Isn’t that what you learned from parshas Korach?
Dark Light’s Rabbi Weinbach learned from Korach that democracy is not a good thing. Not a good thing at all. You know who should be in charge? The Gedolim! The Gedolim should be ruling the State of Israel.
Rabbi Weinbach, the dean of Ohr Somayach, writes,
One of the greatest dangers to civilization in general, and to the Jewish People in particular, is the delusion that populism will solve all the problems of mankind[...] For the Jewish people Torah leadership is the indispensable element of their existence. There is no place in the world for a demagogue who attempts to undermine that authority. This is why the Heavenly punishment for Korach and his cohorts was sinking into the earth and vanishing from human sight.
It is to be hoped that this will be a lesson for all those who refuse to accept the authority of our Torah leaders whose guidance alone can secure Israel forever.
Yes…the Gedolim should be in charge of the State of Israel. True freedom is submission to the Gedolim.
Their will be done.
Update: Halfsours weighs in.
65 comments
Weinbach is on crack. XD
This is why the Heavenly punishment for Korach and his cohorts was sinking into the earth and vanishing from human sight.
If the Hareidim would sink into the earth and vanish from human sight, and if the Christian fundies would get raptured already and float off to meet Jesus in the sky, and if the Islamic fundies would go to Paradise to be with their I forget how many virgins, the rest of us might be able to get on with the business of creating a civilization that was actually tolerable to live in.
“the rest of us might be able to get on with the business of creating a civilization that was actually tolerable to live in.”
Yes- it’s my dream as well that the earth should be purged of all who think differently than me. You might call it a personal crusade of mine. Or jihad. That works too.
EG, I don’t know if you’re a liberal, but if you are, consider: liberals are just as intolerant, and certainly more open about their biases, than many of the “fundie” Christian groups they openly profess to hating. Agree or disagree?
“… There is no place in the world for……those who refuse to accept the authority of our Torah leaders….”
Is this Rabbi allowed near our children?!
you HAVE to separate religious life from governmental life. if a majority of jews eat pork (which they do) does that make them right? no matter what u want to aruge it is CLEAR that one cannot eat pork if jewish.
we all know democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others. but the same can’t be same for religion. stop assuming the rules are the same.
the BEST light is saying not democracy is bad in government. they are saying the majority isn’t always right…afterall the majority of americans reelected bush and a majority didn’t elect clinton (only a plurality). are you saying they were right?
EG, I don’t know if you’re a liberal, but if you are, consider: liberals are just as intolerant, and certainly more open about their biases, than many of the “fundie” Christian groups they openly profess to hating. Agree or disagree?
Oh, I am a flaming liberal, sixties-style (actually, I prefer the term “progressive”). Although, sometimes I can be contrary - for example, I’m opposed to inheritance taxes and certain forms of sales tax.
I don’t know if liberals are more open about their biases than fundies. Fundies are pretty vocal! Are we as biased? I think our bias is of a different nature - it ends with death. I have no interest in torturing people for all eternity. I’d have to say that I genuinely feel this places us in a position of moral superiority. David will tell you - salvific exclusivism, eternal damnation - this is the line of demarcation for me.
Leaving that aside - I see no way in which a sustainable society can accommodate people like Rabbi Weinbach and Jerry Falwell. Not to mention suicide bombers and the black-hatters who beat up women. So - do I advocate killing them? No. If they all suddenly disappeared, would I shed any tears? Not at all. I feel very strongly that they are holding us back as a civilization and a species.
Which is why (although I don’t generally say this to young people) I think we’re screwed.
danny, I don’t think you realize what Rabbi Weinbach is consistently calling for. He is calling for theocracy. He wants the Gedolim in charge of Israel, and he wants an end to democracy.
Do you recognize this is what he and other B’nai Torah (sociological term for non-chassidic fundamentalist grouping, not meant in a “he’s a nice frum guy! a real ben Torah!” way) leaders are calling for?
Danny, Do not the words “There is no place is the world for” worry you in any way? Do they not remind you of a certain Austrian?
Besides which when speaking about dangers to civilization or solving the problems of mankind, Rabbi Weinbach is speaking politics not religion. In referring to ‘undermining authority’ he is is talking about exercise of power (government).
sounds good to me. its israel a JEWISH country. what’s the point of a jewish country run by other laws. oh right ! I forgot! you want judiasm to be secular…who cares about god in religion? the purpose of religion is like a social club, to hang out with people like u? you make up whatever suits you… torah wasn’t given by god it was some joe smoe who decided he wanted to tell people what to do. the rabbis invented everything you don’t like (ignoring the fact that w.o. the talmud the torah makes no sense…what are totafot ne way?). get over yourself.
reb did u just compare him to hitler? are you crazy? comparing anyone who doesn’t kill thousands of people to hitler automatically invalidates your argument. only the unintelligent would compare their oponent to hitler.
danny. if Israel goes fundamentalist, it will be just another Middle Eastern fundamentalist state, except run by a leadership that deplores both work and Army service.
It will not last long.
first of all the fundimentalist states of iran and the suadis seem to be going strong.
2nd. unlike those others they won’t be killing people and cutting off their hands. iknow u will say they will follow the torah and impose capital punishment but if they REALLY follow the torah, no capital punishment without a beit hamikdash.
You know, David, it’s funny - if you Google “B’nai Torah”, most of the links are to websites of non-Orthodox congregations! If you change the spelling to “B’nei”, you don’t get as many hits, but they’re all Orthodox. Who coined the term - was it Sam Heilman?
if Israel goes fundamentalist, it will be just another Middle Eastern fundamentalist state, except run by a leadership that deplores both work and Army service.
Yep - that just about says it.
DK,
Wow. I never thought if it in quite that way. It would make a great apocalyptic movie, no?
jeff….i don’t get your point.
please explain. are you saying that we determine who is defined some way by google? if so…interesting standard. so if we google president of us and the answer is dr. no then the president of the us is a bond villian?
Danny, actually the Austrian I was thinking about was Dr. Alois Alzheimer.
Danny just think carefully what the words “There is no place in the world.. for those who refuse to accept the authority of our Torah leaders” suggest. If someone said there is no place in the world for those who accept Torah authority - what would that suggest to you? If you cannot recall history, you may need to consult Dr Alzheimer (although I’ve heard that he is not well)
jeff….i don’t get your point.
I wasn’t making a value statement. I’m just interested in the origin of the term, and I thought it was ironic that it’s meant to refer to the strictly Orthodox, yet most organizations using it as a name are not.
Jeff, it may have been Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, The Rav’s son, who is an amazing academic…I need to check on that.
Halfsours, hang on…
“I’d have to say that I genuinely feel this places us in a position of moral superiority.”
Well in that case, it’s your sensibilities against theirs. Quite honestly, from a starting point, yours don’t sound so very dissimilar. The gap between earnestly believing that the effacing people from the earth will make it a better place, and actually killing someone, is nothing more than initiative. In that case maybe you shouldn’t be so “morally superior”.
I’m not saying I’m morally superior because I won’t pull the trigger. I’m saying that liberals in general are morally superior because we don’t subscribe to a theology in which the people we disagree with or don’t like are burning in hell.
I don’t understand how a different take on eschatology grants moral superiority. Whatever makes you feel good though, eh Jeff? Always preferable to stand aloof of the rif-raf.
You don’t think that being comfortable with the idea of billions of human beings being tortured indescribably for all of eternity is a morally inferior position?
Let me ask it another way - would you be comfortable having as a friend an evangelical who believed that you’re going to hell, and wasn’t particularly broken up over the idea?
No. I never thought of it that way. It seems kind of silly to me to be the center of my own moral rank system.
Not to mention, that X-tians AREN’T comfortable with that idea. That’s precisely why they proselytize. It’s one of the cornerstones of their religion. X-tian missionaries are exceedingly good people. Even the ones who stand on the street corner shouting at me because I look Jewy. The whole point is to try and save the lost souls out there.
We’ve completely lost that in Judaism. Jews (with the possible exception of Chabad) don’t give a crap anymore about being a light among the nations, and bringing other people to spiritually elevated states.
I had a roommate in Israel who was an X-tian ‘fundamentalist’. She did think I was going to hell for being Jewish. And ya know what? She WASN’T comfortable with it. I once questioned her about that precise issue, and she said that she prayed for me every night. Does that somehow make her on a lower lever of moral rank because she didn’t simply wish me off the planet, like you say you do, Jeff?
I don’t see it as “my own moral rank system”. This isn’t just about me. I see their attitude as the ultimate form of invalidation, abandonment, denigration of the other. The fundamentalist is saying, “as long as I can have the ontological security blanket, the comfort of believing what I want to believe, I’m perfectly happy to abandon billions of my human siblings for all of eternity.” I see this not merely as a moral issue, but as the ultimate moral issue. It’s completely incongruous with any kind of sustainable, mutually cooperative civilization.
As David knows, I’m not crazy about Jews getting into bed with evangelicals, for the purpose of supporting Israel, precisely for this reason – that they’re using us to initiate their eschatological scenario. The belief is that a critical number of us move to Israel, it triggers the Rapture, they go off to heaven to be with God, and we have seven years of horrendous conflict on earth, during which a handful of Jews accept Jesus, and the rest of us die horribly and go to hell for eternity.
I’m told that Israel needs their money and political support. I don’t know whether or not it’s true; I hear opinions coming from both sides. If it is true, I could understand it; I could accept it as an unpleasant necessity. However, no Jew has ever said to me, “Look, of course they’re psychotic, and their beliefs are obscene, but we need them, so shut up and don’t make trouble.” Not one. Instead, all I ever hear is, “Well, we don’t believe it, so why do you care?” This absolutely floors me. I don’t even want to talk to people who believe I’m going to hell; I certainly don’t want to take money or political favors from them. If we have to do it, that’s one thing – but to simply not care about the rest of the package? I just don’t get it.
I have a friend who is a Conservative rabbi – a wonderful man. I’ve told David about him. We were talking the other day about Avi Weiss, whom I’d like to meet, and he told me that he has met him, and heard him speak, and, although he has a little trouble with some of his views, he admires him. I asked if the views that were troubling him were theological, and he said no, it had to do with his views about Israel, the Palestinians, etc. He told me, “I can accept anyone’s theology, as long as he or she is affirming the other.”
I guess that’s what I’m trying to say, HS. Fundamentalists don’t merely refuse to “affirm the other” – their attitude represents the ultimate non-affirmation. They’re perfectly happy to see you suffer forever, and I simply can’t see how that doesn’t affect every other kind of interaction. Sure, I take it personally – but, again, this isn’t just about me. There is no way that we can create a sustainable civilization, or even survive as a species, as long as this attitude is as prevalent as it is.
When I use the term “moral superiority”, I’m not being as condescending as you think I am. I’m speaking more in generalities – that a certain position is morally preferable to another. As for myself, I’m not a particularly good person – I’m an embittered, irascible middle-aged man - but at least I’m not fantasizing about people I don’t like being burned alive forever. That’s a form of psychosis, and the fact that billions of people are afflicted with it fills me with despair. As I said, I don’t like to say this to young people, because I don’t want you to be as despondent as I am – but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for the future.
(Sorry for the rant.)
I don’t mind if people think I am going to burn in hell. My concern are the crazies who feel they can get us into heaven through a lot of hard work and repentance.
Jeff,
Your premise that X-tians are happy to see Jews burn in hell is entirely off. Please see my comments above.
Also, on a personal note- if you never talk to people whose ideas revolt you, you’re missing out on the best opportunities to re-examine your own beliefs. It is a self-afflictive form of bigotry to reject the exchange of ideas with people whose outlook run contrary to your own. That’s precisely why I see most staunch liberals as bloody ignoramuses; they never do the hard work of stepping outside of their enclave of fellow bespectacled elitists to learn something new.
Yeah, well - two sides of the same coin, I think.
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said, “Proselytizing is the outward manifestation of an insecure faith.” I’ve always believed that.
That was in response to DK.
“…manifestation of an insecure faith.”
I’m not sure that I believe proselytizing is a manifestation of an insecure faith, although it does sound nice. I think, in fact, that it is quite the opposite. I do think that it shows a certain insecurity to be so troubled by the eschatology of an opposing faith.
That’s precisely why I see most staunch liberals as bloody ignoramuses; they never do the hard work of stepping outside of their enclave of fellow bespectacled elitists to learn something new.
That hasn’t been my experience. It has been my experience of far-right conservatives, particularly, as I say, religious fundamentalists.
As far as Christians are concerned - I mean, of course, conservative evangelicals. I’ve been at the religion game a long time, HS. Some are happy about it (I think you’d be shocked); many just don’t really care.
And, as you may realize, a fair number of Hareidim believe it as well - it just doesn’t get talked about as much publicly. There’s a young man who frequents this blog who expresses such a belief, and in no uncertain terms. If you’re curious, consult DK.
Got sucked into the undertow again, and wasted half a day. Nice chatting with you Jeff. Now I have to (try and) walk away from the rest of this thread.
Jeff,
Not sure what a fair number of the Haredim “believe”. Please turn “it” into something more specific.
Also- it has been your experience that liberals tend to shut down conversation with people whose idea bother them. You said of yourself that you don’t want to talk to people who believe you’re going to hell.
I went to the (one time) most liberal college in the country. One of the school’s most well liked history professors, felt that she had to hide her political sensibilities from her students. She warned me to do the same. She felt that the overwhelmingly liberal campus was simply not open-minded or mature enough to accept a conservative-leaning thinker as an intellectual equal.
Of course the Haredim don’t talk to different people. They are extremists. So are, in many ways, staunch liberals. We are back to a discussion of moral superiority. Please step off the high-horse you’re on, and recede some ground that maybe you aren’t so far aloof of the people you wish off of the Earth.
Jeff
You seem to be one of those people with the annoying habit of personalizing religious beliefs.
If you believe the bible is a human creation, you may be entitled to feel “moral” superiority to whoever you believed created it and originated the idea of consigning people to hell. But for anyone who sincerely believes that it’s the word of God, it’s not a question of attitude or personality. It’s just a fact. I dislike using myself as an example, but most people who know me will agree that I’m pretty tolerant with people who disagree with me. I also believe that anything that it says in the Talmud you can take to the bank, and that there’s a 99%+ probability that according to the criteria, DK will burn in hell. (it’s fairly likely I’ll spend some time there myself) Now why should that affect our relationship? Because I don’t spend all my time emotionalizing about how he’s going to suffer?
DK
The torah views a (sort of) benevolent theocracy as the optimal form of goverment. For those who view the zionist abortion positively, this is more or less a logical extension of that belief. Either knock weinbach on his zionism, or go straight to the source and argue with judaisms ideal form of goverment.
Why blame weinbach for something that’s not his fault?
mohammed,
There never was a “benevolent theocracy” by rabbis in Israel. Never happened. This is a very new idea.
DK
The kings and prophets were all supposed to be religious. The form of goverment was supposed to be the torah and the arbitrators were the sanhedrin (rabbis). That translates to a theocracy in my book.
The rabbis did not have unchecked rule over the people in Israel.
Dear Jeff,
I am an asshole. You’re probably a great guy. If you’re in New York, I’d like to buy you a drink.
~HS
Mohammed - Personalizing religious belief is not an annoying habit but of utmost importance in understanding human nature. The fact that you believe that the bible is the word of God is (contrary to that your claim) a question of attitude or personality. So is your belief that “anything that it says in the Talmud you can take to the bank” when it is obvious to any rational person that the Talmud was written by people who put forward ideas of their time. You see yourself as being pretty tolerant and logical whilst for others (and I do not wish to be insulting) it is obvious that your fanatical religiosity is a symptom of underlying psychological neuroses and distress.
You like referring to earlier authorities and sources so let me refer to one of the Gedolim of the last century -
“Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.” – Sigmund Freud - Moses and Monotheism, 1939
With regard to the issue of hell -
“A religion, even if it calls itself a religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it.” — Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921)
If it is any comfort to you Mohammed, you are not alone in suffering this underlying psychological neuroses and distress and neither is such suffering only confined to Jews. (The fact that you choose to comment under the name Mohammed is indicative of who you subconsciously need to associate with).
HalfSours - It’s ok. I’ll respond more fully in private.
Reb Leibish - Agreed and agreed.
R Leibish
I said I dislike using personal examples, and I’m not going to respond to your pseudo freudian pseudo analysis. The only reason I did it was for the few people who know me here, and I believe their impression of my tolerance is closer to mine than it is to yours.
I think you both missed my point and are wrong on yours.
To respond to your point first, it MAY be possible to meta analyze the general psyche of people who are religious, but in any dogmatic religion it’s certainly impossible to ascribe a specific psychological motive to any specific action or belief without knowledge of the specific person involved. For example, someone might believe in christianity becuase of a psychological need for love or reassurance, and not eat meat in lent or, for that matter, damn all unbelievers as a necessary corrollary to his own narcissism.
Someone might believe in islam for the seventy two virgins and fast in ramadan without any tendency to masochism.
Now I’ll try to make my point again, with a different example. There are feminists that are pissed when orthodox men won’t shake their hand. Now, if they want to believe that the torah is male chauvinist, they’re entitled to their opinion, however wrong it may be, but choosing to relate to it as a personal insult while both refusing to recognize that the other person may have a different interpretation and in any case means no offense is idiotic, in my opinion. I don’t think you’re american but here they say, hey it’s business, nothing personal. to paraphrase, hey, it’s religion, nothing personal.
DK
according to the bible, a porophet could have someone put to death on his word alone. the law was codified by the sanhedrin (rabbis) who also had to preapprove any wars and religious law was strictly enforced. there was no tolerance for other beliefs and according to the gemoro, at some point there were also “modesty squads”. That’s at least as much a theocracy as Iran is today.
mohammed,
I am not talking about tolerance. Not at all. I am talking checks and balances. That we had. Until the Hasmoneans. But the Rabbis never had all the power. They had a branch of power.
Today, they seek all the power.
As for the modesty squads, I would retaliate in kind if I lived there. If one of my people were bleached, I would get a biker gang together, and go to the neighborhood where the bleaching or acid throwing occured, and spray streimels with paint as retaliation.
Israeli Haredim don’t understand tolerance or work. But they do understand money. And they also understand collective punishment.
Mohammed - The fact that Hareidim allegedly do not intend offense when refusing to shake hands with a woman is of little importance. What is important is the true reason (as opposed to the illusionary reasons) why they do so and its consequences.
Haredism, like all forms of extreme religiosity is a type of neurosis. This neurosis has a nasty effect on both its sufferers and society as a whole. However like many types of neurosises, its sufferers fail to recognize their condition. It is also self-perpetuating (by means of isolation from general society and indoctrination of children). The issue for any society is whether it should ignore the fact that a substantial element is at risk of neurosis or whether it should intervene. In respect of children, I think the answer is obviously yes. Unfortunately the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) though otherwise. This disastrous decision allows Haredim to perpetuate their neurosises from generation to generation.
R Leibish
As usual, besides for being gratuitously offensive your post has nothing of substance. I wonder what that says about you psychologically?
DK
I must have misunderstood you. So you weren’t knocking theocracy vs. democracy, and you have no problems with a theocracy as long as there’s some form of balance between different groups of nonelected officials?
And if you lived in some other neighborhood in Jerusalem, you would do nothing, just like everyone else. All escalation like that would do is bring escalation on the other side in return, and in situations like that, the home team always wins. Remember Vietnam?
Mohammed,
In response to your comment of yesterday - there isn’t any point in our trying to communicate about this or about most other topics. We’re speaking two different languages. I have several things to say, and if you want to respond, that’s fine, but this will be all I’ll have to say on the matter.
1. It is personal, and for you to say that DK will likely burn in hell, but that you won’t “emotionalize” about how he’s going to suffer, displays, in my opinion (and as I told you a few months ago) the most appalling callousness. “Why should that affect our relationship?” How can it not? Friendship implies commitment; you’re perfectly happy to abandon him. I think this is unconscionable.
2. As a side note: You say that you’ll probably spend some time there, yourself. This implies that you see it as a state of temporary purgation. However, when I used the term “eternal” and likened your view to that of the Christians, you didn’t disagree – so I don’t know precisely what your view is. It has always been my understanding that majority opinion in the Talmud was that Gehinnom is a temporary state for nearly everyone, with the possible exception of a few who are irredeemably wicked, and whom the rabbis saw in terms of archetypes such as Pharoah, Amalek, etc. The rabbis I’ve consulted in the meantime (Orthodox and Conservative) have corroborated this.
3. I showed a transcript of our previous exchange to a friend who is an Orthodox rabbi. You probably wouldn’t have much respect for his opinion because he’s Modern Orthodox, has a doctorate and teaches at a progressive Jewish college, but, in MO and academic circles, he has a reputation for being a brilliant scholar and a posek. He read a few paragraphs, and refused to read further. He not only disagreed strongly with you but became annoyed with me for wasting my time arguing with you about it.
There are always conflicting opinions in the Talmud. The problem as I see it is that people who have grown up in Hareidi environments have been taught to focus on those passages with opinions that reflect the harshest, most punitive points of view. I know you’ll disagree, and will come up with reasons as to why I don’t know what I’m talking about, but, as I said, I won’t pursue it beyond this.
4. Regarding the divine origin of Torah and the reliability of Talmud: I’m going on 52, and have spent the past 33 years studying the world’s religions. I haven’t heard one argument (and I’ve pretty much heard them all) nor have I seen one particle of evidence to support the belief that our truth claims are any more or less credible than anyone else’s.
5. I see people like yourself, from a “fundamentalist” background (I’m speaking generally, because, obviously, we don’t know each other outside of these threads) as standing at a fork in the road. Down one path lies existential security, alleviation of one’s fear of death and extinction, rigidly defined, easily understood answers to the complexities and moral conundrums of life, as well as a social support system of like-minded people. Unfortunately, in order to have all of that, you’re also required to embrace the belief that everyone else is damned to hell (permanently or temporarily). Down the other path lies uncertainty, loneliness, anxiety and gray areas without easy answers – but you also have the freedom to affirm others and to see value (salvific or otherwise) in their belief systems as well. Unfortunately, all too often, people choose the former path, because it’s more comforting, abandoning the vast majority of human beings in the process. I’m incapable of respecting that; I see it as the ultimate form of moral abdication.
I post comments frequently on an atheist blog. In a recent thread, we were talking about our annoyance at Christian proselytizing, and an evangelical who was hanging around asked me, “But if we really believe you’re going to hell, and we don’t want you to go there, what do you propose we do?” Essentially, my answer was: “You shouldn’t believe it in the first place. You should refuse to see God in such narrow, vindictive terms. And, if you find, for whatever reason, that you must believe in such a God, then you should have the courage to stand against him and with the rest of your human siblings – the vast sea of poor, ignorant, suffering humanity, who, in His own words, ‘don’t know their right hands from their left’.”
Mohammed, I can’t begin to countenance the idea of being in heaven, or in a state of union with God, knowing that billions of souls were suffering unimaginably simply for making the wrong theological choices in life (or for any other reason, for that matter) – and I am not a noble person, by any means. Narrowing the range, I once tried to express this to you by telling you that I considered your attitude to be contrary to the idea of K’lal Yisroel. You responded by saying, “What is this K’lal Yisroel of which you speak?” This brings me to one last thing.
You think we’re all going to hell for heresy or apostasy. But, the other day, you seemed to agree when I suggested that you don’t regard us as Jews. You obviously don’t accept the definition of a Jew being someone born of a Jewish mother. So, if a Jew is defined solely as being someone who accepts the authority of the Shulchan Oruch, then there is no such thing as a “born” Jew. In that case, we were never Jews to begin with! We had no obligation to practice. In terms of belief – we never believed. How then can we be convicted of being apikorsim?
In any case, we will never agree; we are operating from within two radically different conceptual frameworks.
mohammed, you wrote,
” So you weren’t knocking theocracy vs. democracy, and you have no problems with a theocracy as long as there’s some form of balance between different groups of nonelected officials?
I would of course have a problem with it. But I was suggesting that the frummies are wrong even according to themselves, as the type of government they are increasingly suggesting — of unmitigated power of rule by “Gedoylim” is unprecedented in our history.
Jeff
1 I may be callous. Friendship implies different things to different people. If you believed strongly that cigarettes causes lung cancer and had a friend that smoked, would you spend your time emotionalizing about it? Are you one of those people who want to do what’s good for your friends whether they like it or not? I’m not.
2 It’s temporary for some people, eternal for others.
Ask any of the rabbis you’ve consulted to explain this
ראש השנה יז ע”א
אבל המינין והמסורות {והמשומדים} והאפיקורסים שכפרו בתורה ושכפרו בתחיית המתים ושפירשו מדרכי צבור ושנתנו חיתיתם בארץ חיים ושחטאו והחטיאו את הרבים כגון ירבעם בן נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות
3 I find it hard to respect anyone who refuses to read something and thinks arguing is a waste of time.
If this mo rabbi ever decides to respond to any of the arguments rationally, I would be interested in hearing what he had to say.
5 Just an elaboration on religion is the opiate of the masses. Or the grass is greener on the other side.
Saying that all religious people believe because of the comfort and certainty is just as simplistic as religious people saying all athiests don’t believe because they want to follow their lusts. both sides have their ups and downs, and contrasting the upside of one with the downside of the other is the easy way out. And ascribing psychological motives to everything is just a way of refusing to recognize that other people may have come to a different conclusion intellectually or evading debate.
“You shouldn’t believe” assumes that belief is a choice, and that there are no arguments for or against that someone might find compelling.
As for the last thing. According to jewish law, anyone born of a jewish mother has an obligation to practice the jewish religion. That’s between them and God. The jewish community is defined by shulchan oruch observers. I believe I made this point last time.
How can you be convicted? Have you ever heard that ignorance of the law is no defense? The law is out there, you had the option to learn. If you chose not to, that’s your responsibility.
“Have you ever heard that ignorance of the law is no defense? The law is out there, you had the option to learn. If you chose not to, that’s your responsibility.”
This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe Judaism or any other religion is literal the Law of God. We follow American law because we live in America. However, if we lived in a land where it was not clear which if any government was in charge, we would not follow American law so specifically. So too, just because your mother is Jewish, that is no reason to believe one must, say, wear strings on a four cornered garment (if it is a day garment) nor wear a four cornered garments during the day in order to wear strings.
DK
Judaism believes that it can be proven rationally. Look at the kuzari, moreh nevuchim etc. this is a logical corollary.
And, just to clarify - my point was that you seem to be saying that our mothers weren’t Jewish, because they weren’t observant - therefore, we weren’t born as Jews.
Off topic, mohammed, will you be around in the end of July? I should be in Brooklyn then, and still want to give you that book.
Sarah
Yeah, I should be. At any rate, right now I have no plans not to be.
I think I sent you my email address after you mailed me that graetz thing.
“Judaism believes that it can be proven rationally.”
No, Judaism believes Monotheism can be proven rationally. Later rabbis believe Judaism can be proven rationally.
Later rabbis were wrong.
You can believe whatever you want. You can believe they were wrong about that, or about your going to hell. But one follows logically from the other.
sarah
I emailed you at your dibuk address
Reb Leibish,
“The fact that Hareidim allegedly do not intend offense when refusing to shake hands with a woman is of little importance. What is important is the true reason (as opposed to the illusionary reasons) why they do so and its consequences.”
Let’s use an analogy:
Say I made a great big brisket for my guest, only, on his refusal, that my guest is a vegetarian. Should I get offended that he won’t eat my meat?
Personally, I think not. Because it isn’t personal. It’s the other person’s personal conviction that doesn’t really effect me in any way. I might disagree with my guest’s choice, and be put off, but I can’t be offended.
Mohammed - you wrote -
“..ascribing psychological motives to everything is just a way of refusing to recognize that other people may have come to a different conclusion intellectually or evading debate.
Not necessarily. A child’s fear of the dark can safely be ascribed to psychological motives. That fear tends to disappear as the child matures. Would you argue that the child’s fear arises intellectually and ascribing this fear to childish illusions is just a way of evading debate of the dangers of the dark?
The child’s fear of the dark is irrational but it is normal and to be expected. Why should one expect a child with a limited and immature grasp of reality to overcome its innermost irrational fears?
The situation is similar as regards pre-modern society. The Amoraim in 5th century Babylon as well as the Rishonim in medieval Europe had a very limited understanding of science. One cannot blame them for believing (like non Jews of those periods) in magic segulos, spirits and גיהנם let alone for thinking the world was created in six days less than six thousand years ago. They did not have the rational tools available to understand let alone overcome those neurosis which we all suffer. They did not benefit from the age of enlightenment. For them (as well as those Chassidim unlucky enough to end up in the asshole of Europe - Hungary) these neurosis remained as unconquered by rationality as a small child’s fear of the dark.
Mohammed, where to expect to get by quoting ancient or medieval religious authority? It does not work on us because we are past that stage of thinking. You are like a five year old trying to persuade his mother that she should fear the dark like the child does. It cannot work. That is why Freud (and Einstein) spoke of religion as childish illusion because once you have past that stage of understanding reality, you cannot go back.
To paraphrase a slogan your friends sometimes use- Hareidism and Rational Reality are diametrically opposed.
Illusions can be very powerful and can overcome our rationality. Most women have a fear of snakes. Telling them that a snake is harmless will not overcome their psychological discomfort because the discomfort is partially sexual.
Extreme religiosity also arises from deep neurosis (including the Oedipus Complex) which can overcome rationality.
Mohammed you also wrote :-
” “You shouldn’t believe” assumes that belief is a choice, and that there are no arguments for or against that someone might find compelling.”
Again wrong. Just as it is not a choice for a child to fear the dark because that fear is psychological, so is it not a choice for a someone to believe in גיהנם if raised isolated from rationality. That is why the most important issue facing Jewry today is the need to keep children (including those born to Haredim) away from Haredi isolationalist ‘education’ as it is disastrous for their mental and social development.
I am not being gratuitously offensive in stating that fact. If I wanted to be offensive I could have stated that feminists should consider themselves lucky that Haredim don’t shake their hands because whilst their handwashing technique is adequate to remove bad fairies from their fingertips it is inadequate to remove Shingella infected feces.
I’m afraid of snakes, spiders, other large insects, and Freudians. Didn’t Freud have some very interesting (and very inaccurate) thoughts directly related to feminine sexuality? I won’t recant them here if I can avoid it. It seems like his hypotheses shouldn’t be taken as “Torah m’Sinai”, as the expression goes.
Mohammed - you wrote -
‘“..ascribing psychological motives to everything is just a way of refusing to recognize that other people may have come to a different conclusion intellectually or evading debate.’
Not necessarily. A child’s fear of the dark can safely be ascribed to psychological motives. ”
Reb,
You glossed over what he was saying. He wasn’t saying that there are no instances in which faulty psychology can explain irrational choices. He was saying that ascribing everything to that is just a way to reaffirm one’s own beliefs without examining them. Give Big M some credit; from what I know of him he is introspective, fiercely intelligent, and works within his own framework of logic which is quite sound. I might not agree with his conclusions or the maxims he uses to get to them, but to attribute them merely to fault psychology is rather narrow-minded.
Einstein said:
“I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.”
Leave a Comment