It's the action that counts

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

As I was driving my kids into school this morning I heard a phone in on Radio 5Live about Madonna's attempt to adopt another child from Malawi. A large proportion of those who called in were dismissive of her actions and complained that she was doing it for her ego and not for altruistic reasons.

I wanted to scream: Who cares? what does it matter what her motives are, she is performing an act of charity which should be applauded and I don't care why she is doing it.

In Chassidic philosophy it explains that in the realm of good and evil it doesn't matter what your intentions are, what matters are your actions. If you do a good thing for the wrong reasons it is still a good thing and if you do a wrong thing for the right reasons it is still wrong. It is only in the realm of neutral things that are neither good or evil that our intentions can influence whether our actions are good or not.

Charity is a good thing - so do it regardless of your intentions
Murder is a bad thing - so don't do it whatever your intentions
Eating is a neutral thing - so do it for the right reasons - to have the energy to serve G-d.

http://reuvenleigh.blogspot.com

News Speak

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Check out this story from the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7972231.stm

It details the arrest of five people for what it calls "alleged terrorism in connection with the G20 summit".

What is peculiar are the denials that it has anything to do with Muslims. For example:

"A police spokesman stressed that the investigation was "in no way" linked to any religious group. He added the inquiry was centered on political activity involving British nationals."

And

"Police carried out a search of the man's address and the weapons and "material relating to political ideology" were seized."

I get a sense that they are trying to hard to play down a Muslim connection which leads me to think there is a connection. I mean, it is still technically true that whilst being British nationals and possessing material relating to political ideology they could still be Muslims and the suggestion that it is in no way linked to a religious group seems to be a rather hasty assumption.

Anyway, it is probably just a cover for the Home Secretary.

The Big Questions

Image via Wikipedia

I spent the morning participating as an audience member on the BBC programme The Big Questions. Here are a few observations:

Nicky Campbell is taller in real life than I expected.

The panel were poor except for the Catholic priest.

There was a really annoying Catholic lady who wouldn't shut up.

There was a really annoying atheist lady who wouldn't shut up.

The discussion on second homes was extremely boring and was a poor choice of topic by the producers.

The programme format doesn't lend itself to informed and intelligent debate and discussion.

You can watch the programme here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jkcr8/The_Big_Questions_Series_2_Episode_14

Prime Time Abortions

Image via Wikipedia

I have been asked to participate in the BBC1 programme The Big Questions that airs this Sunday morning at 10AM.

The topic they wish me to contribute on is this weeks review by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee on Advertising Practice (BCAP) that would allow pregnancy advisory services - including abortion information - to be advertised on TV and radio as part of plans aimed at reducing high UK rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual infections.

I find the whole discussion somewhat bizarre in the first place since TV and radio are the prime villains when it comes to the sexualisation of children in society today. To now try and deal with the inevitable consequences of promoting sex and promiscuity by providing a few get out clauses seems to me to miss the more important point.

I'm not going to get into the whole pro/anti abortion debate but rather intend to focus on the wider impact of abortion awareness on children. I wonder whether if we present ourselves as a society that is comfortable with promoting abortion to children we will be sending a message to children that children can be a burden and are best terminated if inconvenient.

Take this condom ad for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7965916.stm

I think it is important that we make every effort to reinforce a child's sense of worth, value and purpose and I think these emasure may undermine that.

Why Marry Non-Jewish?

Image via Wikipedia

The Maharal asks why did Moses marry a non-Jew who converted? He came from a prestigious family and should have married someone from a family with high pedigree.

He explains the Moses was a unique individual who was fundamentally separate and distinct from the rest of the Jewish people. He describes as the epitome of tzurah (from) that is totally detached from chomer (matter). As such he was unable to form a bond of marriage with any of the members of the Jewish people. Therefore, it was appropriate for him to marry a convert, since a convert is also distinct from Jewish people (they were not counted in the 600,000).

He concludes, that is the superiority the non-Jews have over the Jews, they can produce converts.

Maharal Musings

Image via Wikipedia

I'm currently reading through Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, the Maharal of Prague. The book travels through the exodus story beginning with Abraham, I am currently up to Moses growing up in Pharoah's palace.

As I go along I plan to note some of the points that jump out at me.

In chapter 16 he explains that Yocheved, the mother of Moses, did not experience pain during childbirth since the righteous were not included in the curse of Chava (Eve). He explains that in general the righteous do not suffer pain since pain only exists on the level of chomer (matter) and not on the level of tzurah (form).

This thought totally shifts the way we experience life, pain and suffering are not objective realities but rather subjective experiences, and if we wish to rid ourselves of pain and suffering we need to transcend our attachment to chomer and embrace tzurah.

In chapter 18 he explains the reason for the name Moses, as it says in the Torah, because he was drawn from the water, i.e. he is removed and detached from the water. Water is the very opposite of Moses, water completely lacks a fixed tzurah (form) and that is why in Hebrew it is always in the plural tense because it lacks any singularity. Moses on the other hand is the epitome of tzurah and therefore his name describes his seperation from the water (chomer).

More to come please G-d.

http://reuvenleigh.blogspot.com

Goody vs Richardson

Toby Young has a post here:

http://www.tobyyoung.co.uk/blog_257/does_jade_deserve_a_bigger_sendoff_than_natasha.html

that in a rather long winded way explores the concept of celebrity and how it has been reflected in the deaths of Jade Goody and Natasha Richardson.

He quotes extensively from Professor Mark Rowlands who has written a book called Fame. It seems that the Professor is not very impressed with the modern day phenomenon of being famous when not having actually achieved anything. Toby argues that this existed in much the same way in the past and cites examples, he also suggests that maybe Britney Spears should be celebrated as a person more than Beethoven since she is obviously not as naturally gifted in music than Ludwig and she has achieved her status through hard graft whereas Ludwig was just lucky to be born with a natural flare for music.

What I think they are both missing is an understanding of why there is such a need for celebrities.

People are more interested in the Goody story than the Richardson story even though Richardson is a more accomplished celebrity. Many people blame the media for the way they have portrayed the Goody story, however, the reason they behave the way they do is because it sells copy, which means many people want this stuff. If you check the google searches over the last week Goody beats Richardson.

Why?

I think the basis for celebrity is the voyeurism of the public and Goody understood that. She took advantage of many peoples deep need to explore other peoples lives, her celebrity was based solely on her celebrity and not any achievement and she exposed the whole system as a way for the public to indulge in their own fantasies.

Tolerating the Intolerable

Scenario A: There is a very well regarded person, possibly the head of a leading Ivy League university, who happens to express a view that is considered intolerable regarding the superiority of one human being over another. He comes under a barrage of criticism and is forced to leave his position and his career is ruined.

Scenario B: There is a very well regarded person, possibly considered one of Judaism's foremost thinkers in his time, who happens to express views that are currently unpalatable in western society. His contentious views are overlooked and he retains his status and his good name.

Why? why is it that we are unable to tolerate intolerable views in the present and are willing to 'forgive' people who held similar views many years ago. Is it just a condescending world view that if they were as enlightened as we are they wouldn't of held those views?

Image via Wikipedia

I started thinking about this since I was reading Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, the Maharal of Prague, and he says unashamedly that a woman is not as important as a man. Now I can interpret that in a sanitised way and also make reference to what he said in the previous chapter that the exodus from Egypt was in the merit of Miriam, however, the point is that whatever he meant he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt if he was alive today.

It suggests to me that our demonisation of people who hold intolerable views is not neceesarily a reflection of our adherence to a strict moral code but rather a discomfort with being confronted by our own disonance in relation to morality. When the holder of such a view is in the past it is easy to just sweep it under the carpet, however, when he/she are in the here and now we are forced to explain how it is so.

One option is to discredit the person, as is done routinely like in the case of scenario A, but the braver thing to do would be to ask ourselves this question:

Am I totally consistent in my own beliefs and opinions? most of us would probably answer no. Does that mean my negatives negate my positives? not at all. We all tolerate the often intolerable aspects of our minds and hearts, so why can't we tolerate someone elses?

I'm not trying to suggest that certain ideas are tolerable, quite the opposite, they are indeed intolerable, but is it worth destroying the totality of a person becasue of it?

Social Networking Narcissism

Image via CrunchBase

As I try to understand why so many people are interested in twitter I think I may have stumbled upon a clue.

I have explained before, that I think twitter has more or less the same functionality as facebook status updates (further accentuated in the new layout) and if the desire is to interact in that format it seems futile to use a different platform. Especially when you have already cultivated a friend list that far exceeds your real social network. So why would anyone try to use a new platform and start the whole friend search game all over again.

Do you remember in the infant days of facebook how your amount of friends was a topic of conversation whereas now it seems irrelevant?

Image via CrunchBase

However, I think I now may understand the added benefit of twitter over facebook A persons facebook friend list has been completely devalued as any sign of social prowess whereas if you can achieve a larger following than followed ratio in twitter it is truly a sign of your celebrity and how much people care about your daily inanities.

This suggests that social networks are not only what they may say on the can, a useful method to connect people, but contain the same insecurities that real social settings possess. Just like in the real world people often crave popularity this is then translated to the internet and since facebook no longer provides that challenge people have now moved on to twitter, and facebook is now used for what it says on the can.

I'm not painting everyone with the same brush but I think there may be some truth lurking here.