I have not done a whole lot of listening to her show. But from the little that I’ve heard, I have found her to be one of the most obnoxious people in public life.
I don’t think rudeness, smug superiorority, arrogance and self righteousness are compatible with the values espoused by any religion. (I must disagree with DavidB on his final paragraph).
However, a distinction may possibly be made between her personal qualities and her moral positions. I am not familiar enough with the latter to judge whether they are those of Judaism.
It is my impression from the little that I’ve heard that she primarily derives those from what she believes will be practically effective in promoting long term happiness. But I gather that others believe that she has a religious basis for them. This seems odd, as Jews are a small percentage of the country. I find it hard to understand how she would be preaching values in the name of Judaism to a predominately Christian audience.
I don’t believe the laws of Judaism really cover rudeness, smug superiority, etc. They do, however, cover the sabbath, kosher, etc. And she keeps all of these (as far as I know). Indeed, part of her reputation for rudeness (outside her show) has arisen because she wants to keep these (for example, raising a ruckus when she didn’t get her kosher meal somewhere).
My wife’s grandmother was always a good Jew. She did everything a good Jew is supposed to do. She was also the meanest woman on the planet. (Technically, still is, since as far as I know she’s still alive, though doing poorly – we haven’t talked to her in quite some time because of her meanspiritedness.)
It’s possible to be a good follower of a religion and still have a nasty personality.
I can’t say for certain whether or not she is a good Jew. Only G-d can say that. But I am intrigued by how some of you define “good Jew.” Here is a quote from Danielinthewolvesden:
There’s a very conspicuous absence in this snippet. Right in the middle of it should be “Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and do not thereby cause him to sin.”
By omitting this little piece, she comes off really badly. By keeping the passage whole, she’s certainly keeping in the spirit of it. Talk about selective hearing!
Some people have said she’s obnoxious. Who goes to her for the kid-glove treatment? Her advertisements say her show is “a preaching, a teaching and a nagging”! When someone is mediating disputes (usually the case with calls on her show), she’s forced to pick sides, and sometimes she decides the caller is wrong. Naturally, that caller will defend his/her position, and when Doctor Laura sticks to her position, it’s called “obnoxious.” Some have said she’s smug and self-righteous. Last I looked, people called her for her opinion; she didn’t randomly select households to preach to. If the callers value her opinion, how could her offering it be smug or self-righteous?
On the other hand, those callers who are in a bind through genuinely unfortunate circumstance she deals with with pure sympathy. Two of them I recall quite vividly:
[list][li]A woman named Angie calls; she’d been abused by her boyfriend, and had been sexually abused by her father (IIRC). Doctor Laura asks her, “Do you really think that because these things had happened to you in the past, that you don’t deserve better? Don’t let anyone say that about my Angie!” I was practically in tears.[/li][li]A teenaged girl calls; she has a retarded brother whom her mother asks her to care for every weekend (the mother tends to him during the week when she’s in school), she has no social life. Doctor Laura listened to both the mother’s (she needs a break from caring for him) and the daughter’s concerns and, understanding them both, negotiated a deal between them.[/li][/QUOTE]
Now, of course, she’s extremely conservative in her views on family life, abortion, responsibility for personal behavior and, yes, homosexuality. Some take offense at this. To them I say, “She doesn’t agree with you. Live with it.”
cmkeller, I don’t like her because in addition to being narrow-minded and bigoted she is also spiteful and hateful.
When talking on her radio show about a 14-year-old girl who wrote a prize-winning essay on the First Amendment to the US constitution defending free speech on the Internet, she said (mentioning the girl’s name) that the girl should be sacrificed in the tradition of the Incas. She also said “If she was my daughter, I’d probably put her up for adoption.” and “Poor Sara [the essay winner] doesn’t get it. When she makes her marriage vows and her husband has sex with everybody else, let’s see if she thinks that this philosophy works.”
When I heard the show, she constantly cut people off the first time the opportunity presented itself for her to critisize them. She gave no thought to the complexity of any situation. Clearly, she was looking for such opportunities.
A wise rabbi once compared such situations to a storekeeper who had problems with mice, and bought a cat. The cat caught a mouse and ate it up. Both storekeeper and cat were happy, but with one crucial difference. The storekeeper was hoping that this was the last mouse to be found. The cat was hoping there would be many more mice, all the more to eat.
So too it is with critisizm. Some people would rather have no sins and no rebuke. Some would rather have all the more sins, and all the more to rebuke.
Beyond this issue, Dr. Laura seems to revel in her own righteousness, which she contrasts with the sinful ways of her callers.
Do you care to tell me a little more about this prize-winning essay that she criticized? I really can’t judge this statement of hers without the context.
IzzyR:
I have a hard time reconciling the show you’ve heard with the show I hear on a pretty regular basis. Yes, she cuts in…but generally, this only occurs when the situation has been described, she responds, and the caller (who finds that Dr. Laura did not agree with their point of view) tries to raise additional points (often irrelevant or self-serving) in his/her own defense. And I have never heard her describe herself as personally righteous, just that she thinks the principles by which she lives her life are the right ones (and who doesn’t?).
Of course, I’m sure that the full context of the essay justified a licensed therapist saying on the air “this person should be subject to human sacrifice” and “I personally would put her up for adoption.” I guess I will have to settle for opposing her views only because she is narrow-minded and bigoted. :rolleyes:
I personally wish she would stick to posing for nude photographs. She did less harm that way.
Yikes, Chaim, how much context do you need to evaluate a radio personality’s broadcasting the sentiment that she would disown (and if possible, ritually sacrifice) a teenage girl just for having written something she disagrees with? I don’t assert that she ought to like the essay (I haven’t read it either), and I can make some allowances for the hyperbolic viciousness common to right-wing talk radio: but even so, Dr. Laura stands self-condemned by these remarks alone as a nasty bitch. And I was not brought up to believe that a nasty bitch can also be a good Jew.
Are you kidding? Every time my kid wakes me up a three in the morning for a drink I say things like that. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t. People say things like that about checkout clerks who take too long on the people in front of them on line, or about drivers who drive too slow in front of them, or any number of other people for any number of reasons. I never mean it literally, and neither do they. By this definition, I doubt you’d find anyone who doesn’t fit your definition of a “nasty bitch.”
As it happens, from the excerpt from the second web site that Arnold pointed to (a small excerpt, but for the moment, it’s all we’ve got) is extremely revealing about the moral ideas that this child has (assuming that it’s not itself taken out of context; as I said, we don’t have the full text available). It basically bases her position on the issue on a belief in extreme moral relativism, that no one’s moral opinions can ever be said to be wrong. That’s certainly a statement with which one such as Doctor Laura not only disagrees, but has been railing against for years. Perhaps it’s true that the “sacrifice or adoption” thing should not be said about anybody, but to the extent that people say things like that when they are outraged, she’s a more appropriate target than, say, the checkout clerk.
One important difference is that when people make terrible remarks about the checkout clerk, or even about their children who are being annoying, they’re not doing so as part of their job, in the course of a public broadcast, or in the role of a licensed counselor who sets up to give moral advice.
Do you think that that kind of vituperation really contributes anything worthwhile to society’s debate about moral issues and personal responsibilities?
You may say that this sort of shock-radio, “Howard Stern for right-wingers” dialogue is just the normal idiom of the talk-radio genre. As far as I’m concerned, that simply amounts to an admission that nasty bitchery is one of the job qualifications for this profession, and I’d be happy to defend the position that nobody who contributes to such unpleasantness is living up to the ethical standards of a good Jew.
You mean you say “My kid should be killed” or “We should put the kid up for adoption?” If you do, I would suggest some anger management counseling.
(playing devil’s advocate) So I guess Dr. Laura Schlessinger, since she thinks that homosexuals are “deviants”, is an appropriate target to compare to the nazis, who sent gays to concentration camps?
I disagree that strong feelings about an issue allow a person to make hateful or exaggerated comparisons. As Kimstu said, she tries to prevent herself as a moral authority and a counselor. So the responsibility is greater as far as ensuring that she does not spread hate and prejudice.
As far as “Dr. Laura being a good jew” (the ostensible topic of this thread), the web site “http://www.stopdrlaura.com” says that the Anti-Defamation league (for those who don’t know, a jewish organization fighting anti-semitism and discrimnation) has said in a letter to her “We believe that a tone of demonization and needless hostility characterizes your remarks on these issues… we are concerned that others might use such statements to justify acts of violence or discriminate against gays and lesbians.” - Anti-Defamation League letter to Laura, March 24, 2000.
You make it sound like the entire show is full of yelling and threats against people who don’t agree with her, about focusing on negatives in society and on giving people verbal slaps across the face. The fact is that the show does contribute. Do, specifically, such outbursts as the one about sacrificing the essay writer or putting her up for adoption help contribute? Possibly not. Everyone has their off-moments. However, I have found her show (for the most part) to generally be helpful for those who actively seek its help and to be instructive for those interested in such issues.
As I said at the very beginning of my post, only G-d can say whether or not she is a good Jew. Being a good Jew involves all aspects of one’s life…not the exclusion of (what some perceive as) bad things said on the radio, but not exclusively that, either. Does saying nasty things make one a better person or Jew? No. Is someone who does such things on occasion a good person or Jew? Could be.
Thanks for your concern, but I think I’ve got the problem under control. The last three kids I’ve tried raising are still (as far as I know) alive and under my care (and that of my wife). If you’re going to tell me you’ve never said “I’m gonna kill/disown that kid” after a frustrating parenting event, you’re either a) a bachelor or b) a liar. It doesn’t take any sort of pathology to make idle threats; it just vents some steam.
Oh boy, here we go. What she said was, “homosexuality is deviant behavior.” Whether you agree with this or not; whether you consider “deviance” to be intended as a slur or not (these are at the heart of her oft-repeated defense of herself, as printed recently in Time Magazine); it is certainly different from the oft-repeated misquote you wrote.
So, what hatred and prejudice has she spread? Hatred of the idea of moral relativism?
As far as the Anti-Defamation League goes, all I can say is they’ve long ago ceased being an organization with a specifically Jewish orientation and instead began focusing on bias in general. I do not look to them for definitive statements about being a good Jew.
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but morals ARE relative. As I’ve pointed out previously religious leaders at one time or another have supported more than a few things that are now considered morally wrong. To name a few slavery, subserviant women (still the case depending on who you listen to) beating children, beating your spouse…
On Dr. Laura attacking an 8th grade student for advocating such a belief, well let’s just say I have my own ideas for a sacrifice…
That’s not what she (and I, since I’m quoting her) meant by moral relativism. What she meant was “the notion that no moral system could be considered superior to another.”
Bachelor here. I’m getting married in a week though, so maybe I’ll be able to relate after the first rugrats show up! I apologize for making my remark personal. I still submit that there is a difference between saying “I’m going to kill that kid” privately in a moment of frustration and saying it, for example, when making a speech in front of a school assembly.
Thank you for the correction. I don’t see that much difference between “you are a deviant” and “your customary behaviour is that of a deviant”, but I agree it’s better to be accurate.
Many feel (including the ADL) that her statements may encourage violence against gays, and increase prejudice against gays.
I’m sure that they don’t represent the views of all jews, but I have seen them mentioned in lists of jewish human rights groups. From my conversations with other human rights workers that were observant jews, I gathered that they supported the views of the ADL, and I hear that many jewish people are employees of the organization. My personal feeling is that they represent the views of a sizeable position of Jewish people (at least in the USA.) I have no hard data on which to base my opinion.
That’s not what she (and I, since I’m quoting her) meant by moral relativism. What she meant was “the notion that no moral system could be considered superior to another.”
But that is not what she is saying. What she is saying is that her moral system is superior to that of her callers. Her moral system is what allows her to pass judgement on the lifestyles of people she has never met.
Under that premis, Hitler’s moral system was not morally bankrupt, it was merely an alternative to a more tollerant moral code of many neighbouring nations.
Really, I’m surprised at you Chaim.
As for her being a good Jew or not. Well, since we do not live with her. Since we do not associate with her in the same social circles. Since we are not her close and personal friends. The only aspect of Dr. Laura we see is the public persona of her radio talk show. Now, if we are asked to make a judgement about her character as a human being (and not just a Jew) then we are forced to describe her if very poor light indeed. If she is in fact a very different person in real life then she is on the radio then we would have to make a retraction.
You talk about being a good jew as if it was something completely separate from being a good human being. I hope I misunderstood you in this respect. I think to be a good jew you must first be, as they say, a Mensch (no gender slight intended folks). So, even if she is an absolute angel in every other aspect of her life except for her penchant to judge and abuse people verbally, then I think she has a long way to go to be a good person and jew.
Finally, under you own admission, the ADF has taken up the cause to fight not only anti-semitic abuses but all kinds of other racially motivated hate crimes. This, in your opinion, has disqualifies them from having an opinion of what is a good jew. Very well. Just exactly what qualified them of that opinion before they ventured outside the arena of fighting anti-semitism? Are Jews working to fight racial injustice that is not semitically related somehow deminished by these asperations? I sincerly hope I completely misunderstood you in this aspect.
Mazel Tov! May you and your wife have all the happiness in the world. As for parenting, it’s got its moments. But of course, it’s got its rewarding moments as well. And I’m sure that someone raised on Swiss-style neutrality can probably do a better job of keeping his cool than we belligerent Americans can.
Granted. However, doing the latter, while extremely poor judgment, does not mean that the person has enough hatred within her to actually kill someone.
The difference is that (according to her…take it for what you think it’s worth) it wasn’t intended as an insult, but rather, a statement of biological fact: that the human sexual organs and hormones are designed for sexual reproduction, and that lack of desire for heterosexual sex/desire for homosexual sex deviates from that norm.
As I said, take it for what you will. Obviously, many gays see it as an insult; not being one myself, I will not presume to tell them they’re wrong in feeling that way. I’m not her; I’m just a guy, with apparently greater knowledge of her radio program than most here, talking about her.
stuffinb:
Let me put it in clearer terms: Would you say that the moral system that allows slavery, etc. is not to be condemned to a greater degree than one which does not?
That (that all moral systems are equally worthy, or not worthy, of condemnation) is what Dr. Laura had spoken against in that statement.
Quicksilver:
You apparently missed the context of that “moral relativity” thing I was talking about; try clicking on the second link provided by Arnold in his earlier post.
Hardly. What allows her to pass judgment is the fact that people call for her opinion (aka her judgment), thus implying that they wish to be judged according to her moral system.
Where do you get the idea that a person is not allowed to offer judgments on someone else? (Don’t tell me “Judge not lest ye be judged”; she’s a Jew, and that’s a Christian statement.) As long as people call her and willingly submit themselves to her judgment, she has every right to judge. And, as for “abuse,” I’d agree…to whatever extent she is abusive. However, as someone who listens to her program on a somewhat regular basis, I have to say that examples of genuine abusiveness on her part are few and far between. Yes, she asks uncomfortable questions. Yes, she’ll yell at someone if she feels they’re not being completely honest with her. Is that abuse? G-d can decide.
I could certainly have been more clear. Let me try to clarify my statement: prior to their expansion of their mandate, their focus was on Jewish concerns. Hence, in part, their focus involved evaluating Jewish values and might have an authoritative opinion on what makes one a good Jew. However, after they became more focused on “general racism/bias”, they began to focus on what values best reflect this general message of tolerance, without regard to whether or not this tolerance is, in fact, a Jewish value. Instead, they declare whatever value reflects their new message as a “Jewish value.”
