A Book and Movie Review--Chaim Potok's "The Chosen." Forty years late, but totally relevant to our insane fundamentalist Supreme Court today

A Book and Movie Review--Chaim Potok's "The Chosen."

Forty years late, but totally relevant to our insane fundamentalist Supreme Court today.

Introduction--

Sometimes late in life we have an encounter, or there is an event which triggers a long dormant memory, which is somewhat like a phone app you've put to sleep but is still there running in background, storing all sorts of information. And that triggering event in turn reawakens a whole set of memories, which in retrospect had a formative effect on your character, which once brought to our consciousness sings to us living in the present a long "unheard melody" to paraphrase Keats.

In this case I speak very personally of something which changed my life, and contributed to what I did with it, which was my first reading at age 14 of Chaim Potok's novel, "The Chosen," later made into a film starring Robby Benson, Maximilian Schell, and Rod Steiger.

My sister Marcy Eid had this book at our house, and I picked it up and read it. Then I read it again. And I kept going back to it because it answered so many questions for my seriously conflicted mind. It was at a time when I was struggling with questions related to my Jewish identity as I tried to understand the Holocaust, how it happened, and what it meant for me personally. And of course in the novel, this was the subtext for the entirety of the plot from beginning to end, as the young religious Jews of the postwar period had to confront and ask the same questions of themselves. Which included, "why are we divided, who are we as Jews and why the historical compulsion of non-Jews to suppress or wipe us out?" And what is our relationship to the then newly formed State of Israel?

On a personal note, I was Bar Mitzvah'd as are most young Jewish boys, but because my parents were not practicing Jews, I had no religious education in Hebrew school. My father, a Third Army veteran of WW2 came back from the war almost broken and agnostic, as he could not reconcile the concept of a just, living and beneficent God with the reality of an Adolf Hitler. My mother never had a religious background as her parents were "bookies," first generation children of Russian immigrants who hustled to make a living. So, I learned my "baruchas" phonetically and muddled through my Bar Mitzvah with the help of lessons with a reform Rabbi from Philadelphia. My family wanted me to have this party because my father had just passed away tragically the year before, so I went through with it because it meant something to them, as it did also my friends who thought it would help. Myself, I felt like a hypocrite, though I had a strong Jewish identity in every respect except for religious practice. Likewise, when my mom remarried, my adopted Step-father and family never pushed for or engaged in practicing Judaism, although they were strongly Jewish in identity.  We went to Synagogue for weddings, funerals, Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, and that was it. In short, as a gestalt, I ate Bacon and peanut butter sandwiches for lunch, while listening to recorded comedy routines by Jackie Mason and Alan Sherman.

As I came of age, I went through a rebellion stage in which I questioned everything. Since I was somewhat anti-social, I isolated myself and spent a lot of my time pondering "deep thoughts." Losing your Dad at a young age can have that effect, where you have to, in a way, raise yourself, and learn your own lessons about life. Thinking about that period still hurts in ways I can't describe.

And I was struck by the irreconcilable paradox regarding some among my Jewish friends and family. How was it possible that in light of what we learned about the Holocaust and its racialist origins, that some American Jews could harbor such race hatred towards Arabs and other non-Jewish people? How could some Jews classify children born of women who were "only" converted Jews to be non-Jewish, according to the infamous "law of return" in Israel?  How could ultra-religious Jews of the Hasidic and Lubavitcher sects denounce every outsider who self-identified as Jewish as a non-Jew, when certainly all non-Hasids living in Europe had been exterminated or oppressed for being Jewish, regardless of their particular rituals or interpretations of Talmud. None of it made sense.

I needed to know how this came to be, and why I felt that my Jewish identity demanded that I become political, and dedicate myself to actually living the slogan "Never Again," working to fight fascism in all of it's manifestations, even when Jews were not the only or primary victims. And then, by accident, one day I discovered Chaim Potok on my sister's bookshelf.

Part 1-- Why This Matters

The issues which drove the plot of this novel have re-erupted in force today, as we contend with the religious Christian fundamentalist insanity gripping the USA, in the aftermath of a 21 year long war with Islam and a modern day plague, covid. The Supreme Court has been hijacked by nominally Catholic religious extremist Justices, who hide their pro-Confederate philosophy of "states rights" and advocacy of racist, sexist theocratic autocracy behind a legalist outlook called "Originalism," also described as "textualism." This outlook, unbeknownst to Chaim Potok writing his book fifty some years ago, would become the very life and death issue for our democracy here today in the early 21st century. That is, the deep chasm born of the conflict which exists between the fundamentalist's interpretation of text, and it's stark opposition to the progress of science and the modern world

The story begins with a Baseball game between students of a Hasidic school and an Orthodox school, pitting two strangers against each other, Danny Saunders, the Hasid's best player, and Reuven Malter, who is Orthodox. With Reuven pitching, Danny hits a line drive which hits Reuven in the face, breaks his glasses, injuring his eye with broken glass. Reuven under pressure from his father, (a Rabbi) forgives Danny and they become close friends. Danny is a genius with a photographic memory, enabling him to study and memorize the commentaries on the Torah known as the Talmud at a rate far surpassing that of anyone, including his own father, the chief Rabbi in Williamsburg Brooklyn for his Hasidic congregation.

Danny however is restless and indifferent to becoming his father's successor as chief Rabbi, and instead is immersed in clinical psychology, sneaking off to study Freud at the local library. The person at the library steering Danny's scientific and intellectual pursuits is Reuven's father, unbeknownst until later by Danny's father. The subplot throughout the novel is that Danny's father refuses to have any discussion with his son at all, on anything, except for when they are studying and interpreting Talmud together. They have no relationship otherwise. So Danny's friendship and intellectual mentoring of Reuven becomes the center of his social and intellectual life.

It becomes evident fairly early on that the conflict between the strict interpretation of Talmud held by the Hasidim vs the more modern and nuanced version of the Orthodox (which is still overly strict in my view, lfr) is the dividing line within Judaism, and at the time separated Jews on issues of marriage, child rearing, career, philosophy of life and lifestyle, and most importantly the issues related to Zionism, which was rejected by the Hasidim. Until the formation of Israel it was opposed by the ultra-Orthodox, solely on the basis of their strict interpretation of Talmud.

After the 15 year old boy's friendship begun in 1944, we are led through the events of the ending of the war, the traumatic death of FDR, and revelations of the scope and scale of the Holocaust, which throws all of our characters into a deep depression. Danny is informed by his father that he has a brother who was murdered at Auschwitz.

The boys grow toward manhood and pursue their careers, with Danny increasing his distance from his father's plan for him. Finally it resolves that Danny's younger brother succeeds his father as chief Rabbi, and Danny is told in the presence of Reuven why his father never spoke with him. As it turns out, the father's great concern was that Danny's genius was so powerful, that he feared he might grow into someone who knew everything, but would lack compassion, so he froze him out in order to teach him what it meant to suffer, so he could have empathy for those others who also suffered. Reading this was the first and last time that I found myself crying while reading a book. To summarize more would be a spoiler, so I'll leave it at that.

Part 2-- Religious Fundamentalism As Cover for Autocracy

So, to step back, imagine a situation in which an entire people who had been the target for pogroms and extermination for centuries, being divided against themselves over the mundane matters of interpretation of religious texts. And one begins to see transparently what this is. The uncomfortable truth is that the Hasidim are a cult of old believers, comprised of people whose lives are highly regimented and controlled, immersed in rituals and rooted in symbolism, in which critical thinking represents a threat to the social control methodology of the cult.

Matters as mundane as dress, social interaction, marriage, are not within the purview of individual volition. Everything is subordinated to the insulation and isolation of the group, in the name of  the"survival" of their ways and traditions. Science and intellectual progress, are met with hostility because it might lead to socialization and God forbid, intermarriage. Both the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox treated members who married outside their sect, or even to non-Jews, as dead to them. They would pronounce their family members dead, and say the Kaddish prayer for them everyday.

The realization of this dilemma by Danny's father, who at the end accepts his son's choices in life, (including to shave his beard, cut his hair and "payuhs" which are the sidecurls) is a metaphor for the grudging acceptance of the passage of time into a modern world to which they might need adapt in increments, like it or not. Reuven is always there for Danny, representing a degree of tolerance as influenced by his intellectually inclined father, and becomes the face of modern American post-war Jewry.

So you have a generational conflict, situated within an intra-religious conflict, with a backdrop of transformational historical upheaval and unprecedented technological progress. And we are struck by the futility and arrogance of an ultra-religious doctrinal worldview, again driven by the literal interpretation of religious text, to bring progress to a halt, metaphorically speaking, to protect their way of life and ideology. And it is justified by the argument, "we are the true heirs to our legacy, the others are imposters, and because we are under attack now and always, we assert that our survival and primacy are necessary because only our survival is paramount." It is the essence of the "us vs them" mentality which is at the center of our battle with religious autocracy in America today.  It is also the essence of the homicidal evil of the ultra-religious Rabbis of the occupied territories and right-wing political parties of Israel.

The Supreme Court majority today approaches the US Constitution in the same way as religious fundamentalists interpret the Bible or other religious texts. Consider the outlook of "End Times" Christians relationship to the "Book of Revelations," which they claim is prophetic in providing the "signposts" for the coming end of the world, the battle of Armageddon, the "Second Coming" of Jesus, and the "Rapture," all asserted to be inevitable.  This is brought to you by pastors who are actively inciting Israeli/ Palestinian conflict over the Al Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem in order to provoke the end times conflict themselves. They are more than ecstatic about using the Jewish state to unleash a world war to bring their savior back, thus fulfilling their own prophecies.

Also, look at the policies of the Dominionists, who defend their plan for dismantling of the social safety net by finding Bible quotes to justify it. "The poor shall always be with us." "The Lord helps those who help themselves," and infinitum.  You'll never hear them however repeat the Biblical warning, "you cannot worship two masters, God and Mammon," which they would consider a socialistic attack on free enterprise.  And most infamously, you have the sordid history of the pastors in the Civil War era, quoting the Bible in defense of chattel slavery in order to recruit soldiers from their pulpits to fight for the Confederacy.

The Supreme Court "cherry-picks" the Constitution and our founding documents in the same way. They seize upon quotes from some among the Constitution's founders to deconstruct or deliberately misinterpret their "original intent," in order to express their own malign intentions, which is the political agenda of the anti-progress oligarchical political backers who installed them. It is about control, and blocking the forward social, economic and scientific progress which threatens that control. 

Conclusion-- Malignant Evil Masked As Legal Scholarship

It is not coincidental that the worst of these Federalist Society Justices on SCOTUS are each members of reactionary charismatic religious cults or the like, whether Opus Dei, the Latin Mass "Traditionalists," or Amy Coney-Barrett's "People of Praise," who all distinguish themselves from other Christians and religious practitioners based on their interpretation of Biblical text, or literalist approaches to ritual. This "dark ages" religious outlook is projected into the realms of law and justice, both of which they aim to subvert through legalism, their version of the literalist Talmudic studies written about by Chaim Potok, fifty some years ago. Supposed religious people and legal scholars present themselves as "defenders of life," while their rulings based on "textualism" will bring a violent and premature end to the lives of large numbers of the currently living. 

Think for a moment about the sheer loss of life, destruction of people, nations and culture which has occurred in the name of religion, its symbols, relics, rituals, holy sites, supposed land titles, and interpretation of religious text. This was the subject of Potok's book, as well as the extraordinary and brilliantly acted movie version, and the book's sequel, "The Promise." (Also not to overlook his "My Name Is Asher Lev.")  "The Chosen" was not solely a novel about a conflict within Jewry. It was a universalizing narrative which speaks to us all, past, present and future. 

Humanity's progress in all fields is inexorable, our current slide into self-annihilation notwithstanding. The question for organized religion today is whether or not it's leading minds can adapt, change, and help facilitate this progress in the way which Danny Saunder's Rabbi father did at the end of the novel, and elevate the future of his and others children above that of dogma, doctrine, textualism, legalism, or any other "ism" which stands in the way of progress more generally. 

These are the various quandries which this weirdo spent his teenage years struggling with while my friends were out partying and working on their resumes. And it all comes full circle today, where I find myself fighting the same fight against the same thinking, of course with much more at stake now. 

Watch the movie, read the book. It is all about us.