David Cameron, Charles I and the Demon Barber of Downing Street

The knives are out. “Off with their heads” screams the Queen of Hearts. “Slash their necks” cantors Sweeney Todd. “You won’t even have a constituency home if you are not careful” says David Cameron with a wry smile.

That’s right. Julie Kirkbride M.P. has to answer to his “scrutiny panel”. It sounds as if I could make this into a sexual innuendo, but I have no idea what it would be. As it is, it conjures up a picture of the Spanish Inquisition. A confession will be scrutinised out of her - “if only you would admit your sin of embarrassing your Lord and Saviour”- and once she admits humiliating Davey, she’ll have to pay the King’s Ransom. Or death; political death. It will be- as my Pythonesque imagination envisions- a foregone conclusion and a show trial. No real consideration for the case on its individual merits, but a chance for a public hanging of a former favourite.

Now I don’t know the law but it seems she, like most M.P.’s didn’t break any- unlike the few that committed outright fraud. Nor do I know what the “spirit” of expenses are meant to be. For my job, I have a small amount of personal expenses, but I can’t possibly think what I need to use them for. And on what basis do I judge if I have used them in the right spirit? From a glance her excuses don’t seem so bad. She is ‘accused’ of letting her brother stay rent-free in her second home. Julie’s response: he looks after my son so I can do my constituency work. Fair enough.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not “fair enough”. Maybe this was an abuse of this ineffable spirit. However, the point is that all the town cryer (read: Daily Telegraph) has to do is to spread a rumour of witchcraft and the poor witch is automatically condemned. Not only that, but the Grand Inquisitor is the very Bishop that gave her ordination. Yes, David Cameron has to be seen to be doing the Lord’s work or otherwise it will be he that is condemned as witch-man. Not only that but the whole Church would tumble down besides him.

David Cameron has learned from the mistakes of Charles I. Unlike his father (James VI) who would make any concession to save his popularity and to oil the wheels of parliament, Charles was too principled. He was too well intentioned and we all now where that ended! He was literally beheaded for his sins against the G-dly.

Charles would not do, for example, what kings of England had done since the days of Edward III and the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376 and jettisoned a royal favourite for the sake of an improved working relationship between Crown and parliament. Cynicism and disloyalty shocked him deeply. Instead, Charles insisted on looking at the individual merits of the case. This was a terrible mistake. You will not find any chapters in constitutional histories devoted to the rituals of therapeutic disgrace, but creative scapegoating had, none the less, long been an integral element of English politics. Concentrating odium for unpopular policies on the head of a politician… preserved the fiction that the ‘king could do no wrong’.

Charles refused to scapegoat one of his advisors and so consequently, the blame had nowhere to go but to him. If the King stood by the minister, then he was saying that he was personally responsible for unpopular policy. His honesty led to his unpopularity!

So David Cameron has learnt well. Find some scapegoats for the unpopular policy and…. Slash Slash Slash. Maybe this is a necessary move. Charles’ refusal to act led to civil war and revolution; and maybe Cameron’s policies will help prevent too much of a revolution in our democracy. However, despite its political pragmatism, it doesn’t feel right!

The BNP and that het’rogenous thing

As the poem highlights below, that het’rogenous thing is none other than an Englishman.  Daniel Defoe, as early as 1701, provides a beautiful rebuttal of that most favourite of concepts among BNP supporters- “the indigenous of Britain”.  People of ‘other nationalities’, so they claim, are flooding the country, to the disadvantage of those who are true-born British. 

But who exactly, so the poem asks, is one of those?

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogenous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke theirs heifers to the Roman Plough;
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane…
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.

“Britain”, so the Chief Rabbi asserts “had been for so long a mix of races and cultural influences that it had never developed a narrow ethnic nationalism”.  The BNP seems to argue in favour of just such an ethnic nationalism. Sure, the rate of immigration is far faster and the ethnic diversity of Britain is far greater than before.  However, there is nothing essentially new about our situation, and there is nothing historically, genetically or socially pure about British people.

If this were all it takes to defeat the BNP- a small history lesson- then we should feel mightily satisfied with ourselves, followed by a quick pat on the back.  But it doesn’t.  I very much doubt anyone is having a narrow argument about genetics or social geography.  A BNP supporter could perfectly well accept that there are many different ingredients makes up the recipe of being British.  Yet, it would not affect one iota their belief that some people do not have those ingredients!  The above arguments alone do not touch on the psychological, philosophical or historical roots of their belief.

Oh well… one step at a time!

"Top 10 Reasons Why Stern Girls Won't Date Me” I mean, “date him”.

From the latest edition of Yeshiva University’s Student Magazine. I like [in Borat voice]. Stern, by the way, is the female campus of YU.

As any honest single Jew can tell you, the shidduch scene today is nothing less than absurd, whether it's the silly questions during the initial screening process, the abnormal interaction between guys and girls, or the analysis of every single detail of a date. All of these areas can be discussed and critiqued at great length; however, the area I'd like to focus on is the excuses I've been given as to why various Stern girls won't go out with me. Keep in mind that I've been rejected by quite a few Sternies, so I'd just like to pick my ten favorite/most frequently heard rejections:

1) "She hasn't started dating yet" - What the heck does this even mean? When girls come back from seminary do they have a letter from their rabbi with an exact date they can declare themselves eligible? And since when did a single date become such a big deal? We aren't chassidish! I have no intention of proposing after the second date. In fact, there is a good chance that the only thing that the meidel will talk about is the summers she spent working at HASC, which will put me to sleep and there won't even be a second date. Give it a go! Declare yourself eligible…it’s only a date!

2) "She wants to make Aliyah" - That's cool. Maybe I do too. Maybe I want to move to LA. Maybe I want to move to Brunei or perhaps move to Africa and join the Dinka tribe. But that is something that can be discussed over a first date. One should look to marry a person, not a piece of land. Granted, Israel is an important piece of land, but believe it or not the Torah is portable and one can build a home with Torah values anywhere in the world, just like Jews have been doing for centuries. The most important thing is who you build your life with, not where.

3) "You wear jeans" - Yes I do. Some Sundays if I have nothing too important planned, I get a little rebellious and break out my jeans! Ohhhhhhh God! Not jeans! NOT JEANS! HE'S A SHAYGITZ! C'mon. Jeans are tznius and no less stylish than a nice pair of khakis.

4) An irrelevant third party just "doesn't see it" - This excuse is the #1 cause of the shidduch crisis. You want to be set up with a certain individual and you ask someone you thought was your friend to mention it to the person and they reply "Yeah...I don't see it." Of course you don't see it! I know you’re not a prophet. That's why I asked you to mention it to the person that I want to take out, not to make a prediction if we will be married. If someone asks you to set them up with someone, mention it to the person and let them make the decision.

5) "I'm in the middle of something" (i.e. went on one date with someone else) - Let's clarify something: going on one date with someone isn't being in the middle of something. Going out for a couple months is "in the middle." Going on one date barely qualifies as "the beginning" because nothing of substance has even started yet. And, for the record, it is completely muttar to go on a first date with multiple people at the same time...just ask your parents or anyone from the previous generation.

6) "She's actually applying to medical school now" - So? That's like me saying "Yeah, I'd love to go out today, but I'm actually planning on filling up on gas....kinda takes a lot out of me." Obviously, I am not equating the difficulty of applying to medical school to filling up on gas (unless, like myself, you are from NJ and don't know how to pump your own gas), but come on! If you were taking the MCATs in a week than that's a different ball game. Applying to medical school shouldn't consume your whole life. If it does consume your entire existence, than I feel bad for you, your family, your future husband, and may God have mercy on your soul...

7) "I want someone who learns X-teen hours a day" - No you don't. Who do you think you're fooling? Let me tell you what you, and all Stern girls, want: You want to live in a suburb of NYC (i.e. Teaneck), you want to go to Israel for Succos and Arizona for Pesach, you want to send your kids to a modern Orthodox yeshiva and modern Orthodox summer camps, and you want to have tons of shiny jewelry. Unless you have someone sponsoring your marriage (i.e. your parents or in-laws) and your husband is a kollelnic with zero responsibilities, try to be more realistic. If you find a buchur who makes a legitimate effort to go to minyan three times a day and schedules in time to learn daily, in addition to having a steady income, than you have found yourself a quality buchur and you should be quite satisfied! [For the meidels who have just returned from Israel: Save this and read it again in a year when you get more in tune with reality. Right now you're probably just assuming that I'm off the derech and practice avoda zarah.]

8) "I don't date guys who go to the movies" - I rarely watch TV, and only go to movies on occasion. But if you're judgmental enough to not go on a date with someone because you found out that they have attended or plan on attending the occasional film, without looking at a single other aspect of their personality, then you aren't mature enough to be dating and I’m sorry that I spent more than five seconds looking into you.

9) "Does he want to take off time to learn in Israel?" - Actually I did that already...it was called shana aleph and it took place after high school. As beautiful as it sounds to move to Israel for a year after marriage to "learn and grow together," some people need to get a job and don't have the luxury of parents or in-laws who want to sponsor their marriage until the newlyweds decide to get their act together.

10) "He has too many friends" - I kid you not! Someone said they weren't interested in dating me because I have too many friends! I never realized that having friends would hurt me. Social awkwardness and being boring seem to be the two most appealing things on Sternies' shidduch wish list.

To conclude: I feel the overall themes of these rejections were the lack of honesty and the inability to be in tune with reality. If you aren't into my look because I wear jeans or work out, just say so. If you don't like the fact that I'm driven enough to get a job and make a parnasa, I'm cool with that. If thrice-daily minyan and an evening chevrusa just don't cut it then please just be honest – you are looking to marry a Bnai Brak kollenic, not a YU graduate! If the fact that I am in tune with reality bothers you, then maybe you need to be honest with yourself and hold off on dating until you come back to the real world. In the meantime, the only valid excuse that I have ever heard consists of two words: "I'm married!"

Genesis does not talk about evolution. Period

“Those who claim that the Torah gives an account of evolution, are incorrectly insinuating that the sages didn't understand Genesis.”

This is a claim I made in my ‘lashon hora’ post and this my clarification.

The meaning of the text is what is given by, and through, the mefarshim. End of. If the sages didn’t interpret it as giving a scientific account of evolution by natural selection, that is not what the text means.

Of course, one can read into a text what one likes, but on what basis should we take that as the lesson of the text? Why choose one interpretation over the other? The Protestant line that Jesus speaks to us through our personal reading of the gospels, with the value of the interpretation being its transformative effect on me, is unparalleled in Judaism. The written Torah has no meaning when placed outside its interpretative tradition- the Oral Torah.

II

FIRST- there is no objective meaning in the text itself. We cannot say “that’s a nice explanation, but really the author intended this” and do so simply by pointing to something in the text. One can only do this if we take a text as a more-or-less complete representation of what was going on in the author’s mind when they wrote it. “This sentence structure, this word and that metaphor is evidence that he meant x. Explanation Y is a nice moral you can get from the story, but that’s not what he thought when he wrote it”.

However, you can’t do that with the Torah as it is a finite representation of the will of an infinite Author. We cannot ‘pin down’ G-d’s motivation with the text. To do so, would be like saying “If I wrote this sentence, at that time, I would have meant x”. However, as G-d says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts”. *

SECOND- just the meaning isn’t what is OBJECTIVELY “out there” in the mind of G-d; it isn’t simply SUBJECTIVELY what I take it to mean “in here”. The fault is the same as above- it takes ‘meaning’ to be atomic and to be fully contained in what a single human can think or feel. However, the meaning of a Jewish text is inter-personal and inter-generational. It is not fully contained by any one individual or any one generation. It exists outside ourselves in the writings, actions, debates and decisions of a million (unfortunately only male) voices.

The key question is how did people understand the text in a way that made sense of their life as a carrier of a Divine Law? Thus, the meaning is revealed in how G-d’s will has played out in the history of the Jewish nation. As such, the Jewish meaning of the text cannot be divorced from the exegesis (and also halachic decisions) of Chazal, the Rishonim and Acharonim etc.

III

To claim that evolution is the meaning of Genesis is to make one of two claims. Either you are saying this what the text really means, or you are saying that is what the text means to me. If the former, you are claiming you have the objective meaning whereas Chazal were completely wrong. If the latter, you may concoct a wonderfully consistent explanation, but give us no reason to accept it. This is because, whilst all well and good, it divorces the meaning of the text from any lesson as to how live as a bearer of tradition. Here Chazal aren’t wrong but are irrelevant to the meaning of the text. I take both claims to be insulting. ** Maybe you can read the texts in this way, maybe you can mind-read, and maybe personal salvation or gratification are important. But this isn’t the Jewish way.

-------

*As part of an interpretive tradition, the level of pshat is very important; and with all levels of interpretation, arguments about sentence structure (etc.) are important. However, their importance lies not in coming to know what G-d really meant; but in understanding, how WE should understand it, and integrate it into our lives. What part does it play in the lives of the interpreters?

**This doesn’t mean that we cannot add to the interpretation of Chazal. Nor does it mean we can’t understand it in a different way. Nor does it mean that our understanding can’t build on their understanding. Nor even challenge them where necessary. In fact, if I’m arguing that the meaning is revealed through Jewish history, and is the bearer of many generations, it follows that we are no less able to be a distinctive voice (women as well as men) in that process. However, it has to be chiddush- new from old as part of a tradition- and not creation ex nihilo- a free and spontaneous product of our minds.

Modern Orthodoxy, elitism and pseudo-intellectualism

Modern Orthodoxy- and not the “I’m middle of the road Orthodox so I don’t keep Shabbat” type, but the “I believe in Modern Orthodoxy” type- is an elitist movement. Only very few people understand what it believes or the direction its taking. A key part of any religious movement is that it can “speak in the language of man”. Whilst it should be able to sustain complicated analysis for those suited to it, it should also provide ‘food for the soul’ for everyone.

There is something wrong if its beliefs cannot be simplified in such a way that the layman can understand. Sure, if you simplify something you will lose its nuance and its implications, and will not understand it fully. However, they will get the kernel of truth that will correctly shape their world-view and lead to their moral, spiritual and intellectual development. It’s just like if you explain something to a child- it is your belief you are teaching them but you wouldn’t explain it to them in a way that you’d explain it to another adult. First, you’d only teach them the ‘important’ part- strip away complications until you are left with the moral of the story. Secondly, you’d make it ‘relevant’ to their world and where they are in life. Eventually, you hope, they’ll grasp its full implications.

So there are two elements- the ‘emunah peshuta’ which is the simple belief and the more intellectual working out of the idea. When you engage in an intellectual endeavour, you don’t replace the simple belief, but build on it. It remains there at its foundation- if you reject it as false, what’s the point of further discussion about it? So that is intellectual condition number 1- there is something to talk about! The second condition is that there is real debate when you get there. “Is THIS the implication of the belief or THAT?” Through intellectual discussion you come to hold one side rather than the other.

Now I hold Modern Orthodoxy guilty of often failing both conditions- but I’ll just discuss the first. If it can’t put its belief ‘in the language of man’ and can’t identify the kernel of truth, one begins to wonder if there is any truth there to begin with. Is it not like those old (Christian) Scholastic philosophers who argued about how many angels you can fit on a pinhead? Or (certain) art critics who discuss a work with other using long words no-one has heard of, and can only be translated with other long words no-one has heard of? They may be fun games to play- a pursuit for the brainy or cultured- but what is the relevance or importance to the lives of those who don’t already play the game? If there is no emuna peshuta- there is no real issue that they are addressing. In religious terms, it is hard to discern the specific relevance of certain Modern Orthodox discussions to the issue of how man relates to G-d or his mission in life. As such, unlike when we teach a belief to a child, it cannot lead to our moral or spiritual betterment.

Now the above is an extreme scenario and is usually more nuanced. I’ll explain in relation to a series of Modern Orthodox books called the “Orthodox Forum” series. They are absolutely fantastic in one way and in this way, are better than most Kiruv books put together. That is they are actually about something (and thus, do not fall into the extreme example above). They are not there to waffle about spiritual levels but to take an issue such as “war and peace” or “suffering”, and debate what the Jewish view is. However, they are sometimes written in such a pretentious way that I am left at a loss as to how I would explain the view using simpler language and what relevance it has for my relationship with G-d.

I’m not saying there is no relevance or that there is no issue or there is no kernel of truth. However, it does stand in the way of emunah peshuta, is elitist and struggles to translate these arguments into the lives of its followers. As such I have grave doubts about its sustainability as a religious movement.