Last week’s release of a new demographic study of Jewish life in Greater New York created an understandable stir, as it revealed that the Orthodox are forming an increasingly large percentage of the population. Assimilation, intermarriage and negative population growth are reducing the number of liberal and secular Jews while the Orthodox, and in particular the Haredim, are experiencing exponential growth. Though the implications of this trend will potentially alter virtually everything about Jewish life in the region, given that Orthodox Jews tend to be far more conservative than the rest of the community, the political implications of this pattern are inescapable. In a city like New York where 74 percent of all Jewish school-age children are Orthodox, there is little question the traditional dominance of secular and liberal Jews is not likely to persist in the long run.
That this would upset liberals is understandable. But that ought not to excuse the willingness of the editorial page of the Forward when discussing the Orthodox community to engage in the sort of language it would never excuse were such words directed at non-Jews. The impending dominance of non-liberals has caused the newspaper that began its life in 1897 as an advocate for socialism to vent its spleen in such a manner as to label many Orthodox Jews as the “undeserving poor,” whose inappropriate life choices ought perhaps to render them ineligible for government assistance if not the aid of the rest of the Jewish community. While the decision of the Forward’s editorial board to belatedly join a decades-long discussion about the merits of the welfare state is welcome, the piece makes it abundantly clear this shift is motivated more by open distaste for the Haredim than any misgivings about liberal ideology.
The conceit of the piece is that the Orthodox growth is being fueled in large measures by that community’s belief in the value of large families. The Forward, speaking in a voice that drips with upper and middle class condescension for the poor as well as contempt for the Orthodox often heard in liberal Jewish circles but rarely published, implies that most of these children probably shouldn’t be conceived, because their religious parents may not always have the material resources the Forward’s editors think they should possess before adding another soul to the community’s numbers. To their way of thinking, if some of these Orthodox families are not entirely “self-sufficient,” their voluntary choice to reproduce should push them to the back of the line when Jewish agencies are doling out aid to the poor and also calls into question the wisdom of so much government aid being given to them.
The problem for the Forward is not just that the Orthodox are having more children than liberal Jews and this rejection of middle class “materialism” that values Torah study over economics is religiously motivated. What really bugs them is that the majority of the Orthodox seems to have little sympathy with liberal political positions even though some of them are recipients of government assistance. Like Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? which vented liberal impatience with Midwestern conservatives who vote their values rather than what the author believes is their economic interests, the Forward thinks it’s downright hypocritical the Orthodox don’t all vote for the Democrats.
A close examination of Haredi voting patterns may not exactly bear this out, as the Hasidic sects who vote as a bloc do tend to barter their votes in elections in return for government largesse in a manner that perhaps the Forward thinks is rational or at least consistent. But there is little doubt that most Orthodox Jews, including the vast majority who do not get any government aid, don’t share the paper’s affection for liberalism. And that is what has apparently goaded the Forward into publishing a rant whose only real purpose is to stigmatize Orthodox Jews as an expanding horde of lazy welfare cheats who ought to be denied assistance as they out-reproduce more responsible liberal Jews.
Suffice it to say the Haredi community has more than its share of problems. The growth of Jewish poverty is troubling, as is any sign that Americans are starting to copy the unfortunate pattern of Israeli Haredim in which employment, not to mention national service, is regarded by many as beneath the dignity of the male population.
But while it is one thing to express concerns about the future of that community, it is quite another to write in a manner that speaks of the rising Orthodox birth rate as if we would all be better off if those children were never born. That is a shocking argument that would be quickly labeled as racist by the righteous liberals at the Forward were it aimed at inner-city blacks or Hispanics. A desire to comfort liberals about their impending political decline is no excuse for launching a kulturkampf against the Orthodox.
We believe the principles of economic freedom ought to apply to everyone. The unfortunate consequences of government dependency know no religious barrier and can devastate Jews as well as non-Jews, Israelis as well as Americans. But when a critique of the welfare state crosses over into prejudice against specific groups or language that resonates with bias that sounds more like eugenics than political analysis, a line has been crossed. That the Forward has done so is an indictment of their judgment and of their commitment to the value of all Jewish lives.
The Forward's lament for the imminent demise of "the open, egalitarian, inclusive Judaism that has been ascendant in this country for the past half-century" is laughable. Ask any Orthodox Jew how included they are made to feel by ithe secularized leadership – volunteer and professional — of their local Jewish federation and its secularized member organizations, except in those few communities where the donor base is primarily Orthodox. Tolerance? Maybe, but grudingly. Inclusive? Sure, they tell us, we'd love to include you — just as soon as you let go (they tell us) of your antiquated, bigoted, misogynistic, homphobic, parochial and inegalitarian superstition. Not just chareidi but modern Orthodox as well. n nThe editorial comes as no revelation, and neither do the bulk of the comments.
"Bulk of the comments"? There were no comments before yours. nAre you saying that you are content for any group that wishes to have large families despite their financial inability to support them avail themselves of public welfare? nAre you content with the Charedi stoning children of less observant Jews whose sleeve length is shorter than their liking? nAre you surprised that the majority of Jews in this country are made uncomfortable by an Orthodoxy that sneers with censure every time it witnesses one of them being less observant than they believe a Jew must be? n nDo you deny that in this world today, a case can be made for every one of the claims that orthodoxy promotes "antiquated, bigoted, misogynistic, homphobic, parochial and inegalitarian superstition"`? I am not saying that in a reasonable dialogue, some of this misunderstanding cannot be cleared up, but if you are telling modern Jews that you truly believe that the universe was created from nothing in 6 24-hour periods with no greater foundation than reference to Beraishis, you are bringing the antipathy upon yourself. nI am not saying this as an outsider. I am a well respected member of the Orthodox community. I am just sick and tired of the intolerance of the mainstream Orthodox based on the excuse that the rest of the world did it to them first. Hillel says "what is hateful unto you, do not unto others". He does not say "unless of course they do something to you first".
The bulk of comments on the Forward site, my friend. nBut it is nice to know that you have absorbed every imaginable stereotype about Orthodox Jews in general and Chareidim in particular. You claim to be a member of the Orthodox community and you can spout the hatred that you have spouted in your post, and then accuse me – or "mainstream Orthodox" of intolerance? By mainstream, do you mean the OU? Young Israel? What evidence do you have that they, or even the Agudah, endorse the disgusting behavior (stoning, spitting, etc.) that you attribute to all Chareidim? (By the way, I am not chareidi by anyone's standard, except perhaps to the Forward or HUC) Are you aware that Chareidim are among the main victims of the Sikrikim whose actions you attribute to all Orthodox Jews? n nDo any Christiian beliefs strike you as being as irrational as you find creation yesh mei ayin? If so, do they deserve to be hated for holding those beliefs? How about Mormons? Do you think Muslims deserve to be hated? How about Buddhists and Hindus? Or is your hatred reserved for Orthodox Jews? n n[Cont'd]
Please provide the words I used that you claim show "hatred reserved for Orthodox Jews", n nPlease provide the words I used to attribute any of your objectionable statements to anyone, rather than ask you for your position on them. n nPlease tell me why you ask me about my opinion of other religions' fallacies, when the discussion is centered on the split between observant and secular Jews, not Jews who have converted. n nPlease tell me where in my comments I even came close to saying that anyone should be "hated". n n
oldletie, this is in reply to your message below asking about motzeoi shem rah, as well as the message above. By suggesting that the average Orthodox or Chareidi Jew approves of, let alone engages in, "stoning children of less observant Jews whose sleeve length is shorter than their liking" or "sneers with censure every time it witnesses one of them being less observant than they believe a Jew must be" or that there is an "intolerance of the mainstream Orthodox ." I do not deny that these things exist among the Orthodox community but the motzei shem rah is iin characterizing them as being the rule rather than the exception, and for the record, yes, I agree with you that it is much too prevalent though confined to an extremely small number of very visiible people. n
Thank you for your moderate tone and reasoned reply. Please refer me to where I suggested that "the average Orthodox Jew" approves of or condones the behavior being discussed. I see only that I asked you to clarify your own stance, not that I made any reference to my opinion. I suppose I must concede that my comment about "sneering" could be construed as a gross overgeneralization, but I must insist that it is a stretch to suggest my words indicate that I characterize it as "the rule". As for my comment about "the intolerance of the mainstream Orthodox, I should have made it clearer that I was not referring to its attitude toward fellow Jews, but what I have witnessed is a general lack of compassion for the sufferings of nonjews and a lack of sympathy for gerim who are now being told that their conversions were not sufficiently kosher to satisfy halacha. And while I shall happily concede that it is not the "rule" I cannot dismiss it as a small enough "exception" that it need not be addressed. That is another issue which I suppose we could debate, but I will be content if, having reasonably and almost amicably settled our differences on these other points, we agree to disagree on it. That choice I leave to you. n
I can't say that I have witnessed the same phenomena that you have. Certainly the OU and Young Israel seem moved by the pliight of honest gerim. ICertainly UK Chief Rabbi Sacks does. am not sure of the Agudah's position but I get the sense that they feel that the average member of the public, Orthodox or not, does not have a sufficient grasp of the issues and the facts to have an informed opinion, and that disputes about such things are best debated in private among scholars and not in secular newspapers – a position with which I agree. n nAs to the suffering of non-jews, I think again it is difficult to generalize. Certainly there is a tension within Jewish tradition between the universal and the parochial, and when I moved from Conservative to Orthodox Judaism I found the increased emphasis on the latter one of the more difficult adjustments to make.
n"Please provide the words I used that you claim show "hatred reserved for Orthodox Jews", Quoted above in this reply. n n"Please provide the words I used to attribute any of your objectionable statements to anyone, rather than ask you for your position on them. " Not me. You will notice that I was replying to your reply to metallist, in which you attributed to her (him?) certain attitudes toward children, which you later retracted. n n"Please tell me where in my comments I even came close to saying that anyone should be "hated". " nWhen you said " if you are telling modern Jews that you truly believe that the universe was created from nothing in 6 24-hour periods with no greater foundation than reference to Beraishis, you are bringing the antipathy upon yourself. " n
so I take it that you consider "antipathy" synonymous with "hatred", I have never considered it so, and I can find no authority that does. Please refer me to your authority that equates "antipathy" with "hatred" as opposed to "the opposite of sympathy".
"Please refer me to your authority that equates "antipathy" with "hatred" as opposed to "the opposite of sympathy". " n nOkay, how about Doubleday Roget's Theosaurus in Dictionary Form, 1977, page 29. Along with dislike, antagonism, abhorrence, loathing, repugnance, and disgust? And sympathy is not listed there as an antonymn, nor is antipathy listed as an antonymn for sympathy. But Roget does say that antonymns for antipathy are affection, liking, attraction, love, appeal. It seems the term is a bit stronger than you may realize. n nQuibbles aside, do the non-rational beliefs of other religions render the adherents of those religions worthy of antipathy, in your viewpoint? Do Hindus and Buddhists bring antipathy on themselves for believing e.g. in reincarnation? Christians generally for viirgin birth, resurrection, afterlife and original sin? Roman Catholics for the same, and also for the spiritual powers of the Pope and the Church? Christian Scientists for Christian science?
One final quibble: no dictionary uses the word "hatred" in its definition of "antipathy". I will concede its being considered a synonym by 1977 Roget if you will concede that I might not have had "hatred" in mind when I employed the term. As for your observation that "sympathy" is not listed as a an antonym for "antipathy", the fact is that both words have as their root the greek "pathos" which means "suffering". Sym as a prefix means "identity with" and "anti" means "rejection of". So whether or not you are able to find a listing of sympathy as an antonym of antipathy, I assure you that any scholar would simply accept it as a matter of due course. nNow, on to your next question. If you accept my definition of "antipathy" as "strong aversion", I think that it is clear that all religions risk antipathy if they ask less religious people in their subculture affinity not only to allow them to believe as they do, but to change their beliefs to be in concord. The antipathy to which I was referring was the antipathy of the less observant Jew to the culture and lifestyle of the more observant because of their relationship as Jews, and the expressed desire of the latter that the former adopt what it considers to be irrefutably false. As for other religions, I can speak confidently from my many years of study and travel that not one of the ones you mentioned has been immune from the antipathy of its cousins. The history of Christianity is replete with instances of wars fought over things as small as in which direction one should perform the horizontal movement when making the sign of the cross. Any time that one raises the level of observance to dogma and informs others whose basic faith is identical that without the modification demanded by the former the entire practice of the latter is worthless, one has to accept that the latter will be antipathetic if the rational for this demand is based on anything other than measurable and reproducible evidence. It is not a question of being "worthy", although of course Torah seems to dictate that a Jew regard any other religious practice with antipathy perhaps even to the level of hatred, it is a simple fact of life that if one is content with the level of his observance, he is going to be antipathetic to anyone who tries to convince him it is insufficient using only myth and claims of cosmological events that violate the basic principles of science and physics as their rationales. nI hope that answers your question. If it does, I hope you will reply and let me know. If it does not, I will be happy to continue this discussion
Conceded. But Greek roots notwithstanding, there are many words ithat take on a very different meaning in English than the roots would suggest – as I learned on a 12th grade English exam when I guessed that megalomania meant an obsession with large things. n nPerhaps also I was misled by your saying that antoipathy resulted from "telling modern Jews that you truly believe that the universe was created" etc.; I did not equate telling them what I truly believe to be tantamont to asking them to change their beliefs to be in concord. (BTW, I am agnostic as to whether the 6 days of creation were 6 actual days, or were something similar to the thesis of Genesis and the Big Bang, or something else entirely.) n n
Being that the sun and moon were not created till day 3, what was used to measure the start and end of a day for the first 2 days? nMaybe all 7 days of creation were measured the same way, not with our sun and moon, but with some other reference point, which could make a day thousands or millions of times as long as our sun / moon days.
Hillel followed his remarks with "The rest is commentary" and then with the frequently omitted injunction "Now go and learn (the rest)." I might suggest that you start by learning the laws of Motzei Shem Rah. As a well respected member of the Orthodox community, you are surely familliar with the term.
Please tell me how my comments should be filtered through the principles of Motzei Shem Rah (with which you are correct in saying that I am familiar, although I doubt you meant it sincerely) if you are not willing to look at your original comment to which I replied and admit that if I am guilty of transgressing that principle, you certainly are at least equally guilty, both in your original diatribe against the secular and your at the very least hyperbolic and self serving misinterpretation of my responses. As you noted, the next words in Hillel's dictum were "go learn (the commentary"; What follows "Motzei shem rah" "us fatai mi dabeir mirmah", I'm sure you do not need to be told its translation nor how I might contend you should apply its dictate to yourself.
The article is inaccurate and malicious. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews work very hard to support their families and pay the tuitions to educate their children. After the Shoah, how can anyone resent Jews having big familes. So many have been lost. Thank G-d for Jewish fecundity.
Perhaps this post might help explain something that has puzzled me: why is it that on any television show I have ever seen (e.g. Law and Order) in which there is a recognizably Jewish villain, the portrayal is always of an orthodox, observant, religious Jew. I do not include depictions of various historical gangsters, who are reliably portrayed as charismatic anti-heroes.
Forward also seems to be censoring dissenting comments to its article.
not to any extent an objective observer can detect. Perhaps you have made yourself unwelcome there. If that is the case, why not post here the comment you claim was not printed there. I will then be happy to quote it and see that it is published.
Thank you for your offer. I hope you will not be disappointed to learn that I did not save a copy. It was not unlike my first post above, which admittedly is based on my experience in one or two American citites and may be overgeneralized. Although judiging from the bulk of the comments at Forward, the editorail policy of Moment magazine and similar publications, and remarks made by secular leaders of various Jewish organizations, perhaps not.
_No one need be a slave to welfare. Orthodox have the foundation to support free markets, jobs and conservatives who will jump the economy and protect are precious freedoms and faith. Liberals always look down on everyone else and I can not fiigure out why.
and whom are these "everyone else" upon whom liberals look down? Are you in favor of the Haredi receiving public assistance? Do you oppose it?
I don't know who first observed that "the future belongs to those who show up for it," but it certainly appears that the typical liberal's distaste for children is causing a bit of a problem for them. Good news!
what typical liberal has a distaste for children? If you mean we don't like eating them, you're correct. It's you conservative irrationals who think that it's alright for your friends to have lots of kids while you condemn large families among those groups with which you agree. We "typical liberals" limit the sizes of our families to a number we can be confident will be able to grow up healthy, find jobs and lead lives at least as successful as ours. If you want to flood the planet with your children, knowing that it's probable the more you have that at least one of them will end up either a criminal, psychologically damaged or at best unemployable, that's your choice if your conscience can handle it. And I guess that's a pretty reasonable idea, since that's the way you feel about the children of others. I could never bring a child into this world knowing I was condemning her to a life of disappointment. You on the other hand, will just say "I guess she couldn't take it" and consign her to the masses without another thought, or perhaps you will spend all your money keeping her from starvation and then complain about us liberals trying to fashion a safety net for those who do not have the same benefit of a rich selfish parent….
I live and work in one of the most unabashedly elitist intellectual communities on the face of the earth and hear the argument you are making at least twice a day. It sounds plausible, and there was a time when I accepted it myself. But no more. I took a quick survey recently and realized that we elitist intellectuals aren't within factor of two of reproducing ourselves. The future does belong to those who show up for it and, baring a rather dramatic change in attitude in the next generations, the descendants of my associates won't show up in numbers worth spitting at. Perhaps we aren't so smart after all, just selfish and lazy. n nYou might still have an argument if these truncated families produced happier, more productive children than the more traditional families with more conservative values. My liberal friends try mightily to persuade themselves that they do. But that sure isn't obvious from the results.
Let me first apologize to you for the vitriol in my prior post. It was, upon reflection and your calm reply, an overreaction you did not deserve. nNow, on to your argument: n nso the liberal and secular jewish community dies out, and the Orthodox community thrives, ultimately being returned to Israel upon Moshiach's coming. Sounds reasonable to me. In the meantime, I just wonder why you had to insult the liberal jew with the comment that they have a "distaste for children" just because they believe they should only have a number they can afford? And why do you think that we should care whether the next generation is made up of people who share our genes rather than those who share our vision? Are you saying that an adopted child should not be loved as much as a child of my loins? nAs the world turns, families come into existence and die out. If there is another life besides this one, then that does not matter because the soul is not confined by chromosomes. If there is no other life but this, it still does not matter because there is no reason to expect a genetic descendant of mine will be any more likely to improve the world than the genetic descendant of a student who makes me her role model or a genetic descendant of someone who reads one of my books and decides to model her life after mine. It all comes down to whether we "elite intellectuals" are content to mine the privileges of an increasingly depleted culture, or instead to "live simply so that others may simply live". Since I count among my children a few dozen whom I have only met in passing through impoverished lands, I opt for the latter. How about you?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Oldlib. Let me first say that I am not a jew, so my comments refer to liberals in general, a group to which an unfortunately large fraction of the jews I know belong. I don't claim to know much about orthodox judaism, though I have worked with several orthodox jews and have found them to be fine people, who were a pleasure to be around. I am sure the group contains some total kooks, but what group doesn't? n nYou seem offended that I described liberals as having a "distaste for children." While there is always a danger in painting with too broad a brush, I stand by that as a description that is very often accurate and fair. I do not mean to imply that they dislike children, but they don't particularly want many of their own. They have their intellectual and cultural activities, their art and yoga classes, their political commitments, in short, so many liens on their time that the care and feeding of children is a burden to them. Like you, they are happy to have others provide the genes and change the diapers. Though, like you, they do hope to kidnap the minds, and have largely seized the educational system for that purpose. n nWe agree that it is a very good thing to "live simply so that others may simply live." But I cannot imagine who you might have in mind that exemplifies that ideal better than the legions of traditional parents who sacrifice their own wealth and comfort for the benefit of children. For most Americans, how many children one can "afford" is a matter of personal choice. I honor those who choose to give and support life, with all its costs and burdens and frustrations. n nTheir children shall inherit the earth.
"And I guess that's a pretty reasonable idea, since that's the way you feel about the children of others." How on earth do you know that's how metallist feels about the children of others? Has metaliist said so? Or are you merely in the habiit of attributing disagreeable sentiments and motives to those whom you disagree with? If this is how you deal with people in your community, I doubt that you are as well respected as you think you are.
Metallist said that "liberals have a distaste for chidren". Since liberals are "the children of others", I am justified in my comment, although I apologized for the vitriol before I read your reply, and frankly I don't think I would have been nearly as grouchy had you not attacked me in the way you have. nI will match my level of respect in my community any day. Just let me know when you're ready to meet me at my shul to witness it.
Liberals (THESE DAYS) are not reproducing. They are below replacement levels. I myself have a small family. Only 4 children.
" frankly I don't think I would have been nearly as grouchy had you not attacked me in the way you have. " n Frankly I don't think I would have been nearly as grouchy had you not attacked me in your very first post. n"Who jumped Baby John?" n"Who jumped Chino the very first day we moved here?" n"Who asked you to move here in the first place, you lousy (ethnic slur for person of Spanish descent." nI'm perfectly happy to start over. But I commend to you the works of the good Mr. Roget and his successors. nAnd one of the things that dismays me is American yeshiva high schools that turn out students who have no idea who he was or how to use his reference work. Or how to construct a coherent English sentence. I am not blind to the shortcomings of the Orthodox community. But in my opinion it is a mistake to think they are universal or inherent. n nAm I mistaken in thinking that even back in its original incarnation as the Forverts, that pulbication has never had much use for frummern?
Do you really think that having a large family implies producing criminals, psychologically damaged and unemployable people? You call yourself a liberal? You are certainly not a traditional liberal. Your prejudices against those who don't think that abortion is a sacrament (inplied by your comments) are clear for all to see. Well, you "liberals", Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are aborting yourselves out of a future. The feminist ideology is a biological dead end.
Once again, Commentary's agenda demands that it twists logic in order to pander to Jewish fears. Now we hear it praise the welfare system for its support of Haredi families when it condemns its support of other minorities. Now we see the conservatives suddenly defending people who choose to have children knowing in advance that they cannot afford to raise them without government subsidy just because they happen to be of the same ethnic group. Would you who here condemn the Forward for stating the obvious be as condemnatory of a new medium that offered the same advice to Black families? n nLet's be honest. All you want to do is use whatever means you can to frighten and anger voters into voting against liberals. Why don't you "man up" and admit it? Why don't you concede that you are violating the First Principle of Judaism, namely "what is hateful unto you, do not unto others"? n nI am well acquainted with the Haredi, am a welcome guest in the homes of Monsey, Monroe and New Square. I accept the Haredi choice to have large families as their right. I accept their use of the public welfare system to subsidize their families because it is part of our culture and does not discriminate. I challenge you who constantly vote my comments down to explain how you can approve of Commentary treating us all like fools, making broad unsustainable statements in the hopes we will be so consumed by our fears of a new Hitlerian world order that we abandon our common sense and vote for the politicians who in the end will put money in the pockets of — yes, you guessed it — Jon Podhoretz and his favored few. n nWake up. You are being conned. Tell Mr. Podhoretz to stop treating you like foolish children and be a good Jew by starting to observe Hillel's First Principle and being as honest with you as he wants people to be honest with him. n nI dare you.
How is it possible that the editors of the Forward can be so arrogant as to not recognize the racism in their position? n nOh, wait, I know – surrounded only with the like-minded they have forgotten what the real world looks like.
u conservatives full of it. nFirst, we liberals support Planned Parenthood and contraception for ALL people, including minority communities of all types. nSecond, as a liberal secular Jew with close ties to the Orthodox and Haredim, I have heard their venom against minorities and "welfare queens," who have large families, with DIFFERENT men (oy gevalt!). In both cases, the fathers r not equipped to support many kids, with or without matrimony. Further, Orthodox communities in many areas r doing their best to cut funding for public education. familiar story: WE can have tons of kids, but YOU cannot, because G-d wants US to, not THEM. nThe Haredim want what is in their self-interest. Nothing for anybody else. n n n
a bit overstated and angry, but correct in substance. I urge you to moderate your tone so that you give your opponents no excuse to disregard your criticisms.
For your information, you can not be a secular Jew. Secularism is the antithesis of religion. Check it with your Rabbi. It is impossible to be a secularist and a Jew or any other religious. Make up your mind – either leave the faith or discard your secularist easy way outs.
Ray, I do not have a rabbi, nor do I want 1. I do not need a rabbi (or u) telling me what I am or am not. nI decide my identity, not Rabbis.
What? Ray, you are correct that secularism iis the antithesis of religion, but not every Jew follows the Jewish religion. Neviim (Prophets) tell us of any number of kings of Israel who went so far as to worship idols, but were still Jews. Any competent rabbi will tell you that whether secular or religious, anyone born to a Jewish mother is and remains a Jew. By your definition, much of my family would not be Jewish, nor would most of the citizens and elected leaders of the State of Israel.
Sigh. It's sad to see us arguing amongst ourselves. n nPersonally, I think the biggest problem is that the liberal Jews don't know anything about the religious Jews. A lot of the problems I have, as an orthodox Jew, is that the liberal Jews lack the education required to understand basic things–like why religious Jews won't join the JCC when there are no separate work-out facilities or swimming times. n nAll it would take to understand is simply asking questions. I know I wouldn't mind. In fact, a lot of us welcome questions. n nI don't think they mean to discriminate against me when they have a "community picnic" with no kosher food, or invite me to their kid's birthday party on Shabbat — they are just ignorant. n nHowever, I do wonder why they aren't ignorant about the cultural needs of Muslims and Buddhists . . . They will trip all over themselves to "understand" a woman in a Kefiyah, while they snicker at me in a scarf, and I doubt I will ever see the Forward writing an editorial about how blacks or Hispanics or Muslims shouldn't have children they "can't afford." n nWhy attack your brothers and sisters?
"there is little question the traditional dominance of secular and liberal Jews is not likely to persist in the long run." n nFirst, there is quite a bit of question about that. Go into a Reform or Conservative synagogue and you'll find that the majority were either raised Orthodox or had parents or grandparents who were. Orthodoxy sheds members like no one's business. THEY populate the other movements. Reform and Conservative are taking steps to combat assimilation, but there's every reason to believe that Orthodoxy will continue to hemorrhage into the other groups as it has done since their inception. n nSecond, the study was on 5 burroughs that particular Jewish federation served. It cannot be taken as a broad brush as people were "lost" even if they decided to move out of neighborhoods that were becoming increasingly ultra-Orthodox. How many of those Reform and Conservative ended up in New Jersey or Connecticut? Even another part of the city for that matter… n nThe Talmud says it is the duty of the father to teach their child a trade. Are the Charedim doing this? Are they making sure the child's education enables them to earn a living? No. They are expecting everyone else to support them, no matter what lifestyle choices they choose to make. In addition, they are attacking and trying to suppress others constantly online and off. Don't you think some disgust is reasonable? I do. They have become a problem both here and in Israel. It doesn't take too many Charedim spitting on 8 year old girls, molesting children, or throwing rocks at mothers with infants in tow to come to this conclusion. n nThe fact people are waking up to the fact the ultra-Orthodox are becoming a problem isn't indicative of THEIR bad character. How it is handled will be a measure of character. But, things cannot continue as they have.
"The Talmud says it is the duty of the father to teach their child a trade. " Many in the Orthodox and even the Chareidi world also recognize that the failure to do this is a huge problem. n n n" It doesn't take too many Charedim spitting on 8 year old girls, molesting children, or throwing rocks at mothers with infants in tow to come to this conclusion. " True. All it talkes is a handfull for people to conclude that this is somehow normative accepted Chareidi behavion. That's one reason why such behavior is referred to as a desecration of G-d's name. Every Charieid leader has come out unequivocally against such behavior, but sadly it makes no imnpression on people who call themselves Chareidi and think they know better, nor on heterodox Jews looking to justify dislike for Orthodox Jews. n n
"but there's every reason to believe that Orthodoxy will continue to hemorrhage into the other groups as it has done since their inception. " nInteresting. Maybe 1/3 of the Orthodox Jews I know grew up in homes that were Reform, Conservative or secular. Of the four guys in our car pool to Conservative Hebrew school, I am the only one that never intermarried, and at least wo of them have had multiple intermarriages. n n nBut assuming that you are correct, what does this have to do with the antipathyand intolerance toward Orthodox Jews demonstrated by the Forward editorial and the comments there? Remember that the focus of that article is that there is something specific about Orthodox Jews that should disqualify them from aid that the Forward advocates for everyone else.
Antipathy towards the Orthodox? Have you seen how the Orthodox treat the rest of Jewry? We're dogs dying a very deserved and timely demise according to them EVERYWHERE you look. We're the ones whose children are being spit on. We're the ones who are having rocks thrown at us, having our rabbis called clowns, being told we're playing at religion, etc. Just read through these posts or the ones at the Forward to see how constantly the Orthodox are attacking the other movements. n nThen, they decide they're all Torah scholars, they're going to live a life of poverty and we should all pay for them. We have a right to say "No, we're not". This isn't an unfortunate situation. This is a choice they are making, a choice that is against the teachings of the Torah that they try to beat us over the head with every chance they get. n nSo, someone finally points this out and how horrible it is! Look how the liberals are attacking their fellow Jews. Were we fellow Jews when you were calling us the "deformed movement"? Were we fellow Jews when you said our rabbis are clowns and we're what's wrong with Israel? Just when, exactly, did we become "fellow Jews"? n n
I do not know what the situation is among the Orthodox in the U.S., but Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nassi taught: n n"The study of Torah is commendable when combined with a gainful occupation, for when a person toils in both, sin is driven out of mind. Study alone without an occupation leads to idleness, and ultimately to sin. All who serve in behalf of the community should do so for Heaven's sake. Their work will prosper because the inherited merit of our ancestors endures forever. God will abundantly reward them as though they had achieved it all through their own efforts." (Pirkei Avot, II,2) n nWho should know this better than the Orthodox?
u know, oldleftie, I cannot help being angry. nup until 4th grade, I attended public school in a dying Jewish neighborhood. the teachers were mostly liberal middle-aged Jewish women who were so "post-racial" to all the new ethnics coming to the South Bronx, I did not even know that some people think of other groups as anything but equal. Local yeshiva ketana was ok, but when I got to high school, more yeshivish, i was exposed to a racism I did not know existed before. 1 time a rebbe went off on a tirade against what were later called "welfare queens," using the coarse Yiddishism for African-Americans. I held back tears, never having seen this type of racism before—putting down an entire class of people. including, of course, the stereotype that Black women have 6 kids, from different men, and then go on welfare. nWell, Haredim, the worm has turned. Now haredim have the 6 (and more) kids, and going on welfare is a way of life. nWhen I bring this topic up to Haredim, they usually say that "well, at least our kids r all from the same husband." my answer : BFD. government aid is government aid. following a self-important life-style does not mitigate the final result. ndear Kommentary Konservatives, especially John Pod-am-ho-ortez, cut the crap. u have been railing against welfare for 4 decades, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and u r now supporting voluntary impoverishment and welfare. ncome on, (neo)conseratives. the masses r getting disillusioned with voodoo economics. they no longer believe in lower taxes for the rich. nAlso, Romney has not 1 choice of running mate that will help him. Rubio might get him some votes among embittered Cuban refugees, but not other Latinos. neven we upper-middle-class r getting to enjoy the ACA. no 18 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions. Roll that back at your peril, republicans.
Yep. Rolling back ACA is perilous for the Rs – since 60% to 80% favor that move. It is to laugh. n nWhere you do have an advantage – and you should push it hard – is Drug Prohibition. About 2/3rds of Americans say it isn't working and 56% (and rising) are ready to legalize pot. Now if only your President wasn't in the pocket of the police unions and the drug cartels.
Actually, Podhoretz did not advocate welfare for Orthodox families (nor have I, depsite oldlefties' assumption to the contrary); he merely noted the level of vitriol that Forward has leveled at Orthodox Jews and particularly chareidim, and Forward's application of double standards to Chareidim and to other groups receiving welfare.
Level of "vitriol"? have u never read Kommentary, or papa Norman Pod-am-ho'retz's books? they r full of vitriol, especially against liberal Jews. he is frustrated to no end that "Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans." nwhy, neo-cons? some of us have ideals beyond self-interest! can u imagine! nwho said I have to vote like Episcopalians? I would rather vote my conscience. nalso. look at the racism in this old chestnut! "Now, now, liberal Jews. u do not want to be in the same camp as Puerto Ricans, do u?"
Let me add that in my day it was the Left who were the Rock Stars. You might recall Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement. I was an avid follower and was at Sproul Plaza for some of the festivities. So I know the Left and the Right. What I like these days – since the Viet Nam boat people – are the libertarians. Socially liberal – there is one for you, economically conservative – and one against. n nWe are now (as a family) – "leave us alone" people. Out of my wallet, out of my bedroom.
OK, I'm someone who knows the Chareidi community from the inside. Allow me to say a few words. n nThere are many Chareidi rabbis who understand Jewish law to say that contraception is not permitted unless it is a life threatening situation. Over the last few decades, probably when mental health information and enough cases of mental health being threatened by financial burdens or overwhelmed parents, some Chareidi rabbis have come to allow birth control. But they too don't give a pass. The ok to do so is a case by case ruling. nCynical non-orthodox readers will say that this is all about power and expanding their base. Left wing orthodox will make flippant statements such as "when there's a rabbinic will there's a halachic way". You really don't understand the halachic process to say that. There is probably no sense in trying to explain it. Even if the gov't aid would dry up, those rabbis wouldn't alter their rulings,unless the increased pressure causes enough nervous breakdowns to make it clear that the situation may be more life threatening than they previously understood. nLiberals view orthodoxy as a political movement because much of their Judaism is political. Sadly, they just don't understand that orthodox Jews answer to the Torah as a way of life. The Torah teaches orthodox Jews what to do. Sometimes it is not what is most convenient or economically wise according to the pundits. Sometimes the Torah asks a lot of its adherents. Chareidim believe it's well worth it in the grand scheme of things. n nLiberal Judaism is withering away as a result of its priorities. How many liberal Jews send their kids to Jewish day school? How many of those same families go on nice vacations. I am sure there are plenty of liberal Jews who don't have a lot of money, but why didn't the wealthy liberal Jews all around them set up foundations to give them scholarships to educate their kids Jewishly? Why do they give their money to the opera or museums or save the whales…? What exactly will liberal Jew's kids have to hold on to? The 40-50 years old liberals may have had a grandparent they remember from the old country, or at least those grandparents had some Jewish education that they passed on. But their children have nothing but a vague sense of Jewish identity, and possibly an agnostic parent or rabbi. Honestly, what's there to hold on to? Compare that to a Chareidi community that understands that the most basic expectation of a Jewish parent is to give one's child a Jewish education. As rabbi Akiva put it, to do otherwise would be to take the fish out of the water. nSo who is more dysfunctional? The liberals who can make ends meet but are withering away as a Jewish entity as a result of their priorities, or a stressed out Chareidi community that has many, many warts but at least holds on to the key ingredient that has kept our people going for thousands of years – a strong Jewish education?
How does one say in English kol hakavod?
I don't have a good English word for that but in "Yeshivish" the word would be "shkoyach!"
Grada, but I takeh hold that lechatchila people should mamish be mishtadel to use English by this blog so that the oylam will chap what your saying. n nMikdi, shkoyach! And have a guten Shabbos!
True that, dude! Good Shabbos!
"40-50 years old liberals may have had a grandparent they remember from the old country, or at least those grandparents had some Jewish education that they passed on." n nNow I'm remembering Megama's song "My Zaidy" and feeling very old.
Sounds like a similar problem with Mormon fundamentalists who eschew work for multiple wives and live off the taxpayer.
Once again, Jews flocking to any -ism except Judaism.
Amazing how little statistical difference there is between Reform and secular. When you take into account the overbroad Reform definition of who is a Jew, I wonder if Reform's numbers get even worse.