Morality Shmorality

When you go to kiruv seminars or if you listen to shiurim of the more moderate voices within Judaism like the one of Rabbi Nathan Lopes-Cardozo (whom I do hold in high esteem), you will always hear the mantra that Judaism is an ethical religion, with the main imperative for this Chosen People® to be a moral light unto the nations.

The facts don't substantiate this claim though:

• We are commanded not to take revenge or to bear a grudge. However, God holds himself to different standards that he judges other people by, by calling himself a 'El Kanah Venokeim', a jealous and revengeful God.
• The book of Shulchan Aruch we are being taught most, is the daily ritual part of Orach Chaim. If you learn for Smichah (Rabbinic ordination), you are likely to be taught the dietary laws of Yore Deah. However, how many people do you know that are proficient in Choshen Mishpat (financial law)? This book will most likely contain moral laws. And guess what? These laws are mostly man-made (although they may reinterpret verses to fit them back into the Torah).
• We are all being taught that, according to one opinion, Rivkah was 3 years old when she married Yaakov. Do you remember being taught that marrying a toddler was disgusting? No, of course not, we will find anything to make the Avos holy. The cognitive dissonance is mind-blowing consider these comments at The Yeshiva World:
  A 3 year old then was not the same 3 year old now. Things were different then. People lived longer, and they did not age. We can already see from the story with Eliezer and the camels that she had high intellect and a high level of functioning.And:
  It's very clear she musta been born during Adar Sheini and therefore as her real birthday didn't come around too often, she was really more like 12 years old.
• The conquest of Kenaan that butchered the local population in the name of God.
• The many laws that were perhaps considered advanced in antiquity but are considered by most people to be reprehensible nowadays, such as the laws condoning slavery, death penalty for homosexuality and other 'crimes' such as waiting too long before consuming sacrifices.
• The position of women in Judaism: whichever way you want to turn it, she is unable or not supposed to bear witness, become a judge, show her hair in public, sing in front of others, study Torah for its own sake, write a Torah scroll, inherit like men do, marry or divorce a man, etc. 

But more than the question of whether certain laws and / or customs are ethical or not is this. The focus of our education is not to be moral and ethical people. What really really counts is what we keep or not. What we wear and how to fit in. The uber-goal is to subjugate yourself to the law and the community and to be 'Shomer Tora uMitzvos'.

Whether this Torah or these Mitzvos are morally inspiring or not.

This, in my opinion, is one of the main points why people are uncomfortable about their Judaism and, eventually, slip out through the back door.

Wednesday links

Today's roundup:

• Speaking Volumes About ‘Hush’ Of Sexual Abuse, by Hella Winston. If I have enough time, I will write a short book review myself.
• The little lies of Jewish history, by DovBear. Excerpt from the quoted article:
  

  So much of what Orthodox, and particularly ultra Orthodox Jews argue for in their own lives, particularly when it comes to family and working life, is based on what they claim is "tradition". Turns out it's not, and probably never was.

• 2010 army figures show 25% jump in Haredi enlistment, Haaretz. What will its impact be? What type of haredi goes to the army? Would be interesting to read a proper study about this.
• Kugel's HTRTB (Part 5): How the Bible Became the Bible, by Larry Tanner on Textuality. I loved Kugel's How to Read the Bible although I disagree with the conclusion. Larry Tanner is brilliant, as always.
• Author Christopher Hitchens in conversation: On his Jewish grandmother, his atheism, his writing—and facing his own mortality, by Noah Richler from macleans.ca. True-sounding quote:
  

  ...as can dealing with the argument from charity. If in a seminar you were to argue that I’ve committed a well-known fallacy by not deriving my conclusions from my premises and I reply, “You don’t know what you’re on about, I’ve just given 10 bucks to a homeless person,” my answer wouldn’t be accepted. But if you’re a religious person, it’s a fantastic counter-argument. It’s the special permission they expect to be granted to talk nonsense.

Monotheistic Faiths Violent by Definition?

Thanks to Baruch Pelta for directing me to the debate video below on 'Islam is a Religion of Peace', where Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that by definition all monotheistic religions can not be peaceful.

And then it hit me:

• All 3 monotheistic world religions claim to have the true faith and that God has chosen them as opposed to any other religion.
• By definition, the majority of people / religions does not believe in what you are saying (the other faiths or non-believers).
• So there must be some justification as to how your monotheistic religion will still win in the end in order to inspire your people to spread this religion.
• There are two options on the table (correct me if I am wrong): either they must convince the 'non-believers' about the truth of religion a,b or c, or by forcing it onto them.
• Since most people tend to follow the beliefs of their parents, regardless of their inherent truth (if one of them were hypothetically to be true, the majority of the people will still believe in the other options), this convincing business will never happen.
• So a monotheistic must then either rely on subjugation of their opponents whenever they can get away with it actively or by believing in some apocalyptic event, which is violent by its very definition.

I'd be interested to hear about what you have to say in the comments. The debate is interesting although I think that those that claim Islam is a Religion of Peace really meant to say that they want it to turn into a religion of peace.

Would have been way more interesting if a muslim clergyman would have the guts to turn up for these debates:



ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.

Amnon Yitzchak refuses to deal with NuBemet

Here is a classic case of how kiruv clowns like Amnon Yitzchak refuse to deal with questions they are being asked and how condescending and cheap their retorts can be. NuBemet has an excellent YouTube portal where he wipes the floor with their arguments and this makes the likes of Amnon Yitzchak nervous.

In the clip below, a person in the crowd asks Amnon Yitzchak an innocent question. See how the Yemenite kiruv clown with GPS receiver in his turban  answers:

This is Relitainment™ that frum people watch in order to suppress their doubts. It is cheap and false. I feel a pity for the people that become frum because of him. But then again, I guess I pity all who do so of their free will...

Pass this on to your frum friends and don't forget to note their answers in the comments below.