I have a lot of concept about the concept of other Jewish people. It does not seem transparent that there are so many things that un bring other Jewish people together in terms of the fundamental values on which all Jews can agree. Transparent and singular morality in your opinion, or non-unusual threads on which we can all agree from the beginning?
When it comes to talking about Jewish unity or other Jewish people, talking is cheap. I think we have to preach by example. And that’s why, for example, I’ve had public conversations with other people who actually reject everything I stand for.
One of them the late Amos Oz, the novelist. Another is Steven Pinker – Steven is the atheist of the user who thinks, right?And I love Steven, we feel this bond of Judaism between us.
And I have this with David Brooks of the New York Times, or the American philosopher Mike Sandel, or Robert Putnam of Harvard. These are other people with which I have a genuine connection, despite the fact that their approaches to Judaism are completely and surely another one of mine.
You have to have those conversations, either in public or in private, and show that it can be done, and I think it has an effect on when it’s done.
When Jonathan Haidt wrote “The Coddling of the American Mind,” his publishers asked me to help him publish the book. So we had a great time in London’s West End. And one of the panellists of the occasion, a study professor, kept saying, categorically, that Britain is based and inextricably connected to racism, colonialism and genocide.
That’s a pretty alienating thing to say. Most members of the public knew they weren’t racist or genocidal, and after part of the night, I thought, it’s just boring.
So I turned directly to him and essentially told him, look, if I was born in the cases when you were born the moment you were born, I think I’d have the same attitudes as you. How can we take this anger and make the Uns fragile, turn those negative energies into positive energies?Let’s see if we can think from those attitudes to a greater future.
Some other people at the hearing told me that there was a palpable replacement in the audience at the time and noticed that instead of those two parties throwing insults at each other, it was a small moment when someone showed that they were in a position to cross the ditch and introduce the mindset of someone who thinks I’m racist , colonialist and writer of genocide, so I felt the strength to say ‘OK, boys, let’s go beyond that. through his eyes. And let’s see if we can move forward together. And I don’t see enough of what’s going on in today’s world.
You wrote that the culture of cancellation has become uncontrollable, but it is valid anger and grievances that motivate the urge to suppress Americans or ideas. What is the most productive style to deal with anger and grievances, especially when a debate of the kind you have described?It’s not possible?
There are times when cultural cancellation attitudes are totally appropriate. It’s a very, very brutal weapon, but you want it if you probably want to replace your attitude.
I believe that the answer to the question of sexual harassment was entirely justified, for example, I believe that the Black Lives Matter protest opposed to the murder of George Floyd, in addition to the riots, which I believe affected all kinds of people, was justified.
I think anger is rarely a obligatory weapon. The Rambam declares that anger is never justified, ever. But, he says, he’s rarely allowed to look angry. [Laughter] Because that’s what has an effect on people.
When anger erupts in a political body, there is a justifiable cause, but then the political box has to take that anger and deal with it very quickly.
It must be acknowledged that there were safe cultures of systemic sexual harassment. It must be acknowledged that there have been terrible cases of police brutality. These things will have to be identified and dealt with without delay as part of the political process. Because anger exposes the challenge, but it never provides the solution.
When it comes to the erosion of the classic design of the circle of relatives and the revolutions of the 1960s, it is written: “In fact, no one needs to return to the narrow prejudices of the past. . . . But our compassion for those who choose to live deserve not to save us from protecting the ultimate humanizing establishment in history.
I think many other people in the 1960s, especially in the United States, not because of the erosion of the structure of the circle of relatives, but because of the civil rights of black Americans, women’s rights and freedom of expression on school campuses, and how classical structures would give rise to rights for others who didn’t necessarily have them before.
Is there a way to balance the replacement in the prestige quo and the struggle for individual freedoms with the maintenance of our collective values and responsibilities?Or is there some kind of round trip you want to happen?
Balance is a little-studied concept in political theory and, in fact, balance is an art, a science. Madison wrote about the factions in The Federalist Papers; The architects of the United States Constitution were guided through Montesquieu’s concepts of separation of powers, and I argued that the Hebrew Bible establishes the first formula for separation of powers.
In all other ancient civilizations, the head of state is the head of religion, without exception. The king of Israel is necessarily castrated: he has no devout powers and no legislative powers. The king is not the high priest and the high priest is not the King.
Anger goes to the prophets, who were very angry people. Just read one page of Amos or Jeremiah, they are angry, angry people, and one way or another, among those 3 forces: the king who is the head of government, the high priest who is at the head of the devotee establishment, and the prophet who is the voice of just indignation, handling this balance is very subtle, and it works and does not work.
One of the never-written Jewish stories is “The History of the Jews” through Paul Johnson, a very devoted Catholic. How does this guy know so much more about Judaism than the ultimate Jews?So when I became a rabbi leader, I had him at dinner and asked him what he had learned from all his years of reading Judaism.
He said: “There have been very individualistic cultures in history, you know, like Athens or 2nd-century Rome or in the West. There have been very collectilist cultures, such as the Soviet Union or China. But no one I know has done it”. controlled to mix the two as Judaism did. You teach others about individual duty and teach them collective duty. “
And I imagine it was an astonishment of someone absolutely external. Of course, he also paraphrased Hillel, who said, “If I’m not for me, who will be?”- individual responsibility. And “If I’m just for me, what am I?”- collective responsibility.
Judaism is a kind of balancer between me and us. And I didn’t communicate much about Judaism in the eBook, the e-book is really motivated through this sense of subtlety of that balance. It’s not simple and it’s not at all, obvious.
You say the state has replaced some social establishments as we move away from a “we”-oriented society. What do you mean by that and what do you think is the ideal balance between outsourcing our collective day-to-day jobs to the state or central authority we trust, and non-state-dependent construction establishments, is there any way to rebuild those we lost when we were used to outsourcing much of that responsibility?
For me, the classic example is the time between 1820 and 1850: you had a very individualistic culture and great social up disorders, the transition from farms to cities in the United States and Britain, the transition from land to paintings in mines and factories.
You have had a lot of family circle convulsion when young people, usually young men, came to town without any family circle structure, there were many young people born out of wedlock, a lot of drunkenness and violent crimes. It was not wise to walk the streets of London at night.
But in the United States and Britain, between 1820 and 1850, there was a whole towing of society made basically through devoted charities, one way or another, those charities have agents of social transformation. declined from 1850 to 1950.
Could a return to collective morality, a “we” mentality, be completed today?I know.
Political scientist Robert Putnam believes that it is the other giving and caring people in churches and synagogues who are the main drivers of altruism in America today.
In Britain, it’s hard. I discussed this a lot with our prime ministers who served in my time as lead rabbi: John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, and one way or another, there was resistance at the public service level. I need to see the state go backwards and make room for the local communities, so I worked very hard. I mean, I’ve written an e-book about it called “The Politics of Hope. “I worked very well, and it was sabotaged every time. That’s too bad.
According to the 2013 Pew study on American Jews, 22% of American Jews identify as non-religious Jews; 62% say being Jewish is basically a matter of ancestry and culture, while only 15% say it’s basically a matter of religion. People in general are more secular than in the times you just described. and is it imaginable to build or rebuild ethical societies that need to be completely separated from devout values?
I think you want to put several things together and they’re pretty hard to put together. These are things I’ve invested a lot of time in.
Number one is a national narrative. There will have to be a way of saying, “What does it mean to me to be British or what does it mean to be English to me?”And of course, in recent years, all that’s happened in this score, frankly, has been a lot of films about World War I and World War II. You have a myriad of films about Churchill and Dunkirk and a brilliant film called “1917”. And you know, it’s not like that.
In the UK, we have something called Remembrance Sunday. Every November comes the Queen and the entire royal circle of relatives, the Prime Minister and all the former prime ministers, all the ambassadors, all the heads of the armed forces and all religions meet. We, the other people who gave their lives in global wars and other conflicts. It’s a wonderful national thing: a massive televised event.
And I sat down with Gordon Brown when the Prime Minister and I said, “You know, Prime Minister, all you have to do to create a British Day is split the day in half. May the morning be faithful to war and the past, and the afternoon to peace and the future. And at noon, the older generation hands the flame to the younger generation, and then you make a little rite that celebrates being British and being a decent human being. You don’t want to upload a date to the calendar, but immediately create a national story. It didn’t work.
On the other hand, I was extraordinarily happy when, as a birthday present, our daughter bought us tickets to go and see “Hamilton”!And I think it was! Next time I get to New York, we’ll stop by to go see Lin-Manuel Miranda. I wrote him a note telling him that he showed how to tell the national tale in a new and radically inclusive way.
So you want a rite and a national tale to create a sense of identity and then you have to do something. The most productive example is the State of Israel: they all serve in the military or national service.
Because the most productive way to teach other people about morality is to give them responsibilities. Let them do anything that helps others and improves other people’s lives.
Therefore, it will still be located today in Israel, despite the fact that Israel is a deeply fractured society, with an original sense of altruism coming from the army and national service. If you put all those things together, you can do a brilliant thing, and that doesn’t mean giving lectures to anyone.
There’s no “you won’t. ” I mean, look, we give you the strength to pass and help those other elders, the deficient others or other people who sleep on the street at night, and to be told what it’s like to be moral, and more. you’ll be informed doing better.
Have you followed the controversy surrounding actor Seth Rogen and his recent comments about Judaism?He basically said he was very bitter about the development of his Jewish upbringing because he felt “lied” about Israel and how it was built. Did you just describe Israel in the minds of so many young American Jews?
Israel has not taken its own presentation seriously enough. I had this verbal exchange for a long time, until I stopped having it.
The Oslo peace procedure failed on 29 September 2000, after Ariel Sharon marched to the Temple Mount, and there was a Palestinian uprising that was described in a rather malicious way, erroneously, as the Al Aqsa Intifada. I believe that everyone assumed – that Israel had granted both the Oslo procedure, especially in its final phase, that if the peace procedure failed, Israel would benefit from the doubt.
In the British media, the benefit of doubt is not granted at all for a single day. In early October, the most commonly anti-Israel media blamed him for the failure of the peace negotiations. It’s serious, serious!
And yet Israel did nothing to counter this. Nothing at all.
During those years, Israel sent 3 ambassadors to the UK who may not speak English. In December 2000, I personally took an organization of others, hounds from the Times and the BBC, to Jerusalem as a rabbi leader to see for themselves. A rabbi leader does not deserve to be called to make the task of ambassador of the State of Israel. That’s not what a devout leader is. And this is a ridiculous and ridiculous resolution on Israel’s component over the more than 20 years.
Because if, like Seth Rogen, you’re interested in olam tikkun and making improvements in the world, I think you’ll find it difficult to locate bigger examples of this than the other young people in the State of Israel.
You have to look for them. But social marketing specialists in the State of Israel are amazing. Right now, they’re conducting COVID-19 tests that work in seconds, they’re working with vaccines, God knows what: the Israel I know is Israel’s overall technological innovation in agriculture. medicine and synthetic intelligence, nanotechnology. This is exciting Israel. Israeli politics will have to be treated with professionalism and competition, but there is another Israel that the world does not know, and it is extraordinary.
I went every year with songs and a choir to do concerts for those suffering terror in hospital atriums, and only to see Israelis, Arabs, Druze, Muslims and Bedouins and God knows what every treatise in combination was beautiful, but no one shows it. Therefore, I fear that this has been a missed opportunity in the component of Israel. Israel has had brilliant ambassadors. But in general, the world is quite ignorant of the Israel that I appreciate, and I’m sure Seth Rogen would appreciate it if he could see.
A respected Orthodox rabbi recently said in an interview for a popular Orthodox publication that Jews vote for President Trump’s re-election in gratitude for what he did for the other Jewish people. His comments surprised some other people and excited others. so that devoted leaders weigh so much on political issues?
The department between politics and faith is surely fundamental. This is one of the most important things Judaism has taught the world: combining faith and politics. You combine faith and politics, you get horrible politics and even worse faith. This is an absolute and widespread scandal.
I wrote, I don’t know how many eBooks on politics: “The Dignity of Difference,” “The House We Built Together,” “Not in the Name of God. “Even this e-book on “Morality” is a bit about politics. And yet I’ve never, ever taken a political position, and no member of my family, adding Elaine, with whom I held a golden wedding a few weeks ago, knows how to vote. Nobody knows how I vote. I mean, I then sought to make it transparent in public that I approach the leaders of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Nor do I worry about having allowed my rabbis to use the pulpit for political purposes, and I can see that this is the case in America, and I’m afraid the American Jewish network is making a big, big mistake. . It’s a very, very important thing.
Politics is inherently divisive. And it was Alexis de Tocqueville who learned this by asking many pastors, vicars and priests why they abstain from politics in their sermons. They said, “Well, politics divides and faith will have to be unified. “They knew that as soon as you returned faith to politics, it would also be a factor of division.
So I’m afraid I probably don’t feel any sympathy for anyone, as a rabbi, who tells other people how to vote.
And if you need to see the corruption of politics through the mixture of faith, spend some time in Israel. I am concerned that Israel will be glorious in so many things, but its set of politics and faith is a disaster and would possibly one day threaten survival itself. because if you don’t have any department or anything unified yet, then I’m worried that a state might last.
It would be remiss if I didn’t ask questions about the pandemic and disconnection that we are all forced to live in those days, at a time when it is detrimental to our fitness to be together, what is the proxy of the connection or something like that. can we paint on ourselves?
It turns out to me that when you temporarily lose something and get it back, you never take it for granted again.
We’ve lost that non-public touch, this two-me touch. The fact is, we taken it for granted. Turns out this is the ultimate in life. In Genesis 1, the words “God saw that they were intelligent” seems seven times. The first time the word “not smart” seems to be when he notices that it is not smart for a human being to be alone.
Therefore, we will have to settle for the pain of this loss of compromise and say that we will never take social touch for granted or take it lightly, and that is necessarily what Judaism is. It’s about sanctifying the bonds between us, whether it’s a circle of family, friendship, or community ties.
It is a much more social faith than the maximum of other religions. So this is number 1, get there. That’s why we have to be informed when we nevertheless get out of it.
So how do you survive? I’m sure you’ve read Victor Frankl’s “The Pursuit of Sense. “He says when he got to Auschwitz he lost everything. All he had was the manuscript of an e-book he had written. And the Nazis took it away from him, and destroyed him. He said it at the end of his life.
He learned that to survive, he had to do a reframe, a paradigm shift. He said he had made a decision for himself, a psychologist involved in a primary experiment. And he replaced the way he felt about himself and everything that happened to him. He.
You have to replace the paradigm if you need it right now very, very complicated of global history. And the most productive paradigm shift I can think of is to say, “Ah, I just got a gap year!”This thing I’ve been waiting for all my life and for which I never had time, I was given a gap year!
This allows you to replace the paradigm and more definitively feel where it is now, to frame it to have an end, because the sabbaticals are over. You can’t do that forever and I think it’s probably the most productive way to deal with it.