March 26, 2004
SPEAKING IN TONGUES:
Do thoughts count?: Intent, action and responsibility (Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, March 25, 2004, Jewish World Review)
Do thoughts count? Of course they do, one might be tempted to say, especially after forgetting an important birthday, then remembering it two weeks later. If the person you forgot is gracious, he or she will say, "It's the thought that counts." Meaning: What really counts is the action, but I'll forgive you since you meant well.Which counts most, then, thoughts or acts? It's a complicated topic in Judaism. Saul of Tarsas, propagator of Christianity, thought that Judaism regarded actions above all else. Judaism doesn't care what you think or feel, only what you do, he said. Judaism values the "law." To Saul, this was a biting criticism.
Some 1,700 years later, this was a high compliment, according to Moses Mendelsohn, the founder of the Jewish enlightenment in Western Europe.
Mendelsohn argued that Judaism required only action — and that this was a strength. Mendelsohn wished to adopt European ways of thought and felt he could do so and still remain a good Jew, provided only that he performed Jewish acts — the mitzvos, or commandments. Judaism, he said, was strictly a matter of "legislation." Any Jew was free to think whatever he wanted about G-d and philosophy, just so he observed the laws of the Torah.
Here is a contemporary version of the same approach, heard in certain Orthodox Jewish circles: Homosexuality is wrong, but only to the extent that it expresses itself in an act. The act is wrong, but the thought or "orientation" is not proscribed. Judaism values the "law" only. The circle comes back on itself, from Saul of Tarsas to Mendelsohn to some Orthodox rabbis. Strange bedfellows indeed.
The point is this: Yes, Judaism values acts; yes, Judaism is a religion of acts, of mitzvos; but no, acts do not exhaust Judaism. Far from it. Just as Saul was wrong about Judaism, ignoring the importance that Judaism places on love and other emotions and intentions, so, too, every Jewish thinker who tries to reduce Judaism to deeds alone ignores a pivotal quality of the religion.
This is brought home in this week's Torah portion by the olah sacrifice. It was offered on many occasions, one being this: Having sinful thoughts that are not carried out. Do thoughts count? Indeed they do. The very first sacrifice in Leviticus — the olah — was brought for imagining sin, for thinking unworthy thoughts. One dreamt of sin, nothing more. For this one was obligated to go to the trouble and expense of offering an olah sacrifice in the Temple.
We have no more Temple, but we do have sinful thoughts, and we do have a clear value statement about them in this week's Torah portion. Thoughts count.
Almost thirty years ago, then candidate Jimmy Carter confessed in a Playboy interview:
I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I'm going to do it anyhow, because I'm human and I'm tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it.
He was widely derided in the mainstream media, but this sort of talk gave him the narrow margin by which he was elected, quite possibly the last time the Democratic standard bearer will ever carry the religious vote. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2004 10:26 AM
No man ever went wrong in politics in this country by pandering to the fear of sex among the Christians.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 26, 2004 3:57 PMFear? How come all the religious folks I know have so many kids?
Posted by: oj at March 26, 2004 4:09 PMI was just a young kid (12) at the time, but I admired Carter greatly at the time, particularly because of things like his gutsy forthrightness in that interview. My disillusion came later.
Posted by: Joe at March 26, 2004 6:31 PMYes, fear. They are forced to indulge, but that doesn't mean they have to like it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 26, 2004 7:15 PMHarry:
Not like it as much as a quickie with a stranger? Your ignorance of the religious is infinite.
Posted by: oj at March 26, 2004 7:29 PM" Any Jew was free to think whatever he wanted about G-d and philosophy, just so he observed the laws of the Torah. "
I guess I should become a Jew. This about sums up my view on religion and morality, if you substitute "laws of decency and humanity" for "laws of the Torah", which may or may not overlap 100%. This is the exact opposite of the Protestant Christian viewpoint, which values thoughts only, specifically your thoughts about Jesus and how you can be saved. Thinking is a lot easier than action. No wonder Christianity is so successful, and Judaism is not.
Robert:
It doesn't matter which you choose, so long as you acknowledge you have no right to determine the morality of your own actions.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 2:05 PMI'll accept you're right when they close the last convent.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2004 3:26 PMWhy should convents be closed?
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 3:32 PMRobert:
It's much harder to not have evil thoughts than it is to not commit evil acts.
It really has to do with what one's concept of the afterlife is.
If one believes that the mortal realm is the sum of existence, and that one go-round is all anyone gets, then only actions count, and then only to the extent that one might get prosecuted.
If one believes that the afterlife is paradise, but that it's eternal and fixed, then actions matter, under all circumstances, even if one could get away with something.
If one believes that there is reincarnation and karma, or nirvana and blissful release of individuality, or that humans are expected to grow into the divine, then thoughts matter, in some cases more than action.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 28, 2004 1:11 AM"If one believes that the mortal realm is the sum of existence, and that one go-round is all anyone gets, then only actions count, and then only to the extent that one might get prosecuted."
You assume that such a person is only concerned about his own welfare. This person's actions have consequences for those that live on beyond his life, such as his children and his society.
"If one believes that the afterlife is paradise, but that it's eternal and fixed, then actions matter, under all circumstances, even if one could get away with something."
Not if it is your view that salvation comes from faith alone (Sola Fides) and not works.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 28, 2004 12:04 PMRobert:
However, even those who believed that generally believed that it would manifest itself by proper behavior in this world.
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2004 12:07 PMRobert:
Yes, most people are fairly easy-going: As long as they're doing OK, they're not always looking to pull a scam.
However, under the one-time-only, no afterlife scenario, there's no moral difference between a robber baron and a dedicated, non-wacko environmentalist, only differences of personality and character.
Providing for the current and future well-being of one's own children is usually thought to be a variant of self-interest.
No reason at all, if you hate sex.
If you don't think sex is bad, it's hard to justify abstinence on principle. Who abstains from the good?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 29, 2004 8:24 PMSomeone who chooses the better.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 8:31 PM