Religion: Positive or Negative?

[ninwa]

I feel like there's 2 separate conversations going on here. Yitzi/alon/polo would you like me to split your thread into a new one?

also, uhh, Shalom?

[Professor Polonsky]

Nina, feel free to split the thread however you like.

War is often perfectly reasonable and fine. Hence your first graph is meaningless.

Also, "America invaded the Middle East" lolwut. I'm also not sure why the War on Terror is in inverted commas.

Your second chart doesn't tell what it actually shows, nor does it cite any source (apart from "The FBI").

I do have a pretty damn good source. The Global Terrorism Database, which lists over 100,000 instances of terrorism. Sorting by fatalities:

[charmanderp]

War is often perfectly reasonable and fine.

Umm.

Also, "America invaded the Middle East" lolwut. I'm also not sure why the War on Terror is in inverted commas.

What?

Your second chart doesn't tell what it actually shows, nor does it cite any source (apart from "The FBI").

I do have a pretty damn good source. The Global Terrorism Database, which lists over 100,000 instances of terrorism. Sorting by fatalities:

(Image removed from quote.)

Ok sure. In the past 10 years there have been acts of terrorism committed by extremist Islamic groups. Does this justify the religion as a whole being perceived as hostile?

[Professor Polonsky]

Umm.

Most obvious example being, of course, WWII. The United States' territorial sovereignty was not being directly threatened, and yet it was entirely right for it to intervene (and legally right as well, collective self-defence at the very least). War in Afghanistan - a perfect Article 51 self-defence case.

What?

I don't think America invaded "the Middle East" is correct in any way at all. The US invaded Afghanistan (not part of the Mid-East) as part of the War on Terrorism. I don't think any serious authority on the War on Terrorism would agree the War in Iraq had anything to do with it, but even so invading Iraq =/= invading the Middle East.

Ok sure. In the past 10 years there have been acts of terrorism committed by extremist Islamic groups. Does this justify the religion as a whole being perceived as hostile

No, and I never did. Although the trend has been around for much longer than 10 years.

[charmanderp]

Tbh I'm not really sure what we're arguing about.

[Yitzi_K]

To sum up your position, Alon: Lets throw the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch out the window. So in what way exactly do you define yourself as 'orthodox'?

[Professor Polonsky]

Tbh I'm not really sure what we're arguing about.

My point was mostly that it's not entirely correct to dismiss Muslim extremism as a figment of the media's imagination, and that it has been an ongoing problem.

[alondouek]

To sum up completely misconstrue your position, Alon: Lets throw the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch out the window.

Who's saying anything about throwing out the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch? It's perfectly feasible to live by them, but I don't see why Chareidim have to isolate themselves from modern society, and refuse to contribute at all to that society, but at everyone else's expense.

Why do you believe that to be acceptable? Why will you still not outright condemn the extremist behaviour of some Chareidi communities? Why have you blatantly ignored all the allegations of their misconduct I described above?

It's ridiculous to think that some group has the right to feed off the rest of us simply to fulfil their religious beliefs, meanwhile treating everyone else with impunity. Do you believe it is fair for a woman to be called a zonah (whore) because she doesn't cover her hair?

If you don't condemn it, you're condoning it - thereby failing the underlying purpose behind Judaism and its relevant texts. If you're following everything to the letter, but still treating people like shit, you're a failure to Judaism. Chareidi extremists are a failure to Judaism.

So in what way exactly do you define yourself as 'orthodox'?

I keep Shabbat, I keep Kashrut, I follow the mitzvot, I attend an orthodox shul, I attended a religious Jewish school which allowed me free thought relating to religion. Don't think you got the same opportunity to think, to be honest.

The difference between us is that while you would rather follow some obscure ancient guidelines to the letter, I'd rather treat people with respect and dignity.

Unless, of course, you're meaning this in the way that so many Chareidim mean it, and that my religious beliefs are inferior to yours?

[charmanderp]

My point was mostly that it's not entirely correct to dismiss Muslim extremism as a figment of the media's imagination, and that it has been an ongoing problem.

That wasn't at all what I was saying. The post I quoted didn't even refer to Muslim 'extremism'.

It just asked why Islam was perceived as a hostile religion, in comparison to others. I said it's because the hostility of Islam is exaggerated by sources such as the media (particularly the American media) and the only representations of Islam we're exposed to are antagonstic incarnations, and hence its overgeneralised and perceived as being a hostile faith, which I don't think can be denied. I wasn't trying to suggest that Islamic involvement in global conflict was an urban myth.

[Yitzi_K]

Who's saying anything about throwing out the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch? It's perfectly feasible to live by them,

You've declared that statements made by the Gemara are 'outdated means of rabbinic oppression' and 'bull****'. Clearly you don't hold of it as authoritative at all.

Why will you still not outright condemn the extremist behaviour of some Chareidi communities?

I condemn all extra-judicial violence against violators of halacha (except for cases of kana'im pogim bo).

Why have you blatantly ignored all the allegations of their misconduct I described above?

Because many of them are perceived and/or exaggerated, so I don't feel the need.

Do you believe it is fair for a woman to be called a zonah (whore) because she doesn't cover her hair?

A married woman who doesn't cover her hair is a parutzah who is being oiver an issur d'oraysa, as stated clearly by the Gemara and poskim down to the Mishna Berurah. However, this should be explained to her by means of education, not name-calling.

Chareidi extremists are a failure to Judaism.

So too anyone who speaks loshon ho'rah. (see Shemiras Ha'loshon by the Chofetz Chaim).

I keep Shabbat, I keep Kashrut, I follow the mitzvot, I attend an orthodox shul, I attended a religious Jewish school which allowed me free thought relating to religion. Don't think you got the same opportunity to think, to be honest.

The difference between us is that while you would rather follow some obscure ancient guidelines to the letter, I'd rather treat people with respect and dignity.

Clearly you don't follow all the mitzvot, because the Shulchan Aruch outlaws many of your practices. (Listening to kol isha, for example. You may have decided it doesn't apply to you, but halacha doesn't change based on the individual. Also, see Even ho'Ezer siman 21 seif alef, tell me how well you do with that one.)
And halacha is not 'ancient', it is timeless, as it is the word of G-d, who is timeless. Just because the morals of general society change all the time, that is no reason why the word of G-d should become any less divine or absolutely true, and therefore halacha stays exactly as it is, as G-d has always wanted it.

And I take great offence to you saying that I do not want treat people with respect and dignity, just because I try to adhere to halacha as proscribed by the Shulchan Aruch. Many of those who follow the Shulchan Aruch most faithfully have the most respect for others. Read the biography of haRav Moshe Feinstein, his level of bein adom l'chaveiro was indescribable, as was that of all the charedi gedolim.

It's true there are elements within charedi society who are clearly lacking in this area, and misguidedly persecute others, and this is wrong without a shadow of doubt. But to declare that no charedim anywhere respect other people is completely untrue and unfair on the 95% of charedim it doesn't apply to. (Not to mention completely asur al pi the Shulchan Aruch, as mentioned before.)



As for the whole 'not contributing to society' thing - we believe that by learning Torah we are contributing a tremendous amount to society. (Don't you say every week (shabbos mussaf) 'talmidei chachomim marbim shalom ba'olam'?)
Now you may mistakenly believe that this is not true, but to then accuse us of not wanting to contribute is unfair, as we genuinely believe we are contributing in our own way as much as anyone else.

[alondouek]

You've declared that statements made by the Gemara are 'outdated means of rabbinic oppression' and 'bull****'. Clearly you don't hold of it as authoritative at all.

I believe that certain aspects of the Gemara are no longer relevant, yes. That's the wonderful thing about Rabbinic writings, it's not a take it or leave it thing like the Torah. And no, it's not truly authoritative in the sense that I don't think that my life should be dictated by the ponderings of some bearded old blokes 1,000 years ago. If you want to live your life that way, that's fine - but don't push it onto other people like the Chareidim do.

I condemn all extra-judicial violence against violators of halacha (except for cases of kana'im pogim bo).

For clarity: Kanaim pogim bo = "the right of zealots to take the law into their own hands".

So you think that violence can be carried out in the name of halacha? You are effectively advocating the nastier parts of Sha'aria law. More of that parallelism I referred to earlier...

If you are condoning violence in the name of religion, you have utterly failed that religion.

Because many of them are perceived and/or exaggerated, so I don't feel the need.

Seriously? Even after the article that Polonium posted, you feel that your view is valid?

More:

Chareidi "protestors" jeer at girls trying to get to school in Beit Shemesh, calling them "prostitues"

Chareidim rioting because they're opposed to an archaeological dig

More yelling at children because they are learning

Chareidim equating their military draft to treatment under the Nazi regime

and the list goes on and on and on. I don't want these people to be feeding off any society that I'm a part of.

A married woman who doesn't cover her hair is a parutzah who is being oiver an issur d'oraysa, as stated clearly by the Gemara and poskim down to the Mishna Berurah. However, this should be explained to her by means of education, not name-calling.

So to summarise for everyone reading this: If a woman doesn't cover her hair after being married, she is looked down on by the men in the society. That's some wonderful gender equality, no? Tzniut in and of itself is crap, pretty sure most people can control their sexual urges without religious doctrine.

If Chareidi males are getting turned on by women singing, their hair/ankles/knees/any exposed skin, then they're the one with the sick fetishist behaviour. Don't make life harder for women just because Chareidim can't control themselves.

So too anyone who speaks loshon ho'rah. (see Shemiras Ha'loshon by the Chofetz Chaim).

False dichotomy - you are trying to equate violence in the name of religious extremism (which you clearly showed support for in your previous post) to talking. Nice try, but that's not going to work regardless of the rabbinical sources you throw around. How about giving morality a go for once?

Clearly you don't follow all the mitzvot, because the Shulchan Aruch outlaws many of your practices. (Listening to kol isha, for example. You may have decided it doesn't apply to you, but halacha doesn't change based on the individual. Also, see Even ho'Ezer siman 21 seif alef, tell me how well you do with that one.)
And halacha is not 'ancient', it is timeless, as it is the word of G-d, who is timeless. Just because the morals of general society change all the time, that is no reason why the word of G-d should become any less divine or absolutely true, and therefore halacha stays exactly as it is, as G-d has always wanted it.

tl;dr "my interpretation of religion is better than your interpretation of religion". Whether you like it or not, the world and society is moving forwards. If Chareidim want to stay mired in their own extremist cesspits, that's fine - but the rest of society shouldn't have to suffer and support their vitriol.

As for halacha, you do not have any empirical evidence either way, but for some reason you are acting as if halacha is empirically true. As a Modern Orthodox Jew (something you obviously do not understand), I follow halacha but I won't let it make me a bad person, like it does under Chareidi interpretation.

And I take great offence to you saying that I do not want treat people with respect and dignity, just because I try to adhere to halacha as proscribed by the Shulchan Aruch. Many of those who follow the Shulchan Aruch most faithfully have the most respect for others. Read the biography of haRav Moshe Feinstein, his level of bein adom l'chaveiro was indescribable, as was that of all the charedi gedolim.

It's true there are elements within charedi society who are clearly lacking in this area, and misguidedly persecute others, and this is wrong without a shadow of doubt. But to declare that no charedim anywhere respect other people is completely untrue and unfair on the 95% of charedim it doesn't apply to. (Not to mention completely asur al pi the Shulchan Aruch, as mentioned before.)

If all the Chareidi "gedolim" demonstrate such profound levels of bein adam lechaveiro, then why are there Chareidi extremists? Who is preaching these messages of hate, if they're not there from the beginning?

And if the above points aren't relevant to "95% of Chareidim", then why are the Chareidi communities so insular? Why aren't the children afforded a proper secular education? Why are their women treated as such?

You can't twist your logic to justify these mistreatments.

As for the whole 'not contributing to society' thing - we believe that by learning Torah we are contributing a tremendous amount to society. (Don't you say every week (shabbos mussaf) 'talmidei chachomim marbim shalom ba'olam'?)
Now you may mistakenly believe that this is not true, but to then accuse us of not wanting to contribute is unfair, as we genuinely believe we are contributing in our own way as much as anyone else.

What a load of crap! If Chareidim think they are contributing by doing whatever it is they do all day (not much), then they can do it at their own expense.

That tax money that should be going towards people and projects that actually need it, is instead going towards Chareidim who do nothing productive with their life, is disgusting.

Normal people in normal society don't work hard every day so that their hard-earned livelihood can go towards indulging some tiny, minority, extremist fringe of society.

[enwiabe]

Whoever said radical Judaism couldn't be just as bad as radical Islamism? They are, after all, cousins I know I await every one of Yitzi's posts with equal parts wide-eyed fear and excitement (at being provided this excellent vista into the actual private thoughts of an extremist).

For those playing along at home "Kol isha" means the "voice of a woman". Tl;dr Yitzi looks down on Alon because he treats women as equals and actually interacts with them and doesn't just see them as a baby-making vehicle to be seen but not heard.

[Thu Thu Train]

Comparing Judaism to Islam? This party is about to get started.

[ninwa]

A married woman who doesn't cover her hair is a parutzah who is being oiver an issur d'oraysa, as stated clearly by the Gemara and poskim down to the Mishna Berurah. However, this should be explained to her by means of education, not name-calling. So too anyone who speaks loshon ho'rah. (see Shemiras Ha'loshon by the Chofetz Chaim).

I don't know what this means exactly, but I think I would be safe in assuming it doesn't mean "a woman who doesn't cover her hair is just as morally righteous and godly as a woman who does!" and in fact means something quite the opposite.

How do you reconcile that kind of "you're a piece of meat that should be covered up" / "you're the property of your husband and only your husband can look at you" approach to women, with this statement?

And I take great offence to you saying that I do not want treat people with respect and dignity, just because I try to adhere to halacha as proscribed by the Shulchan Aruch. Many of those who follow the Shulchan Aruch most faithfully have the most respect for others.

I do not consider such an attitude to women anywhere close to approaching "respect".

edit: Of course, I apologise if I have interpreted the intention incorrectly and would be interested in what you think justifies this.

[Professor Polonsky]

Nina, I think the translation which would most accurately convey the meaning of prutzah is slut. Although I believe that the direct translation is harlot. Either way, you're an awful person Nina and how dare you not cover your hair. And sing in front of males.

Whoever said radical Judaism couldn't be just as bad as radical Islamism? They are, after all, cousins I know I await every one of Yitzi's posts with equal parts wide-eyed fear and excitement (at being provided this excellent vista into the actual private thoughts of an extremist).

Oh, I don't doubt at all the Haredim are extremists. They'll get their asses handed to them by the Israeli society at some point. While I don't doubt they would be capable of it, luckily they haven't gone down the 'mass violence targeting civilians' path. (Yet?)

The average Haredi male in Israel does not work, instead relying on his taxpayer-funded Yeshivah and his wife's minimum-wage job (as she is unlikely to have much of an education) to support himself. Oh, and how could I forgot the child benefits for their twelve kids, bred to be brainwashed into being even more extreme. It's a serious issue, as they're really a "demographic bomb" - not only are they a financial burden on society, but their proportion in the population will soon be large enough to democratically give them a veto power over anything.


Alon, the problem with the Haredim is that they view the canon of post-Biblical Rabbinical commentary as binding. For some reason, they view the word of men as the word of God, willing to trample on the obvious meaning of a text because some guy in the Middle Ages told them it should be interpreted differently. Rather than treating it logically and saying that the Tanakh is the supreme law, and commentaries and interpretations of it are just that... They've kind of got it the other way around.

By the way, Yitzi, is is permissible to marry more than one woman?