April 13, 2105--Kosher Section

Everyone has their airline stories. Mostly not good ones.

Mine include a flight from New York City to Buffalo where my seat mate--a 10-year-old--threw up all over me; another between Atlanta and Newark where to my left there was a chimpanzee in a suit and fedora (yes, that really happened); and one from Washington, again to Newark, where the passenger in the cramped middle seat (I had the one by the window) weighed at least 300 pounds and took up so much room that if there was an emergency, he couldn't get out of his seat without significant help and I would have had to climb over him. And we've all had cranky, screaming babies behind us who spent the entire flight kicking our chair backs.

I could go on. As I'm sure you could

With the very overweight passenger, I rang the call button to let the cabin crew member know how his bulk created a safety hazard. I asked that he be relocated or required to purchase two seats. But it was a full flight and my protest was to no avail and so I held my breath for the entire flight. Fortunately there were no incidents, it was on time, and after a couple of hours I was able to extract myself from my seat and stretch my legs.

I was reminded about these flights the other day when the New York Times reported about another seat-assignment problem--ultra-orthodox Jews on flights to Europe and Israel who refuse to sit next to any women not their wives.

This is not some quirky thing for Hasidic men. They are forbidden by their rabbis from having pretty much anything to do with women to whom they are not married, including family members. And even with their wives there are strict rules about courtship (there is not much--most marriages are arranged), touching, and sexual behavior.

For example, at Hasidic weddings the men and women party in separate rooms, dancing with each other, and for that small part of the celebration where the men and women come together and even dance they are not allowed to touch each other's bodies, any part of their partner's body. In place of hand-on-hand touching, partners use a handkerchief that the groom holds at one end and his bride the other. It's all spelled out and choreographed in great detail.

About sexual practices, I leave that to you to do the googling. One tease--check out how husbands' and wives' beds are to be arranged, allegedly including a sheet separating them so that . . . Well, do your own research.

And when the ultra-orthodox need to interact with the world beyond their self-imposed ghettoes, there are all sorts of other rules they are required to follow, including behavior on airplanes.

In addition to not being permitted to sit next to any women to whom they are not married, I have been on flights to Israel where I witnessed all the Hasids on board organizing themselves for evening and then, overnight, morning prayers. God help you (pun intended) if you need to go to the bathroom at those times.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, disputes about seating are increasing. So much so that it is now routine that flights between the States and Israel are routinely delayed as Hasidic passengers request and even insist on seat changes. And more and more secular flyers are refusing to give up their seats. Some women, for example, find the whole matter sexist and for that reason alone do not agree to switch seats to enable an ultra-orthodox passenger to protect himself from inadvertently touching a female seat mate.

I have a solution--set up a kosher section on planes to Tel Aviv. Just as there used to be smoking sections. One can already order kosher food so why not kosher seats?

And while we're at it, let's have a section for children and parents. The maybe another one with bariatric seats for the obese. And perhaps a special section for . . .

February 9, 2015--Equal Opportunity Offender

Somehow President Obama managed to offend nearly everyone Friday during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast--the Chinese, Indians, Muslims, Jews, and especially Christians.

To agnostic me this suggested it was a good speech.

To offend or minimally agitate those who hold and are guided by powerful belief systems is a good thing to do every once in awhile to shake them up, especially at a time in world history when radical religious forces are roiling nations and regions.

It was a speech Obama impressively didn't paddle back from, even after the predictable chorus of outrage and criticism. These days even a few raised eyebrows will get pandering politicians to
"clarify" in the afternoon what they in the morning said about, say, the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.

But first, what is this Breakfast anyway?

It has been sponsored since 1953 by the Fellowship Foundation, otherwise known as "The Family," which is a secretive organization devoted to spreading Christian values and, through its many powerful congressional members, lobbies for legislation compatible with its mission. Many key members of Congress, mainly male conservative Republicans, are and have been active in The Family. Among many others, Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback, Strom Thurmond, Bill Nelson, and Mark (Appalachian Trail) Sanford.

In The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Jeff Sharlet described his experiences working for them as an intern. He provides evidence that The Family "fetishizes" power by comparing Jesus to "Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Bin Laden." Not that The Family or Jesus holds beliefs similar to these dictators but rather The Family takes note of and admires the ways in which they exercised power. Guided by these lessons in wielding authority, The Family also engages in below-the-radar international diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, that skirts what is permitted by law for religious-based, tax-exempt organizations.

And the Fellowship attempts to have its own version of influence on American society. They have been remarkable effective and powerful. As an example of their ability to mobilize support, since 1953 every President from Eisenhower to Obama has addressed the group at its annual Breakfast.

It was before this group last week that Obama intentionally stepped into the weeds.

His basic theme was to draw attention to how dangerous it is to use faith to justify violence. From his detractors' perspective, so far so good if he is talking exclusively about Islam. But his caution was more wide reaching than that. There's the rub. He not only indicted Muslim extremists but noted that people also "committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Particularly during the Crusades.

As might be imagined, that brought down a firestorm of criticism. The firebrand fringe was the first to react. Michelle Malkin, an ultra-conservative columnist said it is historically outrageous to compare ISIS with Christian Crusaders. On Twitter she wrote, "ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades." Not a word about what Christian crusaders perpetrated with the sword in the name of Christ.

According to the New York Times, semi-credible responses came from commentators who actually know a little about history--they defended the Crusades, noting that they were launched as a response to earlier Muslim advances across Europe. On the other hand, the best informed historians who study this era reject that view and offer evidence that the Crusades were motivated by attempts to reclaim sacred territory (Jerusalem) not Muslim dominated lands that resulted from incursions more than 400 year earlier.

As another example the President spoke about religious strife in India. In his words, though he called India "an incredibly beautiful country," irrelevant to his larger point, he also noted that it is "a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other people of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs--acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhi."

In spite of Obama noting this occurred in past years and only on occasion (some might say he was being kind considering the enmity and violence, some of it religiously-based, between millions of Indian Hindus and Muslims) Indian leaders reacted in unison and outrage. For example, the Finance Minster said that India "has a huge cultural history of tolerance. Any aberration doesn't alter history."

Obama committed another alleged faux pas at the Breakfast when he shook hands with the Dalai Lama and in his remarks noted how he is a "powerful example of what it means to practice compassion," one "who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.

A high-ranking Chinese spokesman reacted with public fury, saying, "We oppose any country using the issue of Tibet to interfere in Chins'a internal affairs."

It might have been politically wiser for Obama to have taken a pass on so publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama, but he did choose not to point out that Tibet is not a Chinese internal affair but rather an example of Chinese imperialism, their having conquered and occupied Tibet since 1950, including forcing the Dalai Lama into exile.

Again, instead of walking his comments back later in the day, Obama doubled-down, having a senior aide reiterate that he intended "to be provocative," wanting to connect how the brutality of ISIS is part of a sweep of global history that frequently calls forth "a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."

Our faith? Which one might that be?

That aside, one final question--

Ours is a free country, a secular country that protects our freedom to believe or not to believe, and, if religious, to worship as we choose. Since we are not a Christian nation, why then do our Presidents choose to attend this so-called National [Christian] Prayer Breakfast?

My recommendation--stay home and let former senator, Family member Jim De Mint, president of the Heritage Foundation run things.