Maddie Got A Gun

And a Tanach (complete Jewish Bible).

My granddaughter was inducted into the Israel Defense Force last week and my wife and I were there. It was just outside of Ashkelon, right by the Mediterranean. And we were proud.

We had just arrived in Israel a few hours earlier for a planned visit, and decided that with a little help from our son (the inductee's uncle) we could get to the event. He was also visiting but had arrived about a week earlier and he planned on driving to the event. So we hitched a ride. And we didn't regret it. It all took place in a dirt field and was very amateurish, but we didn't regret it at all.

There are several reasons why people enter military service. Among them are the draft, the hope of learning a useful occupation, time out for people who don't know what they want to do with their lives, the wish to kill, and other such admirable goals.

But Maddie joined for another reason. Like many of her cohort, she did what she thought was right. Yes. Some people join the military because they believe that the defense of one's country is a noble goal. Maddie is from New Jersey, but seems to have committed to moving to a country that embodies her ideas and ideals, notwithstanding the view of others. It is a country that issues a Tanach along with a weapon, because it believes the faith and the history in that book will help inductees better understand their mission.

Patriotism and the conviction that your home and your people are worth defending are powerful motives for enlistment when there is a threat. However they're anything but the universal justifications for service or for waging war. All too often war is a quest for “things,” a wish to get more, and the actions of the opponent a desire to keep what it has. The things may be territory, resources needed by a country, a conquered population, or wealth and status for those directing the attack. They may be political, economic, or religious, but the “bottom line” is that the provokers want something that they don't already have – something that is not theirs.

According to Jewish law and tradition there are legitimate reasons for war, including defense, but an attempt should be made first to avoid the war – to find a way to attain peace. War has, for millennia, been imposed on the Jewish people not only by the nations that surround Israel but by those who want to eliminate the religion altogether. Unfortunately that mindset persists, and the primary wish of the countries that occupy the region (apart from Israel, of course) is to destroy the nation and drive its citizens “into the sea.” Indeed, the main occupation of the United Nations is to find fault with Israel which, despite its tiny size and despite the conflicts, killings, and refugees all around the globe, it has made the butt of its righteous indignation, condemning it more that all other countries put together. It's an obsession promoted by many of its members; an obsession which has been made the main distraction from the world's other problems and, very specifically, from the nations that are promoting the vitriol.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but the two together, ideas and arms, make for the best defense against the spiteful nature of wars and people who are acting with only their own benefits in mind.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah)

In the meantime, however, a gun and a bible make a good start. And Maddie has them.

42

How is a compulsive like a multiplication table?

No. That's not the first line of a joke. It's the first line of a discussion of several matters that came to mind this morning as my children were preparing theirs for school. [This particular essay will be the first in a multi-part series, but, for the moment, I'm not sure how long it will be. In all likelihood it will have two or three parts, but I can't be absolutely sure at this time. We'll both find out as I go along.]

I'm an observant Jew. But I admire ISIS and atheists. ISIS would strip me of my life and atheists of my beliefs. Yet I respect them both – at least in one particular way. I'm in awe of them. They have views which they hold very strongly. Members of ISIS would kill or die for them,ⁱ though I suspect that most atheists wouldn't go quite that far. But they don't hesitate to expound their views and when they talk – especially ISIS – the world listens. And in the United States, especially in legal settings, the atheists usually get their way. It's almost as if the Constitution prohibits religion.

Yet the Constitution and the Bible are very much alike. Both are filled with absolutes in the form of laws and standards. Both are subject to interpretation, and there is considerable disagreement about how to interpret those absolutes.ⁱⁱ But there are absolutes. There are rules. And in a world in which virtually anything goes, the discipline provided by rules, however you interpret them, and the structure they give to our lives helps us work our way through our quotidian struggles, is the factor that makes our lives more understandable.

On my refrigerator, held on by magnets, is an aging, typed list of assignments which were the responsibilities of my children as we prepared for the Sabbath. (They – the children – have families of their own now, but the document remains and serves as a checklist for me of chores that have to be done each week. I usually remember them all, but it's a good crutch.) There were other sets of rules distributed or posted that solved many problems before they occurred. I'm in agreement with those “experts” who favor structure for growing children; who believe that even though children seek independence, the existence of firm control is reassuring to them. I favor that view not because of the experts but because it makes sense, and my children responded to it. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. They are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress.

But that approach isn't limited to parenting. In almost every profession there's a checklist that has to be followed by a practitioner so he can be sure he doesn't miss something. Take a pilot for example. There are certain things he must do every time, and every time he must do them in the same way. While that doesn't guarantee that every flight will be a safe one, it ensures that every precaution that can be taken has, in fact, been taken and the odds are better that there will be a successful outcome.

The same is true of the compulsive and the multiplication table. In both cases there is something that must be done the same way every time. There may or may not be a listing of precisely how – whether it's some particular act, as it might be for someone who's compulsive or, as with a multiplication table, the result of some specific act, but it should always be the same. People who straighten pictures, straighten pictures. Every one they see if that is possible. Multiply nine times eight and it will always be seventy-two. At least in base ten, which is the template usually used with children. Both compulsion and the multiplication table deal with some kind of absolute. It may be an absolute for a person or for everyone. But it is invariable. Gravity always brings things closer together. If it doesn't, it's not gravity.

Among the most important of absolutes – and I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱⁱⁱ – are right and wrong. Although it's not always obvious what is right, if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.

Next episode: “Incompatibility” – Competing(?) absolutes.

I        They've made meaningless the entire concept of “mutually assured destruction” as a method for discouraging future conflict. They welcome destruction.

ii        There are many writers of commentaries on both. They deny that they are changing the contents – albeit there are many who would like to do so – and insist only that their interpretations of those contents clarify the meaning.

iii      At least within a given society for many of them. For others, however, there is only the belief that what is absolute is absolute.

Nota Bene 2

 

A few weeks ago I admitted that there were subjects that I had wanted to cover but lacked time. The list is long and it's growing. At that time I solicited your help but (no surprise) didn't get any response. That, however, won't stop me. I intend to continue every month or so (or at any other time I feel like shortening my list) by describing the areas of interest. As I noted last time,^I  it may be in the form of fiction or non-fiction (actually it may be a question or comment, or there may be a longer description of the issue).  I explained then that the kind of format for its use was up to you.  I also requested that you let me know if you were using one of the ideas, and what I said then applies here. I won't bother you with it now.
 

In any event, here are some of the topics I don't have time to cover at the moment:

1. It's said that a child who learns a second language while his first is developing may become fluent in both, but his vocabulary in each of the two is likely to be smaller than it would have been if he had only learned one language. I don't know the specifics for three languages, but it seems likely that all three vocabularies will suffer. He'll be able to think in all three languages, but, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesisⁱⁱ is correct, his ideas will be somewhat limited in all of them. What are the other implications of multilingualism? Although Americans tend toward knowledge of a single language,ⁱⁱⁱ elsewhere in the world it is common for people to be multilingual. Do Americans think differently or more expansively than others?

2. If you believe that there are absolutes (as opposed to culturally defined standards) which you must follow, may you choose the lesser of evils?^iv Is it ethically possible to compromise between right and wrong?^v Is your Representative morally bound to do what you think right or what he does?^vi If an individual considers himself bound to follow particular paths and not deviate from them, is he obliged to establish a third (or fourth, or whatever) party when no one is expounding the idea that he considers “right?” Is voting itself an absolute?^vii

3. What are the limits of peaceful and lawful demonstration? For example, the Brooklyn Bridge was closed on December 4, 2014 by demonstrations protesting the decision of a grand jury not to indict a white policeman who had killed an unarmed black man with an “illegal” choke hold. Whether or not he should have been indicted, do demonstrators have the right to inconvenience others? Are there times when they have the obligation to do so? What should protestors do and what penalties should they (be prepared to) face? Should the penalties be different for “agitators,” especially those from elsewhere, and especially those who go from demonstration to demonstration around the country in order to lead any fight that is in the offing?

4. Suppose an archaeologist discovered a scroll that either supported or cast doubt on an existing religious narrative. How should/would the new information be treated by a supporter or opponent of (any or of a specific) religion. Clearly the “right” thing to do would be to disclose the information whatever it is, but suppose the archaeologist feared that this would do more harm than good. Suppose he feared, for example, that the information might provoke a religious war, or that it would be the cause of prejudice.

I noted last time, “I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner.”

The topics are not new. They've been discussed innumerable times. But I still find them vexing. There are so many other issues, however, that I don't expect to have time to expand and expound on these for quite a while. And there will be more to come. Perhaps someone can spend some time on one or more of them.

Next episode:  "I Am What I Am" --Whatever that is.

I        Nota Bene, December 14, 2014.

ii        Look it up.

iii       Usually the language is English, but for some immigrants who have not learned English, and who never studied a second language in their country of origin, their only language may be that of their native land.

iv        Which is, of course, evil.

v        To do so means that you're willing to accept something that is not completely right, even if it is not completely wrong.

vi       Indeed, representing hundreds of thousands of people, how can he possibly support all of their positions?

vii      Is it better not to vote than to support an individual or an idea that is abhorrent to your principles?

Day Of Unrest

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form. … And the evening and the morning were the first day.”ⁱ

In the beginning the particle appeared. And, in accordance with the laws of physics, the Big Bang turned it into the universe that houses everything. Before that happened, time didn't exist. Nor did anything else.

“Who really knows, and who can swear, how creation came, when or where! Even gods came after creation’s day. Who really knows, who can truly say when and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He, up there, knows, maybe; or perhaps, not even He.”ⁱⁱ

“There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the 'Way.' ... The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures. The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony.”ⁱⁱⁱ

*********************************

The first of these descriptions of the beginning comes from the King James Bible; the third from the Rig Veda, and describes a Hindu version; the fourth is from Daodejing – one of many Chinese cosmogonies. Around the world there are, of course, numerous other versions of the unknowable, the discussion of the origin of everything. They represent what is known as “Creation Myths”^iv and are matters of belief – no one really knows the facts.^v

Interestingly, the second version described above, the scientific view, seems just as mystical as the others. Notwithstanding any mathematical calculations and any theories of physics, it is as unprovable as any of them and just as reliant on belief^vi – in this case the beliefs of “rational” mathematicians and scientists.

But belief can have dangerous consequences.

An important part of the religious narrative, at least in the traditions that stem from the Jewish Bible,^vii is the concept that Creation took six days and G-d rested on the seventh. And He commanded us to rest on that day as well. That seventh day is usually termed Saturday and corresponds to the Sabbath^viii which is divinely ordained. The idea of a day of rest, though it has gained widespread acceptance, has not been viewed with favor universally.^ix

A few years ago^x I wrote an essay on the calendar. One of the points that it made was that “universal” calendars favored the elimination of the seven day week as he sole basis for construction of the “year.” Rather, they employ such a week for the purpose of general organization, but because a “perfect” year^xi is required – usually with 52 seven day weeks always beginning and usually beginning on Sunday – it's necessary to slip in one or more days that won't be counted. They're days off. And who can argue with an extra day or more of rest. But the extra day (or days) shifts the Sabbath each year, and that's unacceptable to those who observe it. Supporters of a universal calendar, however, demean those who favor a Sabbath. From their perspective, a day off is a useful and modern labor benefit; the Sabbath is a remnant of the outdated mythology of a bigot. (That perspective is, however, evidence of their own biases.)

Believers, though, have different views. Indeed, they often are bigots.

One instance involves some Jews who have difficulty tolerating the violation of the Sabbath^xii by other Jews. They may throw stones at the vehicles of those who drive on the day of rest, or simply castigate those whom they deem insufficiently observant. It's not an action, however, that is generally approved by others – even those who may agree concerning the specifics of the violations.

Of far greater concern, however, is the urge to impose the religious statutes of one religion on another, or to use the Sabbath for the purposes of incitement against those of other faiths. In medieval Rome, for example, especially when all the city's Jews were forced to live in a ghetto, those same Jews were required to listen to a Sunday Christian sermon which described their evils and the goodness of the Church. Following the sermon, the killing of the evil ones sometimes occurred – most notably on Easter to deal with those who, according to their teachings, had killed G-d, as if that were possible. It was an example of anti-semitism in a form that was sanctioned by Christianity, and was aimed at using the day of “rest” to intimidate, and sometimes to eliminate, those who did not share its views. (Regrettably it was a practice not limited to Rome.)

But, as the saying goes, “that was then ...” Unfortunately, things haven't changed. Or perhaps they've gotten worse. Anti-semitism flourishes. There's an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled “Do Jews Have a Future in Europe?”^xiii The main (but not sole) source of the bias is “the violent threat of jihadists.” Although it is considered racist to say so, most of the violent episodes of which the media tell us daily involve Muslims. And it is sad to note that we frequently hear of similar violence instigated by a cleric who makes such action a focus of his Friday message to the faithful. It is not a surprise that the prayer service on that holy day is an important part of their indoctrination,^xiv for it is the time when the largest number of believers is there and eager to learn who is oppressing them and what they must do in response.

So how did everything begin? And when? I don't know. Was it a Divine Creation? Was it the logical result of scientific laws? Was there some other mechanism in play? The question is hard to resolve and will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. But the secret of existence and the meaning of life should never be something that divides us. It should never be the excuse for depriving life of all meaning. And we should certainly not use a part of our observance as as tool whose purpose is to oppress others. Especially not on the day we consider most sacred.

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.” But it was for us – all of us – to live with each other. Not only on the day of rest, but on the rest of the days.

Next episode: “Hermitage” – Alone by design or not.

i        King James Bible.

ii       Rig Veda 10.129.1-7, from Science and the World’s Religions, ed. Patrick McNamara and Wesley J. Wildman, 2012.

iii      Daodejing, Translation – Victor Mair, 1990.

iv      Labeling them as “myths” rather than “narratives” or “accounts” immediately tells the reader not to believe them. Notwithstanding the scientific explanation given, which human logic tells us is more believable than the other narratives, we do not – we cannot – choose between them on rational grounds.

v       Or even that our concept of “fact” makes any sense when considering cosmogony.

vi       Where did the particle come from Daddy? And the laws of physics? What's on the next block beyond the restaurant at the end of the universe?

vii      Although this is not the only view, it, and the works that originated from it, serves the largest number of individuals. I do not pretend there are not other understandings of time.

viii    Actually the Jewish Sabbath, from which the concept stems, begins, in accordance with the biblical description of each day beginning in the evening, just before sunset on Friday and continues until about an hour after sunset on Saturday, but for practical purposes it is usual to consider Saturday as the seventh day, removing complications that are confusing to some. Notwithstanding the Bible's decrees, there are those who sanctify the first or the sixth day of the week – or some other time – for holiness. For some, the day of rest is weekly – for others the schedule is different. But the concepts of rest and reflection are the rule.

ix       “ … even after the Romans had taken over the oriental seven-day week, … the Jews were accused of 'laziness.' So little was Sabbath understood and so much was it resented that many a Greek city, and once apparently a Roman emperor himself, prohibited its observance.” From “A Social and Religious History of the Jews,” volume 1 (second edition), by Salo Baron, Columbia University Press, 1952.

x        On January 14, 2011. I'm sure you remember. But just to remind you, it was entitled “Klutz or Kluznik.”

xi       It has to correspond to the solar year of 365 and a quarter (more or less) days.

xii       “Violation” relates to rules which may not be accepted by others who view themselves as observant.

xiii     WSJ, June 16, 2014. Essay by Simone Rodan-Benzaquen and Daniel Schwammenthal. (The paper also included an article on the abduction of three boys in Israel, raising the question of whether Jews are safe anywhere.)

xiv      The indoctrination is everywhere, especially in the schools and in the mosques where children are taught hatred and violence from the beginning.

Square One

Square Oneⁱ

There's nothing new under the sun. So wrote King Solomon in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes). And there's part of King Solomon in all of us.ⁱⁱ Molecules travel, and so do ideas. But we are not always equipped to understand those ideas. In recent years there has been an interest in “Bible Codes,” words and phrases that can be “demonstrated” in the Bible if the text is subjected to computer analysis. Whether or not the patterns exist as more than chance occurrences – or whether or not they were inserted for our guidance – we are now equipped to “find” them. They were always there, but our ability to understand and interpret biblical texts has changed.

I hesitate to say that our ability has “improved” because that would suggest that we know more now than our forebears did, and there's no real justification for that idea. What has changed, however, is our outlook. And with it our language – denotation and connotation. Our understanding of “right” and “wrong,” which formerly were based on biblical ideals and strictures, is now governed by modern sociology and science. We have adopted the cant of “moral relativism” in place of holding on to any absolutes. Is that better? Is it more accurate?” That's hard to say, but it's different. Nonetheless, science is the background of our attempt to understand Rabbi Akiba's words.ⁱⁱⁱ We demand scientific proof of everything.^iv If we can't show a scientific basis for an idea, it is obviously false.^v

It all boils down to the longstanding conflict between knowledge and belief. Unfortunately the boundaries are a little blurred. But to try to understand a religious concept we're probably better off if we use belief as our touchstone. Belief is usually part of the vocabulary of the religious, the philosopher, or the magician, although the atheist also has a fixed set of beliefs – generally the opposite of the religious, though no easier to prove.^vi,vii In any event, for the purposes of this discussion, a religious vocabulary and references to religious texts make the most sense.

In order to decipher the Bible, the reader must make some important assumptions. He must, of course, accept it. If he does not do so, no argument based on it will seem reasonable. He must also accept the idea that the language used – and it is sometimes metaphor – is that which was most easily comprehended by the people at the time it was first read. So, for example, references to the farming and the harvesting of oil, and grain and wine – as are found in the fifth of the five books of Moses^viii – are better understood now as references to livelihood, however it is earned. At the time when the words were first used, farming was the major occupation of the listeners and made the most sense to them. Modernizing the text each time there is a change in our situation would lead to chaos, since everyone would have different ideas about the new wording. And it would be historically inaccurate. Better to discuss among ourselves the meaning of terminology that may not resonate with moderns. That discussion may lead to a more complete understanding and agreement.

But most important is a recognition that however hard we try, we cannot understand everything that occurs in this world or in others. For some the lack of knowledge is interpreted as a negation of the reality of what we don't understand, or at best a challenge. For others, there is a recognition that some things are beyond us and must be accepted as they are and according to the understanding provided for us by others. That is especially true in referring to the Bible. However religious philosophers may attempt to rationalize what is there, if it viewed as the word of G-d it must be accepted at face value.

“In the Beginning everything came about through a singularity.” Maybe. But most of us, including me, don't understand this concept. I've tried. I've read about the origin of the universe in several books on cosmology, but no matter how it's phrased, the concept of a “singularity” seems to me to be supernatural. It's certainly in opposition to what I was taught in high school physics which emphasized that everything comes from something. There's no free lunch. But with the idea of a “singularity” this concept appears to be contradicted. And gravity and the other “laws” of physics had to have an origin somewhere.

If, as seems to be the case with the cosmologists, we're stuck with the supernatural, though, “In the Beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” makes as much sense as physics. Perhaps G-d created the singularity. That would be logical for a singular deity – the source of monotheism. And since the Bible speaks the language of Man, a complex physical explanation of the specific mechanisms of Creation doesn't seem to be in order. Man doesn't speak the language of G-d, and Man cannot understand His ways. Our values and His have nothing to do with each other. Job, believing he understood G-d's plan, tried to explain it to others, but was upbraided for believing that he was wise enough to fathom the Divine. “Can one who contends with the Almighty be arrogant?”^ix Job's attempts to comprehend what was beyond him were clearly misguided.

So an explanation of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge may be interesting, but it is only a description of a possible mechanism for something we don't, and can't, understand. In fact, the two ideas may be irreconcilable or may have no relationship to each other.^x Only G-d knows.

This will surely be viewed as a “cop-out” by those who reject religion. But no more than that of those who use a term like “singularity” and believe that it is an explanation. I can accept the idea that there are some things Man doesn't, and will never know. That, of course, leaves us with Rabbi Akiba's words,^xi unexplained and apparently contradictory.

So what do we do with these two ideas? Where do we go from here? At the end of Kohelet Solomon said it best. “Fear G-d and keep His commandments, for that is a man's whole duty.”^xii It may not answer all our questions, but it's a plan.

Next episode: “All The News That's Fit To Print” – And if you believe that ...

i      Continuation of last week's blog.

ii     The following, although written about Napoleon, applies equally to Solomon. Recycling, which we view as something new, has always existed. http://peterallport.com/molecules.htm

iii    See The Need To Know which appeared last week.

iv    Well not actually everything. If someone espouses some idea about alternative medicine or a particular social theory we're likely to accept it no questions asked.

v     Until gravity was demonstrated and proved mathematically, it did not exist.

vi    Such beliefs are usually based on a lack of scientific evidence. According to him, there is no G-d because the existence of G-d cannot be proved. Of course it cannot be disproved either and all that is left is a belief that there is no G-d. But the religious and the non-religious speak two different languages and neither can understand or accept the position of the other.

vii    Many scientists are among the religious believers, drawing a distinction between the knowledge of science and the belief of religion. Pascal's Wager is an example of a mathematician attempting to use his science to illustrate why he chooses to believe.

viii   See 11:13-17. Similar examples appear elsewhere, but this will serve as a suitable example.

ix    Tanach, The Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, New York, 1996

x     They certainly are irreconcilable in our rational, “natural,” mindset.

xi    See previous blog.

xii    ibid.: Tanach, The Stone Edition.