In, "Ethics of our Fathers", the late first century scholar, Rabbi Akiba defines the word fence by the role it plays. For example, "a fence to wisdom is silence" or "a fence to wealth is charity". The word fence is used interchangeably with "protect" because a major role of fences is to protect.
A more recent example of semantic adeptness was displayed by the Obama administration. Thus the Fort Hood massacre was a "crime" and the recent Christmas attempt to blow up a plane was "terrorism". Yet, it would seem that the only real difference between the two cases is that the later was unsuccessful.
Is partial failure the only determining factor in whether the term terror is employed?
If so, does that mean that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?
Alternatively, politics is the determining factor. In that case, one CAN be a politically viable candidate if a terror attack is unsuccessful, whereas one losses their chance at a 1012 election if the terrorist act is successful, in that case it becomes imperative, for the politician to make a distinction and label it a crime.
What is interesting here is that Rabbi Akiba used words to foster inclusiveness whereas the Obama administration, ostensiby, views words as an opportunity to exclude.
This difference could boil down to the subject at issue, which allows us to be more or less honest in our word usage. On the other hand it may reflect an outlook that is geared towards differentiation whether those differences are real or just a matter of semantics.
Is this condusive to unity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment