Thank you for listening to the podcast! Below is the modified transcript...
Once again I find myself inspired by my own class, Torah Means Teacher. As I was converting the taped class for podcasting, I was reminded of an ultimate issue I have yet to share with you.
The topic is exceptionalism. This is a hot topic. A trigger of much debate and controversy. When I was young and discussing this I never expected the backlash, but now I am shocked when there is a vacuum of dissent.
Because of the topics nature... I find it rarely discussed. It has almost become taboo to discuss exceptionalism. Why?
Well, I think a primary cause for the lack of discourse is that the "Exceptionals" have created a war against "Exceptionalism."
In other words...
You have the "Exceptionals" or as Thomas Sowell refers to them the "Anointed" ones, but for the sake of a poetic argument... I am calling them "exceptionals." They are known as: "experts", "professionals", "studies", "universities", "professors", "officials", "judges", "celebrity", "genius", "progressive", "avant-garde", and all the titles of exceptionally high esteem which people blindly respect today and thus allow these exceptionals to influence their minds and behavior.
Now these exceptional people have come out against the idea of "Exceptionalism." They do so with probably great intentions. I am quite sure, they think they are doing good for people and humanity by ridding the world of the notion of exceptionalism. Why? Well one reason is because exceptionalism necessarily creates a problem if you believe in egalitarianism, a mascot for the exceptionals. You can't have better, worse, or even different when we are all supposed to be equal and the same. Also exceptionalism necessarily implies a form of separation, and since we are supposedly in a "global" age without borders (another mascot for the exceptionals) again they would have a problem.
Let me explain or better define these terms as I am discussing them today:
"Exceptionalism": The idea that a person, a group of people, a nation, a culture, or a system can be separate and distinct from others. Now notice that I leave my definition open as far as judgement, but at least the idea of exceptionalism allows the space for judgement (ie. better or worse.) Granted in general people are going to reference exceptionalism in positive terms (i.e. exceptionally good).
"Exceptionals": Akin to the Sowellian idea of the "Anointed" people who proclaim to have the vision and answer for how the world and each individual should live and think. They are our generations "gnostics" who are lauded, revered, and worshipped by the masses for their supposed superior intellects, experiments, studies, or diplomas. Their influence on group think is so strong so as to elicit the idea of divine transference of knowledge to these secular prophets and apostles, and to go against them is an act of modern secular heresy.
These "Exceptionals" have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone should go to college, every kid should get a trophy, and every nation is wonderful (though perhaps ironically barring the U.S. and Israel.) So, for me to say that not every kid should go to college or get a trophy and that some nations are despicable, boldly defies their prophetic wisdom and makes me not just wrong... but an evil heretic.
But lets just role back the iron curtain of egalitarianism, compassion, and political correctness to see what reality is really like.
In reality, there are people, families, schools, teams, businesses, towns, states, and nations who prove to be exceptional. Some are exceptionally wonderful and some are exceptionally awful. To deny this means to deny basic observational common sense... Which, by the way, the "exceptionals" prefer you do... This is why they MUST have a study to give them their "divine" definitive ruling on any given matter.
As Dennis Prager has stated numerous times:
I have been convinced that either “studies” confirm what common sense suggests or that they are mistaken.
So much of my clarity about this subject is do directly to Dennis Prager and his works regarding this subject. That is how the whole topic was brought up in my Toran Means Teacher class.
Many people, actually many Jews, have an issue (aversion) to the idea of "chosen." That God chose the Jews is a difficult subject for people to discuss. Maybe they think, "If I agree, does that make a racist?" or "If I disagree, does that make me an anti-semite?" The exceptionals have so effectively set the rules of discourse that people cannot engage in an honest discussion regarding an otherwise benign topic. Nothing about Jewish chosenness is analogous with "White Pride", "Apartheid", or "Nazism". It is simply an undeniable fact that in the Torah, a book which is constantly belittling, denigrating, and criticizing the Israelites... also includes the Lord's claim that those same stiff-necked people are conditionally His treasured possession among all His people.
Exodus 19 (NIV): (The Lord speaking to Moses, who is to tell the Israelites)
5Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
This is clearly a statement of exceptionalism. And that is okay. It by no means that we, Jews, have some sort of superior genetics or blood line or anything like it (the audience of Israelites was a mixed multitude - many peoples united by a covenant. Furthermore, anyone can be come a Jew to this day.) Nor does it mean that only the Jews are God's people. NO, NO, NO! It says clearly that all the nations are His, but we are to be His treasured one... and Why? It is conditioned on us obeying his voice and guarding (or keeping) the covenant (contract) we have with Him. It is a conditional statement (notice the "if") based on behavior, and not genetics, geography (these people were in the wilderness), or any materialistic matter. Plus, it's beyond implicit when He further states the "whole earth is mine."
In other word's God is saying, "Don't think for a second you alone are My people... rather, all are My people! But your behavior may make you a special one, an exceptional one. Oh, and by the way with this exceptional status comes obligations (not rights or privileges)." Because it states that because of this agreement, you Israelites are to be a 'kingdom of priests (ממלכת כהנים)'..." Priest are individuals who are necessarily separate and distinct from the non-priests (which pretty much everyone else.) Thus, they have a far more proscribed life than the rest of the population. Also, they have duties the rest of the population do not have. They are to be role models and teachers for the rest of the people regarding holiness and ethics. Which is why the next part of His demand is that we be a "holy nation." That is to say a nation set apart from other nations. A nation whose society is distinct due to its strive to act more God-like rather than animal-like. Israel is to be a nation whose people are working to elevate themselves from their base animal natures, and teach all the other nations to do the same.
And why is it important for the Israelites to do so? Because the animal nature of man is amoral at best, and immoral at its worst. Therefore we must be taught an objective morality from the singular Divine source of morality, and then go and teach the rest of humanity these standards of ethics. And as I once again learned from Dennis Prager... Ethics is not enough! Holiness protects ethics.
As I've mentioned before regarding Herberg's "Cut Flower Culture", it is a perfect analogy to illustrate Prager's observation that you must have the Holy in order to protect the ethical.
Ethics without God is like cut flowers. Cut flowers will die when cut from their root. Just the same, ethics without God will die. ~ Dennis Prager
To be clear:
Yes you can be an ethical individual and unholy. But no, you can not be a holy and unethical person. Rather, your unethical behavior disqualifies your supposed piety.
Yes you can be ethical individual and not believe in God. Plenty of individual atheists are good and decent people.
And yes, you can be unethical and believe in God. So, NO, belief in God does not make an individual ethical or holy.
Holiness is found in elevating man's behavior beyond that of animal and towards the Divine.
Ethics is found in the moral treatment of others.
It is in terms of society, not the individual, that we find many problems with "cut flower ethics."
As I said, an individual can be ethical without God, but a society cannot remain ethical without the Holy and God. Think in terms of time and plurality.
Problems that arise in non-God based ethics for society are:
How one defines ethics? Or is it all relative and/or undefinable?
If there is an objective morality, who is the author?
To whom is one accountable to?
What if the people don't agree?
What if people don't care?
These and more concerns are a subject for another post. The point is that the ethical Monotheism presented in the Torah is the idea the Jews are commanded to enlighten the world about, hence the reference that we are to be "a light unto the nations (Is. 49:6)."
Does this mean that Jews are to proselytize others? Yes. But it does NOT mean that we are to proselytize for Judaism per se. Rather we are to proselytize for Ethical Monotheism. Meaning it is not imperitive or necessary for people to be Jewish, but it is imperititive and necessary that people treat each other appropriately based on a universal morality created by the One God (however they know God). Again think plural rather than singular.
Now all of this is a long way of illustrating the dilemma the "exceptionals" have with "exceptionalism." The "exceptionals" are to be gods to man, and they are the ones who define ethical behavior. Their exceptional intellect or studies are the source of moral behavior, not God. Belief in a God who demands we act ethically based on the objective morality set forth from the Divine is completely incompatible with the "exceptionals" world view.
They will mockingly ask, "Who are you to say what is right and wrong?" or "Why should we follow your God's morality and not some other made up friend in the sky?"
Well, though it may seem like a tautological argument the reason is because God gave us a user's manual for human behavior (a.k.a. the Torah), and it has been and continues to be a great source of instruction on how to create a greater civilization. Dare I say an exceptional civilization. Not perfect, but a better, more just, and elevated civilization.
You see the problem? The "exceptional" experts argue there are no exceptional civilizations. "They all have flaws, and they are have attributes. They all are ultimately equal, and we should not judge one culture or nation against another." This is the kind of rhetoric I've heard.
Ironically, this moral idiocy denouncing the idea that some people or cultures can be better or worse than others, comes from people who claim that their theories are superior to all others. They are superior due to their level of education, studies, or societal rank (i.e. political position or celebrity.)
But common sense dictates otherwise.
Are we to believe that the Asian-american culture is no different than the African-american culture? How the cultures value education, employment, and family should bear no relevance? Are we not to judge at all? Are we to think that Mother Theresa is no different than you or me or Osama Bin Laden? Or that North Korea is no different than Canada? Or that abusive alcoholics parent's are no different than typical Mormon parents? Really? Are we going to hide behind the "who are we to judge" curtain?
I am not.
I know that there are exceptions throughout life. There are exceptionally good individuals, families, nations, religions, and cultures and there are exceptionally bad individuals, families, nations, religions, and cultures. I judge them based primarily on their behaviors. I judge them based on their values. I judge them based on the results. All of which I wish to be judged by as well. And again I must clarify, that this in no way implies that exceptionally good means perfect. I do not go for perfect or utopia or even "best", rather I go for better.
Based on that, I can easily say America is exceptionally better. America has been a historic force for good for the world. There is no other nation whose values are rooted in Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum (as explained in Prager's book Still the Best Hope.) It is these values that propel America in doing good and bringing liberty and prosperity to the world. This does NOT mean that the American citizen is somehow exceptional... Americans are just people, and like every nation some are good and some are bad. But America the idea, Americanism is what is so exceptional. That we have a nation of diverse people who are united by the grand idea of America... that makes us exceptional. But there is nothing inherent to an American that is exceptional, rather it's the values that American citizen embodies.
On the other hand, other nations are exceptionally evil. Again, it is not that the individual citizens are necessarily evil people... Some are, and some are not. But the values, culture, and society which comprise a an evil-doing nation should be recognized as such. For instance, North Korea is a modern example of yesteryears Holocaust. Are the North Korean citizens therefore evil? NO. But their ruler is evil. Their government is evil. And not recognizing it as such does not benefit anyone, except those who act evil and promote evil.
I can say that the religious culture fostered through modern Mormonism is exceptionally good. I know of many people who have become better people and contribute tremendously to society because of their conversion into the Mormon faith. For different reasons, I can say similar things about other religions. As I stated in the beginning, being exceptional doesn't necessarily mean being superior. It just means separate and distinct. The Mormons have their way of changing peoples behavior towards goodness, Christians have theirs, Buddhists, Judaism, and others have their own. Which is necessary because one flavor of religion cannot fit every persons' taste. But my point in bring up the good religious cultures is to contrast them to the exceptionally bad ones.
Radical Islam is one such example. The Islamist culture is a culture of death and destruction. It is a cause set on creating pain and misery for all who do not submit. To be clear, I am not speaking of all Muslims, there are millions upon millions of good decent people who are Muslim. I am actually angry on their behalf that this evil 10% of their faith poisons the general perception of their religion and culture. Of course I am mostly angry at the Islamist for their unforgivable treatment of anyone who does not submit to them (Muslim or not.)
But this discussion is rarely heard. The world of Islam needs to have this discussion from within especially. The hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not agree with the 10% of radical Islamists (roughly 1oo million) must stand up and fight against them. And we should help them!
Instead, it has become politically incorrect to speak this way. Though I am ultimately defending and fighting for the majority of good Muslims, I will surely be deemed an Islamophobe.
Other areas of exceptionalism are far more micro. For instance, there is a battle for the definition of family, and what the ideal family structure is. All things being equal, a traditional family comprised of both a mother and father is exceptionally good. But, we are living in a time when it is wrong to judge any alternative family structure. Who am I to say that a single mother is not as good as a mother and father in raising a child? Or why does it have to be a mother and father, couldn't a two mothers do just as good a job?
Again the "Exceptionals" have marked this subject closed for discussion. Any talk about a mother and father being the ideal is now bigoted. "Studies show..." and then they site some example in favor of their agenda. Or they bring up an example of unequal scenarios. But again, I fall back on common sense.
All things being equal... Equal love, money, time, everything... Would it make any difference whether a child were raised by a single parent, two mothers, two fathers, or the traditional mother and father scenario? Which do you think is preferable or ideal for the child and the eventual society? Or does it make no difference? No scenario is exceptionally better or worse than the other?
If you think all these are interchangeable, then we are clear on where we differ.
If you think America is no different than North Korea, then we are clear on where we differ.
If you think that Al Queda is no different than Mormons, then we are clear on where we differ.
I believe in "Exceptionalism", and you believe in the "Exceptionals."
This is an area where the great Pragerian line "I prefer clarity to agreement" falls short, because in this instance I would prefer we agree on what is better for society: The need for Ethical Monotheism, it's objective morality, as well as the spread of American values (Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum.)
If you disagree, let me know why...
