Recent news stories have accused Mitt Romney of engaging in hurtful pranks while he was in High School--such as cutting the hair of a fellow student against his will. Many of us would not want our old High School behavior to be dissected in public and I know I certainly wouldn't. But I want to focus on Romney's response to these attacks, not because I think his response should have any impact on whether or not one chooses to vote for him, but because we all as a society can improve in this area.
Romney has responded to these attacks by saying "I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school, and some may have gone too far. And for that I apologize."
Ann Romney has in the past spoken warmly and positively about her husband's fun loving pranks. In a video tribute to him she warmly says: "There were a lot of pranks, a lot of pranks."
If a husband and wife want to engage in pranks on each other as a form of romantic love then that is between the two of them. But for the rest of us the whole issue of pranking someone else which is now becoming more and more popular in our society raises a larger religious question: whether or not in general it is permitted to momentarily hurt someone for the sake of a good laugh.
Are practical jokes or pranks on an unsuspecting person permitted according to Jewish law? What about teasing someone or calling them by a nickname? While they might be funny and get a few momentary laughs, the clear answer is that they are not permitted.
The prohibition originates from a verse in Leviticus (25:17) which states: "One shall not aggrieve his friend." The Babylonian Talmud (tractate Bava Metzia 58b) interprets this to mean that one cannot cause pain to someone as a result of their actions, even if we would think that that pain is minimal. The great medieval commentator on the Torah, Rashi, comments that this verse means that one cannot tease their friend.
The Talmud expands on this prohibition and includes in it any behavior whereby your words or actions cause even momentary hurt and minimal pain. Thus, the examples of prohibited behavior in the Talmud even include presenting oneself to a shopkeeper as though you are interested in purchasing an item when you really have no interest. Another example of prohibited behavior is reminding someone of their previous sins even years after they have repented.
The Talmud lists three people who are considered especially egregious sinners. One of those people is someone who calls another person by a derogatory nickname even if the other person is used to that name and apparently does not mind. Such is the enormous sensitivity we must have for the feelings of others.
But the codes of Jewish law take this law one step further.
According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420: 32) even causing someone temporary fright by playing a joke upon them and jumping out at them from the dark is a violation of this law. Hurting someone and causing emotional pain even for a good joke is prohibited.
American law now recognizes that certain practical jokes are a violation of the law as well.
Congress has passed a law which outlaws spoof calls. It is illegal to make a phone call and intentionally place a different caller id so that the receiver of the call is not deceived. This law which is known as "The Truth in Caller ID Law" makes it illegal "to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value...."
Now this law was probably intended to protect people who were trying to hide from their creditors, but nevertheless protecting people from pranks is a step in the right direction.
It is ok to laugh and the Torah also encourages laughter, just not at someone else's expense. Of course, it is not just Mitt Romney who has pranked people (we all have done it in our lives), but now that Mitt Romney is in such an important position of leadership he can and should take the initiative to turn this into a teachable moment. He should announce that from this day forward his campaign and if he wins, his White House, will be prank free zones.
Bully Director Criticizes Romney's Bullying Apology: It 'Fell Short ...
How Mitt Romney Bullied a Gay Student at Cranbrook : The New ...
Mitt Romney Bullying Story Creates Message Headache For House ...
Maher Goes Full Hack: Romney Bullying Worse Than Molestation
The real problem here comes on the other end where the appeal to laws tends to get things wrong on the tame side of pranks. Herzfeld kind of captures this when he says that it is up to them if husbands and wives want to engage in loving pranks, but then it turns out that he thinks the Talmud forbids friends from derogatory nicknames when the person so referred doesn't mind (oddly the justification is to save his feelings even though he by hypothesis does not have bad feelings about it).
The principle behind this, that one should respect people's feelings, is a good one. But the application is off. If comedians want to get together for a roast and attack each other humorously it makes no sense to rule this out in order to protect their feelings. This is true of some pranking humor among friends. Of course it requires judgment. But an all out ban seems like an abdication of judgment.
Something tells me Romney and the kid with the long blonde hair weren't friends.
None of us are perfect within the teachings of our faith or secular beliefs, but when we are wrong we should at least own up to it. Society should not shrug off pranking as if it were something inconsequential, but send a clear message that it is wrong and will not be accepted.
Romney did not apologize. He excused himself with the now common "I don't remember doing it but just in case I apologise".
If Romney was any kind or moral leader he would either state he did not do it (if he didn't) or sincerely apologize if he did.
But as usual Romney wishywashes his responses.
It is interesting that Anne Romney just days before the bullying became known, used the "pranks" that Mitt did as trying to "humanize" Mitt.
Perhaps we are not born with neither conscience, natural compassion, common sense, nor moral compass after all.
Personally, I believe that with or without ancient texts, humanity is capable of morality and conscience.
''We have the illusion that science has answers to most of our questions, but this is not so. From the earliest of times man must have pondered over what Truth, Beauty, and Justice are. But so far as I can see science has contributed nothing to the answers, nor does it seem to me that science will do much in the near future. [...] Indeed, to generalize, almost all of our experiences in this world do not fall under the domain of science or mathematics.'' - R.W. Hamming, one of the founders of information theory. http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/Hamming.unreasonable.html
of justice and liberty.
Over 125,000 people responded on this post condemning Romney for referring to it as a prank. http://markatlarge.com/mitt-romney-bully-in-chief/
His response was terrible. When he was describe how the kid was crying as he cut his hair Romney Chuckled, saying he didn't remember. From a person that has been bullied I find it offensive. Get the fact right. http://markatlarge.com/mitt-romney-bully-in-chief/
that, my friends, is pretty sick.
I am holding off judgment who to vote for after debates and seeing if there are flip flops. But this incident has lowered my probability to voting Romney from about 2/3 to 1/2.
40 years ago the voice of the Republican Party was William F. Buckley Jr. Now it is Rush Limbaugh. How much lower can they sink?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#History_of_textual_criticism_on_John_7:53-8:11
What did Jesus say to the adulteress woman when he was alone with her and all others were gone? Did Jesus write his own memoires? Did the adulteress woman keep a diary? And what did Jesus say to his father when he was alone in the garden of Gathsemane and all the others were asleep? Must I go on?
If some gang of kids came up, mobbed a Hasidic kid, held him down en masse, and cut off his locks, especially with targeted taunting, would you call it a 'prank?' Or would you call it what it would really be? A hate-based assault?
The new Religious Right code word for covering up their bullying and hatred: "Oh, it didn't happen, but it was just a prank." "Pranks."
I've experienced some of these 'pranks.' Funny ha ha. Right.
I haven't paid a lot of attention to the case, but I think there were criminal charges.......
And moreover, why should "Jewish" law be applied to a MORMON?
As for the rest, merely the typical personal attack and lies from a Left that can not muster a proper rebuttal.