Standing By Sodom
Radbam November 1st, 2009
Though extreme acts of negligence-cum-evil occur with blessed infrequency in our fairly advanced, fairly civilized society, they still shock even more than they sustain the ever-stoked urgency and doom ginned up by 24/7 news. The recent gang (describing both the number of perpetrators and their urban affiliation) rape of a 15 year-old girl outside a Richmond, California high school homecoming dance encompassed both familiar horrors and tragically contemporary twists.
The youthful rapists evoked expected disgust and shame, and the apathetic bystanders a growing anger with the banality of criminal passivity. The new, pernicious wrinkle to this increasingly familiar story was the abuse of technology to report on the more than 2 1/2 hour brutality to “friends” and to invite others in real time to watch, rape and comment. There seemed little inclination to face the immensity of the act or to call 911 rather than tweet a friend out of a lust for novelty that transcended basic morality.
After the initial shock and requisite investigation, the theorizing and punditry commenced. There were the Slouching Toward Gomorrah-social-pietists who prophesied yet another step toward a liberal cultural apocalypse. Some offered the attack as proof of emerging socio-anthropological theories, citing the Kitty Genovese Effect, named for the unfortunate young woman attacked amongst scores of neighbors in New York in the 60’s, none of whom came to her aid for fear of “getting involved.”
Despite concerted efforts to root this in the degraded economies of inner cities and their impact on youthful despair, one possibility was scarcely mentioned for its implications: There are simply awful people, even amongst the young, who not only commit heinous, inhumane crimes but are willing to abet and support such incorrigible violence.
While many seek to draw on scientific and cultural resources to explain, put in perspective and perhaps remedy such behavior, there is a renowned narrative from Western tradition that speaks to both kinds of perpetrator, the direct actors and their supporting cast.
As is often the case with biblical interpretation, the integral lesson of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is lost in the muddled and obscuring Christian emphasis on discomfort with sexuality. A resort to the earlier, Jewish interpretation of this thoroughly Hebrew text recovers both its authors’ intent and more nuanced, relevant instruction.
Though the residents of Sodom sought to sexually abuse the visiting angels, a fate thwarted by Lot physically blocking the door to his home in which the guests were spending the night, the shocking outcry of Sodom reaching to the heavens and God’s notice was not sexual perversion (and certainly not its devastating misuse to demonize homosexuality). Jewishly, the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality, an empathy and outreach to the other that transcends mere food and shelter. An awareness of the needs of the stranger, orphan, widow and poor–those with no stake or advocate in community–is a staple of Jewish morality rooted in both direct experience with slavery and covenantal commitment to God. But true menschlikeit–true attainment of the holy, human ideal of altruistic good–requires a remarkable willingness to support and protect the marginal against both the base impulse to minimize risk to the self and the social pressures to conform to the norms of the group, even at a cost to conscience and personal ethics.
The Sodomites not only tolerated, but accepted and codified abuse of the weak. And those who merely watched and condoned also possessed a guilt worthy of God’s wrath. Lot’s courage to stand for the stranger, to get involved even at risk to himself and at great sacrifice to his family, distinguished him as worthy of redemption and praise.
The mandate, the necessity, the obligation to act in the face of injustice and evil permeates the traditions of most faith communities and the civil sensibilities of our nation. It is too short a journey from myopic concern for one’s own pocket and status to criminal disinterest in another’s suffering, even before our very eyes! This is one of those rare and insidious cases in which slippery slopes can slide to true social decline.
- Uncategorized
- Comments(2)
DW, Sometimes I feel you need an editor when your sentences become too long and complicated. I usually agree with what you say, but this example is what I mean:
An awareness of the needs of the stranger, orphan, widow and poor–those with no stake or advocate in community–is a staple of Jewish morality rooted in both direct experience with slavery and covenantal commitment to God. But true menschlikeit–true attainment of the holy, human ideal of altruistic good–requires a remarkable willingness to support and protect the marginal against both the base impulse to minimize risk to the self and the social pressures to conform to the norms of the group, even at a cost to conscience and personal ethics.
If it’s hard for me to get the full sense (not impossible), imagine the difficulty the plain folks might have. I write this with respect and friendship.
DW
Point taken…thanks