Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Real Achdus

Over the summer, starting with the kidnapping and murder of the three yeshivah boys (may God avenge their blood) and continuing on with the campaign in 'Aza a tremendous thing happened in Israel.  Something writers on various sides of the cultural/religious divide have been writing about for some time happened - a form of achdus.  Despite the religious lifestyles of the kidnapped boys the secular population responded with concern and sympathy.  They weren't three frum kids but "our boys".  When their fate was discovered the whole country mourned together, religious and non-religious.
Once the operation against 'Aza started the sense of community continued.  The secular population rallied around the soldiers with incredible energy.  The stories of people who worked to assist the soldiers with food and supplies, the billboards around the country on public and private buildings exclaiming support and gratitude for these klei kodesh were met with gestures from the Chareidi community where vacation was cancelled.  We may not accept the line "Our learning is the real protection" but their leaders believe it and kept their masmidim in their studies to help protect the soldiers.
Various writers have therefore starting asking: How do we keep this fledgling form of achdus alive?
Here's my simple suggestion: seek out the positive
Look, I think the whole achdus idea is overblown the way its usually defined.  We are a people constituted of various communities.  We can varying standards, customs and behaviours.  Worse, we invest each of those things with religious fervour.  You cannot expect a Litvack to abandon his black hat in the name of achdus any more than you can expect a Dati Leumi to stop saying the prayer for the State of Israel.  That kind of achdus isn`t going to happen.
Looking at the positive sounds simple but it`s not, despite it being what I think is the obvious solution.  It requires a sea change in the thinking of various Jewish groups.  The current "What I do is right which makes what you do wrong" paradigm has to change into "What I do is right but it's not the only right way to do it".
It's difficult because the former paradigm is easy to adopt.  It doesn't require a lot of thinking which is a common thing these days.  It's easy to see the world in black and white and reduces the amount of questioning one does of one's own self.  The latter opens up a can of complexities, not something people often want to do.
It's also difficult because we all love standards and chas v'shalom should anyone think I'm approving of abolishing those.  There are always limits to saying that what other people do is right.  I'm not saying, for instance, that I should be thinking that I keep Shabbos and that's okay while Fishel down the street doesn't keep Shabbos and that's okay too.  It's not okay not to keep Shabbos.
On the other hand I'm a jerk when it comes to interacting with other folks and Fishel happens to be the nicest guy who makes everyone he meets feel at ease and respected.  What he does is right and what I do is wrong in this case.
Here's another practical example.  It's easy to note that during the recent operation in 'Aza there were lots of reasons to criticize the Chareidi community.  They refused to say any prayers for the soldiers (a press release from the Agudah in America went as far as expressing gratitude for the US Army and its contributions to Iron Dome but not a word about Tzahal), they refused to send their boys to fight, etc.
Now look at the other side.  Yes, for those of us out here it seems like a little thing to cancel vacation and sit and learn instead but if you understand the Chareidi mentality this was a big move.  The same community that only a few months ago couldn't find enough curses for the Israeli government and the army was suddenly acknowledging a feeling of community with it, a need to contribute to the ongoing crisis.
One could note that those Chareidim that helped out with volunteer efforts to supply needed items to soldiers on the front lines were most Americans and baalei teshuvah but that doesn't diminish their Chareidi status.  They still helped out as best they could despite being part of that community and in many cases it was because they thought their community should be helping.
Look at the secular soldiers who, despite their lack of ritual observance, selflessly put their lives on the line over and over again because of their desire to protect their fellow Jews.  Is this such a small thing?  Do we only see the chilul Shabbos or do we also see this too?
Achdus isn't about a forced conformity but about looking for the positive, for shared values and a feeling of family.  We have to look beyond the flaws that we all display to others, beyond the negative we automatically seek out, and see those positive things.  This doesn't mean accepting those values we find inimical to our own but moving past them and building on those we have in common.
We are a large family surrounded by so many enemies.  We owe it to ourselves to at least try.

Monday, 8 September 2014

Too Much Love

It's no secret that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a staunch friend of Israel.  In contract to every other Western leader whose support of our State has other been mildly hostile, morally equivocable or present with reservations, Mr. Harper has time and time again demonstrated his unfailing support for Israel during its times of trouble.
The Israelis have noticed to.  During my recent trip to Israel I was told about Harper by all the Israelis I identified myself as a Canadian to.  Mind you, this didn't translate into a discount at the hotel but they were still glad I had chosen to stay there.
I'd like to suggest that this is actually a bad thing and that perhaps Mr. Harper should tone it down a little.
Granted some of it is the paranoid golus Jew in me, the "Sha, shtil" guy who just wants us to keep our collective heads down so no one notices us.  But part of me is worried about the fallout of Mr. Harper's principled and moral position, mostly because of what the future might hold.
For one thing the Canadian government's position on Israel hasn't been without consequences.  It cost Canada a seat on the UN Security Council, for example.  Now you and I know that the UN is a storage institution for bovine faeces and that the Security Council is a meaningless body within that pile of excrement but many Canadians still believe that the UN is worth something.  Losing out on a seat at the table with the "big boys" smarts for some and more than one columnist wondered if supporting Israel was worth taking that loss.
Then there are reports of Canadians having more trouble when travelling in the Arab parts of the MiddleEast because of the perception of Canada being an enthusiastic stooge to the Israeli "oppressor".  Canadians have long been smug about their international reputation and the urban legends of Americans putting Canadian flags on their luggage because they know they'll be greeted in a more friendly fashion.  Anything that tarnishes our "mostly harmless" reputation is frustrating.
Finally there is the next election to consider.  Stephen Harper will run against a socialist whose entire support base either wants him to pander to Quebec's sense of exceptionality or demands he perpetuate Marxist class warfare economics should he achieve power.  His other opponent will be a former school teacher who, prior to becoming the leader of his party, had no experience campaigning for office at any level, had achieved nothing exceptional in his life and whose entire celebrity status rested on his being the son of a former prime minister that our national broadcaster, the CBC, has spent decades convincing people that he wasn't the most hated Canadian leader in history when he retired (he was) but rather an enlightened philosopher king who presided over a golden age (he wasn't and didn't).  And guess who's leading in the polls?
If there's one thing you need to remember about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's foreign policy in the 1970's and early 80's it's that he never met a mass murdering Communist dictator he couldn't like and that he was disgusted with other Western leaders whom he saw as intellectually inferior to him, especially if they were American.  He also had little love for Israel and under his leadership Canada either abstained or voted in favour of anti-Israel motions at the UN.  From his few public statements on record so far, his son Justin seems to be cut from the same cloth.  He is on record as saying that dictatorship is a great form of government because when it comes to environmental protection initiatives it means not having to waste time with such things as the democratic process.  He has also expressed the classic Liberal support for Israel: sure we like Israel but we like its mortal enemies just as much and see no moral difference between the two sides.
This is where Mr. Harper's enthusiasm for Israel could eventually cause trouble. Imagine that in 2015 Justin Trudeau's Liberals win the federal election, chas v'shalom.  Imagine the first policy briefing where Justin is informed that Canada's biggest foreign policy problem is the perception that it is too pro-Israel and that this must be changed immediately?  How much of a swing would that entail?  How eager would Justin and his ilk be to demonstrate their "even handedness" as "fair brokers" in the MidEast "peace process"?  The more support Mr. Harper shows now, the harder Justin will have to work to convince some of the ugliest despots in the world that Canada is their drinking buddy too.  That might lead to tremendous damage to the Canada-Israel relationship and fallout for us, Israel's Canadian supporters.
Beauty, eh?

Monday, 4 August 2014

Ethnicity and Nationality

One of the weirdest phenomena among non-observant Jews is the idea of "Jewish pride".  You meet a Jewish guy or girl that is completely or mostly non-religious.  They might even be intermarried.  Suggest that they are anything other than a member of tribe in good standing and you get strong negative responses.  For a Torah observant Jew this often makes no sense.  It's the Wolowitz effect: he might be married to a Blonde Shiksa Goddess (same initials as his favourite TV show, BattleStar Galactica, am I the only one to notice that?), he might enjoy a good pork roast and have no trouble with going to the movies on Friday night but he is strongly proud of his jewish identity.  What gives?
It is important to remember that there are different understandings of what Judaism is out there in society.  For many of our non-observant brethren it is not a religious identity or a national one but rather simply one of ethnic belonging.  Vinnie is a good Italian even though he's married to a WASP, V. Stiviano is a good Polynesian even though she's hanging out with a racist Jew and Morris at the law firm is a great Jew even though he's got the firm's annual pool party to attend on Rosh HaShanah.  When it comes to ethnic identity it's the highlight of Western civilization: all entitlement, no obligations.
The reason I mention this is because much of modern kiruv is dedicated to appealing to just that ethnic identity.  Have you noticed?  Programs around holidays, fun events with alcohol and some kind of Jewish food, efforts to have Jewish boys meet Jewish girls to cut down on intermarriage, so much of the industry appeals to the ethnic Jew without a hint of the national aspect.
And I think this is very wrong.  It creates an impression that the real difference between a non-observant Jew and an observant one is in the amount of ethnic behaviours each engages in.  The Reformative Jew does Jewish things once in a while while the Orthodox one does them all the time but they're just behaviours.
In fact I think too many Orthodox Jews define their Orthodoxy this way.  It's not so much about beliefs and a feeling of connection with the Ribono shel Olam as it is about how much "doing Jewish" one can shove into one's life.  Behaviour without belief, is it any wonder that we see so many frum Jews in the news for the wrong reasons today?
I'm not saying that kiruv rechokim isn't important.  Frankly I think it's terribly important.  Too many of our brethren are cut off from their eternal heritage and their portion in Torah.  As observant Jews we have to feel a sense of crisis when 90% of us have forgotten or deny the Sinai experience.  However we have to ask: do we in the Orthodox community also need kiruv rechokim?  Do we need to correct those things we are doing wrong yet are treating as holy minhagim due to intellectual laziness and inertia?
We need to recall that we are not an ethnic group but a nation and as a nation we are defined by our connection to the Creator and His Torah, His expressed will for the way He wants the universe to run.  We need to put less emphasis on the ritual behaviours (although they remain important) and more on rebuilding each individuals sense of connection with God and our nation.  This means a kiruv system in which we openly identify ourselves as separate and different.  We don't want to attract unaffiliated brethren with humantaschen and klezmer music.  We want them to feel a part of the Jewish nation which includes identifying with our origins and having a desire to share our fate together as we stumble towards the Final Redemption.  Enough with lines like "If you keep taharas mishpacha you'll have a happier marriage" or "Keeping Shabbos keeps you happy".  Everyone knows that's a load. 
"If you keep taharas mishpachah you are fulfilling your obligation to God."  "We pray because we have an obligation to and a desire to speak to God."  It isn't as fun or sexy but it would create a better sense of commitment and understanding amongst new recruits and old ones as well.

Sunday, 3 August 2014

The Beast Reawakens

Those of us born in the West since the end of World War 2 live much different Jewish lives than our ancestors.  For millenia we have been discriminated again, persecuted, pillaged and murdered for the simple crime of being Jews.  The last three generations, on the other hand, have been almost the opposite.  We are now an integrated part of Western society, full mobile within it and possessed of the same rights as all other citizens of the countries in which we live.  Yes there have been occasional Jew-hating episodes here and there, and there's always the quiet Jew hatred of British civil society, but they have been aberrations, not the norm. 
In short, we have been on vacation and the vacation in ending.
It's not a terrible surprise to note that Europe is the vanguard in the resurgence of open and socially acceptable Jew hatred.  The influx of Muslims from poor and underdeveloped countries, with all their social prejudices and beliefs, along with a post-national multi-cultural death wish amongst the old stock Europeans which allowed these old world hatreds to fester and grow without any judgement against them, has brought out open Jew-hatred in Europe once again.  Simmering over the last 25 years, the pot is now on full boil with the onset of the latest Israel-'Aza war.
For years people warned of this and were dismissed as cranks and conspiracy theorists.  We were told about rule of law, about assimilation, about how "those days" were in the past.  Anyone reading the news these last couple of weeks knows that this is a lie.  Open calls for death to us, open calls for the destruction of Israel, open calls for boycotts of Jewish (not Israeli, pay attention, but specifically Jewish) shops and business, all the stuff of the early 1930's come back to life.  For years many of us warned that the situation in the West was growing eerily similar to the situation that brought Nazism to power and we were told we were overreacting.  When a Belgian doctor refuses to treat a Jewish pateitn, when shops in Europe post signs that say "Dogs are okay but no Jews allowed", are we still overreacting?
But surely the rule of law would still protect us.  Muslims may riot in the streets and attack synagogues but there are laws against those kinds of things.  Wouldn't the protests be controlled?  Wouldn't we be protected?
Let me share a cynical point: a law is only as effective as the will to uphold it.  If European or North American police are going to stand back and watch as a mob displays its bloodlust and attacks Jews or Jewish institutions then there is no security in knowing the law protects us.  As Europe's Jews have started to learn, the police have no interest in tangling with a large crowd of violence-happy Muslims intent on torching the local shul.  They'd rather not have to engage a crowd that size with all the implications such an encounter would engender and frankly most of them don't care as long as we're the target.
North America is still behind Europe in this latest trend.  Our immigrant Muslim populations are relatively smaller.  Our police forces are still not thrilled with the ideas of uncontained rioting.  But we in North America would be fools to think that in the next few years, certainly within the next decade or two, that the open and tolerated Jew hatred will find its way here.
During the Three Weeks we confront our dismal history and remember not only the destruction of our Temples (may it be speedily rebuilt) but also all the other tragedies that have occured to us over the centuries.  It is sad to think that on the horizon there are more waiting to happen after this prolonged period of peace and quiet but perhaps it is something we need to start adapting to.

Sunday, 1 June 2014

Forgetting The Advice of Pirkei Avos

One of the common customs of the frum community between Pesach and Shavous is to read Pirkei Avos, one chapter a week.  Avos, as is well known, is not a halachic tract but full of ethical and practical advice from the fathers of the our nation, Chazal.
The problem with this custom is that, for many, the reading of Pirkei Avos becomes yet another ritual.  The person reads through the chapter of the week like he reads through davening instead of paying attention to the words and trying to internalize their deeper meanings.  Perhaps familiarity also plays a role and eventually people who can recite the entire tractate off by heart fail to realize when a situation they're in calls for the advice in one of the mishnayos there.
This seems to be the case of the recent outburst of the Novominsker Rebbe that is making the rounds in the Jewish blogsphere.  At an official Agudah dinner, with the mayor of New York in attendance, the Rebbe decided to unleash a diatribe against the Reformative and Open Orthodox forms of Jewish practice.  Despite revisionist attempts to tone down the remarks or limit their intended targets (do these people not realize we can watch the video and see for ourselves?) there is growing outrage against the Agudah for allowing this attack to happen as well as against the mayor of New York for sitting there and not responding to the hateful comments.
Now let's say that the apologists are correct: the Rebbe was attacking the practice of the target groups, not the practitioners themselves.  On one hand I can appreciate the Rebbe's concerns.  Demographically it has long been established that Reformativism is a path to assimilation and disappearance.  Frankly, if it weren't for the Agudah's community supplying all the OTD's who knows how many non-religious Jews would be left.  I can also appreciate his concerns with Open Orthodoxy.  I'm not going to be as generous as Rav Harry Maryles in this regard.  From the new head of YCT on down there are massive problems with OO's theology and they frequently cross the line into non-Orthodox territory.  It must therefore be very frustrating for a "Gadol" who believes that to be really Orthodox you have to look and dress and speak exactly like him to find a group totally offside with those ikkarim who insist on calling themselves Orthodox. 
Having said that,the mishnah from Avos comes to mind: "Sages, be careful with your words!"
Years ago the Chareidim in Israel held a massive pro-Shabbos rally in Tel Aviv, the highlight of which was Rav Ovadiah Yosef, zt"l, quoting the posek: One who desecrates the Shabbos shall be surely put to death.  One of my chareidi friends told me how proud he was when Rav Ovadiah announced this.  That was telling 'em!
And then I questioned him: who was Rav Ovadiah speaking to?  Chareidim and other frum Jews don't need to be threatened with death to keep Shabbos.  We do it happily and willingly.  Non-religious Jews aren't interested in keeping Shabbos even at gunpoint.  So other than coming off as an ayatollah-like figure to the unaffiliated exactly what did he accomplish?
The Novominsker Rebbe needs to be asked this question.  All the people on that dais with him wearing the black hats don't see Reformativism as a legitimate expression of Jewish religious practice and have their doubts about Open Orthodoxy (assuming they've bothered to research the subject).  The mayor of New York probably doesn't understand the difference between Torah observant Judaism and the other "streams" and thinks them all equivalent, the way people don't judge between Catholics and Protestants.  The average Reformative Jews has never even heard of the Agudah, let along the Novominsker Rebbe and will see this story as yet another "Orthodox Jew says non-Orthodox Jews aren't real Jews".  Not a great achdus building moment. 
So like I asked my friend all those many years ago, who was the Novominsker Rebbe speaking to?

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

The Dictator In Waiting

Many Canadian voters don't seem to remember Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada from 1968-1983 (minus 9 months somewhere there in the late 1970's).  For those who don't it's worth recalling who the man was. 
PET, as he was unaffectionately known, was a very intelligent man.  Unfortunately he also had a good dose of narcissism and the belief that he was not only very smart but was the smartest man in the country.  He balanced this with a sense of comptent for all those who were less intelligent than him; his cabinet ministers, his caucus, and the great unwashed masses of voters who were, unfortunately in his eyes, necessary to ensure he remained prime minister because, after all, no one was as well qualified as him for the job.
Those of us who actually remember his rule and aren't dependent on the hagiographizing the CBC did after he left power and turned him into some kind of saint remember that his rule started with "Trudeaumania" and ended with corruption, binge government spending and a sinking of Canada's reputation in the world.
His was the government that introduced mandatory bilingualism into the civil service, thus ensuring French Quebecois dominance of that area.  He is remembered for effectively fighting the separatist forces in the 1980 Quebec referendum but, as author George Jonas as noted in The National Post on more than one occasion, that was because he was trying to deliver the whole country to the French, not just one province.
He was also morally corrupt, seeing virtue in mass murderers and autocratic thugs like Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro which heaping disrespect on American presidents and the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II.
And now, decades later, we in Canada are faced with the possibility of another Trudeau ascending "the throne", as it were.  PET's son Justin, the current leader of the Liberal party, is currently sitting pretty in the polls.  There is no federal election scheduled until next year but if the current numbers hold there is a good possibility of him becoming the next prime minister.
What do we know about Justin?
Well, unlike his father who had an actual long-term career before entering politics Justin really hasn't accomplished anything.  He taught here and there for short periods of time and.... well that's about it.  No prior history of leadership positions.  No real deep experience with national policy making. 
Then there's his beliefs, something he's very happy to share.  He has let us know, for example, that he admires the Chinese government because they can inflict their policy on the population without having to waste time with such annoyances as consulting that population.  He sees tremendous potential for this model when it comes to implementing environmental policies, for example.  Democracy, it would seem, is as much an annoyance for him as it was for his father.  It's silly to rely on the general voting public because they might not make the right decision, ie. the one he wants to make.
He's also very selective on who he thinks a real Canadian is.  He looks to Quebec and its famously permissive and moral simplistic culture and has opined, again publicly, that if the rest of the country develops a more conservative bent then Quebec would be justified in seceding from Canada so these liberal values of theirs aren't affected.  In other words, he's a loyal Canadian only as long as Canada reflects his values.
There was his publicity stunt in which he fired all Liberal senators from his party in order to show his seriousness on Senate reform.  Now, for my American reader(s), it is important to understand that the Canadian Senate is not equivalent to the American one.  It is a house of patronage, a place media celebrities and failed politicians go to retire and suck off the public teat until their turn 75.  It rarely does anything productive and if it disappeared into a giant sinkhole its absence would take weeks to be noticed. 
On the surface, then, Trudeau's stunt was a good one.  We don't like senators, so his party no longer has them.  Unfortunately he made this decision without telling any Liberal senators, some of them good party members since his father was prime minister.  Few of them agreed and they still call themselves Liberals and feel they're part of the party.  A great stunt that changed nothing.
Finally there's his most recent announcement.  Again, for my American reader(s) it's worth noting that Canada has not had any laws regulating abortion since the late 1980's when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the existing ones.  Any attempt to bring up the discussion of some kind of regulation or at least oversight brings out the usual crew of harpies who scream "You hate women!  You're all fascist arseholes" and the like.  In this regard I'm jealouse of the USA.  The discussion there may be heated but at least there's a discussion.  In Canada no one wants to bring up the subject because they don't want to deal with the histrionics.
And Trudeau is fine with that.  So fine, in fact, that he announced that anyone who is pro-life is persona non-grata within the Liberal party.  Yes, he clarified that he doesn't expect people to change their personal beliefs.  Pro-lifers can still join the party but once they are members they must publicly support abortion just like he, a good Roman Catholic, does.
All this before the man has achieved an ounce of power.  Can you imagine the demagogery he'll unleash once he actually does?

Sunday, 18 May 2014

Did He Say It Or Not

As first reported on Failed Messiah and other blogs (which have since removed the posts for reasons unknown), a Rav at the heiliger Mir Yeshivah recently gave a class in which he claimed Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, shlit"a, called for an armed revolt against the Israeli government for its daring to consider drafting Chareidi boys into the army. 
The reaction to the speech was swift and fierce.  How could a "Gadol" say such a thing?  How could a maggid shiur repeat it with obvious approval?
And then it turned out not to be true.  Rav Shteinman never said such a thing, at least not to this Rav.  He had made pretty much the entire thing up and had to issue an apology.  Sorry, it's all a mistake, I shouldn't have done this, let's move on and why are you all still paying attention to me?  I said I was sorry.
There are a few reasons why the issue cannot simply be left alone.  Let's point them out:
1) Even if this Rav was simply sharing his feelings, why did he feel he needed to state them in the name of Rav Shteinman?  Did he feel that doing that would give a needed legitimacy to his statements?  Perhaps make them more acceptable to his students?
2) Did it occur to him that there is already a credibility issue when it comes to statements from "the Gedolim"?  As Rav Eliashiv, zt"l, noted years ago, "If you didn't hear it from my mouth, don't assume I said it."  Have we reached the point that, unless they're caught on video, any statement, any official teshuvah, can be safely ignored since we didn't hear it directly from "the Gadol" in question?
3) Did Rav Shteinman, in fact, say something to this effect?  Well it's not impossible.  Since the current government took power we have heard all sorts of name calling out of the Chareidi community.  Words which should be used with great caution, like "Nazi" and "Cossack", are tossed around like candies at a bar mitzvah.  Is it so hard to think that Rav Shteinman might have muttered something like "Well they're just like Amalek and I wish the same thing would happen to them!"?  And if he did then is this Rav actually doing us a service by letting us know?
It's almost getting to repetitive to write about this.  Yes, we all know the Chareidi community is upset about the draft.  We also all know that it's for all the wrong reasons, such as a fanatical aversion to any hakaras hatov to the State of Israel which has bankrolled their existence for 66 years and a distaste for any serious interactions with their fellow Jews in which they are not in control.  It is still upsetting to consider that men who claim to be serious learners, who spend days trying to understand all the implications of a single word in the Gemara, can carelessly throw out such insults and then be genuinely flummoxed when those insults invite an angry response.
At least the secular community has shown tremendous patience in response to the extended temper tantrum they've been witnessing.  Let us hope and pray that this patience doesn't run out soon.

Monday, 5 May 2014

Depserately Needed OutReach

That Jewish society evolves over time should not come as a shock to anyone.  Israeli society, as a part of the greater Jewish nation, is no different.  Today on Yom Ha'atzmaut it would be a good idea to reflect on how Israeli society has changed, from the ealy days of the first Aliyos to today.
The changes currently occuring are worth paying attention to and, for the Religious Zionist movement, responding to with a new initiative.  Secular Zionism, written off in the surge of post-Zionism after the first Oslo Discord was signed, has started to stage a comeback due to the efforts of its two current champions, Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni.  Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, its religious members not withstanding, is about creating a secular israeli movement with cultural trappings of Judaism as long as they don't interfere with secular liberal values.  Much like the original Labour Zionists, Lapid wants to remold Israeli society in a secular Western one with cultural hints of its religious origins.  Tzipi Livni is even more direct as her ongoing opposition to Bibi Netanyahu's efforts to ensure Israel is recognized as a Jewish state indicate.  Having failed to sell out Israel to its enemies through negotiation she is open about her desire for the state to commit cultural suicide and give up its principle Jewish nature.
Against this we have the Chareidi community which, more than ever, wishes to monopolize Judaism to itself, leaving everyone else, regardless of level of identification or observance, on the outside.  For their leadership Israel is a piggybank to be raided whenever desired and then spit on after the withdrawal is made.  Yes there is a large and powerful Chareidi outreach industry but it is not interested in greater Jewisih nationhood, only in bringing people into whatever branch of the Chareidi community the particular organization represents while presenting that branch as the totality of Judaism.
It is therfore imperative that Religious Zionism, still feeling some sense of confidence with the presence and success of Bayit Yehudi, to get into the outreach game.
Religious Zionist outreach should not follow the Chareidi model.  It is not in anyone's interest to hire people to preach to the unattached about the benefits of wearing a kippah serugah and singing loudly on Yom Ha'atzmaut.  Rahter, this outreach should follow the model created by the early Zionists if it wishes to make a real difference.
For those who don't remember, Secular Zionism's early modus operandi was to speak of the "New Jew".  Now, this Jew had very little to do with Judaism and, in fact, defined himself by opposing many Jewish values.  Zionists spoke of the downtrodden, defeatist golus Jews and how the New Jew, unlike his predecessor, would stand upright, be equal with members of other nations and embrace world culture in its fullest.  He would embrace work, culture and enlightenment and these New Jews would show the world that our nation, far from being a different, isolated culture, represented the best of what the family of nations had to offer.
The advantage of this model was that it was global.  It appealed to the non-religious European socialist Jew, the one who already had a foot out the door due to assimilation and the allure of non-Jewish philosophies.  It also appealed to the religous Jew, sick of his ghetto existence, overbearing rabbinic leaders and a life of poverty and wordly ignorance.  The promise of a new Jewish society, even if there was nothing really Jewish about it except the ethnic background of its members, held great appeal.
The main failing of Secular Zionism was that it was geared towards nation building.  One the country was built and running it lost a lot of its appeal.  It's one thing to appeal to a person to become a pioneer and drain the swamp.  The pioneer who becomes a career person and lives in the apartment building where the swamp once stood isn't always as full of idealism. 
The other failing is that its underlying motto, "Let's show all the peoples of the world that we can do whatever they do!" isn't really that inspiring.  Okay, you've built a secular socialist democracy.  So what?  It's been done.
Here is where Religious Zionism must come in.  Like the secular counterpart, Religious Zionism calls out for the creating of a "New Jew".  This model, however, is vastly different from the secular one.  First we must examine what the Old Jew is.  One type of Old Jew is one that practices a Judaism bereft of any national element.  He has a life of common ritual, perhaps even a specific outfit he wears every day like a uniform, but outside of the personal element there is no real application of his Judaism.  Because he doesn't understand the priorities of a nation he cannot fully comprehend certain issues.  The same Jew who will only touch a jug of milk with four hechsherim doesn't feel repelled by cheating on his taxes.  He can understand how tefillin are made, not so much how societies function on a macro level because it's simply not part of his Judaism.  Despite this he sees other Jews, religious and non-religious, and wonders about his connection to them.  He hears the Chareidi propaganda on how evil the State of Israel is but can't udnerstand it because it contradicts the reality of Israel he has seen with his own eyes.
The other type is one that sees being Jewish as an ethnic identity.  Being Jewish means a special type of cuisine, certain holidays, perhaps an appearance from time to time in the local "temple" as a show of cultural awareness.  He might not even been aware of the national concept of Judaism, seeing himself as a Canadian of Jewish background, a Jewish Canadian rather than a Canadian Jew.  Yet when the annual JNF appeal envelope arrives in his mailbox or the newcaster on the radio starts a sentence with "In Israel today..." something stirs within him, a sense that there is a connection to other Jews he has nothing in common with even though he doesn't understand why that connection exists.
(Before anyone starts screaming, I'm not suggesting all Jews other than Religious Zionists fit into one of these two categories.  I'm identifying two specific groups within the Jewish community that I believe are relevant to my point)
Religious Zionist outreach needs to develop a system that reaches out to these two groups.  For the Chareidi the message must be a simple one of completeness.  A Chareidi, by definition, wants to be the best Jew he can be, to worship God in as full a fashion as possible.  Almost two thousand yeaers of exile has caused us, including "the Gedolim", to become convinced that Judaism minus the national component, is a complete package but even a cursory perusal of the classic sources like, oh say, the Tanach and Talmud shows that this is not the case.  Adding the national component to his observance would enhance the Chareidi Jewish practice by reintroducing those long-dormant elements.  Now the Chareidi learns Nezikin and about whose ox gores whose before falling into a pit someone else left in the public thoroughfare.  Imagine approaching these teachings from a perspective of modern concepts in damage.  Imagine that being the mandatory way of learning those gemaras because they are now relevant in daily societal life.
In addition there is a concept of greater Jewish nationhood that Religious Zionism offers.  As opposed to the parochial "Us first and only" ghetto model of Judaism espoused by many Chareidi leaders Religious Zionism offers the Chareidi a chance to be part of a growing, dynamic nation.  Imagine Chareidim in the workplace serving as positive models of strict Torah observance in both personal and public arenae, just like their Religious Zionist counterparts.  Imagine Chareidi soldiers infused with a sense that they are not simply doing their civic duty but performing the mitzvah of protecting other Jewish lives every moment they're awake.
For the non-religious Old Jew Religious Zionism offers the ultimate cultural identity.  For many non-religious Jews our nation is irrelevant because it doesn't seem to offer what modern society does.  Religious Zionism, with its mission to create and run a modern state al pi halacha as much as possible, provides an alternative model.  You can be a modern person, you can be a member of a society, all while expressing Jewish values and behaviours.  If one is looking for a complete cultural identity along with a sense of purpose, Judaism can offer this and, along the way, these folks can learn that through Torah observances one leads a more complete life, feels a greater sense of identity with the Jewish nation and helps move history forward to the completion of the Final Redemption.
In other words, I'm not suggest Religious Zionist equivalents of Chabad Houses or Aish HaTorah seminars.  Yes there are elements of those models that need to be imitated if this outreach initiative is going to succeed but as opposed to how the Chareidi model works, waiting for the non-religious guy to come to them, Religios Zionism needs to go to the people, in both the Chareidi and non-religious communities and show, through example, through vigorous challenge and debate, the value of the complete national approach to Judaism and how it is the future model of our nation.

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

Of Rebbe Stories

Despite being an important secondary character in a great fantasy fiction trilogy, I'm not exactly a story person.  To qualify, I love fictional stories about fictional characters but am less thrilled when presented fictional stories about real people and expected to believe they're true.
Maybe it's also my dislike of naturohomeopaths.  Have you ever noticed that, for all their hocus-pocus talk, they don't really have cures for anything that matters?  Oh they'll whip up something for that trick knee or persistent cough but when it comes to something real and substantial like, say, a heart attack or end-stage cancer they're all talk and it's up to real physicians to save the day.
As a result I've never been a fan of "rebbe stories".  You know the ones I mean.  The am ha'aretz goes to the Rebbe, needs a miracle and so the Rebbe prays for him and the miracle happens, usually in a way that confers a moral lesson.
Again, as a story they're cute.  It's when people say "And you know, it really happened that way!" that I get annoyed.
Sometimes it's a little different.  There's the story I once heard from the local Lubavitcher about how one of their Rebbes needs to be exhumed long after his burial.  Despite the prohibition of doing it, some of the handlers opened the casket because they wanted to see the state of the body.  After all, the Gemara tells us that the perfectly righteous do not decompose in the grave and their Rebbe had been perfectly righteous.  Naturally, as the story goes, his body looked exactly as it had on the day of his death, confirming the literal truth of the Gemara.
I pointed out to him that this story was clearly rigged.  Imagine, I told him, that you're one of the handlers.  You crack open the coffin convinced you're going to see a pristine body.  Instead you see some bones and leftover, mummified pieces of flesh.  What are you going to tell people?  That the Gemara is wrong?  That the Rebbe wasn't perfectly righteous?
What bothers me about the stories is that the miracles are never anything significant.  The poor guy gets an unexpected challah from Shabbos, an infertile woman conceives, all fell-good but small time events.  Why are there no stories about the local Polish overlord calling off a massive pogrom once it was underway?  Why nothing about relieving the massive widespread poverty of eastern Europe's Jews?  Why no Moshiach being summoned to bring our final revelation?
I thought about this even more when I recently read Joe Bobker's excellent book excerpt on the response of various rabbinic leaders to the Holocaust.  Now, there's a lot of people out there who believe they know two things about rabbonim and the Holocaust.  One, that many leaders told their flocks to stay put which led to increased slaughter.  Two, that some leaders took off and abandoned their flocks.
As Bobker cogently notes, we cannot judge since we have the benefit of hindsight and a lack of understand of the situation as it was for those rabbonim.  For example, many leaders thought that World War II would be a repeat of World War I, a few years of hellish fighting and then the resumption of regular society.  Staying put or fleeing a short distance was what worked from 1914-1918 so there was good reason to think it would help again.
Additionally we have to remember that, despite the bellicose threats of total extermination by Adolph Hitler, y"sh, few people took him seriously.  They expected oppression, pogroms and small scale murder but not the industrialized massacre that was being planned.  Even the Nazis, y"sh, didn't openly admit to their Jewish victims what they were doing.  Jews being deported to death camps were told they were being relocated, often told to bring belongings and provisions for the journey.  It is unfair for us to say "Well those rabbonim knew what were going to happen!"  No one knew, including them.
What caught my attention in the article, however, were two items I'd not heard before.  One was that the Chofetz Chayim, zt"l, was asked to curse Hitler and didn't on the assumption that what was happening as the Nazis came to power was God's will and couldn't be trifled with.  The other was that the Belzer Rebbe, zt"l, was asked to petition God to stop the Holocaust and also refused for the same reason.
On the surface it seems like both leaders were extremely cold and uncaring.  Jews were being slaughtered en masse and the answer is "Well God wants it that way so what do you expect from me?"
However, as I noted above this seems to put the "rebbe stories into their proper perspective.  Like the Lubavitchers opening the casket there's only so much one could expect.  Imagine the Belzer Rebbe, in full regalia with all his followers watching.  He lights the right candles, says the right words in Yiddish and Aramaic, and then... nothing.  The Nazis are still outside, the crematoria are still running.  What does he do next?  He's the tzaddik, the guy who says "jump!" and God asks "How high?"
Imagine the Chafetz Chayyim publicly cursing Hitler and his monsters using all the right incantations.  What does he do when nothing happens?
Perhaps these two saintly men knew this, that the stories are just stories.  Perhaps they knew that, if they were pushed into performing an actual miracle they would fail and that this would cause a loss of faith in their followers who had been educated and conditioned to believe that these men had God's ear and obedience, k'b'yachol.
Perhaps that's what I don't like the stories.  They are the result of a cultural need for simplicity and understandable connection to the Divine in a religion that simply doesn't work that way.  Is is so hard to get past such simple linear thinking?

Sunday, 27 April 2014

The Nightmarish Ideal

One of the recurring words that come from the PR hacks in the UltraOrthodox world is "mesorah". Mesorah is trotted out time and time again to explain inflexible positions on certain issues or opposition to innovative ideas or suggestions on controversial subjects.  We are assured that the mesorah has already spoken on such things and that there is one position, one only, that is the correct one.
Did you ever wonder what the ultimate incarnation of the mesorah would be according to these guys?  Their fantasy Jewish society in which everything happens by the book, their book?
Two recent articles in two major Chareidi magazines might be giving us a strong hint of that that dream is and if you're a thinking person it should scare you silly. 
The first is a recent article in Mishpachah Magazine, usually touted as a moderate Chareidi publication as it admis the existence of non-Chareidi rabbonim without automatically denigrating them.  As detailed by JewishWorker it contains a description of life in the American Chasidic village of New Square:
The piece emphasized the total conformity in New Square in every aspect of life. Here are some example:

1.There are no restaurants, bakeries, prepared food stores in all of New Square. The only supermarket sells only basic items, no prepared food, no national brands. Everyone eats the same few staples

2.Everyone eats the exact same food on Shabbos. For example, the menu in every family in New Square for the Friday night meal without exception is

1.Gefilte fish

2.Chicken Soup


4.Fruit compote for desert

3.There are no individual simchas. Every Shabbos there are approximately 10 aufrufs and ten bar mitzvas, they only throw candy at the end for everyone and there is 1 small kiddush after davening

4.There is only 1 shul with only 1 minyan. On Shabbos morning at 8AM they start saying Tehilim for 3 hours, at 11AM they start Shacharis which takes over 3 hours

5.There are 3 tishes every Shabbos which everyone must attend

6.All the men dress exactly the same down to the boots that they all wear.

7.There is complete separation between men and women

1.separate sidewalks, one side men one side women, married couples aren't allowed to walk together
2.separate waiting rooms at the doctor
3.mechitza buses
4..women leave shul after kedusha so that when the men leave there isn't a woman around

Another aspect mentioned in the article is the fact that the Rebbe is in total control of the town. The mayor, city councilmen, city workers are all appointed by the Rebbe and nothing happens without his say so. Since, the Rebbe is the absolute focus of the town, before anyone does anything they consult the Rebbe. Consulting the Rebbe is not cheap, first you have to pay the Kvitel writer, then there is a Gabbai in charge of the door to the Rebbe's room, you have to pay him as well. Last but not least you need to leave money for the Rebbe himself when you finally meet him
Charming, yes?  And lest you think this is a one off phenomenon, Ami Magazine recently features a piece on those lovable Canadian misfits, the Lev Tahor cult.  As detailed by the Bray of Fundie and Rav Harry Maryles the writers did not come so much to critically assess the cultists as to defend them.  Other than opining that the burka probably isn't a great idea there was apparently little in the article about the midn control, malnutritions, health issues and child abuse that are the defining features of this group. 
What the two articles seem to have in common is this: both want to present communities in which there is no freedom of information, no freedom of thought, no freedom of movement, no freedom of education, and complete dictatorial control by a single man who thinks he's God's personal representative on Earth as "nice Jewish communities".
Is this the true face of the mesorah the Agudah would like us to believe in?  Is living a Stalinist life of complete conformity the ideal Jewish experience?  Check your brains at the door and just say "Baruch HaShem" when you're told to?

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Amalek, Amalek, Amalek

Last night one of the recurring shnorrers who come to my neighbourhood stopped by for a visit.  Despite being a Satmar chasid we've always gotten along quite well.  I'm not a fool to think that the cheques I give him aren't a fundamental reason for that but his visits have come to be more than just a quick drop-in.  He's always eager to exchange divrei Torah, enjoys reading my Rav Kook seforim (naturally his own shul doesn't carry those) and understands why I'm not interested in having a copy of Vayoel Moshe on my bookshelf.
During his visit last night he asked me my opinion of the ongoing draft controversy in Israel.  Of course he had been told by his community leaders all the standard lies the Chareidi leadership is spreading, about how the draft is part of the secular plot to destroy Torah in Israel and the like.
So I countered back that the draft would, if anything, enhance the position of the Torah community in Israel if the Chareidim would cooperate properly with it.  This would seem to go contrary to the assertion of the Chareidi leadership that this attempt to draft their young 'uns is equivalent to the worst anti-Jewish atrocities in history.  I pointed out that a life of poverty is a terrible thing to inflict on an entire community.  I also noted that at its height the kollelim of Europe had a few hundred men learning full-time and that full-time full-community kollel is a post-war innovation whose time seems to have come and gone.
He himself noted that in Europe you had to be an ilui to get into the system, that an average person showing up and announcing that he wanted to learn full-time would have been laughed at and told to find a job.  He also noted that the level of mesirus nefesh of those European learners far exceeds that of those nowadays who, despite the privations of their undesirable financial status still have living standards that far exceed those of our ancestors.
Then I mentioned that the army has bent over backwards to accomodate the Chareidim it will draft in terms of men-only environments, a mix of army duty and learning, a shortened service period, ultra-kosher food on the bases, etc.  I pointed out that with all the verbal abuse and threats coming out of the Chareidi community's representatives it is a testament to the innate kindness of the secular population that there hasn't been an attempt to mass-deport the Chareidim from the country.  What kind of people get called Nazis, Russians, animals and the like, get compared to the worst villians in Jewish history, get told they are trash after giving over billions of dollars for nothing in return and don't react strongly but instead try to find further ways to compromise?  In short, if Chazal believed that compromise in dispute was a noble goal, who's acting more observant?
My acquaintance seemed to understand that point.  He asked what interest the Dati Leumi had in all of this, if they were religious why were they supporting the draft?  I told him that there is no reason a religious Jew can't serve in the army and that the presence of so many religious Jews might just have a profound effect on the non-religious boys they come in contact with.  They have so much potentials to produce a huge kiddush HaShem how could they not jump at the opportunity?
Finally I pointed out that even many Chareidi authorities (although it is generally denied now) lauded the creation of the State of Israel as a show of kindness from the Ribono shel Olam, a great demonstration of His chesed after the horrors of the Holocaust.  To stand up as a community and say that they want no part in this divine gift, that they don't even recognize God's hand in it and what's more they will vigorouly fight against its ongoing success and refuse to contribute to it is an incredible show of ingratitude and a rejection of God Himself, no matter how much they want to delude themselves that they are the real upholders of His Will in this world.
This guy listened.  Unfortunately there are others out there who still have their heads in the sand.  Rav Yaakov Mencken, once again, exemplifies all those who give the rest of the Jewish world the impression that Chareidim are rude ingrates who have no appreciation or respect for "the other".  It is hard to decide what part of his article is most insulting.  Is it the part where he lionizes the yeshivah boy arrested for refusing to be drafted who then acts like he's really showed those nassssssty secular Israelis the true power of Torah?  Is it his praise of Rav Shmuel Auerbach who, until yesterday (it seems) was in the Chareidi doghouse for daring to defy the political opinions of Rav Shteinman and Rav Kaneivsky?  Suddenly he's a darling in the Chareidi community for his role in promulgating the "right" behaviour.
Maybe it's his use of the word "racism" in the title, one which betrays a complete lack of understanding of the word's meaning and cheapens it through its inappropriate use.  Perhaps its his conclusion in which he essentially calls anyone who disagrees with him "Amalek", a charge he then denies in the comments section as if we're idiots who can't read and need him to interpret his own simplistic scrawlings for us.
The best response to this dribble is from a post at Rationalist Judaism in which the guest author, one Rav Moshe Gold points out the obvious:
 In fact, I can't think of a single area in which you participate with the rest of Klal Yisrael. In one of my more aggressive moments I asserted that since the State and the IDF have been doing so well for 66 years without your prayers, let's better leave it that way. We don't want to rock the boat, you know.
Yes indeed.  One of the reasons this argument has gone on for so long is because we see the Chareidim as members of the Jewish family.  They aren't co-citizens or co-religionists. They are our brothers, our family dating back to Yaakov Avinu, a"h.  People are prepared to spend a lot more emotion and effort to help family than neighbours or strangers.  But there are limits, especially when that family treats you like trash and compares you to the worst scum of history.
Perhaps it is time to point out that we really don't need this abuse.  We've accomplished a great deal as a people in the last 60 years deespite the Chareidim, not because of them.  Maybe we should wait for them to come to us?

Monday, 7 April 2014

Olive Me

Full disclosure off the top: I worked in an Israeli olive factory for a year when I was in high school.  One of the entry level jobs for rookies was "the olive line" where workers sat and watched the product roll past them on a conveyor belt.  The job entailed grabbing those olives that looked defective and removing them from the belt to ensure only nice looking olives made it into the cans and jars to be sold.  Even with headphones tuned to the rock radio station in Jordan it was mind-numbing work but it did teach me one thing: the size of an olive.
I mention this because, like clockwork, the issue of how much matzah to eat at the Seder next week, has once again surfaced in the Jewish blogsphere.  This amount is, al pi halacha, the amount of an olive's bulk of matzah, a k'zayis.  Naturally Jews have to argue about anything so when it comes to this issue the argument is: how big is an olive?
You'd think that it would easy to end this discussion.  Olives come in a few varieties so find the biggest one and say "That's how much matzah you have to eat".  This is the one solution that, to my knowledge isn't considered viable by most people.  Instead we have a notion, based more on opinion than any real historical fact, that olives shrunk significantly in size somewhere in the last 2000 years which means our current k'zayis is way below the minimum amount necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of achilas matzah.
Rav Natan Slifkin has already dealt with this issue at length and I have nothing to add to his scholarship on the matter.  There are definitely different opinions and those of the great poskim of the last 1000 years cannot simply be dismissed due to lack of historical agreement with their positions.  They are the gedolei Yisrael upon whose words we rely.  But when people distort their words or amplify them we are in a worse position.
For example, the recent article at Yeshiva World by Rav Yair Hoffman does exactly that.  Rav Hoffman starts by presenting an opinion, that of following the maximum number of authorities with divergent opinions when performing a specific ritual, as a near universal practice.  While this occurs quite frequently there are many other times when we pick one authority or a minority and go with them.  Sometimes who we side with changes depending on extenuating circumstance in different eras.  Yes, fulfilling as many opinions as possible is definitely desirable but not when it leads to bizarre behaviour or contortions in logic to justify itself.
It seems, according to Rav Hoffman, that not only do we have to conform to the ever-expanding definition of k'zayis (once the size of an olive, eventually some bright young posek somewhere will declare it to be half a canteloupe) but we have to eat twice as much of it and all in two minutes!
Add to all of that the fact that the burnt oversized crackers we eat are not really traditional matzah but a result of hard necessity a few centuries ago.  Soft pita I could see shoving into one's month at a reasonable rate but spit-absorbing crackers?  Won't happen.
Here's my suggestion: Rav Chaim Volozhiner, zt"l, is, in all other respects, an important posek and a huge Gadol in the chain of halachic transmission.  If he says that an olive is an olive then I think we can rely on his formidable knowledge in the matter.  After all, he and his mentor, the Vilna Gaon, ztk"l, are not known for a lenient and superficial approach to p'sak.
There is a further reason to take this position, one that is often forgotten by most folks in their zeal to do "the right thing".  The Torah tells us to rejoice on our holidays. Now I've heard it said that this only applies to Sukkos which is called "chag" by the Torah which means that we are allowed to make ourselves miserable on Pesach.  I'm not sure that's really the optimal understanding of the verse.  We are meant to enjoy Yom Tov, the better to appreciate the bounty the Ribono shel Olam has given us, the better to allow His splendour to interact with us.

Friday, 14 March 2014

Is The Real Modern Orthodoxy Standing Up?

One of the shows I've recently gotten into is The Newsroom.  No, not the Canadian version from 1996 but the current American version starring Jeff Daniels as an idealistic news anchor interested in educating and civilizing the American public through his televised programs.
Jeff Daniels' character, Will MacEvoy, is a classic example of the lack of imagination of liberal Hollywood writers.  Possibly in order to change things up from his previous hit series, The West Wing, creator Aaron Sorkin has cast MacEvoy as an admitted Republican.  However, he's a Republican that seems to be indistinguishable from any Democrats you might meet, sharing all their important values and worshipping the same political heroes as them.  Sorkin seems to believe that a Republican who actually believes in Republican values couldn't successfully be portrayed as a nice guy and heroic figure on television.
In a few ways this is the way some in the non-religious Jewish community want Orthodoxy to be portrayed.  They're okay with the idea of Orthodoxy, you understand.  The idea that people worship on a regular basis, keep a specific diet and don't watch television one day a week is something they can live with.  However, when it comes to the really important things like egalitarianism in religious practice, accepting homosexual marriage as normative or encouraging abortion as a form of birth control they become quite irritated when told that Orthodox Judaism does not accept any of these things, actually holds values opposed to them and no, there's no room for compromise or acceptance, thanks for asking.
In other words, they're okay with the Orthodox who aren't really Orthodox.  The ones who are can't be portrayed as nice guys or heroes.
We've seen lots of statements to this effect throughout the Jewish blogosphere since two Modern Orthodox schools decided to allow their female students to start wearing tefillin during prayer services.  The statements all basically follow the same format: if these girls want to wear tefillin not only should they be allowed but Orthodoxy should change to make this regular practice.  In other words, be Orthodox but don't let your Orthodoxy conflict with secular liberal values.
For those who are worried about what this will do to the Modern Orthodox community I would respond positively.  For decades Modern Orthodoxy has been drifting between two opposed forces.  Modern Orthodoxy is not Reformative, on one hand, and not Chareidi on the other.  Despite the various attempts mades by luminaries of the movement there has been little to define it any more than that.  I believe that the challenge of Morethodoxy and its ongoing attempts to introduce secular liberal values into its worship and belief system will change that.  It will force Modern Orthodoxy to define itself.
Now some of this definition will be based on a poor reasons: MO's don't want their Chareidi brethren openly laughing at them (quietly laughing at them behind their backs, on the other hand, seems to be fine).  Modern Orthodoxy's leaders will be pressed to better define what they stand for and what their expectations are from their laity if only to save face during interactions with their Chareidi counterparts. 
On the other hand, the actions of Morethodoxy will be defining because they will raise specific questions people will have to answer.  Questions like "Who is qualified to make a major change in Jewish tradition?"  The Morethodox answer seems to be "Anyone with a Bar Ilan USB stick" and the sincerest of intentions.  The more traditional answer, "highly qualified and experience poskim" will come to define Modern Orthodoxy. 
This will have another overall effect as well.  As noted above, Modern Orthodoxy has been defined as "Not here nor there".  With Morethodoxy working more and more towards breaking away from its Orthodox veneer this will leave the community left behind more homogenous.  Not homogenous as in the Chareidi definition of the word (I'm not going out to buy a black hat any time soon) but with a greater understanding of Rabbinic authority and its role in Jewish practice.  As Rav Avrohom Gordimer notes in his latest piece on Cross Currents, it's a Modern Orthodoxy that once again recognizes that the halachic decision making process is not one of anarchy but a well-structured approach that results in consistent leadership.
Unfortunately it will leave Modern Orthodoxy as a diminished community in size for certainly many bright and talented people will leave with Rabbi Avi Weiss and his band of merry men and maharats.  They will do so for the most genuine and sincerest of reasons, convinced they are truly doing God's will and are still Orthodox but they will leave behind a Modern Orthodoxy that at least has a better sense of what it is and what is stands for.

Thursday, 13 March 2014

Global Bovine Faeces Part 2

In my last post I noted reasons why I simply can't roll over and accept the position of the ecofascist lobby when it comes to climate change.  Truth be told, I do believe that some climate change is happening which is a difference from what I might have said a few years ago but I remain convinced that it is a natural piece of environmental evolution, that humanity isn't contributing significantly to it and that the best response to climate change is to adapt to it.
Despite all the evidence supporting this position the ecofascists are having none of it.  Over and over again they shout that mankind is the worst thing to ever happen to the planet and that radical changes to reduce carbon utilization are necessary to prevent a global catastrophe.  Self delusion might be one explanation but I think there's another that needs to be considered.
The history of the world is full of great powers that sought out domination over others.  Since the rise of Islam in 600 it has engaged in an ongoing international conflict with Chrisianity for religious and territorial domination, a conflict that subsided into the background during the 20th century after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of international communism.  For those following events around the globe this conflict is slowly regaining predominance even if the Chrisian side doesn't realize or want to accept it yet.
During the 20th century the grand global conflict was between capitalism, as championed by the West, and communism as championed by the Soviet Union and China.  Communism was not a benign economic philosophy, not in the least.  It was and is a malignant poltical ideology that seeks, as its ideal, to place as much of the globe as possible under totalitarian rule with tools like thought control and other Orwellian devices to ensure the unwashed masses remain in line.  The West, and America especially with its believe in the free market, free press and free speech were the enemies of this ideology and had to be crushed.
Unfortunately for communism its representatives in the late 20th century weren't very good at propagating this aim.  Unlike the glory days until Stalin, y"sh, leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev were better at being petty totalitarians.  China's leaders today might call themselves communist but are robber baron capitalists in fact and deed.  Communism, for its devout adherents, is on life support.  Even the kibbutzim have mostly abandoned their Marxists origins and function today and profit-making collectives. 
In fact the only real drive left of communism is a vitriolic hatred of the West and capitalism.  The same folks who once believed the Soviet Union to be the ideal society for everyone still hate what America once stood much better for.  They may not wave the hammer and sickle anymore but their efforts to undermine freedom in the West continued unabated.
One of the places these miscreants have gathered to continue their war is in the ecofascist lobby.  One doesn't have to follow the news carefully to note that the ecofascists focus on only one part of the world when they talk about the coming ecological armageddon and who is responsible for it: the West.
Consider the Kyoto accord, for example.  Its protocols were designed to force industrialized countries to reduce their carbon output to certain levels in order to slow the pace of global warming.  The United States failed to fully ratify the protocols and was roundly criticized for that.  What ecofascists fail to note, however, is that almost no signatory to the accord accomplished what they pledged to do.  Everyone's carbon emissions went up significantly.  In fact the United States was the country that made the most progress in slowing the rise in emissions despite not being a signatory.  Despite that they continued to be criticized for not being part of the Kyoto accord.
Kyoto was also ridiculous for introducing the concept of carbon credits.  The idea was that an underdeveloped country in the middle of Africa would not reach the minimum carbon targets because its industrial lack of output kept it well below them.  It could sell this leeway to industrialized countries which then could apply the credits to their "progress report".  Hence Russia, with its oil wealth, bought multiple credits that obviated their need to do anything to reduce their carbon outputs!  If Kyoto was a serious process wouldn't they be interested in everyone reducing their carbon, not set up a trading process to allow continued carbon production?
Finally, China and India, two of the world's biggest polluters never bothered to join the Kyoto protocols.  Anyone familiar with those two countries can tell you that they are industrializing at a rapid pace with minimum control over the amount of smog they produce.  Yet it was Canada, which produces less than 3% of global carbon emissions, that got pilloried when it pulled out of the Kyoto accord after realizing it would never meet its obligations.
So a treaty that no signatory was compliant with, which gave mechanisms to avoid real change and which did not include two of the worst polluters on the planet, neither of which happen to be Western countries.  And who's the worst offender?  Well America and Canada (with our oil sands) of course!
One would think that with all the evidence that the industrialized world isn't going to cut its carbon emissions and that the the non-industrialized world is struggling to catch up the ecofascist lobby would consider a different approach, one in which humanity works to accomodate inevitable climate change.   But that's not the case.  We have Neil Young, for example, singing about the oil sands and comparing them to Hiroshima.  I wanted so hard to be his biggest fan after he announced he was going to play a concert in Israel and then this happened.  Hey Neil, how are you getting to Israel?  By canoe?
The eceofascist lobby's goal isn't to stop global warming.  It simply can't do it and besides, with the tactics that its using it's clearly not interested in achieving that.  The lobby instead is interested in eating into the freedoms that made the West prosperous and victorious over communism.  David Suzuki, for instance, believes that politicians (and presumable scientists and other influential folks) who don't accept his version of climate change ideology should be jailed.  How's that for the free exchange of ideas?  Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who refuses to buy into the ecofascist lobby's ideology is constantly villified for his insistently on independent thought.
The ecofascists want a big government that will micromanage our affairs and control our thoughts and speech, all in the name of an overarching ideology that in practice will not lead anywhere.  Where have we seen this before?
As the Beatles sang, "Back in the USSR!"

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Global Bovine Faeces

Some people seem bewildered by the idea that Orthodox Jews might be skeptical of climate change or global warming.  As their limited reasoning goes, they figure that since we're dupes for believing in matan Torah and show no skepticism when dealing with the unity and antiquity of the Torah's text we'll fall for anything.  The idea that some of us might have used cirtical thinking, looked at the sources and concluded that the Torah is genuine and true is incomprehensible to them.  But skeptical I am of the claims of the climate change ecofascists that dominate the debate today.
I realize I'm treading into controversial waters by saying that.  When it comes to climate change one is either a true believer or an evil pawn of the oil companies, a friend to Mother Earth or an enemy plotting her demise.
As far as I can see there are three possible options as to what's happening in the world right now:
1) The climate is not changing and all this is made up for reasons I'll write about later.
2) The climate is changing but this is a natural process and humanity is not contributing to it.
3) The climate is changing as a result of humanity's activities.
Now, the ecofascist lobby is solidly behind (3), no question of that and no questioning of that.  According to them the climate across the planet is changing and humanity is directly responsible for it and only through massive changes in our behaviour can we avert global catastrophe.  Certainly they have scientific evidence to back up their claim and if it's true then we have reason to be worried.  Shouldn't that be enough?
As a person with some scientific training I have some reservations.  Here are the reasons:
1) "The science is settled".  This is one of the mantras of the ecofascist lobby.  It's four word sentence used to shut down debate.  For anyone who is both scientifically trained and intellectually honest it's a loaded statement that indicates the exact opposite and if multitudes of international scientists are muttering it today that tells you where intellectual honest is in today's science community.  The science is never settled, certainly not in complex areas like the environment.  The science may strongly indicate a trend, it may strongly suggest a conclusion but it cannot be settled.  There is always room for questioning and further testing of the data.  A scientist who tells you that "the science is settled" is saying that he is only interested in that data which supports his conclusion.  That's not real science.
2) "All credible scientists agree".  This is another slogan and one which is circular.  All credible scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humanity's misbehaviour because to be labelled a credible scientist you must believe that climate change is real and caused by humanity's misbehaviour.  You could be an amazing scientist with dozens of publications to your name but the minute you say you doubt the ecofascist lobby's beliefs you are no longer credible. 
3) What's is called anyway?  When Al Gore began his lobbying efforts back in the 1990's the issue was called global warming.  Perhaps he did this to distinguish himself from those 1970's climate scientists who assured us that we were on the edge of a new ice age.  We were treated to Michael Mann's now-disproven hockey stock graph and told temperatures were about to shoot up across the planet.  The IPCC has recently had to admit that temperatures on average have not significantly risen across the planet in the last 15 years.  I'm right now living in what is the tail end of one of the worst winters in memory where I live.  It's almost the middle of March but we're still expecting subzero temperatures for another 1-2 weeks.  Normally we'd be well into the spring thaw by now.  To get around this annoying inconvenience the lobby changed terms, now calling it climate change.  This made their job far easier.  Was it a colder than normal winter?  Climate change!  A warmer than normal winter?  Climate change! 
4) Cilmate change is also a misnomer for the movement because climate change is a normal feature of life on Earth.  Ask any mastadon who survived the last ice age (okay, bad example).  The climate changes on Earth from time to time and has been doing so since time immemorial.  What's more we have recent Medieval Warming Period, an era in which the northern hemisphere became warm enough to support active colonization of Greenland, a desolate frozen wasteland today.  Given the small human population and low technological situation at the time one cannot blame humanity for the MWP.  This is an inconvenient bit for the ecofascists who either downplay the significance of the MWP or forget to mention it when sermonizing about climate change.
5) The hypocrisy of the leaders. Al Gore lives in a mansion that consumes more electricity than some small towns.  David Suzuki trots around Canada in a diesel powered bus.  Barack Obama flies everywhere in a jet.  The high priests of Green are some of the biggest individual consumers of carbon although this doesn't stop them from lecturing the rest of us on reducing our carbon footprint.
6) Shut up!  That's usually the response one gets from ecofascists when their orthodoxies are confronted with contradicting facts.  You don't get reasoned discussion.  You don't get an alternative explanation of those facts.  You get yelled at and insulted.  I recall David Suzuki appearing on a right wing readio show and storming off after the radio host began listing scientists who did not believe in global warming and had data to support their point.  A strong ideology does not respond to challenges that way, a weak one that knows it's a load of hooey does and that exactly describes the representatives of the eco-fascist movement.
If climate change is real why does the ecofascist movement act like it does?