most disabilities: They can be compensated for by increased dependence on others in society, either individually or collectively. And certainly, dependence on others is preferable to isolation -- if I could not find the motorboat driver, I would have missed the ride! Society should absolutely work on inclusion and valuing all individuals regardless of ability. But valuing individuals with disabilities is NOT THE SAME as valuing the disabilities themselves. Options should be offered for people with disabilities to ameliorate them, just as options are available for nearsightedness. Not all people would choose them. There are some people with mild vision problems who choose not to use corrective technologies. But that is an individual choice. Likewise, society should strive to give people with other disabilities options for overcoming those disabilities. These may well include societal changes, but most people benefit from actual treatment, as well. Refusing to treat disability under the guise of "valuing" it is what I think of as dis-ableism.
Part of this feeds into the value we assign to "diversity". What does diversity mean? I don't really think that people are truly capable of "celebrating diversity", nor would it necessarily be good if we did. Diversity refers to a collection of "others". In an inclusive society, we see each other's common humanity first, and the differences as minor. But that means that the commonality is what is valued. We find the differences interesting, but not crucial. However, even in a closed society, there are many differences which are discounted. In both cases, it is not the "other" which is celebrated! It is just different characteristics which are "othered". Basically, a community that values diversity maximizes that which it sees as common, and minimizes that which is seen as "other". But that which is seen as "other" is still shunned, not celebrated (e.g. a Republican at most Liberal colleges....) If we see people with disabilities as "other", then ableism is a justification for discrimination. However, if we see them as "same" as anyone else, then ableism can spur research and development of technologies and therapies that expand the options available to people who would otherwise be dependent on others (individually or collectively) to function equally in society.
People with disabilities are CAPABLE!
Their ABILITIES are worth celebrating!
Look at all that our kids CAN DO!
Torah Connection - Shoftim
Posting from Israel! Parshat Shoftim (Judges), read this past Saturday, discusses various issues in the application of justice: How judges are appointed and regulated, how crimes of various sorts are tried and prosecuted, etc.
One aspect of the biblical justice system was the use of Refuge Cities for accidental killers. These are people who, without evil intent, caused the death of an innocent life. They are not criminals, but friends and family of the victims would surely seek vengeance if they could. The accidental killers are therefore given the option of fleeing to one of 6 Refuge Cities where they will be safe from their pursuers.
Rabbi Kamenetsky observes that in addition to building these Refuge Cities, the ancient Israelites were specifically commanded to put up directional signs towards them:
He then asks,
This really resonated for me. The internet provides a medium for people to offer their stories either openly or anonymously. Both modes provide "directions" for others. Doing so anonymously means that people can get the information they need with no embarrassment. On the other hand, doing so openly creates opportunities for people to connect more deeply, inspiring each other in ever-widening circles of FaceBook friends.
One aspect of the biblical justice system was the use of Refuge Cities for accidental killers. These are people who, without evil intent, caused the death of an innocent life. They are not criminals, but friends and family of the victims would surely seek vengeance if they could. The accidental killers are therefore given the option of fleeing to one of 6 Refuge Cities where they will be safe from their pursuers.
Rabbi Kamenetsky observes that in addition to building these Refuge Cities, the ancient Israelites were specifically commanded to put up directional signs towards them:
In an unprecedented command, it establishes a highway commission, telling us, "Prepare the way for yourself, … and it shall be for any murderer to flee there (ibid v.3)
Rashi quotes the Talmud in Makos that there were signs posted at each crossroad pointing and declaring, "Refuge! Refuge!" each pointing the way to the nearest refuge city.
He then asks,
But, why? If road signs should be erected, shouldn't they be for Jerusalem, guiding the thousands of tri-annual travelers from the north and south who journeyed there for the shalosh regalim? Why should cities that house manslaughter offenders, get guideposts while the holiest city of Israel doesn't?He concludes that the point is that people who would need directions, either to the Refuge Cities or to Jerusalem, would need to ask directions of other people, either residents or fellow travelers. Asking for directions to a Refuge City (with the implication that one is a killer, albeit accidentally) is demoralizing, both for the person asking and the person giving directions. Making a pilgrimage, however, is uplifting -- perhaps the other person would be inspired to join along, or prepare for a future pilgrimage? So putting up signs towards the Refuge Cities spares those travelers the embarrassment of dredging up the past just when they need to turn over a new leaf, while having to ask directions to Jerusalem gives pilgrims an opportunity to spread the word.
This really resonated for me. The internet provides a medium for people to offer their stories either openly or anonymously. Both modes provide "directions" for others. Doing so anonymously means that people can get the information they need with no embarrassment. On the other hand, doing so openly creates opportunities for people to connect more deeply, inspiring each other in ever-widening circles of FaceBook friends.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Ableism and Disableism
I struggle with the concept of ableism.
On the one hand, it is clear that people with disabilities should be valued as people, and not denied inclusion in society because of their disabilities.
At the same time, denying that disability is inherently worse than ability seems counterproductive.
All people have strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses can hold us back if we don't find ways to either address them or work around them. They pose challenges for us. In a very real sense, our weaknesses are disabilities, even if we are considered able-bodied. In this sense, there are many disabilities within the "typical" spectrum:
Ability is valuable even in the context of disability, and disability advocacy: "Never mind what our children cannot do, look at all that they CAN do!" is certainly a celebration of ability, not disability, even as the people themselves are celebrated. Nobody actually celebrates disability itself, although we frequently celebrate strengths which were developed in response to the disability.
We also instinctively admire those with "extra" ability. We fantasize about superheroes. We admire the accomplishments of Olympic athletes and Nobel laureates. For that matter, we greatly admire wheelchair marathoners and college graduates with Down syndrome.
Ableism is bad when it leads to de-humanization of people with disabilities. It can be a positive force for achieving full equality and inclusion when it motivates both scientific and societal mechanisms for restoring abilities to those who would otherwise be dependent on the accommodations of others.
On the one hand, it is clear that people with disabilities should be valued as people, and not denied inclusion in society because of their disabilities.
At the same time, denying that disability is inherently worse than ability seems counterproductive.
All people have strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses can hold us back if we don't find ways to either address them or work around them. They pose challenges for us. In a very real sense, our weaknesses are disabilities, even if we are considered able-bodied. In this sense, there are many disabilities within the "typical" spectrum:
- Nearsightedness
- Lisp
- Tone-deafness
- Bad manners
- Poor time management
- Disorganization
- Chronic halitosis
- Innumeracy
- Obesity
- Bad temper
- Poor integrity
- Addiction
I have personally had about half of these at some point or another in my life. For some I required medical or therapeutic assistance, others I struggled to overcome on my own, and others I have learned to live with, either making allowances for myself, or dealing with the consequences of my own shortcomings. Society, for its part, makes some accommodations for some of these (e.g. providing "tip-tables" to compensate for people's innumeracy), but in every case, I have been happier with the results when I was able to overcome/compensate for my disabilities myself rather than relying on others to do so.
Those are the options before people with recognized disabilities, as well. For example, a mobility handicap can be compensated for with wheelchairs, but only if society provides fairly universal accessibility. If the possibility exists to enable a mobility-impaired person to walk, that would clearly expand that person's options: S/he can hike off-road, participate in sports, and not be stuck if the elevator is broken. Seeking societal accommodation and acceptance does not preclude fixing the impairment! Offering a cure or treatment increases people's options, even as we work towards greater inclusion. A few generations ago, a nearsighted student would need a seat at the front of the class. Today, eyeglass use is nearly universally available in developed countries, allowing nearsighted people to participate equally in nearly all activities.
Ability is valuable even in the context of disability, and disability advocacy: "Never mind what our children cannot do, look at all that they CAN do!" is certainly a celebration of ability, not disability, even as the people themselves are celebrated. Nobody actually celebrates disability itself, although we frequently celebrate strengths which were developed in response to the disability.
We also instinctively admire those with "extra" ability. We fantasize about superheroes. We admire the accomplishments of Olympic athletes and Nobel laureates. For that matter, we greatly admire wheelchair marathoners and college graduates with Down syndrome.
Ableism is bad when it leads to de-humanization of people with disabilities. It can be a positive force for achieving full equality and inclusion when it motivates both scientific and societal mechanisms for restoring abilities to those who would otherwise be dependent on the accommodations of others.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Torah Connection - Re'eh
Woo-hoo, finally caught up to yesterday's reading! This parsha continues to hold the sticks and carrots of divine justice, focusing mostly on avoiding idolatry, but also interpersonal relationships.
One important relationship is how a society treats its poor. Interestingly, this parsha says the following about the poor:
First, in Deuteronomy 15:4-5:
And yet, only 2 verses later, we read:
First, we are promised that if only we follow the commandments, there will be no poor people. Then we are told that actually, there might be poor people sometimes, and that we must take care of them. Finally, it is admitted that there will always be poor people, no matter what.
Perhaps the key is the word used, אֶבְיוֹן (evyon). This word is not the common word for "poor person", which is עֲנִי (ani). We use this literary term on Purim. עֲנִי is related to the word for "humble", and refers to material poverty. אֶבְיוֹן is translated as "needy", and is related to the word for "desire". The word conjures a more desperate state of poverty than עֲנִי but that might be more related to the state of mind of the אֶבְיוֹן than his actual means.
It is interesting, then, that the first two excerpts above refer only to אֶבְיוֹן and not to עֲנִי, while the last excerpt includes both. Economic cycles rise and fall, and people may find themselves objectively poor, without considering themselves needy. Understood in this context, the three excerpts offer this understanding of poverty:
1. If you follow the commandments and pay attention to the divine, you will be aware of your blessings, and thus will never view yourself as needy - אֶבְיוֹן.
2. If you see a person in need, be it a brother or just someone in your community, do not hold back from helping him. The emotional distress of the אֶבְיוֹן is real, and can hold him back from recovering from poverty. Verse 8 specifically says that we are to fulfill the "need which is wanted":
דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ
It is not for us to judge them and say, "you don't really need that, you're just whining". No, the need is real even in this case. And "hardening thy heart" is the wrong response to human suffering!
3. There will always be people who feel needy, even in the richest societies. The poorest people in the U.S. live far better than average folks in the third world. "Welfare queens" live in homes with indoor plumbing, electricity, television, and cellphones. This fact should not prevent us from helping them. We are commanded to help the poor, not to judge them. It is in this excerpt that the עֲנִי is included. This is to remind us that it is very hard from the outside to judge the person's need. Most evyonim are legitimately poor, and many poor are too embarrassed to seek help. So this commandment reminds us, once again, to give abundantly (פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת-יָדְךָ) to the poor of all sorts.
One important relationship is how a society treats its poor. Interestingly, this parsha says the following about the poor:
First, in Deuteronomy 15:4-5:
And yet, only 2 verses later, we read:
| יא כִּי לֹא-יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן, מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ; עַל-כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ לֵאמֹר, פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת-יָדְךָ לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ, בְּאַרְצֶךָ. | 11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying: 'Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto thy poor and needy brother, in thy land.' |
First, we are promised that if only we follow the commandments, there will be no poor people. Then we are told that actually, there might be poor people sometimes, and that we must take care of them. Finally, it is admitted that there will always be poor people, no matter what.
Perhaps the key is the word used, אֶבְיוֹן (evyon). This word is not the common word for "poor person", which is עֲנִי (ani). We use this literary term on Purim. עֲנִי is related to the word for "humble", and refers to material poverty. אֶבְיוֹן is translated as "needy", and is related to the word for "desire". The word conjures a more desperate state of poverty than עֲנִי but that might be more related to the state of mind of the אֶבְיוֹן than his actual means.
It is interesting, then, that the first two excerpts above refer only to אֶבְיוֹן and not to עֲנִי, while the last excerpt includes both. Economic cycles rise and fall, and people may find themselves objectively poor, without considering themselves needy. Understood in this context, the three excerpts offer this understanding of poverty:
1. If you follow the commandments and pay attention to the divine, you will be aware of your blessings, and thus will never view yourself as needy - אֶבְיוֹן.
2. If you see a person in need, be it a brother or just someone in your community, do not hold back from helping him. The emotional distress of the אֶבְיוֹן is real, and can hold him back from recovering from poverty. Verse 8 specifically says that we are to fulfill the "need which is wanted":
דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ
It is not for us to judge them and say, "you don't really need that, you're just whining". No, the need is real even in this case. And "hardening thy heart" is the wrong response to human suffering!
3. There will always be people who feel needy, even in the richest societies. The poorest people in the U.S. live far better than average folks in the third world. "Welfare queens" live in homes with indoor plumbing, electricity, television, and cellphones. This fact should not prevent us from helping them. We are commanded to help the poor, not to judge them. It is in this excerpt that the עֲנִי is included. This is to remind us that it is very hard from the outside to judge the person's need. Most evyonim are legitimately poor, and many poor are too embarrassed to seek help. So this commandment reminds us, once again, to give abundantly (פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת-יָדְךָ) to the poor of all sorts.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Torah Connection - Eikev
Parshat Eikev features the second blessing after the Shema:
Deuteronomy 11:13-21:
The idea of rewards and punishments vis-a-vis observance of the commandments is the theme of this reading. I'd like to focus on two pairs of verses, which seem to be in counterpoint to each other. In Deuteronomy 7:17-18, we read:
Then, in Deuteronomy 8:17-18:
Both excerpts -- with the same verse numbers, ending on 18 (the number of Life) -- concern themselves with that which we "say in our heart". While most commandments refer to actions, here we look at our intentions and our innermost thoughts.
In fact, the two excerpts look at the two extremes of self-talk. In the first instance, we see despair, low self-esteem, and a sense of impotence: "My challenges are too great, I cannot overcome them." In the second, we see arrogance and hubris: "My success is all due to my own excellence!" Both of these are extremely common human reactions in the face of struggles and victories.
And what is Moses' response to both attitudes? "Remember the Lord your G*d." -- keep things in perspective, it's not all about you. There is a slight difference in emphasis, though. When we are feeling down on ourselves, we are directed to recall past victories. Just as G*d got us through the enslavement in Egypt (and many, many other trials and tribulations), so we can expect that He will see us through whatever we are facing, as long as we do so in accordance with the commandments. Perspsective. When we are feeling full of ourselves, on the other hand, we are reminded that it is not all about us. Not only do we owe our strengths and opportunities to G*d, but we are indebted to "our fathers" -- those who came before us and made it possible for us to accomplish great things. It is still our success, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Perspective.
Deuteronomy 11:13-21:
The idea of rewards and punishments vis-a-vis observance of the commandments is the theme of this reading. I'd like to focus on two pairs of verses, which seem to be in counterpoint to each other. In Deuteronomy 7:17-18, we read:
Then, in Deuteronomy 8:17-18:
Both excerpts -- with the same verse numbers, ending on 18 (the number of Life) -- concern themselves with that which we "say in our heart". While most commandments refer to actions, here we look at our intentions and our innermost thoughts.
In fact, the two excerpts look at the two extremes of self-talk. In the first instance, we see despair, low self-esteem, and a sense of impotence: "My challenges are too great, I cannot overcome them." In the second, we see arrogance and hubris: "My success is all due to my own excellence!" Both of these are extremely common human reactions in the face of struggles and victories.
And what is Moses' response to both attitudes? "Remember the Lord your G*d." -- keep things in perspective, it's not all about you. There is a slight difference in emphasis, though. When we are feeling down on ourselves, we are directed to recall past victories. Just as G*d got us through the enslavement in Egypt (and many, many other trials and tribulations), so we can expect that He will see us through whatever we are facing, as long as we do so in accordance with the commandments. Perspsective. When we are feeling full of ourselves, on the other hand, we are reminded that it is not all about us. Not only do we owe our strengths and opportunities to G*d, but we are indebted to "our fathers" -- those who came before us and made it possible for us to accomplish great things. It is still our success, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Perspective.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Disability advocacy
Anyone who is deep in the trenches of an advocacy movement - whether based on race, gender, religion, disability, or anything else - is faced daily with the question of How Much Advocacy? When do I speak up and correct someone's offensive word usage and when do I let it go, either because the context is inappropriate or because the offender is just not worth wasting time and energy on? When do I make an extra push to make the system work for me, and when do I just find ways around the problem?
When is the best advocacy Just Living a Normal Life?
When is the best advocacy Just Living a Normal Life?
Torah Connection - Va'etkhanan
In this parsha (I'm almost caught up!) we read the reprise of the Ten Commandments, as well as the Shema prayer.
Why are we commanded to love G*d? What does that even mean?! Is it not enough that we do what we are supposed to? How can we love something like G*d, which we can't even fathom? How can we be commanded to love in the first place? Isn't love something that is just inspired within us? How can we love intentionally if the feeling is not there? If the knowledge of G*d's awesomeness does not inspire love, how can we fulfill this commandment?
Rabbi Menken addresses this in a way that I find has great relevance. First, we must study Torah, to give us the background and the basis for love. But that is just preparation for love. Then, we must perform Mitzvot - commandments - with the intention of forging a true love. This is a lifelong process:
This sounds a lot like how our love for our children develops, especially in adoption! We read, think, plan and prepare for a child, and in some cases this creates profound, intense love for the child before s/he arrives. In many cases, however, parents struggle to bond to their child. Post-partum depression is very common, and a similar phenomenon is even more common in adoption. As we do the day-to-day tasks of caring for and nurturing him/her, our love emerges.
The same is true in marriages, as well. As Tevye's wife Golde sings in Fiddler on the Roof:
It is through the struggles and the joys of life together that the bonds of love are forged. Many people think that this view of marriage is outdated, belonging to the era of arranged marriages. However, even a couple who marries after falling in love experiences a transformation through the commitment to work through low points in the relationship. Falling in love is the preparation for love. The love itself is in the doing. The love of a couple who has stuck it out "for better or worse" is very different from one that is based on honeymoon-like self-gratification.
'I Myself am establishing a covenant with you and your offspring after you.
Va'ani hineni mekim et-beriti itechem ve'et-zar'achem achareychem.
4 Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.7 Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; 9 inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Why are we commanded to love G*d? What does that even mean?! Is it not enough that we do what we are supposed to? How can we love something like G*d, which we can't even fathom? How can we be commanded to love in the first place? Isn't love something that is just inspired within us? How can we love intentionally if the feeling is not there? If the knowledge of G*d's awesomeness does not inspire love, how can we fulfill this commandment?
Rabbi Menken addresses this in a way that I find has great relevance. First, we must study Torah, to give us the background and the basis for love. But that is just preparation for love. Then, we must perform Mitzvot - commandments - with the intention of forging a true love. This is a lifelong process:
It is certainly possible for a person to learn for a while, do some Mitzvos, and wonder why he or she doesn't feel more. Isn't the sky supposed to open up, or something similarly profound supposed to happen? The answer is that nothing like that is guaranteed, or even expected. Judaism isn't about leaps of faith, but about slow, logical steps, a progression of ongoing development and self-perfection. This is something that lasts a lifetime -- the obligation isn't to feel everything tomorrow, but to begin taking the necessary steps to achieve that feeling, today!
This sounds a lot like how our love for our children develops, especially in adoption! We read, think, plan and prepare for a child, and in some cases this creates profound, intense love for the child before s/he arrives. In many cases, however, parents struggle to bond to their child. Post-partum depression is very common, and a similar phenomenon is even more common in adoption. As we do the day-to-day tasks of caring for and nurturing him/her, our love emerges.
The same is true in marriages, as well. As Tevye's wife Golde sings in Fiddler on the Roof:
For twenty-five years I've lived with him
Fought him, starved with him
Twenty-five years my bed is his
If that's not love, what is?
It is through the struggles and the joys of life together that the bonds of love are forged. Many people think that this view of marriage is outdated, belonging to the era of arranged marriages. However, even a couple who marries after falling in love experiences a transformation through the commitment to work through low points in the relationship. Falling in love is the preparation for love. The love itself is in the doing. The love of a couple who has stuck it out "for better or worse" is very different from one that is based on honeymoon-like self-gratification.
Another reading of this passage makes the connection even clearer. The verse reads:
וְאָהַבְתּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.
The word אֵת is usually just a connector for a direct object. However, it can be used poetically to mean "with". In that sense, the verse reads,
And you shall love, together with the Lord your G*d, with all your heart and with all you soul and with all your might.
And you shall love. We are commanded to love, together with G*d. We are commanded to love our neighbor, as s/he is loved by G*d. We are commanded to love the spark of the divine within each person. What does it mean to love G*d? It means to love people, who are loved by G*d and are in the image of G*d.
I blogged about the double-meaning of אֵת before. It was nearly a year ago. I had to search to find the context for that post, and I must say, I did a double-take.
'I Myself am establishing a covenant with you and your offspring after you.
Va'ani hineni mekim et-beriti itechem ve'et-zar'achem achareychem.
Here the word is usually translated "with" and I chose to re-read it as a direct object connector. But what is the context? The divine covenant with..... our children.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Torah Connection - Devarim
The name of this parsha - "Devarim" - is from the same root as "Aseret ha-Dibrot" (The Ten Commandments). It means "words", or "speakings". Given how behind I am right now, I'll just link to this eloquent drash on this connection.
My favorite excerpt:
My favorite excerpt:
Human speech creates and destroys. With words we can paint unframed pictures that are only limited by the extent of our imagination. With words we create realities of emotion. Words generate love, fear, hatred and courage. Where desire does not exist words can often generate it.
Ambition and determination, success and failure, reputation and its undoing are all the products of words. With words we wound and with words we heal. War and peace can rise and fall on the power of words.
Fear
When I was 14, I went to summer camp where we did week-long outdoor adventures. I signed up for one week camping, one week canoeing, and one week rock-climbing.
On the last day of the rock-climbing trip, I was about 30 feet up the cliff, with another 10 or so feet to go. The only way to get to the next ledge was to walk up a crack.
Walk up a crack?
The counselor who was belaying me coached me: "You put your fingers in the crack, lean back, and walk up the rock on the other side."
You do WHAT????
I put my fingers in the crack, and tentatively leaned back. No way. No how. No way in heck are my fingers going to hold up my weight. He's nuts.
"Put your feet on the rock in front of you!"
Um, no. I am not a spider, or an insect, or a squirrel. I do not walk up vertical surfaces. Just to prove to him that he is totally insane to suggest such a thing, I put my foot on the rock and "tried". I fell, and he broke my fall with the rope. I landed back on the ledge. "This is high enough, please just rappel me down!"
"No, you can do this. Put your feet up higher."
For an hour we were at an impasse. He coached me and encouraged me, and I stood there, paralyzed. I can't do this I can't do this I can't do this I can't....... He would not let me back out. We would be there all day. I was tired. I was embarrassed. I was hungry. I was sweaty. My sweaty fingers felt less and less able to do what he was telling me to do, over and over, patiently and insistently.
I put my fingers in the crack, put my feet up about waist high, and pushed back with my legs against my wedged hands. Hand-over-hand, foot-over-foot, up the vertical cliff:
He was right. I could do it. I just needed someone to belay me, coach me, and not let me give in to my fears.
On the last day of the rock-climbing trip, I was about 30 feet up the cliff, with another 10 or so feet to go. The only way to get to the next ledge was to walk up a crack.
Walk up a crack?
The counselor who was belaying me coached me: "You put your fingers in the crack, lean back, and walk up the rock on the other side."
You do WHAT????
I put my fingers in the crack, and tentatively leaned back. No way. No how. No way in heck are my fingers going to hold up my weight. He's nuts.
"Put your feet on the rock in front of you!"
Um, no. I am not a spider, or an insect, or a squirrel. I do not walk up vertical surfaces. Just to prove to him that he is totally insane to suggest such a thing, I put my foot on the rock and "tried". I fell, and he broke my fall with the rope. I landed back on the ledge. "This is high enough, please just rappel me down!"
"No, you can do this. Put your feet up higher."
For an hour we were at an impasse. He coached me and encouraged me, and I stood there, paralyzed. I can't do this I can't do this I can't do this I can't....... He would not let me back out. We would be there all day. I was tired. I was embarrassed. I was hungry. I was sweaty. My sweaty fingers felt less and less able to do what he was telling me to do, over and over, patiently and insistently.
I put my fingers in the crack, put my feet up about waist high, and pushed back with my legs against my wedged hands. Hand-over-hand, foot-over-foot, up the vertical cliff:
 |
| (No, this is not me...) |
He was right. I could do it. I just needed someone to belay me, coach me, and not let me give in to my fears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)