Rabbi's Blog - April/May 2011

The Chief Rabbinate (S)Election

24/5/2011

I’ve been invited to participate in a public debate on whether Britain needs a new Chief Rabbi. What with the media hoopla surrounding different candidates and my name being linked I think it would be imprudent for me to participate in such a discussion. But only if I was advocating for the position as it would then be misinterpreted as my wanting the job. In the event, I agreed to partake in the debate, the details yet to be confirmed, mostly because I am not convinced that we in the UK need a new Chief Rabbi. Perhaps a Chief Rabbinate is a better option but that’s for an altogether different discussion.

The one matter of immediate concern I have is the process by which the Chief Rabbi is to be appointed. It now emerges, that a sort of ratings sheet is being distributed to members of different interested parties who are advised to rate 1-10 what they define as key characteristics for a Chief Rabbi as well as what his primary remit should be. The Chief Rabbinate Trust will define a job description based on the consensus gleaned these papers and the position will then be advertised. Candidates all over the world can apply and will face the members of the Chief Rabbinate Trust for an interview. It is they who will make the ultimate decision.

This means that in all maybe 200-300 people will be involved in the consultation process and the ultimate decision will be made by a small band of merry men sitting behind closed doors. That works if you consider the Chief Rabbi to be the chief executive of a public company board members decide who they want to lead them forward.

But the Chief Rabbi represents the overwhelming majority of Anglo-Jewry which is made up of the constituent and affiliate synagogues of the United Hebrew Congregations. As such he is much more like an elected official or the President of Anglo-Jewry if you like and the process of appointment should be radically ed. In this, the 21’st century, it should no longer be about ion and every bit about election. If he is the Chief Rabbi of the people then he should be elected by the people. I would like to see this run American presidential election style. There can be a process by which certain candidates meeting with specific criteria could put themselves forward and then through a series of high profile lectures and debates on that which matters to the people it’ll all whittle down to a few who would then be subject to a vote.

The only ones who might really object to this are those who are already vying for the position and know they stand more of a chance being ed than if this route was to be followed. That further demonstrates why the system is flawed and people need to start thinking out of the box. I’m thoroughly convinced if the ratings sheet was much more widely disseminated with the final question being simply, “do you think the appointment should go to public vote,” the responses would score consistently higher than any other question.

One leading Rabbi in Manchester (Yossi Chazan) has publically advocated this idea as did renowned journalist Miriam Shaviv in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle. The only question that remains is whether the trustees, who are empowered to implement this change, have the courage to do so. Let’s hope they will all put a 10 as their answer.

The Rabbi & The Homophobic Cop

24/5/2011

It’s not your run of the mill pastoral duty but when I took a call movie director Elliot Lesters assistant asking if I might be able to come on set one very early Sunday morning some eighteen months ago I thought as every Hollywood wannabe thinks, This is it, my big break!

Regrettably it turns out it wasnt for a lead role or even as a walk on. Had I read up on the film Blitz in advance I might have realised thats theres hardly a role for a Rabbi in a London based crime thriller involving a serial killer and a homophobic cop.

So what was I needed for? Elliott being conscientiously Jewish wanted me to come on set in order to bless the film and the actors prior to the first shoot. So there I was, 6:30 on a Sunday morning being picked up in a nice chauffeured car and taken to some discrete location in the East End of London.

It wasn’t some exotic, art deco movie set. More like lots of trailers and cars strewn about this open field by some dilapidated buildings. I came equipped with a yarmulke and some tefilin. An hour or so later, all camera crew were ordered off set and I was huddled inside a room with the director and actors ready to roll.

When Jason Statham shook my hand, winked and mumbled something like “aright?” and Aidan Gillen came in bare-chested, I really started to wonder whether this was the right setting for my especially composed prayer. Keeping a straight face became difficult at that point.

Id long since forgotten about the whole experience until this week when I saw billboards advertising the movie for national release. The premier I was promised is now not happening but Ive been offered several tickets to a screening of my choice. Its the plush red carpet in Leicester Square I was so looking forward to. Not the green stained carpet at some Odeon cinema. Now I can only but try to imagine cameras flashing in my face and adoring fans screaming, “Rabbi, over here! Over here!”

So Im not destined for an Oscar. Perhaps I can carve out a career in “movie blessing.” If this films a box office hit, I can only hope Elliott will remember its humble beginnings and ensure to hire me for similar such occasions. Only next time first class to LA rather than the backstreets of London. Go out there and watch this film. Get all your friends to as well. I’ll remember to thank you and wave to you the next red carpet. Hollywood here I come.

Super Injunctions
& The Art Of Destroying Lives

22/5/2011

Breaking news: An unnamed premier league footballer has just launched legal action against Twitter for revealing that he is the subject of the Imogen Thomas Super Injunction. Meanwhile in a completely unrelated story Ryan Giggss lawyer has just bought a new speed boat and has made a late entry onto the Sunday Times rich list 2011.

Lest I be sued I should stress the outset that it’s not necessarily Ryan Giggs’ blood that everyone is baying for. But whoever it is, will have been spending fortunes on his legal team, even though it seems likely what with public pressure, his name will emerge in the end. All that money spent for what? Ill tell you for what. For a G-d given right to protect what is private and to ensure it remains that way. I dont use the word ‘G-d’ lightly here. I cant speak on behalf of other faiths but Judaism is pretty emphatic about its laws on tale-bearing. Theres a reason certain Jewish run newspapers dont include tittle-tattle and will be carefully scrutinised prior to publication to ensure it doesnt contravene any of the aforementioned prohibition.

Why We Do Have a Right to Know screamed The Mails weekend headline about former RBS chief Sir Freddy Goodwin who took out a super-injunction against publication of an alleged affair with a colleague. The judge removing the injunction insisted it was a matter of public interest. The Mail seems to imply his actions may have impaired his judgment and been in part responsible for bringing the bank to its knees.

So now we know why banks failed so badly during these past couple of years. It had nothing to do with economic downturn, bad debt, etc. It’s because bank chiefs were apparently ‘otherwise preoccupied.’ Lehman Brothers, Indie Mac, Lloyds, they were all at it! Heck, there must have been an orgy going on in Iceland.

I try to imagine how frustrating it must be for a newspaper editor equipped with information to have to bite his or her tongue. When youve got that front page story today thatll make everyone elses headline tomorrow, youre more than desperate to break it. So when a judge tells you, “you cant,” you find every imaginable excuse – usually taking the moral high ground with the classic “public interest” argument, to expose it. Let’s call a spade a spade. Newspaper editors care as much about public interest, as the public cares about any editors’ interests. The only interest the editor has is receiving plaudits and slaps on the back for his coup. It doesnt matter how many lives get ruined as long as it sells papers, right?

Wrong! Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any democracy. But does freedom mean unbridled? Or does it include, as surely it must, responsible speech. That is to say, as much as you reserve the right to express yourself, you have to also bear in mind the consequences. it will harm others and leave a trail of carnage in its wake, then it has got to be wrong.

Sure there are certain high offices that necessitate impeccable behaviour and when that is violated then there are all sorts of implications. Just ask Bill Clinton. It is inevitable that people will learn about your indiscretions, but I’m not convinced that there is any value to a newspaper having to write about it in sordid detail if any detail at all. Word leaks, the rumour mill works overtime, but it doesn’t have to become crystallised in the media. I’ve yet to hear any compelling argument to the contrary.

Of course the problem is now compounded with social networks, and even the media has its hands tied, anonymous tweeters or postings on Facebook can do equal damage. Granted the internet doesn’t have the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers, which people tend to trust more, but as England’s most senior civil judge Lord Neuberger said, “Modern technology is totally out of control and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.”

The debate will rage on. Meanwhile couples that might have been able to work through their issues will be forced to split in the face of public humiliation. Children, whose innocence might have otherwise been protected, will have to tolerate the scorn of their friends. Many other lives will be destroyed in the process. It’s all in the good name of “public interest.”

They Said It Couldn’t Happen Here.
It Just Did!

20/5/2011

I participated recently in a discussion with certain Prime Ministers of smaller countries that now form part of the EU. In an impassioned plea, the point was made that there is movement afoot to label all shechita meat, and if that gets approval the next step will be an all out ban. It won’t stop there. Circumcision will be next on the agenda. We appealed to them to be a voice of opposition to this growing anti-Jewish rhetoric that is finding new, less transparent ways of expressing itself.

When the Estonian Prime Minister, Mr Andrus Ansip asked why is this was surfacing now, I explained that it is something that rears its ugly head every now and then, usually in proportion to world sentiment about Jews, which in turn is often linked to the situation in the Middle East.

While I believed this to be a unique if not untypical situation in Western Europe, it now emerges that parts of the USA are facing a similar crisis. Forget shechita, they’re going straight for the jugular.

Just this past Wednesday, S. Franciscos Board of Elections approved a petition to place the issue of circumcision on the ballot. By definition, they have approved the process of circumcision to go to vote and be accepted or rejected by the electorate. If activists have their way in municipal elections this November, when voters will be asked to vote on the measure, circumcision of a boy under the age of 18 years of age for religious reasons would be classified as a misdemeanour and punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. And this is a country that is supposed to be far more tolerant toward Jews than Europe can ever hope to be.

Legal experts have weighed in on the case, with many asserting the ban, if passed, would infringe upon parents First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of religion. The local Jewish Community Relations Council and Anti-Defamation League have also joined with other religious groups and doctors in combating the proposed ban.

Let’s be very clear: Most of those who want shechita meat labelled are as much concerned about animal welfare as I lose sleep over the plight of the Red Indians on the Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation reserve in the flood plain south of Winnipeg, Canada. And those advocating for a ban on circumcision care as much about the well-being of infants as I do about the welfare of the Vietnamese golden- headed langur.

What is it Shakespeare said about a rose by any other name? The same holds true for Anti Semitism.

Inside The Human Body –
When the BBC Lost The Plot

13/5/2011

Prime Time TV has hit a new low. Last night the BBC aired a programme in which a grandfather of 84, ‘Gerald,’ was shown to die. It’s the first time a “live death” was aired in the UK. The BBC argues that it is of educational interest and is a segment of their Inside the Human Body series which “does not shy away difficult subjects.”

I can understand when a programme wants to show you the inside of a body, the mechanics of a body, even the progressive stages of particular diseases. What, pray tell, could be educational about watching someone’s death?

To be sure, I did not watch the programme. I was delivering a talk some outside London at the time. Even had I been available, I would never expose myself to that sort of grotesque voyeurism. Sure, we’ve all seen people getting shot up, hung up or simply die in the movies. But the mind makes an obvious distinction between what it knows is just make-believe Hollywood and what is the real thing.

Writer and broadcaster Dame Joan Bakewell defended the programme in an opinion piece in the national press. She argues that “Being familiar with the moment of death is extremely important.” Really? Why? It’s bad enough when it has to happen. Why does one need to be familiar with it other than when they have to be?

A short while back someone wrote to me in my column about her young son’s hamster which died. She switched it for a new one before he became aware and thereafter felt terribly guilty for deceiving him. I advised her that “what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.” “Besides,” I added, “unfortunately he’ll have enough opportunity when he’s older to have to deal with death in one form or another. Shield him that heartache as long as you can.”

There are those who believe in system overload within children. Expose them to everything you can while they’re still young to better equip them for when they get older. That’s sheer gibberish. The whole beauty of childhood is being able to mould the personality within a framework of blessed innocence before the hard facts and cruel realities of life kick in. The same principle should apply on some level to adults as well. We’ve enough to contend with. There’s nothing ‘important’ about being familiar with painful experiences until such point as they present themselves. In the words of the ancient Sages, “it’s enough to have to deal with the pain in its time.”

Bakewell writes how she’s been by the bedsides of both her father and sister when they died “and it transformed my idea of death and how to deal with it. It’s natural and I wouldn’t have wanted to miss it…it’s a very special moment and it’s a privilege to be there.”

As a Rabbi I’ve been at several bedsides at the time of death. While I appreciate there is some comfort in being there to the very end with a loved one, and I even get why she would not want to miss it, I’m not quite sure how she could associate the term ‘privilege’ with death. Either way, as much as that applies to a loved one, which is so much more intimate, I don’t know how one makes the leap that sort of personal experience to millions of people simply tuning in to watch someone they don’t even know, die. There cannot be any educational value to it, and frankly it stripped away whatever dignity the old man had left in those dying moments.

Judaism is emphatic about respect that should be accorded the deceased. There are strict rules and regulations as to how one should be treated in their final moments and indeed immediately upon passing. The exhibition the BBC made of Gerald was degrading in the extreme. Hopefully the man can now rest in peace, even as he was denied that opportunity up until the bitter end.

Bin Laden is Dead - A Time to Rejoice?

2/5/2011

Two immediate sensations overcame me when listening to news of Bin Laden’s death this morning. The first was a twinge of sadness as I flashbacked to that ineffable event when more than three thousand people lost their lives. I, like countless others, vividly recall I was at that precise moment. I suddenly felt myself transported back in time, clutching my then two year old daughter and watching the planes crash into the World Trade Centre. Now, ten years on, I was surprised myself when I felt this wave of emotion wash through me as I was listening to this “end of chapter.” I’m quite sure many others will have felt these same pangs. The American media will probably scramble first thing this morning to get in touch with families who lost loved ones on that tragic day. For most it will open old wounds though it is probably also an essential part of a healing process.

The other feeling was one of uneasiness as I listened to reports of scenes of jubilation at Ground Zero. Sure, death was the only appropriate punishment for this arch-terrorist. The religious rationale for capital punishment is that taking the life of another is perceived as a crime so hideous that the murderer has effectively forfeited their right to exist as no practical punishment can suffice. Still, the ancient Sages enjoin us, “do not rejoice when your enemy falls.” This quote, which originates with King Solomon in Proverbs, has several different explanations offered by commentators. To offer one of my own, I think what the wisest of all men was suggesting is that while you can feel relief knowing that Pharaoh, Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden have been terminated, true jubilation has no place in a world evil continues to exist. We can declare victory in this battle, but the war is yet to be won. It is only when all evil will be eradicated this earth that we can revel in that ultimate joy.

Until then, we can learn an obvious lesson this historic moment. An unimaginable amount of time, energy, money and manpower spanning a decade, has gone into bringing the world’s most wanted man down. Imagine what we could do if we exerted similar resources to eliminate some of the other evils that pervade our world – such as poverty, war and hunger. We don’t need to be CIA operatives or Navy seals. We just need to follow a directive our Commander in Chief to seek to perpetuate more goodness and kindness in the world through the simple acts of reaching through hearts and touching souls. While the search for Bin Laden took them into the deepest terrains and mountainous hill of Pakistan he was hiding only eight hundred meters away the country’s Capital. Salvation is so much nearer than you think. We look forward to the day when we will be able to utter the same words as those soldiers who emerged the compound in Abbotabbad: “Mission accomplished.”

Lessons the Royal Wedding

29/4/2011

Forget Alistair Stuart and other TV commentators. Avid followers of mine on Twitter and Facebook will have seen my running commentary throughout the Royal nuptials. One woman even reported her husband reading out my tweets as they were coming through while she was watching the proceedings.

So what lessons have I learnt watching this history in the making?

1) Church services can really be as boring as people say they are. And then they wonder why there is dwindling attendance. I don’t know how many speeches, readings and hymns were recited in all, but suddenly Shul doesn’t seem so bad after all. The Queen ought to have considered little l’chaim cups on trays for the end of service. Maybe next time – by Harry – if he doesn’t get to them all first. Seriously, priests need to start thinking a little out of the box and figure out how to beef up services. Religion is good for society. If you can get more people through the doors and inspire them with a religious message, it would engender more stability when they step back out into the world.

2) Notwithstanding the dragged out service, I could not help but notice that everyone remained perfectly quiet throughout. How come we can’t manage that at any point throughout our services – other than perhaps during the Rabbi’s sermon – and then mostly because many are sleeping anyway. How can you tell who is Jewish and who is not at a Bar Mitzvah service? The gentile will be the one not talking. The great eighteenth century scholar, Rabbi Yonasan Eybeschutz was said to have explained to a Bishop who taunted him about the decorum in Synagogues in comparison to churches, “we feel more at home in our Synagogues.” Perhaps so, but a little more decorum will go a long way.

3) Following on the previous point, it was also important to observe how everyone wore appropriate attire within the confines of the Abbey. I still don’t know why some women feel the need to go sleeveless in Synagogue or some simply choose to leave their hats on their laps. These same people would never dare contravene the dress code of a church service or walk inappropriately into a mosque. But on their own turf…? Perhaps again, it’s because they feel more at home. Still, no excuse.

4) The cameras did zoom in more than once on Elton John in attendance with his boyfriend. So the church has taken a more liberal leaning toward those who don’t necessarily conform to fundamental religious beliefs. Some years ago I lectured to a large group of military chaplains in Portsmouth. At their encouragement I spoke about gays in the military. This was later reported in the Daily Mail and prompted someone to call me and inquire whether I would allow him, as a Jewish gay naval officer, to attend Synagogue with his boyfriend. To his surprise I answered in the affirmative. All places of worship ought to be warm and welcoming to all walks of life irrespective of what might otherwise go on, on the outside. When several years ago a rehabilitated sex offender was denied entry into a Synagogue to recite the kaddish for his late mother I was the lone voice in the wilderness decrying the stance. So long as there is no risk posed, and respectability within the confines of the house of worship is upheld, G-d looks to welcome everyone into His ethereal embrace.

5) Something of course must be said about marriage itself. It was a fairytale wedding. But there’s no such thing as a fairytale marriage. It’s easy to play prince and princess on the day, but behind closed doors they are a husband and wife like everyone else, dealing with the usual ups and downs of every ordinary couple. A quick glimpse into several Royal marriages will prove the point. What is it about the transformative power of a Chupa, such that he walks in Dr. Jekyll and emerges Mr. Hyde – or she walks in Snow White and emerges Attila the Hun? The point is too many people think you ‘get married’ and everything else happens by itself. At running the risk of regurgitating an old cliché, “marriage is like a flower which needs watering every day.” The ancient Sages often use marriage as the analogy when describing the giving of the Torah at Sinai, with G-d being the groom and the Israelites being the bride. It occurs to me therefore, in the same way that we are supposed to perceive the Torah as though given anew each day (“every single day it shall be as new in your eyes”) that is the same attitude we should take toward marriage as well.

6) Finally, it was noticed that the Queen did have a quick natter with Prince Philip during the last part of the service. Was he asking her what page they’re up to? Was he asking, “When is this over?” Did he moan about being hungry – “what’s for lunch?” Whatever it was, it was refreshing to catch them off guard. It proves that no one’s perfect and at the core we are all after all equal.

Two billion people paused to watch the Royal Proceedings. How compelling that such an uplifting event can unite a third of the world. For that one hour or so I am sure crime rates ped, people bickered a little less and everyone was a little more relaxed. There was a feel-good factor all around. It just goes to show, does it not, that we could all do with taking a step back, taking some time out, pausing long enough to consider what’s really important in life. To all the cynics out there, that one hour proved more than anything that this world really could be so much more of a better place.

Smile! Theres Always Tomorrow

6/4/2011

A while back, while sitting at home in Toronto, visiting my dear father who is regrettably unwell, I wrote a heart-felt blog entry reflecting my thoughts and emotions at the time. Exactly four months have passed and there have been highs and lows. A high moment came in February when more than five hundred people turned out for a special tribute dinner at which I had the privilege of delivering the keynote and paying personal tribute.

A low moment came more recently when I called my father for some information. I’ve always referred to my father as my Google. Whenever needing a source it was often quicker to call him then researching through textbooks and what not. He would often chastise me for being lazy but the information was always at the top of his head filled with encyclopaedic knowledge. So it was somewhat disheartening when I emailed the other week seeking a reference for an obscure quote I was citing in an article, and he couldn’t provide it. He corrected me on the precise phraseology, but didn’t recall its origins. I mulled over this for some time and considered somewhat despondently how we vacillate in life. Nothing ever stays the same.

A new high moment came only this morning when scouring through a particular blog I like to visit and came across this. I knew my father was going to be attending an academic conference in Pennsylvania though I wondered how he would fare. My mother reported back that it all went exceptionally well but, as in the words of the ancient Sages, “You cannot compare hearing to seeing.” Indeed viewing the pictures on this blog really lifted my spirits.

My mother told me that the only reason any sane woman would accompany her husband on such a trip two weeks before Pesach is because “if he wanted to do it, there was no way I was going to stop him.” Different people confront their illnesses in different ways. Some allow themselves to get bogged down in the negativity while others look to challenge themselves in defiance of medical prognosis. Sometimes that attitude in itself can make all the difference between life and... Indeed according to doctors my father should not be he is at, and we thank G-d and his attitude every day for that.

There’s a lesson therein for me. Even when the low moments present themselves, I need to look beyond to the next day with its brighter prospects. After all, it’s like I often say, much as doctors don’t like to hear it: They have science – we have G-d!