Conpetition: Who is the most secheldick OJ Rabbi out there?

[Hint: It's not Rabbi Avi Shafran.]

I'm talking about someone really secheldick. Even Chief Rabbi Sacks doesn't qualify. Not that he's not smart and talented - of course he is in spades. But his written (and spoken) defence of fundamentalist beliefs are simply not credible. [I acknowledge that he might be more secheldick in private].

I can't think of anyone, except maybe a guy I know. But then being YCT,  he might not qualify for the Rabbi title. And he might not qualify as Orthodox either. [just kidding, relax]

So who else is there? Can anyone recommend anyone? Now some people migt poo-poo my post and say that by definition any OJ Rabbi is going to be non-secheldick (at least according to me), so this quest is stupid. But you never know, maybe there is someone out there with a very secheldick viewpoint, or at the very least, more secheldick than any other Rabbi n OJ.

[Hint: It's not RJM either. Or maybe....?]

Heck, maybe the Chief Rabbi IS the most secheldick OJ Rabbi out there. Now wouldn't that be a  sad sad situation.

A Malnourishment of Sechel

Rabbi Avi Shafran is at it again. Not content with his 'Madoff is Holier than Sully' debacle, he is now spouting forth about people who have convictions (opinions that is, not chas vesholom white collar criminals):

'We have every right to make our personal analyses and to take positions, to advocate what we think is wise and to make the cases for our opinions. But as we do, it is beneficial to have in the backs of our minds – or perhaps their fronts – a recognition of the fact that, for all our brights and best laid logic, we might still … possibly… be… wrong.

Contemporary society suffers from a malnourishment of modesty. It is evident not only in the realm of the physical – in contemporary dress and mores – but in attitudes toward issues as well. There is so little that any of us can truly know; yet so certain are so many of so much.

And so, suffused with self-assurance, the cavalier march forward, their points of view extended before them like bayonet tips. Confident of the infallibility of their judgment, the righteousness of their causes and the dire threat posed by others’ perspectives, they generously share not only their conclusions but their ill will.

Whoa! Wait a minute! This sounds awesome! Could Rabbi Avi Shafran finally be making sense? Let's read on:

"There are, of course, certainties in life, deep convictions that we rightly embrace without reservation. Religious Jews, for instance, affirm that Creation has a purpose and that the goals of their own lives are defined by G-d’s will as communicated through the Torah."

No, he's still a frikin idiot, completely contradicting himself in a single post, and completely oblivious to it. Oh well.

And please note: I'm not mad at Shafran for being frum, or for claiming adherence to the ikkarim. I'm mad at him for being a condascending fool, spouting on about how people should always admit the possibility of being wrong, yet making an exception for his own personal beliefs. Could he possibly BE more clueless?

I suppose I shoudn't complain though. Shafran's posts are typically dripping with every stupid narishkeit and ethically suspect attitude that is so pervasive in todays frum world, that it's good mussar for the rest of us, and a good source to turn to if you start having doubts about the emmes.

But this is what really bothers me about OJs. Not the child molesters (they are to be found everywhere), not the burden of Mitzvos (Mitzvos have great value), not even the sheltering from Goyish society (what's so great about Goyish society anyways?) But the stupidity of our frum spokesmen and the people they are speaking for.

Lu.kcily stupidity isn't the most egregious thing in the world, so I guess I can live with it. But I reserve the right to rant and rave about it.

Oh no! The mabul is looking less and less likely

Here's a great exchange on the LittleFoxling post on DH (the blogger and the hypothesis), which is the one good interview that DH has actually done. And by 'interview', I of course mean 'copying a post from littlefoxling's blog' (with permission).

Delusional RW Conservative:

One cannot help but be moved by the sincerity of Little Foxling. But I wonder how things might have turned out had he been brought up with a more honest open minded approach to issues such as the DH. What if he had been taught that the essential truth of the Torah is that it represents God's will made manifest in man, even if not all of it was written by Moshe [a position espoused by some Rishonim, but rarely taught today]? What if he was taught that faith in God is just that--faith, a metaphysical concept, not something that can be proved or disproved like a geometry theorum? What if he had been taught that belief in God means most importantly that one believes that there is a meaning to this life beyond the apparent absurdity, and that each deed we perform has ultimate meaning? What if he had been taught about how the essential "chidush" of the Torah, from all literature before it, was that man could, and indeed had the responsibility of, partnering with the divine to improve the world by his actions, and that the mitzvot were one of the means of doing so--but that performing mitzvot alone was not sufficient, without molding one's conduct to be worthy of representing the divine image, as "God desires the heart"?

I wonder how things might then have turned out for LF, and those like him.

One more observation. Respecting the comment about reading the Torah, and coming to the conclusion thereby that it must be human--There are those who can hear Beethovan's Ninth Symphony and hear the voice of God emanating from the music. Then there are those who fall asleep at the concert. I guess it depends on how good an ear one has for music.:)

In Judaism, recently, non-obscurantist approaches, such as Conservative Judaism, don't seem to have much staying power. However, I would argue that the reasons for that were 1) lack of faith in a coherent theology as to why Jews should perform mitzvot as expressing the will of God, and 2)theology aside, failure to make normative the performance of ritual mitzvot, especially shabbat and kashrut.

My personal hope and belief is that a non-obscurantist version of traditional Judaism will evolve out of Orthodoxy. One that will have all the faith and fervor lacking in "liberal" religion, but without the fanaticism and ethical blindness that one too often sees today among the "frum". I'm not sure that I will live to see it, though.

Response from LF:

Haskalah, Reform, CJ, recon, Jewish renewal, XGH all tried this. All failed. As beautiful as your ideas are, they are unlikely to motivate people to get out of the bed on a Sunday morning for shachris. That's just the reality of the matter. That's human nature. The closer Judaism is to Humanism, the harder it is to justify its unique rituals.

So I have to disagree here. I think LF is coming from a Chareidi mentality: Rituals have to 'justified', they have to be 'commanded'. They have to come directly from God or else they're all completely worthless. I mean who would ever get out of bed on a Sunday morning to go do something unless it was directly commanded by God? (Answer: Everyone on the planet who gets out of bed on a Sunday morning o go do something not directly ommanded by God.)

Also, the comment about 'all tried this, all failed', is patently untrue. There are many people who are motivated within all those movements (especially the XGH movement). Does it have the raw power and motivation of OJ? Of course not. But then OJ isn't actually true, so OJ isn't an option.

Orthopraxy, like eveything else, is simply a lifestyle choice. Frum Skeptics are obsessed with the 'But will it last?' syndrome. If we could somehow show that Orthopraxy had staying power, it seems like LF and others would jump in. But since Conservatism has failed, it's like they're not interested. I guess they  don't want to be part of a 'loser' movement. But this is just  another manifestation of Chareidi thinking: 'We've got to be the one true sect (or at least a sect that will survive for 3,000 years and outlast every other sect) or else we're not intersted. But why? Why can't something just be good for you, or maybe good for you and your kids, and leave the future to the future?

Us ex Chareridim (and even ex MOdim) are inflicted with the Black and White Syndrome: Either it's all true, it's all directly from God, it's all the one true derech, it's all going to outlast everyone and everything. Or else it's all totally worthless. There's no middle gound.

The way out is to realize that there are actually some man made things which actually do have some  value. You know, like music, art, technology, science, culture, religion. That kind of thing. Maybe they don't last forever. But then nothing really does.

Better Know a Kofer: Shayah Getzel

Good old DH, the blogger not the hypothesis, has yet another interview up. But you don't need to read it, just read my summary instead!

DH: So describe your background

SG: Chassidish. Beard, Peyes, Shtreimel, Williamsburg, Monsey. You know, Chassidish.

DH: So, just how frum is that?

SG: Well let me put it this way. The Miami Boys Choir was too treif for us.

DH: Got it - crazy frum. So what made you go OTD?

SG: Crazy Frum?

DH: Oh yeah. So what do you miss most about being frum?

SG: Mostly the assuredness. Ignorance is definitely bliss.

DH: And what do you like the most about not being frum?

SG: The fact that when I finally stopped believing in God, it was a huge burden off my shoulders. People say religion is comforting, I see it quite the opposite. 

DH: Err, what happened to 'ignorance is bliss'?

SG: Hmmm, I guess I'm a bit confused. Did I mention I come from a BT chassidish background?

DH: Oh, BT as well as Crazy Frum. Great. So what can you do now that you could never do when you were frum?

SG: Run, go to university, and be able to talk to people.

DH: Huh? You could do all that and still be frum!

SG: Crazy BT Chassidishe Frum?

DH: Oh yeah.

How to deal with completely delusional yet totally normal people

It's really an absurd world that we live in. Many people around me, friends, family, colleagues etc, all believe in the most amazing things - God written books, God Man combos, Young Earth - you name it, someone I know well (not crazy) believes in it.

So how to deal with this?

1. Just say, c'est la vie and don't even think about it.
   
2. Acknowledge that most people are cognitively immature and incredibly biased and there's nothing you can do about it.
   
3. Go with some wacky 'epistemic justification' philosophy and say that all these people are being perfectly rational.
   
4. Rant and rave about how incredibly stupid and delusional everybody is.
5. Just like 2, except with a POMO stance acknowledging that you too are cognitively immature and incredibly biased and there's nothing you can do about it either.
6. This is about feelings, not reason. Feelings just are.

Any other suggestions?

Are RW Conservative as Delusional as the Fundies?

A few weeks ago SYL asked me why I was less harsh on those Conservative 'Divine Inspiration' (DI) types who accept the DH but still insist that God somehow 'Divinely Inspired' the whole thing, albeit through multiple people over many centuries. SYL argues that since from a rational perspective there is no evidence about God, and certainly no evidence at all that God 'Divinely Inspired' a particular book, why should this position be any better than a straight up OJ position? And in fact, you could even say better: Since these people accept the DH and reject the basic tenets of Jewish Faith, it appears that they are even less rational than OJ, since they reject OJ but still cling to some DI claim.

I have very mixed feelings about this. My gut says that these people are more rational than OJ, but my brain refuses to provide a good argument for why. I'm epistemologically savvy enough to realize that when this type of thing happens, it usually is a good sign of bias. For the same reason that I ended up rejected MO over Chareidism, it seems I am forced to reject DI style RW Conservative too.

The only argument I can think of goes as follows:

Since the Bible has inspired countless people towards a more moral religious life, then that shows that God must have inspired it somehow.

Of course the problem with this is that this argument can work for other religious texts too, which is indeed how it is often used. And the other problem is that it's a totally lame argument with no real evidence behind it.

So, unless someone can provide a good defense of DI, I'm going to have to stick with my current position, which can briefly be summarized as follows:

Nobody knows anything about God, and all religion is man made. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Kosher Disney

I have always been a bit skeptical of the claims that you can get kosher food at Disney, expecting that maybe you can get a stale sandwich or something, but I was just at Magic Kingdom and I'm happy to report that you can indeed get a fairly decent meal. They had 3 options: Chicken Fingers, Corned Beef or Burger. Each came in a double wrapped heated airline style plate, with potatoes / kugel and some kind of vegetable thing. Price was about $10 each, which isn't bad, and certainly cheaper than the local Orlando Kosher restaurant. Also I highly recommend the Jerusalem Kosher restaurant in nearby Ormond Beach. They have a deli, grocery, pizza store and fleishik restaurant. They're a few blocks from the beach, but I wouldn't stay in Ormond, none of the hotels are that great.

Evolution Theology

 http://thankgodforevolution.com

Better Know A Koferet

Simple, elegant, and to the point. 

Why I left OJ

Though a bit lacking on the intellectual side. And of course she was from a crazy Lubavitch family.

The real story behind the news (File under: Do 2 lame posts add up to 1 good post?)

The real story behind the bomb plot

The bomb plot to blow up various Jewish institutions is not as it seems. Clearly these people were not out to get any Chareidi institutions - they targeted a JCC, a Reform Temple, and the Riverdale Jewish Center, the bastion of Modern Orthodoxy. So what's going on? Well, just take a look at the RJC Shavuot Learning Schedule - Modern Orthodox Tittilation at it's finest:

First Shiur 12:00 am R. Natan Slifkin - "The Challenge of Dinosaurs"
Third Shiur 2:10 am R. Michael Stein – “Only Rebbetzins or Even Rabbis?"
Fourth Shiur 3:10 am R. Josh Dredze – “What Happened at Sinai Anyway? A Historical Analysis of Matan Torah"

Were these bombers part of a Charedi plot to target kefirah? Could be.

The real story behind American Idol.

Kris Allen? Come on, you canot be serious. Even Kris himself said Adam deserved to win. Kris is an average performer, Lambert has an amazing voice. So what's going on? Clearly the vote was swayed by 100 million teenage girls who swooned over Kris's youthful good lucks, and were turned off by Lambert's gayish glam rock style. But Lambert is the better performer, and ever since the demise of Freddie Mercury, the international pop/rock scene has been severely deficient. How many guitar strumming, soft singing Colbie Caillat / Jason Mraz types do we need? Enough already! Bring back glam rock now! Maybe Lambert can take over from Paul Stanley, though I would rather see him team up with Brian May (as he did last night) for Queen II.

FKM on Modern Orthodoxy

FKM made the following quite sensible comment on Hirhurim, about the basic positions that drive Modern Orthodoxy:

1) We are living in the modern world.
2) We have taken the axiomatic theological position that we can be Orthodox and modern at the same time.
3) Being modern MEANS you are informed by the values and ethical norms of contemporary society.
4) It is considered unethical in contemporary western society to bar a qualified woman from any position or function that a similarly qualified man can occupy on the basis of gender alone.
5) Judaism is religion committed to being very ethical.
6) repeat points 2) and 3) again and again until it becomes a mantra

I think that's about right. Except that this was always pretty much the position of Judaism. Why is Judaism male dominated in the first place? Because in the 'modern world' of 200CE women had subservient roles, so Chazal followed suit.

The Shidduch Crisis

[What's wrong with you people? Does no one appreciate good music????]

Vos Iz Neias posts an article about the current shidduch crisis, penned by a prominent psychologist, Michael Salomon, who says that the solution is to let young men and young woman interact more before marriage. Most of the comments are predictable, and wrong.

For example:

• 'The Gedolim know best' (no they don't)
• 'It worked well for my Bobby & Zaidie' (we live in a different world)
• 'Goyim / Reform Jews mix it up, and they have a terrible divorce rate' (true, but not neccessarily relevant to frum Jews who have a different social and cultural framework)
• 'People on the West Side don't get married' (we would have to compare UWS and Brooklyn marriage rates - not sure)

Salamon then goes on a long discussion about hormones and neurotransmitters which sounds impressive but is mostly besides the point.

The reason for the current shidduch crisis, which affects both MO and the UO, is very simple and obvious. The current generation are the most spoiled in history. They expect instant and totla gratification, with eveything handed to them on a platter. When it comes to marriage, they are incredibly picky. Everyone wants a good looking, intelligent spouse, with a good job, family, money etc. Nobody is willing to look past the superficialities, or make an effort.

Even the people who say 'I'm not looking for Mr Right, just Mr Right for me' are not innocent, since they are invariably looking for a perfect fit to them, which they will never find.

There's no bashert, it's a simple game of playing the odds.

Yes, the more people you date, the more likely you will find someone you like, but you will also get older, less desirable, and possibly more jaded and incapable of creating a romantic relationship in the process. At some point you will even become LESS likely to get married.

Now, I have a much older cousin who is getting married soon for the first time, age 50 is. He and his furture bride are very happy, and please God will have a happy life. But was it really worth waiting till 50 to find that person? Wasting 30 years being single? No, it's no worth it. Life is too short to wait.

At some point (say around age 30), you have to cut your losses and make a decision. I will fully admit that without prodding from my wife I would probably still be single, since I too was a picky picky single. And did I make the right choice? You betcha I did! The more I get to know my wife, the more I appreciate her. Yet when I was single I had all these silly things I thought I needed to have in a spouse (I won't spell them out).

My advice (for the 30+ crowd) : Figure out the top 3 things you must have in a spouse, and then compromise on 2 of them. Either that, or continue to play the odds. But if you do continue to play, don't complain when you loose.

Black Hat Yeshivah Blues

Hit play then sing along! Freakin awesome song. Also a great Nigun.



When I left my home and my family
My father said to me
Son, its not how many blatt you learn that counts
It's how good and moral you can be

So I packed my bags
Put on my black hat
Walked out into the world
Seventeen years old
Never kissed a girl

Took the plane to Ponovezh
That was as far as I would go
Changed my slacks for white shirt and black pants
Never listened to the radio

I prayed with the Rosh Yeshiviah
In the summer of 83
And as we davened with great kavanah
I really believed
That God was listening to me

We talked and argued in learning
Paced up and down
Raised our voices high
Studied with a frown

I saw my first Chareidi
And he looked a lot like me
He had the same kinda pale face
Said he'd come from upstate New York, a town called Monsey

When the zman was over
My airline ticket came
Me and a hundred others
Went to Ben Gurion for the plane

College! said my mother
Then you can make it on your own
But I never got to college
I never came back home

Went right back to Yeshivah
Made my mother dissolve into tears
Sitting and learning
For years and years and years and years
Dressed always in black and white
In the Bes Hamedrash until I die
All because the Rosh Yeshivah was scared that
We'd become too Westernized!

Used to love my religion
When I was so young
Used to believe that Gemarah was
The best thing ever learned

I would have died for my faith
In 1985
But now only one thing remains
But now only one thing remains
But now only one thing remains
But now only one thing remains
The brute will to survive!

Say Goodbye To The Kofer Man

He was frum on a Monday, fry on a Friday,
How quickly our faith disappears,
Used to be a yeshivah bochur, but as he grew older
He realized the truth wasn't there,
As the believers on the blogs argue with him, they all sing

Here comes a kofer man, he’ll get you if he can,
With his kefirah in hand,
Has nothing good to say, says it anyway,
Say goodbye to the kofer man

I heard that he was a masmid, learned all shas he did,
Now he reads the DH in the park,
The believers think he’s a mamzer, his only companions,
Are the skeptics who come out in the dark
No one really knows his name, and so they just sing

Here comes a kofer man, he’ll get you if he can,
With his kefirah in hand,
Has nothing good to say, says it anyway,
Say goodbye to the kofer man

If you see him say hello from me
Give him all my love and sympathy

Are they Orthoprax ? A Pop Quiz

1. Person who becomes frum to find a meaning in life or they like the lifestyle, but does not have an interest in the theological details about the past.
   
2. Person who looked to great educated rabbis like Rabbi Lichtenstein, and assumed that if they are not bothered then, he should not be either. 
   
3. Person who has studied at a liberal arts school, but then put it aside in law school and says they can live with questions.
   
4. Observant Conservative Jew who honestly believes that Jewish law allows major changes and fluid definitions. 
   
5. Someone who creates a wild theology of TMS based on New Age thought and justifies it with snippets of Aryeh Kaplan. His kids have peyos.
   
6. Someone with a gut feeling that the Torah is true, and lives a RWMO life but knows it contradicts his medical school training.
   
7. A mildly OCD person who chooses Orthodoxy for its rules.
   
8. Someone right wing on political and social issues who feels more at home in Orthodoxy. When asked about TMS will ask are you one of those relativist destroying religion and then return to discussing the need to ban same sex unions.
   
9. People who feel a strong yetzer hara for sex, money, and power and feel Orthodoxy keeps them in line. 
   
10. Orthodox lawyer types who, even when rabbis, adjudicate that what you think does not matter only laws governing actions in the real world.
    
11. People who grew up orthodox and remain there because it is the only Judaism they know. Yet, harbor their own heterodox views.
    
12. People whose theology is a mix of the Matrix with Angels and Demons. 
    
13. People who accept Yeshaya Leibowitz as their Orthodoxy and find that it allows them to have serious Yirat Shamayim.
    
14. People who firmly believe that God chose the Jewish people and guided them and has now revived the State of Israel as the dawn of redemption, but question how TMS occurred.
    
15. People who were skeptics at 22, but chose to send their kids to day school, even to just please a spouse, and now will play out the orthodox life for the rest of their lives. 
    
16. Those with a mathematical way of looking at life and knows TMS does not fit in, and rejects Jewish theology as non-mathematical but likes to study kinim.
    
17. 1People who feel they will be punished by God if they don't keep the mizvot but don't accept TMS- just a punishing God. 
    
18. People scrupulously keep halakhah as a means of keeping God and emunah out of their very secular lives.
    
19. hippydox, loves the Grateful Dead and other jam bands. May be a vegetarian/vegan. Likes to wear colorful and large knitted kippas. May (or may not) have a wild new age theology based on an acid trip they had once at a dead concert (related to #5).
    
20. Existential-dox. Like the Rambam of old, existentialdox reinterprets all the major classical Jewish concepts in accordance with (post)modern philosophy. Very much influenced by the likes of Heidegger and Kierkegaard. Theology so dense that it's hard to determine if it's kefira or not.
    

Hat tip Arama and Halo

Chassidisheh Ozzies Swap Donkey for a Sheep

Handy Dandy Guide to Orthopraxy and Heterodoxy

Some of my commenters are confused about the difference between Heterodox and Orthoprax. Actually I am too - do we really need two denominations here? Maybe we do! I'm all for new denominations. Anyway here is my chart, but I'm happy to alter the lines based on feedback. The circled area is a bit fuzzy.

Kofrim to the left of me, Fundies to the right, Here I am stuck in the middle with you

It's kinda funny how even some skeptics aren't immune to the 'everyone to the left of me is a kofer' syndrome. The Heterodox Kofrim  got all upset when I conflated them with the Orthoprax, claiming that there was an INFINITELY HUGE difference between the two groups. LOL, OK, the OPs are total Kofrim, and you guys are only slightly Kefiradick. Happy now?

Modern Orthoprax and Modern Heterodox Agree to Merge: Combined operation to be called Modern Orthoprax & Heterodox

So the folks over at ModernHeterodox have agreed to merge with this site, in recognition of the fact that the OPs and HDs have a lot in common. I mean, neither group accepts the ikkarim, and the fact that one group still believes in maybe a few more semi-ikkarim than the other is neither here nor there, vis-a-vis Orthdoxy that is. 

So welcome all you Modern Heterodoxers! And don't worry, your unique Heterodox culture, values, practices and beliefs will find a good home here.

The Definition of Orthoprax

Some commenters have questioned my broad brush definition of Orthopraxy. For example, Lipman writes:

There is an INFINITELY HUGE difference between someone who, even if he does not believe that the 5 books of the Torah were dictated to Moses at Sinai, nevertheless believes that God uniquely inspired Judaism, and someone who (as you apparently do) believe the entire notion of a personal God revealing His will to be delusional.

Well, I think 'INFINITELY HUGE' is a bit of an exaggeration, but more than that, while there may indeed be a difference in the real world, vis-a-vis Orthodox Judaism there isn't. 

Can someone be OJ and deny even one ikkar? I doubt it. What if Norman Lamm (or some other famous MO Rabbi) got up and gave a speech in which he said he didn't believe in Techiyas Hamaysim. You think he could get away with it? Hardly.

The (sad) fact of the matter is that all 13 ikkarim are required, and therefore anyone who goes on record denying even one is no longer OJ. Hence my broad definition of OP - someone who doesn't hold of all the ikkarim.  From an OJ standpoint, it makes no difference whether you disbelieve in just 1 or all 13. Also, lemaaseh, it's rare to find someone who just discounts one ikkar. There are typically the following groups:

1. Non thinking sheep: Accept all the ikkarim. 

2. Academic Bible Scholar Types: Don't take 8,12 and 13 literally, but may believe that Judaism is somehow Divinely Inspired, and that the Nevim really did have some kind of Nevuah.

3. Skeptics: Don't believe a word of it though maybe 'God' (whatever that means) does exist.

4. HardCore Atheists: God definitely doesn't exist.

And by the way, le'halachah all groups except no. 4 can get an aliyah no problem.

Orthoprax to the Max

Some of my commenters don't believe me when I say MO is 50% OP. But this is because those commenters are (a) young and naive, and (b) are in YU, Washintgon Heights or Teaneck, which is a bastion of RW MO. GO out of town, and/or mix with older and wiser folks, and the ratio changes.

I davkah looked around shul this shabbat and counted about 50-60% OP. And by OP I mean people who don't believe in the ikkarim.  They may certainly beliueve in some kind of God, but they don't believe in TMS (though some may believe in Divine Inspiration), and they mostly don't believe in a physcial techiyasd hamaysim (though some may believe in some kind of afterlife). Most don't believe in a literal Moshiach. And these are the people I know about, the ratio may actually be higher if I questioned people strongly. And the ratio would be even higher if I spent some time with these people, explaining how things are (Buwahaha).

Now, some skeptics who know me  claim that my shul is unusual, but I don't buy thaqt. Are you telling me that by some amazing co-incidence I happen to be in the most OP shul in the country? So some skeptics will claim that it's no co-incidence, since I'm only OP davkah because I'm in an OP shul. But I don't buy that either, because I only found out about all these OPers AFTER I got skeptical. Anyways, I'm willing to admit that my shul is a bit unusual, but certainly not completely out of whack with the rest of LW MO.

Plus, a famous scholar of Judaism (who I can't name so don't ask) told me he agrees with that figure - 50% of people who IDENTIFY as MO are really OP. Now some hardliners will claim that we don't count people who 'identify', since many of those are really not MO at all, but rather RW Conservatives who want a more passionate environment, or people who are MO in name only, but aren't really that committed to MO. But that's the no true Scotsman fallacy.

So, I stand by my estimate. 50% (roughly) of people who identify as MO are actually OP. And while some of these people are admittedly not that committed to Halachah, many of them are. And that segment are the frum OP. And I'm not arguing for some 'fluffy' acceptance of those people - they already are accepted. I'm arguing that MO itself, from an ideological perspective, needs to accept frum OP as a valid  alternative to fundamentalism. For the 10 reasons I stated before, and for a few more which I will post about soon.

Top 10 Reasons Why Modern Orthodoxy Must Accept Modern Orthopraxy

1. The OPs have truth on their side. Even according to many believers, the evidence stacks in favor of the OPs. Even Hirhurim admits that you need 'prior beliefs' to make OJ work in the context of science and biblical criticism.

2. The OPs are genuine truth seekers, not evil apikorsim out to destroy Judaism.

3. The OP's have the same values and practices as the OJs. Note to commenters: TMS is a BELIEF, it is not a VALUE. Do you understand the difference? And don't try and be clever and say that 'Belief in TMS is a value'.

4. OPs (by choice) want to associate with the OJ community. Why? Precisely because they do value the values, community and practices of OJ. These values, community and practices can't be found elsewhere - certainly not in most Conservative shuls. So by what right do OJ's think they can exclude people who want to be frum?

5. Judaism has always stressed practices and values as opposed to beliefs. The Rambam's ikkarim are hardly halachah, in fact many scholars think that the Rambam retracted from the ikkarim in later life. And as Marc Shapiro has shown, the ikarim weren't universally accepted anyway. There is no halachic basis for excluding OPs from the community, or even from getting maftir haftorah.

6. Only a small percentage of world Jewry are OJ, and with the advances in knowledge, more and more OJs are going to realize that OJ isn't true. You can't cut out the vast majority of jews.

7. When people realize that OJ isn't true, and if OJ doesn't accept OP, then by default you are pushing these people away from halachah. If you believe halachah has value, then this is not good.

8. We have good evidence of where the 'belief' game is going - crazier and crazier beliefs, where convicted criminals can persuade so called Gedolim to pronounce basic science as kefirah. We need to be going in the other direction.

9. The reality is that only a tiny fraction of the world's population, and only one subsect of one tiny religion, think that the ikkarim are true. Everybody else on the planet doesn't believe it. I can respect wanting to form a community out of shared values, rituals and practices, as this makes sense on a practical level, but insisting that everyone share your beliefs, when 99.99% of the world's population don't believe (and for good reason), is just silly.

10. Nobody is saying that the OJ themselves must become OP. But how can you stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that the vast majority of Jews are not believers? Surely this is not news to anyone in MO. So why would you exclude such people? Are you scared that they will 'infect' the believers with their heresy? If OJ is so likely true, surely you should be confident that the OJs will persuade the OPs, not the other way around!

Actually, that last reason got me thinking. Why are the OJ's so scared of the OPs? Is it because they don't like being confronted with their own foolishness? Is it because they don't want to see people acting perfectly frum, but with beliefs that if they themselves it had would make them go OTD? Are they jealous that OPs are showing them up?

I can understand that Chareidim live sheltered lives, and therefore I am not proposing that Chareidim accept OP, but the Modern Orthodox are supposedly out there in the real world.

So get real.

Feivel Chuchem is truly a Chuchem

'I don't see why we can't just accept each other as Jews (national identity) irrespective of what we believe. We can collectivize based on what we have in common (values), and build our national identity based on that.

Our religious beliefs do NOT have to be the cause of pulling us apart.

This argument is ALWAYS fraying at the seams because it matters a lot to the Orthodox not only that you believe, but that you believe the "right" way. THEIR way.

Does it REALLY matter that EVERYBODY believe TMS is totally, literally true for them to be able to cooperate in sharing values with people who do not believe it to be totally, literally true? I think this is the question I hear from XGH. I have it, too.

Do you really have to ask Rambam what he thinks to determine that Michael Steinhardt is a good Jew for being a very generous contributor to Jewish causes, even though he's a self professed athiest?

Our generation's failure to deal with the reality of our situation is causing us to preside over a process where we watch 90% of the Jewish people reach out, while nobody reaches back. Fine victory, a fine People we must be, to stand on principle while our brothers die of spiritual and communal excommunication.

There IS a way to retain our connections with each other, and it's to coalesce around values and not beliefs. Believe what you want, and even retain an identity with those who share those beliefs. But to treat your Jewish connection with other Jews who don't share your beliefs as inconsequential? That's just ridiculous, to my mind.

Yeah - this approach is without precedent. So were tons of things the Tanaaim did when their world was turned upside down after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, and to my mind the destruction of our connection with 90% of us is no less worthy of some new thinking.'

Feivel Chuchem

Who is more moral: The Orthodox Faker or The Orthoprax?

The other day I posted my dilemma:

Fact: OJ (and all other fundamentalist religions) are EXTREMELY unlikely to be true.
Fact: Many people get tremendous benefits from religion
Fact: Most of the world's experience to date has been that there is a direct correlation between lack of fundamentalist beliefs and lack of religious commitment.
Fact: Most people are committed (at least in principle) to upholding truth.

Kyle, a favorite commenter of mine, immediately started to criticize me, saying that I'm always criticizing the believers and their approach, but I never offer an alternative approach. This is quite ironic, since Kyle is always criticizing my approach, but he never offers an alternative approach either! So I finally got Kyle to offer his approach, and this is what he wrote:

If you are convinced that OJ beliefs are false, but you also want to reap the benefits of the society that is built on those beliefs, you have to accept that the only way that you can do that is by being discreet about your beliefs (and there is no Inquisition to worry about). It's just not fair/moral/reasonable/realistic for you to insist that a society that is critically linked to a belief system on many levels should welcome you while you are loudly insisting that the belief system is wrong.

Wow. So let's think about this. Kyle aparently holds it's more moral to pretend to be OJ even when you aren't (or in Kyle speak - 'be discreet about your beliefs') rather than be vocal about your non-beliefs. (He seemed to backpedal a little from the word moral, but then quickly changed the subject when I called him on it) 

But can this really be so? An Orthodox Faker doesn't really believe in classical TMS, (he might believe in some kind of Divine Inspiration I guess), and those views would be unacceptable to a typical RW MO (just ask FrumJewinYU!) 

Not only that, but such a person happily gets aliyahs, and if such a person is a Rabbi (as many such people are), they are in fact giving shiurim to the masses, all the while not holding true OJ beliefs! Do you think such a person's talmidim, who look up to him, would be happy knowing that such a person doesn't really fully believe? Do you think they would feel lied to, cheated, decieved, were they to find out? It seems reasonable to assume so. It seems reasonable to assume that such a person's flock (if he's a shul Rabbi), or talmidim (if he's in chinuch) would feel very hurt and dismayed at such a thing.

And what about the Orthoprax guy? (Someone who is open about their Orthopraxy)- people may not like him, they may not agree with him, they may not even want him in their shul - but at least he's honest and open about his beliefs! At least he's not fooling anyone. At least he's not faking it!

I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that the Orthodox Faker is more 'moral'. He's maybe less of a trouble maker - but more moral? Hardly. In fact, he's LESS moral - for 2 reasons:

1. He's deceiving eveyone around him

2. He's upholding lies and denigrating the truth for personal gain.

Now of course morality is subjective, and the Orthodox Fakers are full of every sort of rationalization that you could think of (no doubt we'll hear a few on this thread - the masses aren't ready, they must be protected from the truth etc etc) , but at the end of the day, I can't get away from the fact that they're simply just not being honest with the people around them, and that's simply not moral.

Now, I can be magnanimous and  say let them keep that strategy and be successful. But don't have the chutzpah to come here and criticize me!

Source Code for this Blog

A commenter has reverse engineered the source code that drives this blog. I'm not sure what computer language this is written in, I only know BASIC and I don't see any line numbers here, maybe it's that new Java Bean language or something like that. Anyways, enjoy.

set angst = 1;

while (angst > 0)

{
if (orthodox == true)  {angst = angst + 1; set orthodox == false;}
if (orthodox == false)  {angst = angst + 1; set orthodox == true;}
blog(angst);
}

Better Know A Kofer!!!

DH has a new interview up on his site, and this time it really is with a totally normal person from a totally normal background. And it's totally boring. So, to save you the time of reading it, here is a summary:

DH: So describe to me your background.
OP: Normal Modern Orthodox.
DH: And what made you go OTD?
OP: I realized intellectually that OJ wasn't true.
DH: And how has your life changed?
OP: It hasn't much.
DH. Thank you.

Carmy on Kugel, Kyle on XGH

Carmy compares Kugel to Spinoza, from here:

Spinoza denied creation; he denied divine freedom; he denied human free
will; he denied Torah miSinai; he denied divine providence; he affirmed what was
shortly afterwards dubbed pantheism. And so on and so forth. In what way does
this "preserve the traditional concept of God?" Does anyone believe that this
was his intention? To be sure, Spinoza did use the word "god," and by doing so
may have misled some readers about what he was proposing. Since Spinoza was
clearly not addressing Jewish readers, his presumed goal was to protect his
opinions from censure by the Christians among whom he lived. This practice is
politely called "disingenuousness," bluntly called "deception." Defenders of
Spinoza would justify such behavior on the grounds that frank avowal of his
views would have led to persecution. I leave to others to determine whether the
two situations are comparable.

And here's a quote from a commenter named 'Kyle':

Oh, don't be ridiculous, XGH. You can't say in one post that "its extremely damn
obvious that OJ isn't even remotely true" and then start insisting that you're
going to be providing a traditional, observant and passionate Judaism... And
it's not as though you've even come up with anything approaching a traditional,
observant and passionate Judaism; notwithstanding your occasional high falutin'
claims about your blog's objectives, you just end up constantly mocking
Hirhurim, Cross-Currents and suchlike.

Fact: OJ (and all other fundamentalist religions) are EXTREMELY unlikely to be true.
Fact: Many people get tremendous benefits from religion
Fact: Most of the world's experience to date has been that there is a direct correlation between lack of fundamentalist beliefs and lack of religious commitment.
Fact: Most people are committed (at least in principle) to upholding truth .

So what do we do?

I recognize that different people have different approaches, but for me, I cannot tell a lie (or live with one), and I don't want to give up on OJ style values, ethics and commmunity.

Therefore I have no other choice but the path I have chosen.

Yes, I don't actually have to mock the intellifundies to follow this path, but (a) They totally deserve it and (b) They totally deserve it and (c) The reason why they totally deserve it is that these people have tremendous'Kochos', but instead of using their skills wisely, they waste their time defending bs and attacking the wise people.

'Kyle' adds the following comment:

What are you offering, other than continually harping on about how OJ isn't true, which merely serves to destabilize everyone else

This is a typical intellifundie response: Religion is too precious to 'destabilize' it, so therefore we have to promote, or at least (pretend to) live with, the lie.

But I simply can't do that, and I don't think they should either. I'm not saying we should convince every believer to become a kofer - on the contrary, I think we need believers (in moderation). But non belief needs to be a legitimate option within our communities. Will that be a dangerous approach? Of course, but it might also be the savior for many people. If the extreme chareidim want to shut themselves off from society and all modern knowledge then fine, let them do that. But Modern Orthodoxy at least needs to be more open, and not just open to people in the closet, but people out of the closet too.

Given the facts above, I see no other morally correct choice here.

I know this sounds a bit 'black and white' but sometimes you just have to cut through all the bs and call it for what it is.

The Chief Rabbi agrees with XGH

Hirhurim posts about the famous 'Euthyphro's Dilemma' which long time readers will recall was discussed here about three years ago. Well, it turns out that the answer I gave back then is exactly the same answer as given by the Chief Rabbi. Not only that, I remain convinced that it is the correct answer. Back then Mis-nagid told me 'You simply don't understand the dilemma' - so a big 'Neener neener' to Missy.

The answer that I gave back then, and that the Chief Rabbi gives, is simple. The dillemma is a false dichotomy - God created a world in which evil (e.g. cold blooded murder) is inherently wrong. Could God have created a world in which murder was 'good'? I suppose so, but such a world would be incomprehensible to us.

So maybe you'll ask, since God can do anything, couldn't He create a world which is EXACTLY the same as ours in every respect, except that murder is good? (And in which case morality seems arbitrary) But I think that's akin to asking 'Could God create a world where squares are round, or where an immovable post and and unstoppable canonball co-exist'. In other words, it's just a silly question.