tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post6778487455313982491..comments2019-07-22T22:10:18.110-07:00Comments on Atheodox Judaism: Problem #6: God Subverts our MoralityAtheodox Jewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-38831078395458887352018-05-29T13:56:14.031-07:002018-05-29T13:56:14.031-07:00The article quoth: >>> Of course, it foll...The article quoth: >>> Of course, it follows from the above that if a new technology for animal slaughter were to be devised which was truly and indisputably painless, and yet we still insisted on the use of shechita, this might be cause to reconsider the matter. <<<<br /><br />Of course - as smeat (i.e. lab-grown meat) becomes closer and closer and closer to becoming commercially viable, this situation will gradually cease to be hypothetical.<br /><br />With smeat you can get all the meat you want without having to kill any animal - and only one-time even doing a minor injury to an animal. However, if I'm correct, smeat isn't kosher because of a technicality - meat taken from a living animal isn't kosher.<br /><br />Therefore, in a possible future society in which everyone else is getting their meat from smeat, being revulsed by kosher meat will no longer be the red herring that it is today.Sophiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02326313591039387370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-3294936294053538742013-01-30T06:59:40.708-08:002013-01-30T06:59:40.708-08:00BTW, I just saw a related post that maybe you'...BTW, I just saw a related post that maybe you'd like to chime in on as well:<br /><br />http://garnelironheart.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/in-culture-of-death.htmlAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-66776235868572600002013-01-30T05:26:06.721-08:002013-01-30T05:26:06.721-08:00You bring up a number of good points.
Re: suicid...You bring up a number of good points. <br /><br />Re: suicide and euthanasia, there are places where it's not considered immoral. Morality goes according to what a given society designates. Why might I think suicide is immoral? I don't necessarily, but I'm influenced by our own tradition a bit. There is no word for "morality" in Torah. But there is a concept of "good and bad", and "good" is associated with "life" (as in "the life and the good, and the death and the bad"). And there is a mitzva of "v'nishmartem meod l'nafshotechem", and one is not allowed to give up their life except in very specific and dire circumstances, and killing oneself is destroying the tzelem Elokim, etc. etc. So whether you want to call it morality or legality, the Torah system is "in general" opposed to suicide. (I say "in general" because I can't imagine Torah not giving some leeway to euthanasia in certain circumstances.) I pretty much resonate with the Torah approach on these matters.<br /><br /><i>most people have never thought through the underpinnings of their moral systems</i><br /><br />Ain't that the truth!<br /><br /><i>Deeming immoral things that people don’t like simply because they don’t like it is a dangerous thing to do.</i><br /><br />Morality itself is dangerous territory. What I call good you call bad. My God is good and yours is bad. Good and bad eventually devolves into killing "for the good" or "against the bad". That's actually "theoretically" a great thing about Halacha. It doesn't deal in goods and bads, but rather "mutar" and "assur". So (again "in theory") there doesn't have to be any judgment about the things we deem to be assur. To break Shabbat isn't "bad" - it's just breaking a command. Same thing with eating a cheeseburger, or gay sex. One can be dispassionate, matter-of-fact and nonjudgmental about these things. (Not that people ARE, but they CAN be!)<br /><br />Best, AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-52337015843647245232013-01-29T11:23:20.073-08:002013-01-29T11:23:20.073-08:00> For instance, one could argue that it's &...> For instance, one could argue that it's "immoral" to kill oneself, even if this would do no harm to others.<br /><br />You could argue that, but I would disagree. I think the discomfort with suicide is mostly an over-generalization of the rule, “do not kill.” One can argue that most suicides are depressed, and so not making rational decisions, and should be stopped – because when they are rational, they will be glad they were not allowed to kill themselves. And one can argue against euthanasia because of the fear that those who are sick or elderly might be encouraged to kill themselves, rather than it being a wholly their own decision. But to argue that one shouldn’t be allowed to commit suicide because it’s immoral – well, why would you think so?<br /><br />> And the treatment of animals is certainly something most would consider a "moral" issue<br /><br />Yes, but I’m not sure that makes it one. Which is elitist of me, I know, but most people have never thought through the underpinnings of their moral systems. <br /><br />> Because even if an activity (e.g. killing animals) doesn't harm a person directly, if it's deemed uncivil/immoral behavior, and yet it's allowed to persist in the society, people will feel that the morality of the society has been compromised, and that will negatively impact people's happiness and quality of life.<br /><br />Deeming immoral things that people don’t like simply because they don’t like it is a dangerous thing to do.<br />G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-42086639296223527062013-01-28T15:36:27.156-08:002013-01-28T15:36:27.156-08:00G*3, too true!G*3, too true!Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-88972375142101470622013-01-28T15:32:12.306-08:002013-01-28T15:32:12.306-08:00Under what circumstances will cows ever have the m...<i>Under what circumstances will cows ever have the means to cause me harm?</i><br /><br />A very fair point. I suppose I'd respond that the golden rule accounts for a lot, but it's not everything. For instance, one could argue that it's "immoral" to kill oneself, even if this would do no harm to others. And the treatment of animals is certainly something most would consider a "moral" issue (whether it has to do with mistreating them or killing them for food). In other words, the "social contract" encompasses more than just interpersonal matters and extends in general to what's considered to be civil behavior in that society.<br /><br />Although I suppose even in such cases we might call it "indirect harm" to others. Because even if an activity (e.g. killing animals) doesn't harm a person directly, if it's deemed uncivil/immoral behavior, and yet it's allowed to persist in the society, people will feel that the morality of the society has been compromised, and that will negatively impact people's happiness and quality of life.Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-15494608551713044012013-01-28T14:27:20.968-08:002013-01-28T14:27:20.968-08:00> And if the wider society were to renounce the...> And if the wider society were to renounce the practice of animal slaughter altogether, and yet Jews insisted on maintaining it for religious reasons (e.g. to have meat on the Shabbos table), I would consider this to be a potential moral problem.<br /><br />Why? As I see it, morality is merely the rules people have come up with, for biological or social reasons, to ensure the smooth functioning of societies. A lot of it is reducible to the Golden Rule. So I should not cause my neighbor to suffer because I would not want him to cause me to suffer – to ensure that each individual doesn’t have to worry too much about others causing him harm, we all, as a society, agree not to cause each other harm and to punish those that break this agreement.<br /><br />Under what circumstances will cows ever have the means to cause me harm? And, because there is no conceivable way that a cow could ever be a party to the social contract, what reason do I have not to slaughter and eat it?<br /><br />As for the rest of the post, yes, without God, halacha wouldn’t be binding and would be subject to change, but that wouldn’t be traditional Judaism, let alone Orthodoxy. Judaism has been accumulating stringencies and outdated halachos for three thousand years, and isn’t likely to stop now. <br /><br />G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-13724428952136392982013-01-28T14:21:13.768-08:002013-01-28T14:21:13.768-08:00> Why has Conservative Judaism been able to do ...> Why has Conservative Judaism been able to do it and the left-wing of Modern Orthodoxy (LWMO) hasn't?<br /><br />LWMO won’t be able to do it precisely because CJ did it first. Even if a clever MO posek came up with something that’s within the bounds of normative Orthodox halacha, it would be seen as what Conservative Judaism does, and therefore illegitimate. After all, Orthodoxy, as a distinct movement, is a reaction to Reform and has as it’s rallying cry “chadash assur min hatorah!”<br />G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-42229923861193770162012-08-01T05:36:14.536-07:002012-08-01T05:36:14.536-07:00Larry, about your first question... I've tried...Larry, about your first question... I've tried to be clear that the "problems" I've outlined in my various posts are with the literalist/fundamentalist belief in the God of the Bible. If someone believes in God the Creator, takes a more Deistic position, or even believes in a "God-inspired" Torah (i.e., wherein the Torah is still a human product and subject to fallibility), this seems to me to be fairly benign. <br /><br />At the same time, the idea of "Atheodoxy" is that one can lead a meaningful observant life and simply leave God out of the picture altogether. There are people who function fine (or even better) without asserting that God inspired this, created that, has this or that characteristic, etc.<br /><br />About the second question... Would Orthodoxy be better if everyone magically became atheists? If every Orthodox Jew suddenly had an epiphany that there was no God, my guess is it would be something like the midrash - some would leave Judaism, some would go crazy, some would just keel over and die for utter inability to exist with that, and then there would be those who survive intact and say, "Oops, almost late for Mincha!"<br /><br />But I realize you're asking something else. If the Orthodox world were all AFB's (atheists from birth), would we have a better Orthodoxy? Assuming it was sustainable (which I admit I don't know), I would say YES it would be, from an intellectual and mental health standpoint without all the problematic (and let's admit it, "crazy") indoctrination. From a moral standpoint, it would be better in a number of areas where fundamentalism now brings people to follow policies which they would otherwise disdain. But I also recognize that the fear of God is the only thing which separates some people from unethical, malicious behavior. So it's by no means a simple matter.<br /><br />As I've said, I'll take a benevolent fundamentalist over a rational misanthrope any day! And I fully concur that people are capable of concocting the most horrific and cruel ideologies purely on rational grounds. Benevolence always has to be the foundation.Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-60086809717299990942012-08-01T02:33:31.062-07:002012-08-01T02:33:31.062-07:00Honestly there are several things going on. Part o...Honestly there are several things going on. Part of me feels "marginalized" and wants to be accepted, part is deeply disappointed in Orthodoxy and wants to see IT change (beyond simply being more accepting), and part says the heck with focusing on Orthodoxy - if you have a vision for something better, go toward the vision and don't worry about the other guys!Atheodox Jewhttp://www.atheodox.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-28724053398557109322012-08-01T02:00:27.223-07:002012-08-01T02:00:27.223-07:00Larry, sorry for the delay in responding.
Really ...Larry, sorry for the delay in responding.<br /><br />Really what I'm after is simple - to develop a free-thinking Jewish observant community. Simple, but obviously not so simple. The jury is out as to whether such a community, without the fear of Heaven hanging over its head, can in fact survive, or whether as you say it will opt for a "less robust" track of observance.<br /><br />About "force" vs. "freedom", it's an interesting question. Because while legally speaking we have freedom of religion, to practice what we like, or to not practice at all, for practical purposes most people are not 100% free. Part of the reason is that our life circumstances and identities are so firmly rooted. Making a religious change impacts family, friendships, alliances, work/career, community - everything. Meaning, the momentum of people's own lives (and the incredible will power, energy and determination required in many cases to make a change) constitutes a venerable "force".<br /><br />There's also the "force" of commitment. We stay faithful to our spouses because of the commitment we make to them. So even if we're technically free to do what we want, we choose to honor our commitment, because we believe in it. The same can go for observance. If it's something we believe in, or the community believes in and is committed to, then there is a pressure (internal and external) to honor that commitment. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't necessarily have to involve "God" at all.<br /><br />So what I'm saying is that I believe people should be free to do what they want, and believe what they want, but I recognize that human nature and society limits freedom by definition, and I also recognize the value of individual/communal commitment, which also limits freedom.Atheodox Jewhttp://www.atheodox.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-69539714837828480362012-07-11T19:45:02.839-07:002012-07-11T19:45:02.839-07:00AJ, hopefully I can wrap up what’s been an awfully...AJ, hopefully I can wrap up what’s been an awfully long comment.<br /><br />Obviously, if what you seek is greater tolerance, it’s an odd tactic to argue that God-belief is unreasonable, beneath our dignity, unholy, mentally unhealthy, character-corrupting and morality-subverting. But that’s not the crux of my comment.<br /><br />The crux of my comment is that most of your arguments against God-belief have little to do with God-belief. As you clarified in your comments, your claim that “God defies reasonability” and “God is a mental health liability” was aimed at a literalist Orthodox Jewish belief in scripture. Your arguments about God corrupting character and subverting morality were both aimed at Orthodox beliefs and practices. While your arguments about holiness and mental health are more difficult to pin down, again it seems to me that your arguments are based on attitudes, beliefs and practices you’ve observed in the Orthodox Jewish community. In each case you’re describing problems with God-belief that exist within a minority of the Jewish population, and a tiny fragment of the world’s population of God-believers. <br /><br />So far, you’ve failed to address two critical questions that go to the heart of what you’ve written so far. First, is there anything wrong with God-belief outside of the Orthodox Jewish community? To be certain, there are large communities of God-believers who are not literalists or fundamentalists. I think this is an easy question to answer, based on the arguments you’ve made so far: there is nothing wrong with God-belief, but there are serious problems with fundamentalism and literalism.<br /><br />The second question is harder to articulate, as you say that you’re not trying to talk anyone out of their God-belief. Still, you argue a theoretical position that there are things “wrong” with God-belief, and while some of these “wrongs” consist of departures from true and reasonable ways of thinking, other “wrongs” consist of behavior that is intolerant and oppressive. To make the question easier to ask, I’ll just focus on these behaviors: would these behaviors change if we could simply wave a magic wand and convert all of Orthodoxy to atheism? Because you can hardly argue that God-belief is “wrong” if non-belief would not be better.<br /><br />This second question is much more difficult to answer, but it’s key to everything you’ve argued so far. The God I believe in is a force for good. But adopting an atheist perspective, God is not real, and the content of God-belief is a human invention. If God-belief is “wrong”, it’s because there’s something wrong with the God we invented. The fault lies not with the idea of God, but with the humans who invented him. Strip God-belief from these humans, and they should be capable of inventing a God-replacement that’s just as “wrong”, or even “wronger”.<br /><br />There are many forms of idolatry. Some of these forms are atheist.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-50772301251551329112012-07-11T11:02:38.521-07:002012-07-11T11:02:38.521-07:00In my last comment, I expressed uncertainty over w...In my last comment, I expressed uncertainty over whether you’re really looking for greater religious freedom. It might be more accurate to say that what you’re really looking for is greater religious acceptance. Putting it in stark terms, perhaps what you want is to practice Judaism in a way that’s different from the current Orthodox norm, and have your practice accepted within Orthodoxy. While that might sound harsh, I don’t mean it that way. I think what you’re seeking is something that many others seek in other contexts. For example, I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, and what I want is to make legitimate a practice outside of traditional marriage AND to have that practice acknowledged within traditional marriage.<br /><br />The problem as I see it is that Orthodox Judaism has adopted a view of what is Orthodox that is way, WAY too narrow. When you describe your feeling of being ostracized and rejected by the Orthodox community, when you describe the need for more free-thinking and greater tolerance, you are describing a feeling that is broadly shared by others in the Jewish community – not just atheists, but Reform/Reconstructionist/Conservative Jews, women, LGBTs, and many others. <br /><br />So … at least for this comment, I prefer to think of you as a Marginalized Jew, as opposed to an Atheodox Jew. I think that all Marginalized Jews want what you want: the freedom to practice Judaism in a way that is meaningful for them, AND acceptance of that practice by the larger Jewish community. It’s important to argue for your desired form of practice, but you risk alienating Jews like me if you fail to see your problem in more general terms. <br /><br />Still more to say, coming later.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-32143128294548282042012-07-10T10:48:25.703-07:002012-07-10T10:48:25.703-07:00AJ, I think you should take your last comment to m...AJ, I think you should take your last comment to me and post it in some permanent place on the blog, like “About This Site”. What you wrote was very powerful, but it also expressed what I understand to be at the heart of what you’re doing here.<br /><br />I think at its heart your quest is for religious freedom. It may be the case (as you’ve argued here) that good things will happen if Orthodox Jews are given the freedom to make these things happen. Or maybe not – one theme in the history of the world is disappointment that people don’t do better things with their freedom. But freedom is a good thing in its own right. <br /><br />My next thought is to question whether it is truly religious freedom that you seek. I would suspect that you HAVE religious freedom: you can be an Orthodox Jew, or any other variety of Jew, or convert to a different religion, or give up religion altogether. Evidently, this religious freedom is not enough for you; you are also looking to belong to some kind of religious community that gives you the freedom to believe what you want to believe. But of course, these communities already exist. I personally live in a Jewish community that at least aspires to the kind of freedom you advocate. <br /><br />The problem is, you state that part of what you seek in a community is the “the robust observance, learning, and communal life of Orthodoxy.” Our experience is that our religious communities change character once we give people the religious freedom you seek. It can be argued that “robust” community life requires social norms and a structure to enforce these norms. Another way to say this: religious freedom includes the right to associate with a religious community in a non-robust way, and our experience is that many (perhaps) most members of a religious community WILL opt for the non-robust option if given the freedom to do so. <br /><br />I would argue that people will not naturally engage in the observance, learning and communal life you seek if these things are not required of them. Granted, it’s possible to put together such a community without using the threat of divine punishment to hold it together. Nevertheless, the religious norms must be enforced. We can argue about the degree of force required to enforce these norms, but some amount of force is necessary, and the existence of this enforcement effort limits the freedom of the members of these communities. I think that there’s a trade-off here: more robust religious communities require stronger religious norms and greater efforts to enforce the norms. Or put more simply, there’s a trade-off between robustness and freedom.<br /><br />This leads me to question my original observation. Perhaps what you seek is not greater religious freedom, but instead you are looking to create a new form of Orthodox Judaism containing different but equally robust religious norms. If so, you risk the marginalization of people within your religious community who find these norms to be unacceptable, or shaming; you risk their being ostracized.<br /><br />It’s a trap to imagine a robust religious community where everyone thinks like you do. That may be a robust community (though I would argue the contrary), but it’s not free. <br /><br />There’s more to say, but I’ll pause at this point.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-19829124920795807672012-07-09T02:22:17.885-07:002012-07-09T02:22:17.885-07:00Larry, you made a number of points here, but let m...Larry, you made a number of points here, but let me respond to this last one and see if that helps.<br /><br /><i>I’m certain you can’t talk people out of their belief in God...you’ve adopted a solution that can never be implemented and is thus guaranteed to perpetuate the problem.</i><br /><br />"Atheodoxy" is not a global solution for Judaism. It's a specific measure designed to carve out a space of acceptance (of which there is none) for non-believing observant Jews (of which there are many).<br /><br />There are Jews out there who see great value in and derive much meaning and enjoyment from observant life, but 1) cannot accept the dogma, and 2) have serious gripes with some Orthodox norms. Such people are made to feel ashamed of themselves for thinking this way (by ideas in Torah literature and general frum sentiment) and are ostracized, rejected by the community if they "come out" and actually express it. <br /><br />The Atheodox position is a "pride" position, which says that not only should such Jews not be ashamed of who they are and how they think - it's something to be proud of, feel idealistic about. Really, Atheodoxy is more of a liberation movement, a bit of radical activism whose deliberately strong and self-assured message is designed to pave the way for greater tolerance and self-acceptance of non-believers. There's of course a huge range from "total belief" to "total non-belief". I'm specifically taking a "mehadrin" (purist) zero-dogma approach, since it represents the limiting case and therefore covers lesser forms of non-belief.<br /><br />And this puts me in an admittedly odd and ambivalent position. As much as I do think Orthodoxy holds wildly untenable beliefs, I really don't want to "talk people out of their belief in God". What I want is for people to be able to freely believe or not believe as they choose, without the negative social repercussions. However, as Orthodox Judaism clearly already welcomes belief, I need to make a strong case for non-belief in order to clear the needed space of tolerance in the system. But again, this is hopefully just a temporary measure.<br /><br />My longer term "solution", "vision", would be to create a branch of observant Judaism wherein beliefs are a personal matter, free-thinking is encouraged, and where problematic norms are abolished. What I'd really like is to take the best of all worlds - the robust observance, learning, and communal life of Orthodoxy, the flexibility of Conservative Judaism, the Tikkun Olam orientation of Reform Judaism, the open-mindedness of Humanistic Judaism, and put them together into something truly outstanding and worth getting excited about. I suppose I already live this way to a certain degree myself, but I'd also like a community which would support me (and others) in this. Really, that's what anyone wants out of a community - that it should support their efforts, foster their ideals, help people grow in the way they want to grow. <br /><br />My prediction on how this might potentially start: When a knowledgeable, graceful, charasmatic rabbi of a LWMO congregation "comes out" as not accepting the traditional belief package. Initially it will be a shock. Some congregants will leave. There will be scathing words and opinion pieces written across the Orthodox world. But then the noise will die down. And people will see that this rabbi is every bit as caring, every bit as committed to Judaism, to learning, every bit as wise and worthy as before. And many in the congregation (and elsewhere) will come forward and express what they've kept inside all along - that they weren't really "with the program" in terms of accepting the beliefs, and are tremendously relieved to find a leader and mentor who was courageous enough to simply be real.Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-68944768981045212642012-07-08T14:08:48.228-07:002012-07-08T14:08:48.228-07:00AJ, at your suggestion I am contemplating the idea...AJ, at your suggestion I am contemplating the idea of Judaism without God. I do not know that such a thing is possible, let alone advisable. <br /><br />I suppose that Atheodox Judaism might look something like Buddhism, which might not be a terrible thing. But even Buddhists have a belief system, one that includes karma (something like cause-and-effect ethics), maya (the world is an illusion) and reincarnation. I think that contrasting Atheodox Judaism with Buddhism is (heh heh) enlightening. What would be the Atheodox belief system?<br /><br />I gather that Torah would still be central to Atheodox Judaism. The question is, why? There has to be some reason to follow Torah, independent of the fact that we’ve always done so. <br /><br />We might say that Torah was written by very wise people, so it is a source of wisdom, even if it’s not from God. But there are problems here. There are many wise books; why limit ourselves to Torah? We don’t generally build religions around wise books that we understand to be purely human creations. Those who follow the wisdom of human authors are thought of as following a philosophy, not a religion. <br /><br />Torah is thought of as the word of a God that has a special relationship with the Jewish people. If Torah is now to be understood as merely a human-created source of wisdom, what connects it to Judaism? If it’s merely the Jewish identity of Torah’s human authors, we might just as well follow Karl Marx, or Groucho for that matter.<br /><br />Would Atheodox Judaism aspire to something like Buddhism, a belief system for everyone? If so, what do you do with the obvious particularism of Torah and halacha? <br /><br />I think that religion requires some kind of imperative, some quality that makes it necessary, or urgent, or at least important or significant, even if it isn’t mandatory or subject to divine punishment and reward. Without God, where is your Jewish imperative?<br /><br />But the biggest problem in Atheodox Judaism is getting there. I’m certain you can’t talk people out of their belief in God. Even if you could persuade people to give up God, I doubt you’d be able to do so while at the same time persuading them to remain Jewish. In my experience, atheists either are not religious or are in the process of becoming less so.<br /><br />What’s most frustrating about this is that YOU SEE THE PROBLEM. But while you see the problem, you’ve adopted a solution that can never be implemented and is thus guaranteed to perpetuate the problem.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-74032400690699169322012-07-07T23:15:32.966-07:002012-07-07T23:15:32.966-07:00I don’t know how to explain the reluctance of LWMO...I don’t know how to explain the reluctance of LWMO to push the rules. From what you cited about the “partnership minyan”, it seems obvious that the LWMO regards halacha as binding. Why do they feel that way? Because they’re afraid of God? That if they count a woman towards a minyan, what’s going to happen? Drought? Plague? I imagine that they want to be counted among the Orthodox, that there’s a status or other importance to this recognition. Perhaps they want to reform Orthodoxy as a whole, move it to the left, but they feel this is possible only by working from the inside.<br /><br />Conservative Judaism is not my shtick. My understanding is that Conservative Judaism believes that halacha is mandatory and binding, but that they view halacha differently, as something that can be interpreted diversely and divergently. There’s also greater willingness to reinterpret halacha in accordance with changing times. Reform Judaism does not view halacha as mandatory – it’s up to the individual Reform Jew to decide what halacha to follow and not to follow.<br /><br />My experience is that in practice, there’s not much difference between the Conservative and Reform Jewish viewpoint on halacha. I think that most Conservative Jews are essentially Reform Jews who like a more traditional worship service. As an example: Conservative Jewish halacha allows a Conservative Jew to drive on Shabbat, but only to get to Shul to daven. Strictly speaking, a Conservative Jew is not supposed to drive for any other purpose – not even (for example) to attend a B’nai Mitzvah service away from one’s community. I’ve never even heard of a Conservative Jew who follows this rule.<br /><br />I don’t think that God or no-God enters explains the difference between the Orthodox and the Conservative/Reform view of halacha. I think that there are plenty of Reform and Conservative Jews who believe in God. The difference between Orthodox and Conservative/Reform might have to do with the God we believe in. I frequently hear Reform Jews express the belief that the God they believe in does not care if we have two dishwashers or drive on Saturdays.<br /> <br />I have never understood Judaism to say that halacha is God-given. I don’t even understand Orthodox Judaism to say that. Torah (in the sense of the stuff in the scroll): yes, that’s supposed to be God-given. Everything else is either supposed to be God-inspired or derived in a human process from what is God-given or God-inspired. Torah is not in heaven, right? So it’s my understanding that Orthodox Jews follow halacha NOT because it’s from God, but because it’s supposed to be from people who were closer to Torah (and perhaps, therefore, closer to God) than we are.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-73368009083436059832012-07-07T17:04:53.207-07:002012-07-07T17:04:53.207-07:00Larry,
FOR SURE what you say is true - a certain ...Larry,<br /><br />FOR SURE what you say is true - a certain amount of what goes on under the guise of "Halacha" is really a question of consolidating power. However... 1) If one were (theoretically) to remove the stamp of "Hashem" from Halacha, I'd have to imagine that this would pull the rug out from under the ruling elite, and 2) you may be right about some of the "black hats", but this doesn't fit what's going on in the left-most wing of Orthodoxy. <br /><br />Take for instance the idea of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_minyan" rel="nofollow">"partnership minyan"</a> - considered radically egalitarian even within most of the Modern Orthodox world, but yet where a minyan is still "10 men", and women still can't conduct certain parts of the davening which are considered to have "kedusha/sanctity". The reason is that they wish to be "Halachic" and are therefore bound by the limits of normative Halacha. <br /><br />I argue that the reason they feel bound to Halacha is the idea that it's God-given, and that if we would understand Halacha to be a 100% human endeavor in the first place, we'd have no problem contravening Halacha in cases deemed by the community (or individuals) to be immoral.<br /><br />Yes, believe in God if that's your inclination, but my suggestion is to separate God from Halacha, to stop saying that it represents "God's will". To me, that's where we get into serious trouble, and that's really what my "atheism" is about here.<br /><br />I'll tell you what I think the challenge to my argument would be: Conservative Judaism. They consider themselves (as a movement) to be Halachic, and God-believing, and yet nearly 40 years ago they were able to find sufficient Halachic basis to pass a rabbinic decree allowing women to be part of a minyan.<br /><br />Why has Conservative Judaism been able to do it and the left-wing of Modern Orthodoxy (LWMO) hasn't? Is it a difference in how they conduct the Halachic process? Is it a question of "where there's a will there's a way", and somehow LWMO doesn't have the will - maybe because they feel if women are part of a minyan they'll no longer be "Orthodox"?<br /><br />Thoughts on any of the above?<br /><br />Best, AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-71142602605428416832012-07-01T23:10:53.213-07:002012-07-01T23:10:53.213-07:00I’ve been digesting this comment for a few days. W...I’ve been digesting this comment for a few days. When it comes to the Orthodox Jewish treatment of women, I am in favor of whatever it would take to change this situation.<br /><br />You argue that God is the factor that prevents Orthodox Jews from treating women fairly. Your reasoning starts with halacha, which can be stretched via interpretation but cannot be changed so long as it is seen to be God-given. I think, once again, that by linking a problem to God you are failing to understand the problem. In this case the problem is religious law, and more particularly how such law can develop and change over time. <br /><br />The traditional view is that a body of law is established, and then the folks charged with responsibility for legal administration have to apply that law to different situations that may arise. As the law is not always clear, legal practitioners have to “find” the law by studying the statutes, legislative history, prior judicial decisions and so forth. There may be “wiggle” room in a given instance to argue for the interpretation of the law based on principles of justice and equity … but to a considerable extent the process is seen as an objective process: the legislators “make” the law, and the judicial branch applies and enforces the law as so made.<br /><br />In the early twentieth century, scholars from the school of legal realism developed an alternative view. The new approach was that the law represents the status quo interests of the ruling class of society, and that the law is enforced to protect and further those interests. Most of these interests are conservative: preserving rights to private property, protecting those with power against those seeking power, upholding the “privilege” of social elites (whites, Protestants, men) and so forth. The laws on the books are written for this end, and it is the job of the lawyers and courts to see that the law fulfilled this intent. Of course, the law would not always be conservative: it might prove to be in the best interests of the power elite to, say, desegregate the schools or protect civil rights (like the right to vote) so that there was not too great a gap between the facts on the ground and the principles (or perhaps, the myths) on which the society was built.<br /><br />I think that your point of view could use a bit of legal realism. The problem is NOT that we are commanded by God to “find the law” in the Torah. The problem is NOT that we all want a fair and moral system of religious law, but that we can “stretch” the law only a little bit, as far as “interpretation” of the law will allow. The problem is that Torah “law” as imposed by Orthodox Jews is a system for perpetuating an existing social and political power elite.<br /><br />Look who gets money from the state, and who does not … who is given coalition making-and-breaking power in the Knesset and who is not … who is required to serve in the Army and who is not … who receives State funding and who does not. <br /><br />If this was a matter of being stuck with rules written 3,300 years ago that do not anticipate our current situation, then please explain how ALL of these rules are interpreted to serve the interests of the power elite. Please explain why there’s nothing in halacha that, say, requires us to treat the Palestinians with greater fairness than the Orthodox might like, or require that the LGBT community be given more rights than the Orthodox might like. <br /><br />The problem is NOT that we’re stuck with a halacha that no longer speaks to current conditions. The problem is that Orthodox halacha speaks PERFECTLY to current conditions – those conditions being the consolidation, perpetuation and growth of the power of the current Orthodox ruling elite.<br /><br />Sorry, AJ. But if you want to improve the status of women in Orthodox Jewry, God is not your problem, and Torah is not your problem either. The problem is the dudes with the black hats. They like things just the way they are, and things are the way they are because that’s what the black hats want. Torah is just a convenient excuse.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.com