Archive for the ‘Scripture’ Category

Two Opposites and a Harmonious Resolution

June 27, 2009

Kabbalah teaches that the universe is built on a tripod, consisting of two opposites and a harmonious resolution. This is the pattern for everything in life. Stability and confidence is impossible without the support of all three legs of the tripod. We cannot have “shalom” without all three. This tripod – and its attendant challenge of conflict resolution – is inherent inside each one of us, in all of nature, of mankind as a whole, and in the spiritual realm as well.  –Korach (Numbers 16-18) Conflict Resolution

For the scholars of scripture they have an advantage over the rest of us. They have the time to think through some issues, take a step back, and perceive patterns that are opaque to us while we are in the trenches of the war of life. This week’s Torah portion is such an insight and when you think about it we can gain perspective on our lives, our community our country and the world.

I am struck by the conclusions to be reached by this statement. You see, if we are talking about a tripod, then if you take away any one of the legs it will fall. You might, as I did at first, focus on the harmonious resolution leg as the “most important.” Take it away and the tripod falls. For true harmony to evolve there must be recognition of discordant views. No two people (or for that matter two countries) can have identical views. Our thoughts, brain process, perceptions and conclusions are like fingerprints — they define us as unique individuals. So even if you say “I agree” you might find out sooner or later that you agreed with something the other person did not say or mean.

What this means to me is that for me to strive to live in a harmonious world I need to seek out both people who see things in similar ways to me AND people who don’t. I must engage BOTH the people who seem to agree with my world perspective AND those who don’t. Standing in the shoes of both “camps” is the only way I can perceive where there is commonality, conflict or room to compromise. With the recognition that life is a process and not a series of events comes the foundation of the process of harmony. Harmonious relations do not represent a static place of equilibrium, but rather a dynamic place of interaction, catalytic relationships and evolving development of ourselves, our society and our world.

Harmony and the whole tripod fails when we deny the existence of other points of view. If we deny the validity of other points of view we deny their existence and we deny the speaker the right to hold such views and express them. We take away one leg of the stool and the tripod fails — because there is nothing left to process toward a harmonious resolution.



Serving God For Pleasure

November 29, 2008

Toldot (Genesis 25:19-28:9)
Serving God For Pleasure

If someone approached you and guaranteed that you would receive 100 million dollars if you simply follow what they asked of you, would you agree to the deal? You may be cautious because you never know what this person has in mind for you to do (something evil perhaps) or if he can really deliver.

But what if you knew with absolute clarity that this person would only ask you to carry out acts of kindness and good deeds in return for 100 million? It seems like the decision would be quite simple.

This leads us to a perplexing situation in this week’s Torah portion as well as in the entire book of Genesis. God tells Isaac:

Live in this land (of Israel) and I will be with you and bless you. I will give these lands to you and your children and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham, your father. I will increase your offspring like the stars in the heavens and I will give these lands to your children. All the nations of the world will bless themselves through your offspring. (Genesis 26:3-4)

Isaac (as did Abraham and Jacob) knows that God is talking to him. He has no doubts. When God wants you to know that He is talking to you, He appears in such a way that does not leave room for any reservations. God then promises abundant and amazing blessings to Isaac if only Isaac walks in His path.

Where is Isaac’s challenge? Would it not be obvious and clear to Isaac what he is to do with his life? If everything is so simple, how would Isaac earn great rewards? Reward from God is based upon man exercising his free will. Isaac’s free will would be quite limited once he had heard God himself say that he would be greatly rewarded. How could Isaac’s free will continue to function? What is Isaac’s test?

The solution teaches us a fundamental concept in service of God. But, as is often the case in Jewish learning, we must first ask a few more questions.

* * *

FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE

Pirkei Avot (1:3) states:

“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving reward. Rather, be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving reward.” (Some texts actually say: “for the sake not to receive reward.”)

We are instructed to serve God for ‘the sake of heaven’. Ideally we are not to concentrate on rewards that we might attain. Yet, we are supposed to know that we will receive reward for the observance of the Torah. The Talmud tells us in numerous places that the rewards mentioned in the Torah (for example, Deuteronomy 22:7 and Talmud Chullin 142a) do not refer to life in this world but to life in the next world. This itself would be a difficult intellectual tension to live with. But not only do we study Jewish texts that constantly inform us of reward, we pray for reward daily!

“May it be Your will, Hashem, our God and the God of our fathers, that we observe Your decrees in this world, and merit to live, see, and inherit goodness and blessing in the years of Messianic Times and for life in the World to Come.” (Uba LeZion prayer, end of Shacharit Morning Prayers, Artscroll Siddur, p. 154)

It is one thing to demand that we try to ignore rewards while we serve God. But how can we be expected to ignore rewards when we are praying for them? We are supposed to concentrate intently and sincerely on our prayers! Do we mean what we pray for concerning rewards or not?

* * *

GIVING YOUR MOTHER PLEASURE

Have you ever visited your mother after being away for a long time? Your mother is thrilled to see you and she makes you a feast fit for a king. As you indulge in each course she serves, you enjoy the special home cooked meal. But certainly part of you takes pleasure in the fact that you are giving your mother pleasure by eating her well-prepared meal. She enjoys watching you enjoy her food. And you eat, intending not only to enjoy the food, but to please your mother as well.
It gives God satisfaction and ‘nachas’ to give us pleasure.

God created the world in order to give us pleasure. The most intense pleasure is in the Next World. (See the beginning of Ramchal’s Mesilas Yesharim.) It is His desire to see us receive pleasure. Our challenge in life is to perform the Mitzvot, God’s instructions for living, with intent to receive the reward that God wants us to receive. Ideally we are not to have in mind selfish reasons for observing the Torah. We are not to concentrate on our rewards for our sake. Instead, we are to think of the fact that it gives God satisfaction and ‘nachas’ to give us pleasure. Therefore, we should listen to His laws – for His sake, not ours.

* * *

THE LOST PORTION

There is a legend about the Baal Shem Tov (the Besht), the founder of Chassidut, which is impossible to believe.

The story goes that the Baal Shem Tov once ascended to Heaven and received certain secrets of the Torah on the condition that he would not divulge these secrets to anyone. When the Baal Shem Tov returned to this world, he found the secrets so sweet and profound that he could not resist telling his students. Soon after, a voice from Heaven was heard saying, “Baal Shem Tov has just lost his portion in the Next World!” The Baal Shem Tov could not contain his immense joy and began dancing uncontrollably because he now had the opportunity to serve God ‘for His sake’ without any thought of reward. When God saw the Baal Shem Tov’s reaction, a heavenly voice proclaimed, “Baal Shem Tov has earned his place in the Next World again!”

The reason why we cannot accept this story as true should now be obvious. If indeed, the Baal Shem Tov had lost his portion in the Next World, that would be one of the greatest tragedies for God! Such a holy man, and God would not be able to take pleasure in rewarding him.

It is God’s greatest pleasure to give pleasure to the righteous people of the world. The Baal Shem Tov losing his place in the Next World would certainly not be a cause for celebration! Why would the Baal Shem Tov rejoice in God’s pain?

In terms of serving God for ‘His sake’, not for ours, this does not mean that we hope not to receive reward. The Torah is replete with indications and reminders of our reward. Rather, we have to want the reward because God wants us to have it, not because we want to get it.

This most difficult task, to want personal goodness for non-personal gain, is one that Patriarchs and Matriarchs can master. This was their challenge and test. Sure, they knew they would get much reward as God had told them. But what their intent would be when they earn the reward was the issue they had to struggle with. Would they do it for God’s pleasure, or their own?

This balancing act, of performing God’s will for the purpose of pleasing God, and thereby earn reward but wanting the reward for God’s sake, is our struggle as well.

Let us always try to think about helping God give us pleasure, allowing Him to accomplish what He truly wants for the world. He gets pleasure giving us pleasure. Let’s let Him do it.

Archaeology and Jewish Law: The Birth of Racism

May 10, 2008

Around 60,000 years ago, two forms of humans met in what is now Northern Israel. They lived together, ate together and probably slept together and even had children (at least some) together. They are referred to as Neanderthal and Homo sapien. This lasted about 30,000 years when the Neanderthals seem to vanish (extinction or assimilation?) and homo sapien went on to populate the rest of the world.

The Neanderthals came from the North and the homo sapiens came up from the South. There is no reason to suppose that ALL of the neanderthals left their Northern origins in what is now Western and Eastern Europe nor is there any reason to believe that ALL of the homo sapiens left their Southern origins.

And in fact, despite the over-simplified version now professed by archeological experts, there is no reason to believe that NONE of the Neanderthals went North with Homo Sapiens or that NONE of the Neanderthals went South. And we do not know if the progeny of the interbreeding of these two closely related humanoids ever survived or took the place of what had been Neanderthal or what would become homo sapien and if they did survive whether they too might have gone North South, East and/or West.

It is possible that Neanderthals were modified by their interaction with homo sapien and vica versa. It is also possible that those Neanderthals that did not migrate were not modified and that those homo sapiens who did not migrate were also not modified — at least until the return of their ancestors, and whatever visitors they brought with them. 

Thus we have several groups: Neanderthals may or may not have evolved on their own and either died out through extinction or still live among us closely resembling what we call homo sapien. The differences may be subtle enough that the two might be confused. If so, this “race” was probably light skinned because they evolved in the Northern colder climates. Homo sapiens may or may not have evolved on their own as well, producing a “race” that was not intermixed with external breeding. If so, it is likely that this “race” was dark skinned because they evolved from the Southern hotter climates.

Interbreeding might have produced uneven results with deformities and other “flaws” or “defects” appearing regularly, hence the continual references in the Torah to avoiding such people — the Nephalim. These were people to the naked eye but whose nature was closer to the animal kingdom than to the humans with a “soul.” They were clearly regarded as subhuman but apparently “used” for a variety of menial and “dirty” or “unclean” tasks, perhaps including handling of the dead. 

There is also no guarantee that the migrations of any one of the three “races” described above did not involve East-West migration. Hence, Asia might be the result of migration from the West or Western evolution might have been affected by migration FROM the East where yet another form of humanoid was evolving independently. In any event this obviously resulted in yet another “race.”

Back when things were just evolving into these groups it was of course part of the hard wired nature of every living thing with a brain that processes information to regard anything other than themselves as either food or threat. The “us” and “them” basic primeval instinct caused customs and traditions to evolve separately and to regard others as not quite “equal” or perhaps, as we have seen above “subhuman” or not human at all even if they looked mostly human. 

The interesting irony about all this is that in all likelihood, experts agree, we are more descended from homo sapien than Neanderthal or any hybrid of Neanderthal, homo sapien or any evolutionary amendments thereto. And THAT means our origins are mostly dark skinned rather than light skinned — even if later migration caused the skin to lighten to suit Northern climates. Hence the black-white racial divide in America might well be “the pot calling the kettle black” and any traditions based upon “differences” might well be institutionalization of misperception.

Hating and Hate Speech

May 3, 2008

The article below contains an excellent discussion of hating and what it does to us. It relates to this week’s Torah reading.

It’s important especially now in the political season. People become attached to their candidates in an emotional way. And in the heat of battle they come to despise the other candidates and the people who support them. Besides the obvious damage to our psyche and souls, which is adequately discussed in the article, there is another more practical negative consequence that hurts all of us.

Fear and Hating is the tool of politicians. It distracts us from morality and from exercising independent judgment based upon real facts, rather than sound bites that trigger our emotional “hate” response. The fact is that none of really know what any of the candidates will do once in office. We don’t even know what emergencies they will confront. Thus having such iron-clad convictions that we exclude everything contrary to the views of “our” candidate, deprives us all of resources we need in a complicated and difficult world.

My basic rule of thumb when judging a candidate is whether he or she provokes me to think, ponder, and wonder how things could be better. I’m looking for someone who understands the nuances and complexities of the world and trusts me to consider the possibilities. The corollary is that a candidate who engages in attacks, in the politics of fear and hate, is one who cannot be trusted to do anything right for me. 

The fact that attack politics works is predictable. Most of us don’t have the time to consider ambiguity in our lives and we want someone “out there” to “just do it.” When we are on the run and we hear a sound bite how someone will fight for us, that’s all we need to know, or is it?

Hurting in Your Heart 
Torah Portion: Kedoshim
by Rabbi Shaul Rosenblatt 

 

We find an interesting mitzvah in this week’s portion: “Don’t hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17). The Sages ask the obvious question: Why does the verse say “in your heart”? Where else does one hate?

The Sages explain that there are two ways of hating. You can feel animosity toward someone and not express it externally. You are very nice and very cordial – pleasant even. But deep down you feel anger and frustration at the person.

Alternatively you can express your hatred externally – through words and deeds. You can physically, verbally or emotionally abuse the person you do not like.

Most of us are not saints. When someone does something which hurts us – whether through negligence or with intent – it is hard for us not to feel upset and angry with that person. Perhaps we might even feel animosity. This is normal human emotion and there is nothing wrong with it. The question is how one deals with that emotion once one has it.

To repress the emotion and hate a person only “in your heart” is extremely unhealthy. Unexpressed animosity does not go away. If anything, it festers and grows. The Sages remind us of the story of Absalom who hated Amnon for raping his sister, Tamar. He did not express his hatred in any way and, after a period of time, he ended up killing Amnon.

So what do you do?

Juxtaposed to the command not to “hate in one’s heart” is the command to rebuke others for wrongdoing. It’s very simple. Tell the person you are upset. Don’t abuse, express. Don’t attack; explain the pain you’re feeling.

When someone wrongs you, don’t just let it go, telling yourself it is nothing. We are not that holy. You have to approach the person and talk through what happened. Express your anger and frustration. Make the person understand that you have been hurt, and that you are not trying to make him feel guilty. You merely want to get the emotion you are feeling out of your heart.

In England where I live, we’re not so good at expressing emotions. But the alternative is repressed feelings of which we will eventually lose control. The idea of this commandment is to nip things in the bud. When you get the feeling out, it lessens it. When you express how you feel, it doesn’t seem half as bad.

Author Biography:
Shaul grew up in Liverpool. He studied for his smicha at Aish Hatorah in Jerusalem where he met his first wife Elana a”h who passed away in 2001 after a long struggle with cancer. They had four children together and Shaul has a further two with his second wife Chana, who he married in 2003. Shaul has written a book, ‘Finding Light in the Darkness’, published by Targum Press, dealing with the issue of facing hardship in a positive way. Shaul founded Aish UK in 1993 and Tikun UK in 2006 along with Dean Kaye. He enjoys most things in life.

Restoring Faith

April 26, 2008

As we commemorate the stories of Passover and the ritual sacrifices made in years past, we are reminded that sacrifice is the essence of being and living the within the context of forces greater than ourselves. We know that withholding self-gratification means that we seek something more important than the moment. And we become more holy and more worldly when we actually feel the sacrifice, taste it and remember the sins and accomplishments of our predecessors.

Passover is a story of liberation and renewal, of forgiveness and cleansing of the soul. It is a model for our behavior today and all days, for the possibility of liberation, redemption and renewal are always present — dependent upon choices, our true goals and our real intent. We are forever presented with the opportunity to release hatred, speaking ill of one another, and consuming our world rather than contributing to it. We can always decide that our pride is less important than our contribution to peace, harmony, and the wondrous world of good and good deeds.

On Being Godly

April 12, 2008

I just finished reading an interpretation of this week’s Torah reading. We are going further into the idea of negative speech about another but more than that we are headed for the territory of deciding right and wrong. It is said that nobody is more Godly than anyone else. That is a useful sentiment. It is also said that we are Godly no matter what we do. That is more problematic. The conclusion is that the question is only whether we will act in a Godly fashion or not. The Jewish concept is that although a person may ‘do’ bad, his or her essence ‘is’ still good.

 

I find that self-serving, egocentric and permission to perform highly immoral and base acts, including statements about others. Nobody knows how to describe G-d, and nobody knows what G-d is or how G-d operates. We only know that there are forces and events of unimaginable scope going on all the time and that somehow we are part of the whole “thing.”

 

We are the product of these forces that some call G-d, evolution, or cosmic illusion or fact. The good the bad and the ugly. It is not useful to consider ourselves good no matter what we do. This will not enhance our quality of life, the survival of our species, or the advancement of morality.

 

It is useful to define ourselves as capable of doing good deeds. And it is a good and proper goal to define your day, and indeed your life by deciding on the morally correct choice rather than the convenient one. For most of us, it is not one or two major decisions that define who we are and how we appear in our society, it is the thousands of micro-decisions that occur within a conversation, while driving the car, while at work, while at home with your spouse or children, other family, or friends. 

 

In our society there are people who are following path of what we would describe as immorality. When confronted by people exuding evil intent or poor moral judgment, there is no one proper answer as to how to act. 

 

But it is a pretty good guess that killing them, enslaving them, or calling them names is not, in most cases, an act which should even be on the table. The fact that such extreme situations historically arise does not mean that most situations should be viewed from that perspective. In most situations, some common ground could be reached with a little effort, and a good deed could emerge, however small that might seem at the moment. 

 

I think this is what Obama is after and despite the charges of emptiness and moments of doubt that people may have, he is resonating with so many people because somewhere, deep inside, where they know right from wrong, they sense that he is on the right track. Whether you should vote for him to be president or insist that your preferred candidate follow in his footsteps of seeking harmony and common ground is up to you. Theoretically any candidate could do it if they really wanted to do it. 

 

Morality then confronts us with the sometimes difficult choice between easy answers, slogans or negative criticism on the one hand, and the more difficult and ephemeral pursuit of happiness and contentment. 

 

It is my observation that at least in this Country, the United States, we have chosen a path of easy ideology rather than morality. And we have become a nation governed by men rather than the laws we pass that reflect our sense of right and wrong. The laws state sometimes with great clarity what people should not do in government, business and social circumstances. Yet these prescribed acts happen anyway, with increasing regularity and with escalating consequences.

 

Ideology is never persuasive unless it presents the illusion of morality. People become comfortable with it and stop thinking about individual issues. They listen to leaders, neighbors or others who tell them who is to blame for the unhappiness in their lives. The preachers of their ideology — whether it is political, religious or philosophical — define the icons that their followers will follow. The will of the whole of society is ignored along with the chance to exercise any independent judgment about right and wrong in each thing that a person does. I call these “leaders” “ideological hounds.”

 

We become vulnerable to being led down blind alleys pursuing goals that serve only the leaders of the ideology whose agenda is by definition, domination over as many people as possible who can “contribute” to the “cause.” Any contrary voice is eliminated through any one or more of choices that everyone knows are immoral. 

 

We allow it because we are afraid of challenging those more powerful than us. We allow it because we are too busy trying to make ends meet. And we allow it because it is just plain easier to let somebody else do the thinking, even if the thinking is wrong. And of course we should not leave the subject without including the attractiveness of the entertainment aspect of these ideologies, who always put on a great show. 

 

The current criticism of Obama is an opportunity to test some of these thoughts. His “small town” remark, cleansed of context seems condescending, elitist, out of touch. His opponents wrap their spin around portions of his commentary and hold it up as meaning something he did not say. If he did not say it, it is a knowing falsehood to portray him as having meant anything like what his critics have portrayed. 

 

Read in context, Obama was reaching for a deeper meaning of right and wrong, and a deeper connection with some of the people who are resistant to his candidacy. Rather than castigating them , he was musing about their lives, the loss of employment, the loss of hope, standard of living and opportunity for children to do better than their parents. 

 

He described the bitterness and disappointment of people who were lied to about what the government and big business was doing. It has been a 25 year journey into darkness, of quiet desperation, for many people, while a few have taken an exciting ride into the high spheres of public and private finance. And he was describing the impact of ideological hounds that are described above in this essay. What he said was entirely truthful and correct. What Clinton and McCain reported he said is completely not truthful and incorrect and intentionally so. 

 

So now we are left with the uneasy feeling of excusing (forgiving) Clinton and McCain for committing immoral acts of deceit in the heat of battle or holding them accountable for their acts. And perhaps more importantly, we are faced with the bare naked truth of Obama’s musings about “small town” America, how vulnerable they are to ideology because all else and everyone else has deserted them. 

 

Maybe, the right thing to do, like the issue of race and racism, is to open the discussion up to Obama’s brave statements, rather than closing them down through compounded acts of negative criticism (i.e., shouting him down). He might be right or he might be wrong; but how will ever know unless we really examine the issues he presented?

Negative Campaigns: Poison to the Soul

April 5, 2008

Negative Campaigns: Poison to the Soul

 

  • In this time of political brinkmanship, it is common for people to speak ill of each other. Candidates speak ill of their competitors and their supporters speak ill of the other “team.” I often compare political seasons to the kind of divorce talk one hears in the heat of battle. We can only hope that time heals, and that people will settle down and concentrate on their own spiritual work rather than identifying the flaws in others.  
  • But there are people who hold onto that pattern, who make it a way of life, and who poison the air around them with a continuous spoken and unspoken stream of negativity about their hate of others. These people poison their souls and bring down the listener. There is a very good book called Divorce Poison, that identifies the pattern. It appears in the workplace, politics and even (especially) in religious congregations.  
  • There are of course many ways of doing damage but the meaning is always clear. The reading for this week’s Torah portion tells us that speaking negatively about others is actually worse than murder. This contradiction to what we intuitively know about speech and murder is explained by the reference to negah, in which the soul of the speaker is so damaged that they actually develop a skin disease, they are exiled by the community and treated, in the traditional sense, as a lepor. In fact, the tradition might be traced back to leprosy when mankind did not understand disease, and assumed that anything so ghastly must have been brought on by the presence of evil in the person. 
  • I take this opportunity to address the aspect of campaign rhetoric because it is always elevated by the media to the point where nearly everyone knows about the latest jab. The constant rebroadcast of these jabs reinforces this behavior in our daily lives and serves as the worst kind of negative example for our children.  
  • In politics, it disgusts the voters but it also influences them. We are all susceptible to hearing negative things about someone and then inwardly wondering or assuming that it might be true. This is why what comes out of our lips and what we listen to is so important. It has an effect. They are not “just words.” They hurt and they cause damage not only to the speaker and his/her target but to to the rest of us as well. The fact that it is so powerful does not mean that it should be used as an acceptable tool. A gun is powerful but we can all agree that the random or continuous use of it is not a good thing.  
  • In our American politics nothing is more apparent than the fact that what happens here is with the consent of the governed, as stated in our Declaration of Independence. So when we hear negative remarks from a candidate, they do so, because they have our consent to do so. My suggestion is that we withdraw our consent to negative campaigning in and out of politics and that we avoid or confront those people who demonstrate their willingness to use this hateful and dangerous tool.  
  • The passage below is taken from http://www.Aish.com Tazria (Leviticus 12-13)  
  • Murderous Speech The affliction of tzara’at comes primarily as a result of loshon hara – talking badly about others. The Sages make an amazing statement in the Talmud. They say that to speak negatively about another person is worse than murder. I think everyone would agree that it is terrible to speak negatively about another person. But can it possibly be worse than killing a person? I, for one, would much rather that someone spoke negatively about me than killed me. In order to understand, we must think a little more deeply about what the Sages are saying. They do not mean that loshon hara is worse than murder in a general sense. Obviously, murder is worse, as proven by the fact that one is obligated to die rather than commit murder, which is not the case with loshon hara. What the Sages mean is that a specific evil is inherent within the transgression of loshon hara, that does not exist within murder. What is it? Generally when a person kills another, there is a motive – jealousy, money, power, passion. There is a tangible benefit to the murderer and that is why s/he does it. Obviously, that doesn’t make it right. It is evil, but in some sense an explainable evil. Were the murderer to be able to achieve the same result without killing, he would probably do so. Of course there are insane psychopaths who kill for fun, but for the most part people who kill would prefer another way. That makes it no less evil, just more understandable. When someone speaks badly of someone else, however, generally there is no motive, no reason and no tangible gain. It benefits you in no way. You enjoy the evil itself; the negativity, the cruelness and the sense of power that it brings. You also enjoy other people listening to (and enjoying) your evil; it takes two to tango. As such, not only do you enjoy the evil, you drag others down with you. And one final difference: The one who murders will not learn to enjoy murder and want to do it again. But the one who speaks loshon hara will do so again and again and again. The more you do it, the more it becomes a part of you. While the results of murder may be worse for the victim, the long-term results of negative speech are much worse for the one who speaks it. The shock of having murdered might spur you to change. Speaking loshon hara, on the other hand, will just drag you further and further into the quagmire of petty mediocrity. Not only do you hurt another human being, you destroy your own soul in the process.

The Sin of Presumption Versus Morality

March 29, 2008

Today’s Torah reading deals with what is referred to in the literature as the sun of presumption. Moses sets out tot each the priests how to minister at the Tabernacle, anointing them with oil mixed with lamb’s blood and burning certain substances, but people, in good faith, reason that a difference incense is better. Mayhem follows:

  •  The lesson we are told to take is that the word of Bible, the word of Moses ( because he spoke for God) must be taken literally or you commit the sin of presumption — which means that you are placing your own perceptions and thoughts ahead of what you already know to be the will of God.
  • I disagree with this interpretation but I agree that the story is about how things happen when people act presumptuously.
  • The problem I have with the interpretation of this story is that it places faith in Moses instead of an inner knowing of God and morality. The moral used is a bludgeon to the commoners to obey the priests. The people had other ideas and followed them. The results were disastrous but not necessarily because of the human interpretation of this story.
  • This is closely parallel to the fundamentalists in Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as other traditions, that state the “law” regarding a woman’s place of subservience without any support for their position in the Torah itself. It is the direct opposite of our teaching to worship God and not individual people or idols. 
  • Our challenge is not to look up the teachings of the Rabbi’s to determine what they say we should do in any given situation, but to inquire of ourselves. Deep inside us we know right from wrong, and we all know a good deed from a bad one. And we are blessed with a brain that allows us to understand and address nuances. To take a quarter from the hand of a three year old is wrong not only because it is stealing but because of an innate knowing that it is wrong to be predatory  towards a child. But we also know that if the reason the quarter was removed, is that we just saw the child take everything he could lay his hands on and swallow it, now that is a different story.
  • Internally we know these things without resorting to the “law” as stated by the leaders or Rabbis. 
  • To be a good Jew is to be a person who seeks to be good and do good as we see it, and to accept the consequences of our actions. we are blessed with brains that enable us to learn from experience and thus get better at good deeds. 

From Ashes to Angels: Economics of Morality

March 22, 2008

There was an interesting study published in the Economist (March 15, 2008 pp 83-85), a conservative news magazine read around the world, that disclosed an incredibly close correlation between the “rule of law” and the health of the economy. It turns out that laws, rules and enforcement create a culture of integrity, civility and good faith. The epiphany is that those society that follow morality, as we commonly know it around the world, have the strongest economies and greatest purchasing power. 

It’s true. Go read it yourself and research it all you want. Von Mises and Rothbard,  largely ignored but highly respected economists, came up with the same conclusion decades ago from a slightly different approach. (They are ignored because they sought truth rather than power. They believe the premise of modern economists is essentially skewed. History, particularly economic history proceeds from the motivation of people in public office or personal lives to change their current situation to something better. Reporting history relies on people who seek to be seen in the best light and thus their reports, whether of facts or indexes like the GDP, CPI etc., are skewed to mislead the reader. The theories used to explain economic history are therefore always based upon measurements of inaccurate reports. The policies based on those theories work only by happenstance — i.e., if consensus or conventional wisdom is created around the theory and policy, not the other way around).

The corollary is more disturbing and quite obvious in the context of today’s news stories of a collapsing economy.  Stray from morality as a matter of policy and practice and you undermine your economy, your society, your ability to achieve, and you gut the basis of your own happiness and contentment, as well as the prospects of future generations. 

All politics and all economics is about income distribution in some way or another. When we are out of touch with our own Godliness, we become out of balance in our society and our economy. By having no rule of law, secular or otherwise, govern the actions of those with power to do what they wanted, we have undermined our foundation, cut our societal fabric and diminished our moral high ground at the same time as losing our purchasing power in world commerce.

While Americans have pursued the dollar with religious zeal, other countries have been pursuing happiness, morality, civility, and integrity – albeit with the usual human imperfections.  The resulting changes in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and the relative strength of the U.S. in the marketplace of ideas and commerce can thus be explained. 

The fundamentalist in any major religion has a point: that societies, especially U.S. dominated societies, have lost their way. There is a growing sense of senselessness and lack of meaning in such societies. 

American men are dropping out of the work force and discarding goals and plans for their future, American children are not being educated nor are they taught to think critically, make moral judgments, build character, know their personal and world history and geography, please themselves and the world with their talent in the arts, or acknowledge the obligation and rewards of doing good deeds. 

Of course fundamentalists of all sects violate their own standards when they create inequality between women and men, when they impose a rule of a leader in lieu of a rule of laws, and so forth. But even from the most obvious perversity of fact and good sense, we can gleam some truth about ourselves, our society and where we are heading.

Today’s Torah reading talks about removing the ashes from the alter, an almost janitorial task. Yet the ancient Rabbi’s rushed to perform this task, competing for who would be first. Yes for fun but also to Honor the higher sense, the higher power we have the capacity to follow, if we are willing. My lesson in this world has been worship the riches and become poor regardless of how much money you have. Worship goodness and you become rich regardless of how much money you have.

Competition is fine if we follow our best instincts, our higher calling which all of us know we have inside. When we step onto the track and enter the secular race, make your goal the altar of your own Godliness. 

“There is much in life that people value, yet is utterly meaningless. There is equally much in life that people do not value – that is very meaningful and good. Do not judge by wealth. Do not judge by what others think. Judge by what you honestly believe to be good. And do it, no matter how belittling and ‘dishonorable’ it might seem to others. In the end, that’s what is truly worthy of praise.”

Whether we look to leadership to inspire us, or we simply change our minds and take the high road in our lives regardless of what others do, we rebuild our American experiment, we strengthen our society and reassert ourselves in the marketplace of ideas, morality and commerce. 

If we want to finish the American experiment, rejoin England and the European Union and give up our role as leaders, we are certainly on the right track. 

It won’t be long before the currency of choice becomes the Euro, a currency of consensus from countries actively seeking to do good things for their citizens. 

The U.S. dollar, including those bills in your pocket and those numbers in your bank and securities accounts, are being undermined by you and what you allow in your little corner of the marketplace. 

Only you (all of us in our own worlds) can turn it around. But it takes real faith rather than faking it or just giving lip service to it.

 

Genesis and Evolution and Human Progression and Regression: Obama Possibilities

March 15, 2008
  • The current argument, rearing its ugly head periodically throughout history is about science versus religion. Evolution vs. creationism. That they are the same thing is easy to see for even the most unsophisticated of readers. That they are used as weapons to divide us is obvious.
  • Genesis shows a progression of the earth and the creation of various flora and fauna and eventually humans that is completely congruent with Darwin’s narrative. There is no conflict. 
  • Genesis goes on to show that the earth was just fine until humans entered the picture, with the first act of knowledge (also congruent with evolution), notions of good and evil, and the whole process of reproduction and the variations of human character that emerged.
  • Religion is not about belief. It is about power. Faith is about morality, not religion. Those who rely on religion to bludgeon “non-believers” are egocentric monsters whose agenda is solely about themselves. Those who practice faith create good deeds that spread the concepts of good and evil that will enable humans to survive the inevitable march of evolution and experimentation initiated by forces greater than ourselves, our understanding and the current status of our robust and intricate bodies.
  • Faith is a resource for people to make moral choices. Character is about the willingness or unwillingness to care about faith and morality. And the one element of morality that is our key to survival is tolerance.
  • Faith and religion should have nothing whatever to do with the creation and maintenance of government. Faith may affect our own sense of right and wrong and therefore where and in whom to place our trust in society.
  • To evaluate another’s faith or character is to assert your own arrogance, and demonstrates a lapse of character, faith and morality of the proposed “evaluator” or questioner.
  • The closest thing we see to a man of faith and morality in politics seems to be Barack Obama. We don’t know of course who he really he is or what he really will do. But we can track his movements and his demeanor and his actions and spoken word for consistency and reality. That he is a threat to those whose agendas are egocentric is obvious and an unintended endorsement of a man who might just be a man of G-d as we wish to see him. 
  • The inconsistency of his opponents who attack his character, first and falsely for being Muslim, then arrogantly for being the wrong kind of Christian, demonstrates their own intolerance and their objective to divide us. For me it excludes them from my own consideration of them as potential leaders.
  • The oppression of his opponents who attack his associations with those who primarily speak a truth that is contrary to American myth (check the facts before you condemn a person for speaking the truth), demonstrates their ambition to dominate rather than to serve. For me it excludes them from consideration as persons in whom I would place my trust.
  • The secular ideology of his opponents bent on war, coercion and toughness — rather than consensus, agreement and friendship is a betrayal of their own professed faith in Jesus, his teachings, and in the teachings and stories of the Old testament. 
  • I don’t know if Obama is best and I would not succumb to press my support for him on others. I merely express it. But I do know that neither of his opponents fit anything close to my ideal for faith and fairness, nor my goal of peace and prosperity. I believe in him and I hope others do too. 
  • In the end I hope for whatever is best for our society, and by that I mean all of the Earth created in genesis by powers and potentially intelligence far beyond the scribes from ancient millenia and readers of our time.