The Semiotics of Kneeling

The NFL has announced a new rule banning players from kneeling during the National Anthem. If they don't wish to stand, they can wait in the locker room.

I'm not the first to observe that maybe all those who've spent the past few years fretting about snowflake college students who furiously demand protection from offensive speech might maybe asked to spare a note of protest here.

But now is as good a time as any to remind people that when Colin Kaepernick elected to kneel during the National Anthem, it was explicitly not intended as a signal of disrespect to the country or to the flag. Indeed, he adopted that particular mode of protest precisely because it communicated his message in a respectful manner.

The act of kneeling was suggested to Kaepernick by military veteran and fellow NFLer Nate Boyer, as an alternative to sitting during the anthem. Unlike staying seating, kneeling is almost always associated with a form of respect -- even deference. Prior to Kaepernick, the most likely reason you'd see someone kneeling on a sporting field is if there is an injury (I distinctively remember doing it during youth soccer). Obviously, nobody thinks that kneeling there is meant as a form of taunting or abuse. Rather, it's designed to signal "somebody is hurt, and we are acknowledging their hurt -- we're not going to simply carry on as if this isn't happening."

This semiotic meaning of kneeling was explicitly what Kaepernick was drawing on. Boyer drew the connection to soldiers who knelt before the grave of a fallen comrade -- again, a show of respect. The idea was to communicate that in America right now Black people are hurting, that there is an injury, and we need to respect and acknowledge that. On face, this should have been quite familiar precisely because it drew upon a practice that any sports fan is well-acquainted with and which carries an easy parallel to the point Kaepernick was trying to make. That it is now being presented as something different -- an act of defiance or disrespect -- isn't even a communicative misfire: it is a conscious attempt to replace an otherwise clear and powerful message with a different, more easily dismissed meaning.

Kneeling during the pledge is not a form of flouting or turning one's back on America anymore than kneeling during an injury represents a disavowal of the injured player. And this also explains why staying in the locker room does not suffice as an adequate substitute for kneeling -- it lacks, ironically enough, the posture of respectful public engagement communicated by kneeling.

I've written a whole article about what the Book of Job, and other instances of biblical protest, can tell us about contemporary political disputes. Early in the Book of Job, as Job is forced to endure ever-more terrible torments, his wife urges him to simply turn his back: "Curse God, and die." But Job never does this. Job is a story of a man abused by God who protests this treatment, struggles against it, demands explanation for it -- but who never, ever cuts his relationship with God. To the contrary, he is insistent in demanding that the very real relationship they have be vindicated. "Why do you hide your face from me, and treat me as an enemy?" The power in Job's protest is precisely that it remains "in the fray" of engagement -- it is always presented as and remains as the cry of a man who does value and does care about his relationship with God.

Remaining in the locker room can't replace kneeling because it does not communicate any sort of ongoing, meaningful relationship between the protester and the subject of protest. Ironically, I think it would be far more disrespectful to the flag and the country compared to kneeling -- akin to ostentatiously turning one's back or casually chatting in the background as the anthem plays. The semiotic message of kneeling -- that there is something to grieve, an injury to acknowledge, whose relevance emerges out of a thick social relationship which the kneeler remains committed to -- can't be replicated in a private space.

And so it might be worthwhile to reflect on the very end of the Book of Job. Midway through the story, several of Job's friends begin an argument with Job, urging him to desist from challenging God or presuming to know that he is being treated unjustly. By what right does Job claim the authority to question God in this way?

This argument gets interrupted when God finally emerges, "out of a whirlwind" to confront Job. But in the denouement, God speaks once more -- not to Job, but to his friends. He instructs them to repent, "for you have not spoken of me the thing that is just, as my servant Job has." At the very end, Job is vindicated, and those who told him to stay silent, or passively defer to God, are chastised. "You have not spoken of me the thing that is just, as my servant Job has."

These words, repeated twice, are the last words God ever speaks directly to man in the Hebrew Bible.

There's Nothing More Terrifying Than a Jew Who Won't Die Quietly

I still think Anna Breslaw will hold the honor, but John Cook is making a late season run for the coveted "most anti-Semitic article published in a mainstream outlet" award. The piece is titled "Israel Names Its New War After Biblical Story About God Terrorizing Egyptians," referring to the Israeli operation "Pillar of Cloud" (translated into English as "Pillar of Defense").

The reference is to a Biblical story where God protects Israelites fleeing Egyptian slavery via a "pillar of cloud" which deflects Egyptian arrows and stones. Or, as Cook calls it, "God terrorizing Egyptians." Because nothing is more terrible than Jews not being enslaved.

That's what's truly bizarre -- of all the objectionable Bible stories (and there are many) -- freeing Jews from slavery isn't typically considered one. And this particular story, which is nonviolent and defensive (the cloud blocks enemy projectiles) is especially unobjectionable. Yet Cook not only slots it into "angry Old Testament God" territory, he actually views Jewish emancipation as an example of injustice to the Egyptians.

This doesn't even go into the dark murmurings that Israel's campaign is part of "a broader agenda rooted in ancient mysticism." I mean, come on. And Cook only digs in deeper on twitter, where he's basically delivering a live lecture on why you shouldn't opine on the meaning of another culture's stories without any actual knowledge.

Of course, I saw the link from someone who was telling Cook to rock on, so there's still work to be done. If you want the actual Biblical meaning of "pillar of cloud", this Tablet Mag article is a good primer.

A Light Unto Candidates

Obviously this is out of season, but still interesting: Rick Santorum's Channukah message to Jews:



Interesting choice of Bible verse there, don't you think? Very demonstrative of Santorum's sensitivity to the Jewish community. But you can't really blame Santorum. I mean, it's not like there is any parts of the Jewish religious tradition which Christians also consider to be there own, and that he might be familiar with. Because if there were, why, the decision to choose a verse like this might be considered gratuitously insulting.

UPDATE: And speaking of things that aggrieve me as a Jew, celebrating a famous historical killing spree by Christian soldiers slaughtering Jews en masse also seems more than a little ill-advised.

Moot Court Finals Roundup

Good luck to my friends participating in the final round of the University of Chicago's moot court competition. The three judge panel is comprised of Judges William Fletcher (9th Circuit), Diane Sykes (7th Circuit), and Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit). At a lunch talk featuring the three, the host started by introducing the panelists: "To my far right -- physically at least -- Judge William Fletcher."

* * *

Group pushing a resolution honoring the King James Bible also thinks Obama may be the anti-Christ. As The Agitator puts it: "This one may be more difficult to disprove."

Releasing the birth certificate doesn't satisfy the "where's the birth certificate?" crowd. Huge surprise.

Jonathan Freeman remarks on his experience "role-playing" as a Palestinian negotiator (the Israelis were represented by persons affiliated with pro-Palestinian perspectives).

Wisconsin Republicans may finally just repass the anti-union bill, which is tied up in court challenges due to them missing some procedural hurdles as they tried to ram in through minus Democratic presence. This would end the legal problems, but it would return the bill to the news -- hardly what the six Republicans facing recall want at the moment, I imagine.

TNC -- who doesn't make the charge lightly -- declares the wild anti-Obama conspiracy theories, from birtherism to ridiculous aspersions on his academic record, as racism of the bone. Incidentally, I think it was Matt Yglesias on Twitter who observed that, if Obama was an "affirmative action" admittee to Harvard Law, that's arguably the single best case study for the validity of the program, seeing as he graduated magna cum laude, was President of the Law Review, and, oh yeah, became President.

Right-wing Israeli organization honors a Rabbi who urged Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs (the award was presented by Daniel Hershkowitz, a minister in the current Israeli government representing one of Bibi's furthest-right coalition partners).

I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum's accusation that Planned Parenthood practices eugenics is going to be revealed as one of those "not intended to be factual statements" (where, as in Kyl's similar gaffe, "not intended" means "absolutely intended").

Is there anything distinguishing this bill from that overturned in Romer v. Evans?

Good Ibish Blogging

Hussein Ibish has a very good post up that simultaneously upbraids a really ridiculous post by Phyllis Chesler, and gives an interesting exogesis of Islamic holy texts that really should be required reading for all those who subscribe to the view that Islam is somehow an inherently violent religion. A snippet on the latter point:

Green was asking me about faith and violence in the context of Islamist extremists, and I said I didn't care for the phrase "religion of peace" which she mentioned, because all religions are social texts determined by the interpretations of their followers and all major religions had historically proven amenable to legitimating both peaceful and aggressive intentions. Green disputed this, saying that the Bible contains a narrative in which the relatively more violent, militaristic Old Testament texts can be reinterpreted in light of the New Testament texts in order to create a peaceful ethos, but that no such narrative existed in the Koran. "Or does it?" she asked me.

I noted first of all that while Green is absolutely right about the way many Christians have interpreted the chronology of scripture composition to allow more peaceful texts to condition the interpretation of more violent ones in the Bible, historically that hasn't stopped many Christians and Christian societies from behaving in an extremely violent manner, frequently in the name of God. However, I also pointed out that Muslims too have a narrative, which Green was clearly unaware of, that allows for the same kind of interpretation of more violent passages of the Koran in the context of more peaceful ones. I pointed out that the Koran was revealed over a period of historical time and that Muslims are well aware of and have discussed in detail throughout their history the understanding that most of the aggressive and militant passages had to do with the period in which the early Muslims are said to have been persecuted by pagan tribes. It is therefore possible, and indeed common, to find Muslim scholars interpreting the more militant texts in the context of more peace-oriented ones, in a manner that is indeed analogous to the way many Christians interpret the more militant Old Testament texts in the context of the more peace-oriented New Testament ones. Indeed, this process of contrapuntal interpretation is supported by the several passages of the Koran itself, including Surah 2:106. This is an absolutely accurate explanation of an important element of Muslim religious thinking that Green was unaware of and was suggesting doesn't exist, and it was important to correct her misapprehension. What I was "really saying" was, of course, that there is a strong basis in Islamic theology and doctrine for interpreting more violent texts in the context of more peaceful ones just as there is in Christianity. It's as simple as that. And it's true.

I'd also note that -- if doing something as radical as replacing the Old Testament with the New is what it takes to sanitize an otherwise "violent" faith, then Jews are in seriously trouble (who's surprised to see Christian-oriented thinkers utterly neglect to consider how Jews are affected by their analysis? Not me!), since our faith ensconced in the "Old Testament" whose rejection is apparently the saving grace (pun intended) for Christianity. Of course, Jews too have reinterpreted our holy texts via Talmudic expansion and other means, to emphasize peaceful behavior and minimize violence. So unless you want to say Judaism is an inherently warlike religion, then one has to give Islam the same opportunity for spiritual adaptation as we have.

Relatedly, Ignoblus has a good post on Ibish's good post on Paul Berman's good book (well, I haven't actually read the book, but it's gotten pretty positive feedback from what I've heard) The Flight of the Intellectuals.

Carrie Prejean Inspires the Next Generation

Ms. California Carrie Prejean, best known for her openly anti-gay marriage views, seems to have done a great job inspiring the next generation of California pageant competitors. Now working her way up the California ranks comes Lauren Ashley, who doesn't just oppose gay marriage, but opposes letting gay people live:

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.

“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”

Fortunately, she assures us, she has gay friends. Because nothing is ever bigoted, ever.

I imagine that some sniveling liberals will want to condemn this brave young woman for advocating putting to death homosexuals. Political correctness runs amok in this country, let me tell you.

I Always Thought David was Part of that Other Religion

It's on the tip of my tongue. You know the one I mean:

At the Values Voters Summit, the annual conference for the religious right sponsored by the Family Research Council last weekend, conservative youth activist Jason Mattera evoked the battle of David against Goliath as a metaphor for conservative college students who are “persecuted” by the big bad liberals who control academia. “David has the righteous answer,” Mattera said, “because he is taking pride in his Christian beliefs.” No matter that Mattera didn’t accurately grasp David’s biography or the biblical timeline. In conserva-land, David, a character from the Old Testament, was a Christian even before Christ was born. “Anyone who came against his God,” Mattera said, “David would take it personally.”

Emphasis supplied by me smacking myself in the head repeatedly.

Via Think Progress, who also notes that the primary selling point Mattera made to young Republicans is that "our women are hot". I'm not sure why this is supposed to appeal to young conservative women, but then, maybe Mattera doesn't think the GOP needs women beyond a core cadre of hotties to keep the studs appropriately stirred up.

The Clintons as Mosiac Figures

Matt Yglesias links to a Harold Meyerson editorial arguing that, while Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily important figure for the resurrection of the Democratic Party, in order to take that next step we need to leave him and his family behind. He uses the Biblical metaphor of the Exodus -- Jews had to wander in the desert for forty years so those with the slave mentality would die out, and a new generation -- born in freedom -- could take command. Ultimately, Moses himself, the leader responsible for Jewish liberation, dies just short of reaching the Promised Land.

Yglesias comments:

It's hard to imagine more thankless tasks than organizing for George McGovern in Texas or bearing the torch of progressive politics in late-1970s and early-1980s Arkansas. And of course Bill Clinton really did take the lessons learned from winning in that inhospitable territory and put the Democratic Party back in the White House. From that vantage point, he governed well and proved to a country that had come to doubt it that Democrats could be trusted to run the federal government. But is 2008 the hour of Mark Penn? I don't see it.

Even as an Obama supporter, this makes me very sad. Moses, of course, is a tragic figure. And, given the debt we owe Bill Clinton, it seems churlish to toss him aside as we finally reap the benefits he did so much to sow. It's hard to remember now (especially for folks of my generation, who grew up in the Clinton era), but prior to his election the Democratic Party was seen as dead in the water. Even as late as 1992, cartoonists were making jokes about how it'd be easier to run as a Communist and win than as a Democrat. Clinton got us out of the wilderness and resurrected the party brand.

No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, he is owed a great debt of gratitude for that. And no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, both he and his wife deserve a place of honor in the Democratic pantheon -- historically and in the future.

Do You Believe This Book?

At the Republican YouTube debate, one of the questioners inquired as to whether the candidates believed that every word of the Bible was literally true. The Jerusalem Post thought it would be interesting to pitch the question to a bunch of Jewish Rabbis (using the Hebrew Bible, of course). Their answers are fascinating, and shed important light on how Judaism as a religion is operationally different from its Christian cousin.

Jews are all about interpretation. The "literal truth" of the Bible, such a point of controversy in Christianity, has never been a big fissure point in Judaism. As early as the Saadia Gaon (6th Century C.E.), and possibly earlier, Jewish scholars have held that the Bible should be understood metaphorically when it conflicts with science. The tradition of oral law and Talmudic interpretation necessarily has created a religion comfortable with differing views, and a rather unique tolerance for interpretative diversity (e.g., the "These and These" principle).

I'm not entirely sure how that would be gotten across to a polity that is largely unfamiliar with the development of Jewish law and largely doesn't realize how different we are from our Christian peers. I suspect that an Evangelical audience, in addition to rejecting the substance of our answer, would also reject that it is a legitimate "Jewish" (or "Judeo-Christian") answer. But that's their ignorance, not ours.

Hobbes

I've always been somewhat of a Thomas Hobbes fan. Not because I agree with the need for a Leviathan state, but because I think his description of the State of Nature is pretty accurate (certainly more so than John Locke's rose-tinted glasses). In fact, my vague recollection upon reading Leviathan is that I agreed with nearly everything he wrote, save the policy implications (which, of course, is what everybody remembers).

Hobbes just rose another notch in my book when I learned today that, in his book, he questioned whether the Bible Torah was authored by Moses. This, of course, is old hat to modern Biblical scholars, who don't even think the Bible was authored by one person, but in 1651 it was pretty baller, I'd imagine.

Bible Beater

I'm taking a class this term that involves a close reading of a variety of famous stories in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible). A hint to religious people out there: if you want to stay religious, don't read the Bible -- or at least, for the love of God (heh) don't read it with anything close to a moral eye. The characters are not nice people. Just today we read three(!) stories where various patriarchs offered up their wives (posing them as their sisters) to certain powerful men in order to keep themselves physically safe (how noble). Then God threatened said powerful men for sleeping with another man's wife, and in penance the men then pay off the patriarchs with all sorts of neat parting gifts. It's a neat scam: if it works, massive amount of newly-gained wealth, and if doesn't, well, it's only a woman getting raped, so, no biggie. Meanwhile, one of Noah's sons accidentally sees him naked (after he got drunk and passed out in his tent), so Noah, displaying the sort of temperance and judgment that made him "the only righteous man of his generation," sentences the son and all of his progeny to be slaves forever. Nice. Elsewhere, God commands Joshua to commit vicious, merciless genocide against the people of Canaan. And in general, God kind of comes off as a jealous, fearful, hot-tempered, spoiled brat.

So, yeah. Message of the Bible: All the stories of your youth valorizing these characters are total and utter crock. Read at your own peril.