The More Things Change

“All that the Lord has said, we will do and we will hear.” Na'aseh v'nishma. That was what the Jewish people said at Sinai when they received the law. They agreed to follow the law that G-d had set for them before they fully knew or understood what it entailed.

G-d was – and is – a populist. Perhaps we don't comprehend the meaning of all the laws He has ordained, but that's not important. It's more important that we abide by His teachings irrespective of our discernment of their meaning. We follow G-d and do whatever He prescribes for us. And that, pretty much, is a description of what a populist is. It is an “individual” whose words and commands are accepted unconditionally.

Populism isn't a new phenomenon, even if we tend to think of it as such. But there are different kinds of populists: G-d decrees laws which will improve us – His goal is for us to improve our lot by following Him – but the majority of populists have a different aim. A populist's purpose is to improve his own lot by attracting a following. So he caters to its wishes when formulating his own appeal. And he convinces them of his sincerity using the oratorical talents he has perfected; he convinces them that the ideas are his own – that he believes in them (as, indeed, he might) and that he will turn them into fact. As a result the word itself has taken on negative connotations because most populists have used their rhetorical skills primarily to excite the crowd for their own purposes.

The main goal of most of them is to acquire power, and the path is usually a challenge of existing authority. There are times when those who follow the new leader are the majority, and times when it is the aim of such a leader to inspire a minority – to mobilize them in order to overwhelm a less motivated, or even apathetic, majority. Most – but not all – are rabble-rousers although, as I said, their aims may differ. Huey Long was a populist. But so were Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who, along with their "indiscretions," introduced leftist reforms in Argentina. Marine Le Pen is quite the opposite – a right-wing populist in France who may some day serve as her country's president. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populists. (Actually all politicians – indeed, everybody else as well – are. They want to be popular. They want you to like them, to vote for them, and to do what they say.) Their techniques and styles may be different, but their aims are similar. Brexit and Occupy Wall Street, different as they may have been, had, in common, that they were populist movements. Goals and likely results may not have been clearly defined, but that was of no consequence to true believers. 
 

Populists are convinced they're right, and they convince others of the same thing. There are some who are intent on improving conditions for those they rule, and others whose only concern is the religious fervor that motivates them and which takes precedence over any human concerns. Nonetheless, however, a commandment not to kill is much more beneficial than an order to kill anyone who disagrees with the leader; protecting refugees is far preferable to using the problem of refugees stir up emotions, so the inspiration of the people may be for good or evil.

People are the same. They haven't changed. But tools have. We can now do things that we wanted to do before but couldn't, for a variety of reasons. While only a few could be reached in the past, and even fewer at one time, the availability of electronic media makes the mesmerization of the masses a reality now. And its use is expanding rapidly. It was first used as an important means of communication by Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose radio “Fireside” chats (he made them from his desk, to citizens wherever they were sitting) mimicked the words of a deity to those who wanted to believe, and inspired their fealty and cooperation. And even more recently, television, the internet, and social media make it possible to inform and rally larger numbers and more quickly.

The media (and everyone else) view Donald Trump as a populist. And he is. He'eshardly the first, however. And while others may see his actions as divisive and contrary to the virtue of diversity (actually “diversity” implies division and difference), he sees himself as representing a forgotten group of citizens whose needs have been ignored by “the establishment.” And he uses the media, including the electronic media, to spread his message. Where others see the term as a negative description, he considers his actions as far more positive.

But doing the old things costs a lot more nowadays. There was much criticism of Donald Trump: that he was rich and able to buy the election. But, in fact, he and the Republican Party spent far less than Secretary Clinton. And many hundreds of millions less than President Obama in the two prior campaigns.

And a third way in which the tools have changed while the goals have not. Now we have more psychologists, consultants, “spin doctors,” and public relations gurus to help people get their messages across, and accepted by others. (People can also be tools.)

G-d was an early populist, but the people chose to obey His commands because He had already produced for them. He had given them reason to trust Him. He had taken them out of Egypt and performed miracles on their behalf.  His actions inspired them to follow His words.

Since then, however, loyalty has been based on promises of improvement rather than accomplishments. But the people are looking for those accomplishments. They have great expectations of what their government will do for them. So if those expectations aren't met they become willing converts to the preaching of someone who promises change and better things. And that's what people want and have always wanted: better things. Methods may have changed but that has remained the same.

Not Now

What I wrote yesterday is certain to cause antagonism (even among my friends if I have any left). If anyone reads it. My usual audience is about three people, but I sent it's contents, as a letter, to The Jewish Press. If they print it I'm sure to get the venom of most of its readers. Ah, well. Let me go a little further.

There are likely to be two main criticisms: that Judaism is a single unit and the “normative” Jews are not keeping up with the times, and whatever the accuracy of the assessment, now is the wrong time to raise it. I dealt with the former yesterday (though I have some additional comments on that perspective – see below) and I'll primarily tackle the latter today.

Halloween 1517 was certainly not the time for Luther to post his theses. The Church was in turmoil – the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were being rejected. Many believers had doubts about the primacy of church over state while others didn't. Church corruption was rife. It was a time to come together rather than publicize problems.

But for the same reasons it was the perfect time to correct faults. Now, in the twenty-first century, there is more openness in Christianity and a large menu of church services from which to choose. No one questions the divisions which have actually brought more nuance and clarity to the worship service. Adherents appreciate the differences, rather than resent them.

And the quarrels over doctrine in Judaism now dictate the same kind of solution. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of what is right. It is time we corrected our faults. There is no right time except when things are wrong. And with internecine contention, usually more political than theological, increasing, it's bound to happen at some time in the future. Painful as it may be now, the realignment will be recognized as a necessary step in the development of Judaism and of the Jewish people, for they are not the same. “Jewishness” reflects who you are; Judaism outlines what you believe.

But, many will ask “Why now?” They will argue, that there is so much conflict now and we need unity, not to be ripped apart. That assumes we have unity and aren't being ripped apart already – an idea that is laughable. The world may view all Jews as one, but we know better. Some would like to see “dedeification.” Others would not. Some promote BDS. Others don't. Many desire egalitarianism instead of tradition, but that desire is not universal. And there are many other issues that separate us.

Despite the differences however, most Jews would like to see the state of Israel survive although there are differences concerning both political and theological matters. And even though the world staunchly maintains that “anti-Zionism,” (by which they mean opposition to the State of Israel) is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, it is difficult to take that argument seriously after a couple of millennia. The internal struggles between Jews would seem to favor their argument, even though others only use the terminology to cover their bigotry, internal and international politics, and their thirst for Arab oil.

But notwithstanding the anti-Semitic code, all Zionists are not Jewish. Christian evangelicals in the United States, and the Makuya in Japan, are two groups that support Israel. Unfortunately most of the world's nations oppose all efforts to help that tiny country. The underlying anti-Semitism, which has been buried within the psyches of most people, along with the desire to have the support of the large Islamic and Arab communities, guarantee that this attitude will exist for a long time. Morality is not an issue among nations. As Lord Palmerston said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Politics and prejudice will continue to rule. Perhaps Palmerston was right. Perhaps the best way to defend itself in addition to military strength is for Israel to recognize, support, and encourage a variety of allies – an increasing number of Jewish religions – even among those who may erroneously believe their heritages to be other than Jewish. It is better that more than one group acts as a light to the nations. The lesson is heard more often. All those who are Jewish have that light within them, whether or not they practice normative Judaism. And if Israel must make concessions to new religious groups, so be it.

The leaders of the nations must, sooner or later, recognize that those lights include knowledge which, to this point, they lack. They must understand that in the long run their citizens will benefit more from association with the “start up” religions than with their opponents. Their future will be more secure when they ally themselves with Israel, since the need for oil will eventually disappear and new ideas, and the ferment of competition – theological, economic, political, and whatever – will take them further than servile allegiance to the ways of the past.

It may take centuries, but it has to start sooner or later.

Doing – Part 2

There are other considerations, possibly lower levels in the process of decision-making, but I think not. Habit controls a lot of what we do. We're not conscious of the role it plays, even as we act according to our own long-standing patterns. You may think of it as a personal tradition, but it probably lacks the literary or historical “justification” of a tradition.

Additionally, it's not really habit, but a good deal of control is placed on those of us (and that means me) who are compulsive. It's control exercised by our own brains. Whether it means straightening pictures, picking up pieces of paper from the floor, or, more productively, putting away what we take out, there's a lot to be said for a compulsive personality – and it's not all bad.

And there are community expectations. Many of the things we do are in response to what is expected of us. We may not agree with them or even understand them, but we know that those around us will judge us on their basis. For example, the person with whom you are walking may chide you for not crossing against the light when there is no traffic coming. And you may wonder, as well, whether your actions make sense or if they're simply reflexes.

(Reflexes themselves may be the cause of some of our actions, but I won't address them here.)

But there's another reason. And it has no explanation whatsoever. In fact it's almost embarrassing to discuss and I'm completely unable to vindicate it, but it's probably the best explanation for all my actions. To a degree it's a combination and a distillation of all the other rationales: I do things because that's what I do. I can't always justify what I do, but I know that if I do otherwise I'll have the feeling that I've done something wrong. It doesn't make much sense, but a lot of what I do is aimed at preventing me from feeling guilt.

I've omitted any direct language regarding “right” and “wrong.” A discussion of absolutes is likely to make the problem worse rather than help in its solution. Many would argue that they don't exist – that there are different norms in different societies and all are right. Isaiah Berlin writes (in The Power of Ideas – cited by Sacks)

Herder laid it down that every culture possesses its own centre [sic] of gravity; each culture has its own points of reference … The world was a great garden in which different flowers and plants grew, each in its own way, each with its own claims and rights and past and future. From which which it followed that no matter what men had in common … there were no universally true answers as valid for one culture as for another.

That, however, cannot be completely true. The flowers may look different but they all require water and nutrients. Because they differ morphologically, we should not attribute different needs to them. Nor to societies. There may be differences, but no matter what particular groups may claim, rape and murder are wrong. And the Bible makes it clear that human sacrifice is unacceptable. And whatever the practices of a particular group, cannibalism is condemnable. Some absolutes cross religious and ethnic boundaries, irrespective of practice. And when we try to show our tolerance be adopting a “live and let live” attitude – wen we let our society divide itself in the names of diversity and multiculturalism, we sacrifice both the flower and its nutrients.

The absolutes are the taboos of individual societies. They're negative – like five of the ten commandments. And while there are differences in the religious/ethnic codes that contain them, there are some that seem to be universal, even if the societies that follow them have never had contact with each other. So although there are many who ignore the taboos, and there are many who don't punish the violators, almost everyone seem to agree that it is wrong to commit murder.

But there are positives as well – positives that seem to apply in every society. Among them are socialization and cooperation. For a society to work its members must work together. So just as there are things we don't do, there are things we do. And both groups control our actions.

One final note. As those of you who read these essays (and I can count you on one hand) know, I am ill. So it is fair to ask how my medical condition affects my behavior? To what degree are the factors which I've already mentioned in play?

To understand the answer, it's necessary to understand me. I don't want to know what's happening. I don't ask my doctors very many questions, trying only to do what they say. So part of what I do is what I'm told to do. It's another layer of law added to the ones I've already discussed.

Time, in various forms, has taken over my thoughts and my actions. I'm likely to act more quickly when something comes up – not to put it off but to take care of it immediately. I live one day at a time – as if there's no difference from my previous experiences. Still, however, I plan for the future in certain ways. One of those ways is to make lists for others (I've always made lists) of what needs to be done, and to make sure that all economic, legal, and insurance issues are covered. Simultaneously, however, I look forward to planned events. I have goals – events I want to attend. I plan as if the future is unending.

But that's all background for me. It is more involved in how I do things than in what I do. And the “what” hasn't really changed. Denial is strong (fortunately) and I pretend that nothing has changed. That's not reality, but it allows me to do what I do because it's what I do. I'd like to think that it's all logical and well thought-out, but that's not the case. I do it because it's what I do. It's all that I know.

I don't know what else to do.

December 21, 2016

Doing

Why do I do what I do?

I can think of lots of explanations. Of course I follow the law, although there are times when it doesn't make any sense. I'm hardly the first to point out the gap between the law and justice, but the law's the law. And until it's changed we're obliged to follow it, at least that's the rule. “Right” and “wrong” aren't the issues. Only what legislators have specified are our responsibilities – even if “our” representatives were rewarded by lobbyists for taking such positions.

Let me get out of the way at the outset the force enunciated by Freud – the superego. It is the conscience that we usually ascribe to parental brainwashing, and it's the force that opposes id, which could lead to anarchy. Id tells you to do whatever you want to do, but superego says “no.” It holds the taboos of family and society and, to a very great degree, controls what we don't do. But I'll deal with it later. In the meantime, let me deal with the external forces.

Secular law, and the precedents it follows, have been our guidelines for a long time. The “Social Contract” which was reformulated by Hobbes and Locke (long after Socrates accepted the authority of the state) suggests that people have ceded control to their governments in order to establish conditions under which they can survive. It was up to the state to protect us from oppressors, although there have been many instances of the state taking such a role for itself.

Allowing both secular and religious law, however, especially as imagined in the Age of Enlightenment, sets the stage for both cooperation and a conflict between the two. There is a concept in Jewish law of Dina de-Malkhuta Dina – the law of the land is the law. It is a talmudic principle that we are obliged to follow the secular law that is not in conflict with religious law. There's a long-standing tradition in Judaism to support secular authority. It's an early exposition of the Social Contract. From Avot:

Rabbi Chanina the deputy [High] Priest said: “Pray for the welfare of the government (lit., monarchy), for if not for its fear, a person would swallow his fellow live.”

And there were others – prophets – who conveyed the same message to a people exiled from their own land. But it has its limits in Torah law. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes in To Heal A Fractured World

The existence of a covenant with G-d means that all human sovereignty is delegated, conditional and constitutional. This gives rise to the principles of crimes against humanity and justified civil disobedience. If there is a conflict between the laws of humans and the law of G-d, the latter takes priority. This is the greatest single safeguard against tyranny, totalitarianism and the rule of might over right. It is also the principle that brought into being one of the great moral institutions of humankind: the prophet, the world's first social critic. The man or woman who “speaks truth to power” does so on the specific mandate of G-d himself.

He points out that our first loyalty is to G-d, but we have responsibilities in terms of the secular government where we live.

That certainly provides a background for my actions, but it doesn't really explain anything. The secular laws under which we live were written, and are written still, by people just like us, and our form of government is one in which there is a constant rewriting of statutes by other humans. Some of the laws are wise and should be followed – but, as Rabbi Sacks notes – not all.

And there is extensive debate concerning the authorship and authority of the different levels of religious law. Whether or not one accepts the idea of an original Divine origination, the copies that we have now, and certainly the commentaries, were human creations. Our traditions tell us that they are the will of G-d and that we should follow them, but it is easy to wonder about the authority of redacted, contradictory, and interpreted works conveyed to us by people like us.

Following them is clearly part of our tradition. Or, I should say, traditions. We follow the ways of our parents, our teachers, our shuls or our communities, our geographical areas and the strain of Judaism in which we were raised. But these are all the creations of humans who do things in certain ways, and they're not necessarily in agreement about how things should be done. And they're not necessarily good. Commenting on a musical interpretation. Toscanini said “Tradition is just the last bad performance.” Some attribute the assessment to Mahler, but whoever said it the view is clearly expressed that there can be problems with traditions – people make them, and people can disagree about them.

(To be continued)



December 21, 2016

The Changing Jewish Heritage

In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of dispute about the control of religion in Israel by the Chief Rabbinate. There are some disagreements among the Orthodox, but most of the complaints come from the Reform and Conservative movements. Maintaining that they are as much Jews as the Orthodox since Jewishness is dependent on heredity rather than practice (a strange claim at a time of increasing acceptance of patrilineal descent, acceptable intermarriage, and the “welcoming” of non-Jews) they demand equal acceptance of their rulings and practices, and equal access to all Jewish sites on their terms. This doesn't seem to be in accord with the “status quo” agreement that went into effect when the State of Israel was founded, but that was then and this is now. The world has changed and there are many, especially Americans, who believe that Israel and Judaism should change as well.

The focus of the argument at this time is the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Wall is under control of the Rabbinate, which requires observances at that site to be according to (Orthodox) Jewish tradition. All services held there must observe its practices – separation of the sexes, traditional services, and others – rather than be change to accommodate those who want something else.

But it's not so simple.

When Martin Luther was born, “Christianity” meant what we now call Catholicism. But his demands, and those who followed him, didn't achieve what he sought in Rome, and the Protestant movement, with a variety of practices among its many adherents, was born. All those who joined the new churches were Christians. They all accepted a heritage which views Jesus as the savior. Many of those in the early church were Jews, but they disagreed with the traditions under which they had been raised. Indeed, those with an uninterrupted matrilineal line from those early Christians are, according to Jewish law, Jewish, though they are, for the most part, unidentifiable and would probably reject the designation. Some, however, would welcome it. There are many who view “converts” as hereditary Jews who are unaware of their family's history and there have been many actions against Jews in the past that forced them to accept other faiths.

In any event, you can be Christian and of another faith than Catholicism. Another faith. A Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon wouldn't expect the Pope to change the Church's practices because he disagreed with them. Neither would a Pentecostalist demand the “right” to hold services in the Sistine Chapel because he is a Christian. That may be the case – indeed it is the case – but they're of different religions from the “mother” church. The Catholics know it and the Protestants agree.

Similarly it can't be argued that the Reform and the Conservative movements derive from the same source as Orthodox Judaism. But they're very different in many ways. The essay on Reform Judaism in The Jewish Virtual Library reads, in part,

Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, single day observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very "rejectionist" view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:

• Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
• The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
• The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
• The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a "confirmation" ceremony.
• The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared "repugnant" to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
• Shabbat [the Jewish Sabbath which occurs on Saturday] was observed on Sunday.
• Traditional restrictions on Shabbat behavior were not followed.

Many of the new practices were subsequently abandoned, but the new movement had published its 95 Theses as much as Luther did four centuries earlier, and “Jewish Protestantism” was born. Jews were practicing a new religion that was significantly different from the one that had been observed by their ancestors.

“Conservative Judaism” began as a compromise position between Orthodox Judaism and the new movement but it has since moved to the left and also represents a separate religion. Those who follow it may be “Jews,” but their religion is not Judaism. It may be appropriate to work with them when our needs coincide, but to suggest that we observe the same religion and tradition – that we accept the same heritage as those who follow Conservative and Reform practices – makes no sense whatever.

It's time we recognized that all who label themselves as “Jews” – and there are many who reject the designation entirely – are not of the same religion.

And Israel follows the Jewish heritage even if others don't.

What I Think/Know/Believe

[Note: I'll use footnotes today because some of what I have to say will be better if it doesn't interrupt the rest of the text, which may be somewhat longer than usual.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't know everything. It hurts me to say so, but it's the truth.ⁱ No one does. It used to be easier – when there was less to knowⁱⁱ

Despite their exalted role in role in democratic theory, reporters were scarcely better than average citizens at mastering the torrent of information in the modern world.ⁱⁱⁱ

So what you “know” is what other people think – or at least what they tell you – what they want you to think. That is their “truth.”^iv And that's why I'm suspicious of “knowledge.” My view is the equal of theirs. And it's hard to know from the media what is fact and what is “alternative fact.”

According to Winston Churchill,^v

History is written by the victors.

So we can't even trust what the experts tell us is the past. And from time to time anthropologists and archaeologists also change their opinions. Ideally the new views are more accurate than the old, but who “knows?”

One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.

Stephen Hawking speaks for science when he tells us^vi that the universe could have arisen spontaneously based on the laws of physics. And he has the formulas and the data to prove it. But it is less clear what the origin of those laws of physics is. So it is uncertain if all his formulas prove what he says. Copernicus considered the sun the center of the universe. Einstein exposed Newton's error in gravitational theory. Science makes mistakes. Today's established science is what scientists tell us it is, although later it may be disproven or changed.

And that brings me to the actual subject of this note – “knowledge” and belief. When I was brought up there wasn't much talk in my family about religion. My religious training consisted of a few hours a week, divided into too many sections to make a real understanding of any of them likely. I'll get to that. However it's the basis of ideas of belief and knowledge.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten.^vii It's a bit of an oversimplification, however it was a bestseller. Most of what I really need to know I learned from my “training wheels” – my parents – who gave me the gift of language and my earliest instruction in how to think. It was a gift that perhaps I have repaid by passing it on to my children. Childhood learning never leaves us.

There was one vital lesson, however, that I learned in my childhood from a science teacher. I'm not sure which one, but the good teacher presented me with a bit of wisdom that has always been with me. It's not deep. At least on it's surface. Yet it's the basis for all I know [sic – no quotation marks] about life. The lesson was that everything comes from something. It's an explanation of the aphorism “There's no such thing as a free lunch.”

The lesson – everything comes from something – is obvious. Nothing you didn't know already. Yet it is, in a way, the pillar on which the world stands. It was one of the original foundations of philosophy. Where did we come from? We're still arguing about it today because we don't know. The question formed the basis for most religions as well. Where did we come from? Evolution^viii is a fine concept but it's only the description of a tool, not of the craftsman.

For those who believe in what Hawking says, we came about spontaneously as a result of the random formation of the universe, the ultimate development of our solar system,^ix and evolution. I say “believe” because no one was around at the time of Creation to attest to what happened. What they consider to have been proved may have various formulas and equations to back it up, but no first-hand evidence.^x

“Proved.” What constitutes proof? For many, the equations of those we consider smarter than ourselves is all it takes. For others it is what is observable and verifiable.^xi For still others it is the appearance of the idea in a holy book. Many consider the last option mentioned as “superstition,” and based on “belief” rather than “knowledge.” But even those words are imprecise, because, as was mentioned, “knowledge” is sometimes incorrect and in need of correction, and “belief” is usually said to be confined to the acceptance of religious doctrines. But perhaps these ideas should be examined.

What do we know? Nothing really. We accept what we are told. We've learned from our parents and teachers, and their words were long ago accepted as truths that we don't question. We even judge future teachings on the basis of what they've taught us. Moreover the greatest of scientists, those who “stand on the shoulders” of predecessors, are relying on what their antecedents have said. And it may be wrong or incomplete. But it's the benchmark by which they judge everything else. How reliable is that? And how are the results of such teachings to be evaluated? Even when what an equation predicts is found to be reproducible, it isn't always clear if this is because it describes a tool and not what we know and understand to be a creative principle.

In a way, “belief” is the same. We accept what we are told because our teachers assert that it is the word of G-d. What is written, however, was written by humans and is subject to error or dispute. Yet belief is often accepted as settled knowledge and not to be contradicted.^xii They have been told something and they consider it fact. They believe they were “told” by G-d, and the words are more than belief – they constitute knowledge. And they expect the same belief of us.

To evaluate such a view it is important that we return to an earlier question: can you get something from nothing? And, as I mentioned, that also raises theological issues, for example, is there a G-d? It's hard to argue with the idea that belief and knowledge, as well as the concepts of proof, knowledge and, for that matter, right and wrong, are inextricably related to that question. And, having been taught while I was young that you can't get something from nothing, I'm inclined toward a Divine origin of the universe and life. When I consider Hawking's arguments, the first thoughts I have are questions: where did the laws of physics come from? Did they precede the origin the universe? Who decreed them? After all, you can't get something from nothing.

But Hawking apparently believes they were just there. Eternal truths? Are they the Divine creators? Even if that is the case, there is some unexplainable force that is necessary to account for creation. In this case it would be laws, but most people call that force “G-d,” although the name is not the point. More important is the concept. And even more important is the idea that what we “know” is really what we believe.

If the same question were asked of me – specifically where did G-d come from – the only answer I could give is that I don't know. I wasn't around at that time.^xiii The response to unanswered scientific inquiries is “I don't know yet,” with the implication that humans will some day be able to answer all questions. I don't believe that will be true of our origin. I don't think wise men will – reporters, historians, or scientists – have all the answers. I think we'll forever have to believe, not know.

July 6, 2017

i As I'll explain later, I don't know what the “truth” is.

ii Same thing. I don't accept the usual definition of “know.”

iii That's David Greenberg in his book “Republic of Spin” summarizing a view of Walter Lippmann early in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, although the technique of news gathering is much more advanced now – members of the media are more interested in expressing their own opinions (“truth”), and those of the owners of the organs for which they work than in providing relevant facts and context. It's called “advocacy journalism.” What has resulted is that there is little in today's press that is a straightforward and objective delineation of the facts; rather articles are intended to convince you to take a particular point of view.

iv Because they're certain that what they think is the “truth,” that's what they want you to think. Anyone with a contrary opinion is wrong, and possibly evil, trying to convince you of a false set of facts. Today we call such reporting “spin.” It's an activity primarily of advertising and public relations, and mainly on behalf of politicians, political views, and other products. Thus “truth” is often no more than opinion with an objective of swaying the listener.

v Or, at least, attributed to him. There were others, including George Orwell and Walter Benjamin, who made similar observations. At best, it's origin is uncertain.

vi In The Grand Design.

vii By Robert Fulghum. It was first published in 1986.

viii “Darwinism”

ix There is a free lunch.

x Atheists, like everyone else, are believers. Their religion, however, is science.

xi A newborn baby is observable and verifiable, but is it proof of a Creator or the random functioning of a randomly originated universe? Is a scientific formula any more convincing than a baby's formula?

xii “God Said It; I Believe It; and That Settles It!” For those who subscribe to that formulation, what they believe, they “know.” It's established fact.

xiii As G-d says in Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth?” And it goes on to list phenomena which I never observed. Indeed, who am I?

Various Thoughts VIII

More food for thought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some conditions that we accept as normal are certainly diseases, even if we all don't feel so – and that includes the views of some who are affected. Take “gender dysphoria” as an example. It has an ICD (International Classification of Diseases) code as well as the American Psychiatric Associations DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) code. In fact some of the medical insurance companies consider it justification for surgery. It's likely that it results from an individual's DNA or a prenatal condition suffered by the mother. In any event, it's not the individual's fault. In fact “fault” is an inappropriate word. People with sicknesses merit understanding and forgiveness rather than blame.

Alcoholics have a disease. So do addicts of other materials – prescribed opioids are in the news nowadays. But somehow, although we're less understanding of them, we accept the concept. The law recognizes the nature of their problem and society seeks non-punitive way of addressing their problems. There are rehabilitation programs, often paid for by the government or covered by insurance companies. Such rehabilitation, of course, is costly, and expenses are paid for by all of us in the form of taxes and insurance premiums. That's not immediately apparent, and we press for greater assistance of the afflicted.

Voyeurs, rapists, and serial killers are also diseased, whether or not we're willing to admit it, but we're unlikely to cut them any slack. We're much more willing to pay for their punishment than to help them. Should we be more understanding or have we gone too far already?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Who's made in whose image? I've been wondering about it. It's a religious issue or, rather, it's many religious issues. Take Zeus, Achilles, Mars, Jupiter, Athena, and all of those folks. People created them, not the opposite. They had all the traits of good guys and bad guys – all the characteristics we had. They were made in “our” image.

Judaism, and, to an extent, its “spin-off” religious, says the opposite. G-d created us and gave us the Torah which documented that process and our early history. Christianity added Jesus, a human G-d figure, but the record that has been passed down was written by people who never knew Jesus, but were able to describe him based on what they heard. And Islam makes no claim of a new or additional deity – only of a prophet. So all their holy documents – all their understanding of G-d – was written by men based on the words of their prophet whose Koran was based on the Jewish bible and its Christian expansion. (I cannot comment on non-“western” religions because I know little about them.)

But what about the original – Judaism? While the Torah is attributed to G-d, it was written by one (or more according to some scholars) human, so even though G-d is asserting creation, and that man was made in His image, our only record of this claim is what we're told by another human being. And the various extrapolations and interpretations of His laws are also provided by our sages – more humans.

So who created whom? And in whose image?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Every now and then we read about a lawsuit that results in huge punitive damages which seem to us to be disproportionate to the injury but are clearly designed to affect the behavior of the defendant in the future. They are fines aimed at making a company with deep pockets think twice before letting its products or its actions harm more of our citizens.

Generally speaking, however, fines are awarded to the government – us – as punishment of offenders. Should punitive damages follow the same pattern? Government lawyers have more resources than private lawyers and their interest in, and work toward, a large punitive settlement, in the public interest, might increase the size of the damages. The plaintiff (and his attorney) are certainly entitled to remuneration for their costs and for damages done, as well as a (small) part of the punitive damages, but the public that was at risk is entitled to the largest part of the fine. Additionally, the recognition by well-funded defendants that they are facing a well-funded government force may result in case settlements at an early time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chew on the food (for thought) I've offered. More next time.

May 23, 2017

Rationalizing The Rabbis

Who can know the “mind” of Hashem?

Who can understand His “wishes?”

We were given a bare-bones Torah which needed explication; a written law in need of the oral law. But the oral law, passed on for centuries from person to person, was, as we observe in the game of “Telephone,” sometimes different at the end from the beginning.

When it comes to the understanding of specific halakhot we frequently come across differing opinions, often with conclusions that are diametrically opposed. [For examples of some of the problems, see the ENDNOTE.] Although we may be taught to follow the majority opinion, it may be unclear how that opinion was reached. And that opinion may reflect different lines of reasoning. They may come to the same conclusions but by distinct paths which may leave us with important questions left unanswered regarding situations which revolve around the route rather than the destination. We are still in need of our rabbis to guide us along these routes. But with all the disagreements that already exist, perhaps they are subject to similar variations in their opinions.

According to our tradition and practices, an individual follows all the views of a particular rabbi irrespective of his leniency or strictness. In practice, however, one checks with the rabbi most likely to give the opinion being sought. In fact, though it is not proper to do so, some people will even “shop” for opinions, choosing, after speaking with several different rabbis, to accept the opinion that they sought initially.

How have we arrived at this state? Why are there different opinions if rabbinic law reflects the teachings of Moshe at Sinai, and what Moshe was taught and what he taught were the words of Hashem? Are different rabbis conveying different words in Hashem’s name (sorry about the redundancy)? Can contradictory rulings all represent the “views” of Hashem? And what should we do when faced with our own uncertainty and with judgments which make no sense to us?

It is important to recognize at the outset that our quandary is not new. The rabbis have always been cognizant of discrepancies between opinions. Various rules have been set out to help guide us when we must make choices. For example, we follow Hillel rather than Shamai, “the rabbis” rather than an individual. That kind of bottom-line help is certainly appreciated, but it begs the question of why there are disagreements in the first place. Here, too, the rabbis attempt to deal with the problem rather than ignore it. Their solution, however, is not always one with which we are comfortable. What is often their approach is to solve the problem by denying its existence. Rather than admit that one teacher disagrees with another, an attempt is made to show that the two opinions are identical, but apply to situations which differ. Thus they cannot be compared, and the two rabbis would agree if all the circumstances were the same.

It doesn’t always work, though. Sometimes one rabbi will state that he disagrees with another, and it is difficult to explain away what was acknowledged by one of the principals to be a different opinion. It is still possible to state that one did not fully understand the position of the other or the situation about which he spoke -- that if he had known all the facts he would have decided similarly -- but it is more difficult. To do so is to cast doubt upon the new “authority,” to suggest that we are smarter or know more than he. If so, what is the standing of other rulings of his when we disagree with them? Should we follow our own views having already determined that he is subject to error?

There is no answer except to accept the fact that there is no answer, and to follow the Biblical dictum that we abide by the rabbis of our times. It's not always satisfying but, at least for the present, it's all we have. And it's the tradition.

========================================

ENDNOTE

The usual solution to the problem is to eliminate any conflicts. For example:

Situations are different and the two Rabbis who apparently disagreed were discussing different cases. “The two opinions are really the same. The circumstances were different. In one case …”

“The Vilna Gaon” says to delete ...” -- There appear to be times when the Rabbis, faced with something that makes no sense to them or is a contradiction, simply delete what they consider in error or say that it means something else -- occasionally the opposite of what it says.

         “Here you’re talking about ...” -- There are times when the Rabbis explain something not obvious by describing a situation which is not even suggested in the text but can be made to fit and solve a problem not otherwise soluble.

         “It means the opposite.”

         “He must have meant ...”

         “He should have said ...”

         Switch the views of Sages to be consistent with other statements

September 29, 2016

The Second Day

Shavuot is over. Both days.

My daughter called from Jerusalem where she lives and we caught up on all the activities there – hers, her husband's, and those of their six children. It was fascinating, but she had to hold it all in for a day because in Israel the holiday is only one day long, so she couldn't call us even though it was a regular day for her.

There are several holidays like that – which we in the galut (diaspora) observe for two days while Israelis fulfill their obligations in one. The difference has ancient roots. There was a time when the new month was determined by visual observation of the moon. And that was certified by a court in Canaan (now Israel) with the news of the new month spread to other locations by bonfires on mountain tops and later, because there were non-believers who lit fires to cause confusion, by messenger.

Messengers, however, take time, and it turned out that the news arrived in some localities after a particular holiday and it couldn't be observed properly. A practical system arose. People started celebrating the occasion on two days, based on counting for the previous month. Because the lunar month was sometimes twenty-nine and sometimes thirty, and individuals didn't know which day to observe, this solution ensured that the right day would be honored – whichever it was.

After a while, however, a fixed calendar was developed that allowed everyone to know which day was which without any message from the Holy Land. That didn't change much, though, because the celebration of two days had become a tradition in the galut, and traditions have a standing almost as determinative as laws.

And that's the way it is today. Some holidays that are one day long in Israel last for two days everywhere else. (Rosh Hashanah, the new year, is observed for two days even in Israel, but the reasoning will not be discussed here.) Israelis, who are outside their country, celebrate for one day no matter where they are, and non-Israelis, two days, even when they are in Israel. Traditions are strong.

But this one is wrong. The two-day rule arose as a recognition that the place was far enough away from the site of declaration of the day that a way had to be found to compensate for the problem. (The decision by some to observe a single day now that we have a fixed calendar will also not be discussed.) It had nothing to do with the people. And in Canaan, or Israel, knowledge was based on the fact that the date was determined there, and people knew immediately. Where they were was the deciding factor, not who they were.

Traditions are important to a People, but it's better when they are understandable, when they make sense. This one doesn't. The determination of the date was based on location, not the identity of the observer. 

It would make much more sense if the tradition were similarly based on location. Israelis, when outside of Israel, would observe for two days and others, when they were in Israel, would shorten their usual pattern of celebration to a single day. They would be following the historical basis of their tradition.

It is also usual for someone who is not at home to follow the traditions of the community in which he finds himself. This idea would also mitigate for a change to a geographical pattern, rather than one that is based on origin. If the community observes for two days, so should the traveler, irrespective of his home. And the same is true of one day. The community's traditions should be respected.

Another reason is given for the difference. It is based on the idea that the level of spirituality is higher in the Holy Land than outside, and that the level of spiritual elevation that can be obtained in Israel in one day takes longer outside the land, because there is less surrounding inspiration. This too, however, relates to the place rather than the person. Even using this reasoning it makes more sense for the traveler to follow the patterns of the community in which he finds himself. It's logical.

But what does logic have to do with religion and tradition. No change will occur because that's the way it's “always” been, and that's the way it always will be. At least I hope so.

Hail Mary, Heil Hitler

Many – if not all – of those who see this title will find it offensive. And it is. It is the appositioning of opposites. The former is an appeal to an immaculate symbol – an appeal to one who would help the petitioner in a quest for virtue. The latter is a denial of virtue, a pledge of loyalty to evil – the promise to support a fatally flawed individual despite those flaws, and possibly because the “supplicant” shares them.

Numerous individuals follow now, or followed once, one or both of these philosophies, but I am not one of them. I am neither a Christian nor a Nazi. Nonetheless, the two phrases weigh heavily, as I consider the role of belief and concern in the formation of the ideas of an individual and the ideals of a society.

Yes, the title is offensive, but it serves to illustrate some points that interest me. They deal with the relationship between religion and the secular world. The roots of Christianity extend more than two millennia into the past – the length of those roots depending on whether you see Christianity as an Abrahamic religion, inextricably linked to Judaism, or if you date it from the events depicted in the Gospels. In either case, however, it's old. Nazism's roots are also long, a heritage of patriotism – which has long served as a rallying cry for populists – and anti-semitism which is almost as old as Christianity. 

However that link, age, is not the focus of today's essay. Different as their current philosophies and goals, however, there is a plausible connection between the two which illustrates a feature of religions in general, and it is this feature that interests me today.

The Gospel of Matthew records the following as Jesus replied to an inquiry from some of his followers about paying taxes to the emperor,

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 21:22]

Jesus drew a distinction between Rome and Judaism (which was his religion). They were two separate realms. It is a distinction which German citizens found perfectly acceptable – even desirable. Church and State were separate. They may have proselytized more forcefully at one time, but their religious decrees were no longer imposed on others. The era of theocracy had passed, and they could remain Christians while following the dictates of their Führer at the same time. There was no obvious conflict. Or at least, none on which most of the people acted.

The origin of the obligation to accept secular law is attributed in the Talmud (and later by Rashi) to Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BCE, and it is still an accepted precept in Judaism. (In fact, a prayer for the secular government can be found in most prayer books.) While Jewish practice is to be followed if there is a conflict between religious and secular law, when there is no direct conflict we are obligated to follow the law of the State. I assume the same is true of Christianity, but the license to obey “Caesar” was well known, and it was appealing to the Germans.

Having noted the existing secular and religious legal systems, separate if not equal, in contrast to most western religions (and probably in the east as well, but I am not familiar with those creeds), the practices of Islam are striking.

Islam recognizes only a single legal system, Sharia, and adherents view it as applying to everyone – whether Muslim or not – and everywhere. Moreover, a major goal is the conversion of everyone to Islam and to its laws. There is no such thing as secular law. In any country where there are Muslims there is pressure to be ruled by Sharia, especially, but not exclusively, in lands where they are in the majority. As opposed to a separate secular legal system which is to be followed when there is no conflict with religious law, there is a desire to have clerical determination and administration of all regulations. There is also the desire that those regulations apply to all citizens including those who are not (yet) Muslim. And there is the determination as well to bring those non-Muslims into the fold – often by means that would not conform to secular law, or to the religious laws of most other groups.

Which brings us back to the issue of a balanced relationship between secular and religious constructs. There is certain to be oppression when there is unyielding religious law – law that demands blind obedience untempered by any system of secular justice. But, as the Holocaust showed us, an unyielding secular government, blindly followed by those who consider themselves religious but who don't apply their religious principles to unjust laws, and don't follow spiritual teachings and place them above those laws in order to obtain an honorable society, is also likely to place many at risk. Morality is more important than loyalty; tolerance than compulsion.

The answer then – at least in my view – is an acceptance of a dual system, but the placement of the religious, the humanist, practice in a position of dominance where they conflict. Virtue must always take precedence over evil.