1. **Assumption of Unwillingness:** It assumes that the other party is entirely unwilling to understand the Chareidi perspective, potentially overlooking opportunities for mutual understanding.
2. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the larger Israeli society's attitude, possibly oversimplifying diverse perspectives within that community.
3. **Absolute Statements:** The use of absolute statements like "any conversation is impossible" might be overly definitive, as there could be individuals open to understanding different perspectives.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points:** While emphasizing a lack of understanding, it also acknowledges that the other side might have valid points. Ignoring these points could weaken the overall argument.
5. **Rigidity in Communication:** The argument implies a fixed stance on the futility of dialogue, potentially hindering flexibility in communication and problem-solving.
Addressing these points could strengthen the argument and foster more constructive conversations.
1. **Assumption of Unwillingness**: While it's important to acknowledge potential misunderstandings, assuming complete willingness to understand the Chareidi perspective might lead to unrealistic expectations. In some cases, individuals or groups may indeed be entirely unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue or comprehend differing viewpoints. Recognizing this possibility allows for a more realistic assessment of the challenges involved and enables one to approach discussions with appropriate caution.
2. **Generalization**: While recognizing the diversity of attitudes within Israeli society is important, it's equally crucial to acknowledge overarching trends or prevailing sentiments. By highlighting the broader societal attitude towards the Chareidi perspective, we can identify common barriers to understanding and work towards addressing them more effectively. Generalizations, when based on empirical evidence or widespread observations, can provide valuable insights into prevailing attitudes and perceptions.
3. **Absolute Statements**: While absolute statements such as "any conversation is impossible" may seem overly definitive, they can serve as powerful rhetorical devices to emphasize the severity of communication challenges. In some cases, the entrenched nature of certain viewpoints or the lack of willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue may indeed make productive conversation nearly impossible. Acknowledging these extreme scenarios can prompt a more urgent and concerted effort to overcome communication barriers.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points**: While it's important to recognize valid points made by the other side, it's equally crucial not to downplay the significant obstacles to understanding inherent in certain discussions. Emphasizing the lack of understanding while also acknowledging valid points from opposing perspectives underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for concerted efforts to bridge gaps in understanding. By maintaining a balanced approach, we can foster more constructive dialogue while also addressing underlying challenges.
5. **Rigidity in Communication**: While flexibility in communication is valuable, it's also important to recognize when certain discussions may require a more steadfast approach. In cases where attempts at dialogue have repeatedly failed or where deeply entrenched perspectives pose significant obstacles, maintaining a clear and consistent stance can signal determination and resolve. While remaining open to alternative viewpoints, demonstrating unwavering commitment to addressing communication challenges can be an essential catalyst for progress.
In summary, taking the realistic stance on these points involves acknowledging the potential limitations of assuming complete willingness, recognizing the utility of generalizations based on prevailing trends, appreciating the rhetorical power of absolute statements, balancing acknowledgment of valid points with the recognition of communication barriers, and recognizing the value of steadfastness in communication when necessary.
I liked that comment because of the response itself, and automatically, the style lol. I can only guess the behind the scenes that produced that style and I had the same thought when reading yitz's comment🤣
Agreed! (Except for point no. 4 which I specifically addressed...)
I just wonder though, have you ever tried arguing with these people about the importance of a yeshiva? They just think we're living in the dark ages. I just don't see how conversation is possible.
I've had some conversations with some interlocutors job the RJ blog and irl, and they constantly avoid and evade this past of the conversation. That yeshivos are silly is their starting point.
If any of them are willing to concede that we be entitled to these values, we truly can move the conversation forward, which would be so so helpful in addressing the issues they raise!
הקושי בדת היהודית הוא שבניגוד לנצרות אין בה הכרה בכך שמה שלקיסר לקיסר ומה שלאפיפיור לאפיפיור. הדת שלנו לא עושה את ההבחנה הזאת. לכן האדם הדתי נפגע לא רק כאשר מכריחים אותו לנסוע בשבת אלא כאשר אני נוסע בשבת. לכן אין אפשרות להנהיג בישראל יחסי דת ומדינה כמקובל במערב. בגלל הייחודיות שלנו אנו צריכים לפתח מודל משלנו של יחסי דת-מדינה. אני תומך בתמיכת המדינה בדת, למשל, כל עוד היא על בסיס של שוויון. לא מפריע לי שלמרחב הציבורי יהיה צביון דתי מסוים. אבל אני עומד על כך שבתמורה תהיה הכרה של הדתיים בציפורי הנפש שלי: שוויון, חירות הפרט. החתירה אל האיזון הזה היא שאיפיינה את הפסיקות שלי בכל שנותי בבית המשפט העליון.
I would say the argument is not that we want to be left alone, but that the stuff we ask for is not at all unreasonable. Wanting to be exempt from military service because it conflicts with your religion is not a crazy request. How many people would be ok with a draft if it turned out that half of their kids got inducted in Hare Krishna? The disconnect is that they see themselves as just as Jewish as us, and are outraged that we don't accept their standard of Jewishness. But on an objective level, in which we can show that we really do have a very different religious ideology, it's a totally reasonable request.
Besides for that, chareidim live in poverty and subsist on very little. They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means. Maybe this is what you mean by "wanting to be left alone".
"Wanting to be exempt from military service because it conflicts with your religion is not a crazy request."
The problem is it doesn't! It conflicts with the yeshivish lifestyle, don't confuse that with 'religion'. The yeshivish lifestyle didn't exist before 1980. Certain aspects of army service (girls! Kashrus) may conflict with religion, true, but with management and agreement this can be sorted (charedim have no problem in working large offices full of, deep breath, women, or doing business with women). But chareidim are not interested.
"They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means"
What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money! And in addition they receive substantial discounts on taxes like Arnona, in that respect their net benefit from say trash collection and other city funded services is higher than others, that is an indirect benefit from public money.
"The problem is it doesn't! It conflicts with the yeshivish lifestyle, don't confuse that with 'religion'."
Yeah, I already know what you think, our religion is all fake, minyan factories, coffee rooms, pesach hotels, blah blah blah. But I am sure most objective observers can see that chareidim have a real religion, and it is very different than the chilonim or the datilite.
"What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money!'
One of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a while. I was talking about enriching themselves, and you respond with a statement about basic public services. According to you, everybody under the 60-70th percentile of income (who consume more in public services than they pay taxes for in most developed countries) is enriching themselves off the public money. Not just stupid, meaningless. But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, since you have probably not studied the basics of economics or even math.
Don't bother responding, since your response will be even dumber than your original comment.
I never said the chareidi religion is fake. I said that the vast majority of its practitioners fail to live up to its ideals, other than in a very narrow sphere of several mitzvos bein odom l'mokom. Once you strip away the uniform, the streimels, the spodiks, the religious looking conservative garb (which I agree gives a very strong impression, that is the power what clothing does) and the externalities, yes, in may cases, it is very difficult to see the difference between many serious dati people and many charedim (obviously your reference to chilonim is just a silly point).
""They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means""
""What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money!'"
You are correct in your retort with a very narrow meaning of 'enrichment' - ie increasing their net wealth financially. But I was referring to a broader meaning of 'enrichment' - like benefiting from healthcare, city services, decent roads etc.
"According to you, everybody under the 60-70th percentile of income (who consume more in public services than they pay taxes for in most developed countries) is enriching themselves off the public money."
Not sure why you are still trying that tired old tactic of diverting rather than dealing with the point. Other than say that those people you refer to do not claim they are not 'enriching themselves from public money' (whilst you, in the name of chareidim, did) I am ignoring all diversionary points.
As I said, you say it's all fake externalities, because of your own personal issues. But an objective observer would not see it that way. No reason to continue this argument.
"But I was referring to a broader meaning of 'enrichment' - like benefiting from healthcare, city services, decent roads etc."
You mean a stupid meaning of "enrichment". Nobody except for you thinks it's unreasonable for poor people who pay less taxes to use the street, even if they are at fault not making enough money. It's literally the stupidest definition of enriching that could be stated, and is even stupider to use it in a conversation about democracy.
Don't bother responding, your response is bound to be even more idiotic than the previous one.
Testes, isn't it time to give this up, already? How many people do you need to get back at to be satisfied? You sound like poor Slifkin , who has now spent a good portion of his life trying to take revenge for some incident that no one alive even remembers. Just kill your ex father-in-law with his spodek or shtreimel and get it over with.
"Besides for that, chareidim live in poverty and subsist on very little. They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means."
I agree with that, and have made the same argument. The only caveat is that all of those little stipends do add up. And it's particularly infuriating to people who don't want to fund what they see as a trojan horse. Why would you want to give *any* money to a group which regards your beloved military as a Hare Krishna factory?
Right, so this is exactly the problem that Jerry's writing about here. How do you have a democracy that has people with very different values? It's a real puzzle. Not just Israel. There's a huge clash of values in the US between the liberals and the Trump supporters and million other groups in between and more extreme than both. Do you appeal to tolerance? We chareidim are not exactly known for tolerance.
But I think one idea is appealing to common sense- by showing that democracy is the only way to have peace among diverse groups in the first place, and that undermining the democracy or the rights of certain groups (the ones that you absolutely can't stand) to represent themselves is very shortsighted and will only lead to bad outcomes for everybody. I believe Jerry is making a similar point here.
"But I think one idea is appealing to common sense- by showing that democracy is the only way to have peace among diverse groups in the first place, and that undermining the democracy or the rights of certain groups (the ones that you absolutely can't stand) to represent themselves is very shortsighted and will only lead to bad outcomes for everybody."
Cutting off funding to kollelim isn't really 'undermining anyone's rights.' In general, subsidizing something tends to produce more of it. If there's a common sense argument which says that a bunch of secular Jews should fund institutions which teach about about how secular Jews ought to fund religious institutions because they have no right to exist otherwise, you'd need to actually make such an argument.
I never said cutting off funds to kollelim is undermining anyone's rights. I was talking about how people with very divergent values can coexist in a country. What happens in a democracy is that sometimes your tax money will go to causes you hate. It happens to me all the time in the US, and I'm sure to everybody else.
The Satmar Rebbe is of course right that the secularists will try any means they can to destroy Torah Judaism. But this would happen with or without a democracy. And many Gedolim disagreed with his practical approach.
I dont think thats true. Israel has more welfare benefits than the US. I havent seen studies myself but anecdotally i believe that they take advantage of whatever is offered.
If we're just talking about welfare, sure. But the Christian lobbyists, for example, receive a heck of a lot more government funding than you can even imagine. What the Charedim in Israel lobby for is pennies compared to any other large lobbying group. I'm not saying it's nothing and it does add up but it's major propaganda (which people like Slifkin eat up like cake) that we are bleeding the rich Israeli government dry.
How much Government funding to Christian lobbyists receive?
"What the Charedim in Israel lobby for is pennies compared to any other large lobbying group."
Another statement that is absolute junk. You trot out these tired old phrases. What 'large lobbying group' are you referring to that receives such a multiple of aid given to chareidim, such that relatively speaking chareidim only receive 'pennies'?
If they're mad because the burden is not equal (an obfuscating slogan), that’s on them. - Huh? We are talking about defending Klal Yisrael in an Eis Tzara. To be moser nefesh like the rest of the nation is not a burden, it's a huge mitzva. Why is the blood of a chareidi bachur redder than a dati?
But let me ask you, are the yeshivos in klal yisroel not really important? Like really important?
If we can agree on this point, let's talk: since there are two conflicting *very important* things at play, we really need to make things work on both ends. I, as well as anyone on this blog, am open to hearing good ideas. We are pretty much in the same page that ideally there should be a change. But be warned that the actors in charge of implementation have an uphill battle in a culture war, so the lemaaseh is not so simple.
Can you clarify what point you are trying to respond to?
Are you arying to respond to the allegation that charedim are highly inconsistent and hypocritical - they are happy to preach the Desslerian/heavy yeshivish model of hishtadlus (its all a smokescreen, the same result will happen with zero hishtadlus for a true ba'al bitochon) as the ideal when it comes to parnossoh and army, but in ALL other things they do as much hishtadlus as everybody else (including numerous hours of lost learning time canvassing in elections) and fund raising.
In that case, you have not explained anything at all.
"Well then, we have to use our political tactics and numbers to fight for the rights we have as a freedom of belief to fend for ourselves and get our (God's) way. And truthfully, towards anything that works to the cause of our mission, we are supposed to get involved. We eat and sleep so we can continue learning, and when done right, it's a mitzvah to eat, like bringing a korban. Same with voting. Hishtadlus, when used to maximize our mission, is actually something we do with zerizus"
In words of one syllable, why not say the same with army and parnossoh? Why refuse to teach sons skills necessary to earn a trade? Why rely on claims like 'Torah protects' when defending refusal to participate in any form in national service? Why were COVID precautions ignored in many shuls/botei midroshim on the basis that 'Hashem runs the world'?
In a nutshell, the charedi Desslerian approach claims over and over again hishtadlus in parnossoh matters is not needed for a true ba'al bitochon. And any hishtadlus is a 'smoke screen'. But as you concede, that does not apply to voting. What is the difference exactly?
That contradiction you have not addressed. At all.
I wasn't trying to address the entirety of Chareidi problems. I was addressing the fact that we don't join the army at 18 because that is obviously antithetical to our cause, but we do lobby and vote because that clearly supports our cause.
I already wrote in the previous post that many of the things we do in our isolationist mentality is wrong and needs to be fixed. But so long as being isolationist is not damaging to the cause, we will find this issue of being "too isolationist" as opposed to voting where being insular will hurt our mission.
Ok, so you haven't addressed the contradiction. Namely, that we can sit and learn torah in the beis hamidrash constantly without fear that malign neighbouring nations will succeed in destroying us, but we can't do the same re malign political anti-charedei forces. For the latter, we need to shut our gemoros and go and canvass for votes (and all the bitul torah that goes with it)
"Is playing the political game in line with the Torah? Absolutely! We will use the tactics provided for us as a right of democracy, simply to allow the Torah community to thrive. Anyone willing to engage with us and convince us that our moral system is wrong, good luck!"
You're conflating representative democracy with freedom of expression. The 2 aren't the same thing. For example, children have rights. But they can't vote. They're welcome to try to change that- as women did with the 19th amendment to the U.S. constitution, and 18 year olds did with the 26th, but for now the fact remains that even if all 14 year olds across the country were to unite, they still wouldn't have any political representation. Equally, just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have civil rights e.g. first amendment protection of their tik-tok videos.
"In all honesty, we'd rather be left alone and stay out of things. But we can't. Because our opponents won't leave us alone."
That's not accurate at all. No one is forcing anyone to take money from the government. And charedim don't just 'want to be left alone.' They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc. These are things which wouldn't fly in any other western democracy. https://www.timesofisrael.com/assailing-chief-rabbi-lapid-says-haredim-would-have-to-get-jobs-if-they-moved-abroad/ (To be clear, I happen to support many of those policies. But let's call a spade a spade.)
"They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc." Not sure why you think this wouldn't fly in any other democracy. We never asked for all streets to be closed. And the kosel is specifically a religious, ancient Jewish site.
Nobody is discussing here shutting streets in the black bowls of chareidiland. His point was the historic battle over shutting streets like Bar Ilan which serve a large secular population. Chareidim were demanding that be shut. And your response 'well, we don't demand that Dizengoff in Tel Aviv is shut' is so off-topic and ridiculous, it shows your general explaining skills are somewhat poor.
If we needed to close streets for a religious reason and lobbied for the cause, people could be outraged but that's democracy. Overturning Roe v. Wade was an outrage for the left, but again, hey! That's democracy!
I use this example because a Charedi in Israel has a similar predicament to a Christian in America.
"Four Orthodox Jewish school in Hackney have managed to fail a combined 29 of their last 30 Ofsted inspections.
Bnois Jerusalem Girls School, Wiznitz Cheder School, Talmud Torah Yetev Lev, and TTD Gur School are have all been rated as ‘inadequate’ since at least 2014.
Each failed to meet independent school standards in monitoring inspections this year – and all scored low for ‘quality of leadership’ and ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils’.
Wiznitz Cheder was savaged for “weak implementation of health and safety policies”, a refusal to teach pupils about same-sex orientation, and teaching that “does not help pupils to make sufficient progress in the subjects they learn”.
...
Inspectors at Bnois Jerusalem – where pupils are not allowed to discuss same-sex relationships – were banned from talking to students about anything but ‘safeguarding, behaviour and bullying’.
They also discovered a refusal to mention evolution in science classes, a “limited” PE curriculum, and a reluctance to introduce any recognised qualifications for pupils in Year 11."
=====
Come to think of it, all those pride parades in Yerushalayim are vile, but, 'hey democracy!'
Yes to all of that! That's exactly the point! We, as much as anyone else, are allowed to fight for our beliefs in a democracy. There's no problem with that. All that's actually left to discuss is the legitimacy of the beliefs, but that's not the conversation anyone is having. Hence, we will just continue to do our thing.
Am I happy about a תועבה in ירושלים עיר הקודש ר"ל? no! I would think about reising kriah on witnessing such a terrible event.
Would I be happy if the Chilonim won and took away funding the funding from our yeshivos? Or about this yeshiva in England (not aware of the details)? Most certainly not! But does that mean we shouldn't do our thing to keep our mission alive?
In general, democracy and freedom of religion works in our favor, over the alternative. So we are pro-democracy even though some of the results are really bad.
"There's no problem with that. All that's actually left to discuss is the legitimacy of the beliefs, but that's not the conversation anyone is having. Hence, we will just continue to do our thing."
So to be clear, you're saying that charedim have the same right to advocate for pro-Charedi policies that LGBT folks have to argue for policies which favor them? If yes, then I'll ask you the same question which I asked Happy above: What position are you coming to argue against??? Is anyone arguing that charedim should advocate for things which go against their values???
Let's look at America, a democracy. A western democracy. Where people can live and do and be exactly as they please because there is no threat from any religious group that they will use their democratic power to change the system. Even if all the Christians got together to vote in a certain set of Christian laws, the core of the country is to be "areligious" with religious freedoms. But this also means that a Christian group can lobby for government funds and still not teach evolution, and in fact ban teaching evolution. That is not against democratic standards at all. That is their personal right to uphold their Christian values, and get government money for it by playing the political game. Chareidim in Israel have every right to use the government to uphold their religious beliefs.
Your first point about 14 year olds is irrelevant, unless you explain your position more clearly.
"Even if all the Christians got together to vote in a certain set of Christian laws, the core of the country is to be "areligious" with religious freedoms."
If they tried to pass christian laws, it would be struck down as a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution. And they wouldn't be able to claim that they just 'want to be left alone.' Likewise, most charedim in Israel don't 'want to be left alone.'
"But this also means that a Christian group can lobby for government funds and still not teach evolution, and in fact ban teaching evolution."
If they lobbied to have christian priests get a stipend for studying in a catholic seminary, mandated road closures on christian holidays, and also claimed special exemptions from generally applicable laws, there would be plenty of outrage.
"That is not against democratic standards at all."
If your argument is that anything which happens in a democracy is inherently 'democratic' that's obviously true by definition. Is that what you're arguing? And if it is, then in the event that Lapid were to become prime minister and the knesset were to pass a law cutting off all funding to charedim, and freezing any bank accounts they own, that would also be playing by the democratic rules.
Yes, if Lapid would win the democratic vote, they would be playing by the democratic rules, of course!
I'm not sure which laws we are trying to pass that violate "the constitution". We are a Jewish state, and our right to exempt our students isn't ridiculous. Yes, we need some kind of reform given the overwhelming rise of numbers, and probably some reform will come, whether Charedim slowly stop making Israel their home, whether laws are passed and compromises are made, whether we have an internal awakening to the needs of society and Charedim create their own frum battalions for 28 year olds. But if they can't understand the importance of our Yeshiva system, and the laws are in place to accommodate our needs, they can be mad and outraged, but we are still entitled to our opinion. What are you disagreeing with exactly?
It could be that we aren't. Cheers, if that's indeed the case. When I read the post, it seemed to me that you were making a much more sweeping argument. 🤷♂️
Unless you articulate what it is that you disagree with. My main point was simply that we have strong values and since they don't acknowledge our values, we have no choice but to fight for our rights democratically, and we should.
This argument may have a few flaws:
1. **Assumption of Unwillingness:** It assumes that the other party is entirely unwilling to understand the Chareidi perspective, potentially overlooking opportunities for mutual understanding.
2. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the larger Israeli society's attitude, possibly oversimplifying diverse perspectives within that community.
3. **Absolute Statements:** The use of absolute statements like "any conversation is impossible" might be overly definitive, as there could be individuals open to understanding different perspectives.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points:** While emphasizing a lack of understanding, it also acknowledges that the other side might have valid points. Ignoring these points could weaken the overall argument.
5. **Rigidity in Communication:** The argument implies a fixed stance on the futility of dialogue, potentially hindering flexibility in communication and problem-solving.
Addressing these points could strengthen the argument and foster more constructive conversations.
And here is a response to your points, Yitz:
1. **Assumption of Unwillingness**: While it's important to acknowledge potential misunderstandings, assuming complete willingness to understand the Chareidi perspective might lead to unrealistic expectations. In some cases, individuals or groups may indeed be entirely unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue or comprehend differing viewpoints. Recognizing this possibility allows for a more realistic assessment of the challenges involved and enables one to approach discussions with appropriate caution.
2. **Generalization**: While recognizing the diversity of attitudes within Israeli society is important, it's equally crucial to acknowledge overarching trends or prevailing sentiments. By highlighting the broader societal attitude towards the Chareidi perspective, we can identify common barriers to understanding and work towards addressing them more effectively. Generalizations, when based on empirical evidence or widespread observations, can provide valuable insights into prevailing attitudes and perceptions.
3. **Absolute Statements**: While absolute statements such as "any conversation is impossible" may seem overly definitive, they can serve as powerful rhetorical devices to emphasize the severity of communication challenges. In some cases, the entrenched nature of certain viewpoints or the lack of willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue may indeed make productive conversation nearly impossible. Acknowledging these extreme scenarios can prompt a more urgent and concerted effort to overcome communication barriers.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points**: While it's important to recognize valid points made by the other side, it's equally crucial not to downplay the significant obstacles to understanding inherent in certain discussions. Emphasizing the lack of understanding while also acknowledging valid points from opposing perspectives underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for concerted efforts to bridge gaps in understanding. By maintaining a balanced approach, we can foster more constructive dialogue while also addressing underlying challenges.
5. **Rigidity in Communication**: While flexibility in communication is valuable, it's also important to recognize when certain discussions may require a more steadfast approach. In cases where attempts at dialogue have repeatedly failed or where deeply entrenched perspectives pose significant obstacles, maintaining a clear and consistent stance can signal determination and resolve. While remaining open to alternative viewpoints, demonstrating unwavering commitment to addressing communication challenges can be an essential catalyst for progress.
In summary, taking the realistic stance on these points involves acknowledging the potential limitations of assuming complete willingness, recognizing the utility of generalizations based on prevailing trends, appreciating the rhetorical power of absolute statements, balancing acknowledgment of valid points with the recognition of communication barriers, and recognizing the value of steadfastness in communication when necessary.
I liked that comment because of the response itself, and automatically, the style lol. I can only guess the behind the scenes that produced that style and I had the same thought when reading yitz's comment🤣
Agreed! (Except for point no. 4 which I specifically addressed...)
I just wonder though, have you ever tried arguing with these people about the importance of a yeshiva? They just think we're living in the dark ages. I just don't see how conversation is possible.
I've had some conversations with some interlocutors job the RJ blog and irl, and they constantly avoid and evade this past of the conversation. That yeshivos are silly is their starting point.
If any of them are willing to concede that we be entitled to these values, we truly can move the conversation forward, which would be so so helpful in addressing the issues they raise!
Wasn't this the topic of discussion between ben-gurion and Lehavdil the Chazon Ish?
If so, ברוך שכיונתי!
Can you provide a source?
Not a hidden story at all. The one that culminated with the 'empty wagon' story.
Google the two names and the empty wagon and you will find it.
Got it.
Different metzius now than back then on several fronts.
I agree with Shaul here. I wouldn't exactly say we want to be left alone. We want other Jews to keep the Torah as well.
We want that and would love that. But we are not a missionary service at all.
Here's a quote from Justice Barak:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9F_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A7#%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA
הקושי בדת היהודית הוא שבניגוד לנצרות אין בה הכרה בכך שמה שלקיסר לקיסר ומה שלאפיפיור לאפיפיור. הדת שלנו לא עושה את ההבחנה הזאת. לכן האדם הדתי נפגע לא רק כאשר מכריחים אותו לנסוע בשבת אלא כאשר אני נוסע בשבת. לכן אין אפשרות להנהיג בישראל יחסי דת ומדינה כמקובל במערב. בגלל הייחודיות שלנו אנו צריכים לפתח מודל משלנו של יחסי דת-מדינה. אני תומך בתמיכת המדינה בדת, למשל, כל עוד היא על בסיס של שוויון. לא מפריע לי שלמרחב הציבורי יהיה צביון דתי מסוים. אבל אני עומד על כך שבתמורה תהיה הכרה של הדתיים בציפורי הנפש שלי: שוויון, חירות הפרט. החתירה אל האיזון הזה היא שאיפיינה את הפסיקות שלי בכל שנותי בבית המשפט העליון.
I would say the argument is not that we want to be left alone, but that the stuff we ask for is not at all unreasonable. Wanting to be exempt from military service because it conflicts with your religion is not a crazy request. How many people would be ok with a draft if it turned out that half of their kids got inducted in Hare Krishna? The disconnect is that they see themselves as just as Jewish as us, and are outraged that we don't accept their standard of Jewishness. But on an objective level, in which we can show that we really do have a very different religious ideology, it's a totally reasonable request.
Besides for that, chareidim live in poverty and subsist on very little. They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means. Maybe this is what you mean by "wanting to be left alone".
I see your point that we are engaging in the democratic process to fund our cause, and in that sense we don't want to be left alone.
"Wanting to be exempt from military service because it conflicts with your religion is not a crazy request."
The problem is it doesn't! It conflicts with the yeshivish lifestyle, don't confuse that with 'religion'. The yeshivish lifestyle didn't exist before 1980. Certain aspects of army service (girls! Kashrus) may conflict with religion, true, but with management and agreement this can be sorted (charedim have no problem in working large offices full of, deep breath, women, or doing business with women). But chareidim are not interested.
"They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means"
What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money! And in addition they receive substantial discounts on taxes like Arnona, in that respect their net benefit from say trash collection and other city funded services is higher than others, that is an indirect benefit from public money.
"The problem is it doesn't! It conflicts with the yeshivish lifestyle, don't confuse that with 'religion'."
Yeah, I already know what you think, our religion is all fake, minyan factories, coffee rooms, pesach hotels, blah blah blah. But I am sure most objective observers can see that chareidim have a real religion, and it is very different than the chilonim or the datilite.
"What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money!'
One of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a while. I was talking about enriching themselves, and you respond with a statement about basic public services. According to you, everybody under the 60-70th percentile of income (who consume more in public services than they pay taxes for in most developed countries) is enriching themselves off the public money. Not just stupid, meaningless. But I wouldn't expect you to know any of this, since you have probably not studied the basics of economics or even math.
Don't bother responding, since your response will be even dumber than your original comment.
I never said the chareidi religion is fake. I said that the vast majority of its practitioners fail to live up to its ideals, other than in a very narrow sphere of several mitzvos bein odom l'mokom. Once you strip away the uniform, the streimels, the spodiks, the religious looking conservative garb (which I agree gives a very strong impression, that is the power what clothing does) and the externalities, yes, in may cases, it is very difficult to see the difference between many serious dati people and many charedim (obviously your reference to chilonim is just a silly point).
""They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means""
""What a nonsensical statement - for example, every time they give birth in a hospital or drive down the road they are living of public money!'"
You are correct in your retort with a very narrow meaning of 'enrichment' - ie increasing their net wealth financially. But I was referring to a broader meaning of 'enrichment' - like benefiting from healthcare, city services, decent roads etc.
"According to you, everybody under the 60-70th percentile of income (who consume more in public services than they pay taxes for in most developed countries) is enriching themselves off the public money."
Not sure why you are still trying that tired old tactic of diverting rather than dealing with the point. Other than say that those people you refer to do not claim they are not 'enriching themselves from public money' (whilst you, in the name of chareidim, did) I am ignoring all diversionary points.
As I said, you say it's all fake externalities, because of your own personal issues. But an objective observer would not see it that way. No reason to continue this argument.
"But I was referring to a broader meaning of 'enrichment' - like benefiting from healthcare, city services, decent roads etc."
You mean a stupid meaning of "enrichment". Nobody except for you thinks it's unreasonable for poor people who pay less taxes to use the street, even if they are at fault not making enough money. It's literally the stupidest definition of enriching that could be stated, and is even stupider to use it in a conversation about democracy.
Don't bother responding, your response is bound to be even more idiotic than the previous one.
Testes, isn't it time to give this up, already? How many people do you need to get back at to be satisfied? You sound like poor Slifkin , who has now spent a good portion of his life trying to take revenge for some incident that no one alive even remembers. Just kill your ex father-in-law with his spodek or shtreimel and get it over with.
"Besides for that, chareidim live in poverty and subsist on very little. They aren't enriching themselves off the public money by any means."
I agree with that, and have made the same argument. The only caveat is that all of those little stipends do add up. And it's particularly infuriating to people who don't want to fund what they see as a trojan horse. Why would you want to give *any* money to a group which regards your beloved military as a Hare Krishna factory?
Right, so this is exactly the problem that Jerry's writing about here. How do you have a democracy that has people with very different values? It's a real puzzle. Not just Israel. There's a huge clash of values in the US between the liberals and the Trump supporters and million other groups in between and more extreme than both. Do you appeal to tolerance? We chareidim are not exactly known for tolerance.
But I think one idea is appealing to common sense- by showing that democracy is the only way to have peace among diverse groups in the first place, and that undermining the democracy or the rights of certain groups (the ones that you absolutely can't stand) to represent themselves is very shortsighted and will only lead to bad outcomes for everybody. I believe Jerry is making a similar point here.
Well said.
Yes, this is very much one of the points, and if I didn't articulate this clearly enough, there you have it folks!
"But I think one idea is appealing to common sense- by showing that democracy is the only way to have peace among diverse groups in the first place, and that undermining the democracy or the rights of certain groups (the ones that you absolutely can't stand) to represent themselves is very shortsighted and will only lead to bad outcomes for everybody."
Cutting off funding to kollelim isn't really 'undermining anyone's rights.' In general, subsidizing something tends to produce more of it. If there's a common sense argument which says that a bunch of secular Jews should fund institutions which teach about about how secular Jews ought to fund religious institutions because they have no right to exist otherwise, you'd need to actually make such an argument.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=66383&st=&pgnum=144
הלא מי פתי יאמין שהאפיקורסים נותנים מעות וכלי זיין"
להלוחמים נגדם שיוכלו להתקיים ולעמוד במלחמה ,ומי הוא זה שקונה לעצמו
לוחמים שילחמו נגדו באמת, ובודאי שלא לחנם עושין כך, אלא שרואים בזה
דרך ואופן להחליש המלחמה נגדם ולהתיש כחה, להכניס ארס בחינוך הבנים
והבנות שבלעדי זאת אין להם שליטה עליהם באופן אחר.והיודע בכל מצב
החינוך הממשלתי יודע האמת שמה שממשלת האפיקורסים המעבירים על הדת בכל מאמצי כוחם נותנים תמיכה גדולה ועיקרית כ"כ להחינוך שלהם איש
מתנת חנם אלא כדאי הוא להם. ואין רצוני להאריך בזה כעת, ולא באתי
"בקונטרס זה אלא לבאר עיקר ההלכה של השתתפות למלוכה ולבחירות.
I never said cutting off funds to kollelim is undermining anyone's rights. I was talking about how people with very divergent values can coexist in a country. What happens in a democracy is that sometimes your tax money will go to causes you hate. It happens to me all the time in the US, and I'm sure to everybody else.
The Satmar Rebbe is of course right that the secularists will try any means they can to destroy Torah Judaism. But this would happen with or without a democracy. And many Gedolim disagreed with his practical approach.
I dont think thats true. Israel has more welfare benefits than the US. I havent seen studies myself but anecdotally i believe that they take advantage of whatever is offered.
If we're just talking about welfare, sure. But the Christian lobbyists, for example, receive a heck of a lot more government funding than you can even imagine. What the Charedim in Israel lobby for is pennies compared to any other large lobbying group. I'm not saying it's nothing and it does add up but it's major propaganda (which people like Slifkin eat up like cake) that we are bleeding the rich Israeli government dry.
How much Government funding to Christian lobbyists receive?
"What the Charedim in Israel lobby for is pennies compared to any other large lobbying group."
Another statement that is absolute junk. You trot out these tired old phrases. What 'large lobbying group' are you referring to that receives such a multiple of aid given to chareidim, such that relatively speaking chareidim only receive 'pennies'?
https://www.kav.org.il/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%96%D7%99/item/2646-%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%95%D7%97%D7%94
No! Chareidim must serve! No excuses!
If they're mad because the burden is not equal (an obfuscating slogan), that’s on them. - Huh? We are talking about defending Klal Yisrael in an Eis Tzara. To be moser nefesh like the rest of the nation is not a burden, it's a huge mitzva. Why is the blood of a chareidi bachur redder than a dati?
It is a huge mitzva! True!
But let me ask you, are the yeshivos in klal yisroel not really important? Like really important?
If we can agree on this point, let's talk: since there are two conflicting *very important* things at play, we really need to make things work on both ends. I, as well as anyone on this blog, am open to hearing good ideas. We are pretty much in the same page that ideally there should be a change. But be warned that the actors in charge of implementation have an uphill battle in a culture war, so the lemaaseh is not so simple.
The good idea is a hesder yeshiva. It's already around. I learned in one for two years. Those guys are amazing (not to discount anyone else).
Can you clarify what point you are trying to respond to?
Are you arying to respond to the allegation that charedim are highly inconsistent and hypocritical - they are happy to preach the Desslerian/heavy yeshivish model of hishtadlus (its all a smokescreen, the same result will happen with zero hishtadlus for a true ba'al bitochon) as the ideal when it comes to parnossoh and army, but in ALL other things they do as much hishtadlus as everybody else (including numerous hours of lost learning time canvassing in elections) and fund raising.
In that case, you have not explained anything at all.
I did a great job actually! Read it again if you didn't get it
Please flag the precise paragraphs were you deal with the self-contradiction.
"Well then, we have to use our political tactics and numbers to fight for the rights we have as a freedom of belief to fend for ourselves and get our (God's) way. And truthfully, towards anything that works to the cause of our mission, we are supposed to get involved. We eat and sleep so we can continue learning, and when done right, it's a mitzvah to eat, like bringing a korban. Same with voting. Hishtadlus, when used to maximize our mission, is actually something we do with zerizus"
In words of one syllable, why not say the same with army and parnossoh? Why refuse to teach sons skills necessary to earn a trade? Why rely on claims like 'Torah protects' when defending refusal to participate in any form in national service? Why were COVID precautions ignored in many shuls/botei midroshim on the basis that 'Hashem runs the world'?
In a nutshell, the charedi Desslerian approach claims over and over again hishtadlus in parnossoh matters is not needed for a true ba'al bitochon. And any hishtadlus is a 'smoke screen'. But as you concede, that does not apply to voting. What is the difference exactly?
That contradiction you have not addressed. At all.
I wasn't trying to address the entirety of Chareidi problems. I was addressing the fact that we don't join the army at 18 because that is obviously antithetical to our cause, but we do lobby and vote because that clearly supports our cause.
I already wrote in the previous post that many of the things we do in our isolationist mentality is wrong and needs to be fixed. But so long as being isolationist is not damaging to the cause, we will find this issue of being "too isolationist" as opposed to voting where being insular will hurt our mission.
Ok, so you haven't addressed the contradiction. Namely, that we can sit and learn torah in the beis hamidrash constantly without fear that malign neighbouring nations will succeed in destroying us, but we can't do the same re malign political anti-charedei forces. For the latter, we need to shut our gemoros and go and canvass for votes (and all the bitul torah that goes with it)
"Is playing the political game in line with the Torah? Absolutely! We will use the tactics provided for us as a right of democracy, simply to allow the Torah community to thrive. Anyone willing to engage with us and convince us that our moral system is wrong, good luck!"
You're conflating representative democracy with freedom of expression. The 2 aren't the same thing. For example, children have rights. But they can't vote. They're welcome to try to change that- as women did with the 19th amendment to the U.S. constitution, and 18 year olds did with the 26th, but for now the fact remains that even if all 14 year olds across the country were to unite, they still wouldn't have any political representation. Equally, just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have civil rights e.g. first amendment protection of their tik-tok videos.
"In all honesty, we'd rather be left alone and stay out of things. But we can't. Because our opponents won't leave us alone."
That's not accurate at all. No one is forcing anyone to take money from the government. And charedim don't just 'want to be left alone.' They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc. These are things which wouldn't fly in any other western democracy. https://www.timesofisrael.com/assailing-chief-rabbi-lapid-says-haredim-would-have-to-get-jobs-if-they-moved-abroad/ (To be clear, I happen to support many of those policies. But let's call a spade a spade.)
"They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc." Not sure why you think this wouldn't fly in any other democracy. We never asked for all streets to be closed. And the kosel is specifically a religious, ancient Jewish site.
If your point is that we are taking money, sure - https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/chareidim-in-a-democracy/comment/51460523
"We never asked for all streets to be closed".
What sort of response is that?
Nobody is discussing here shutting streets in the black bowls of chareidiland. His point was the historic battle over shutting streets like Bar Ilan which serve a large secular population. Chareidim were demanding that be shut. And your response 'well, we don't demand that Dizengoff in Tel Aviv is shut' is so off-topic and ridiculous, it shows your general explaining skills are somewhat poor.
"Not sure why you think this wouldn't fly in any other democracy. We never asked for all streets to be closed."
Try closing route 9 in Lakewood for shaboss.
"And the kosel is specifically a religious, ancient Jewish site."
That's true. But irrelevant. It's a public plaza. Non-Jews can and do come to visit there.
====
Here's a list of religiously motivated laws in Israel.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%93%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C#%D7%93%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA
If we needed to close streets for a religious reason and lobbied for the cause, people could be outraged but that's democracy. Overturning Roe v. Wade was an outrage for the left, but again, hey! That's democracy!
I use this example because a Charedi in Israel has a similar predicament to a Christian in America.
"but again, hey! That's democracy!"
So just to be clear, the following is also 'just democracy.' If kids yeshivos in England get shut down, that's democracy too. Correct?
https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2021/07/01/four-orthodox-schools-hackney-fail-29-ofsted-visits-inspectors-inadequate-teaching/
"Four Orthodox Jewish school in Hackney have managed to fail a combined 29 of their last 30 Ofsted inspections.
Bnois Jerusalem Girls School, Wiznitz Cheder School, Talmud Torah Yetev Lev, and TTD Gur School are have all been rated as ‘inadequate’ since at least 2014.
Each failed to meet independent school standards in monitoring inspections this year – and all scored low for ‘quality of leadership’ and ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils’.
Wiznitz Cheder was savaged for “weak implementation of health and safety policies”, a refusal to teach pupils about same-sex orientation, and teaching that “does not help pupils to make sufficient progress in the subjects they learn”.
...
Inspectors at Bnois Jerusalem – where pupils are not allowed to discuss same-sex relationships – were banned from talking to students about anything but ‘safeguarding, behaviour and bullying’.
They also discovered a refusal to mention evolution in science classes, a “limited” PE curriculum, and a reluctance to introduce any recognised qualifications for pupils in Year 11."
=====
Come to think of it, all those pride parades in Yerushalayim are vile, but, 'hey democracy!'
Yes to all of that! That's exactly the point! We, as much as anyone else, are allowed to fight for our beliefs in a democracy. There's no problem with that. All that's actually left to discuss is the legitimacy of the beliefs, but that's not the conversation anyone is having. Hence, we will just continue to do our thing.
Am I happy about a תועבה in ירושלים עיר הקודש ר"ל? no! I would think about reising kriah on witnessing such a terrible event.
Would I be happy if the Chilonim won and took away funding the funding from our yeshivos? Or about this yeshiva in England (not aware of the details)? Most certainly not! But does that mean we shouldn't do our thing to keep our mission alive?
In general, democracy and freedom of religion works in our favor, over the alternative. So we are pro-democracy even though some of the results are really bad.
"There's no problem with that. All that's actually left to discuss is the legitimacy of the beliefs, but that's not the conversation anyone is having. Hence, we will just continue to do our thing."
So to be clear, you're saying that charedim have the same right to advocate for pro-Charedi policies that LGBT folks have to argue for policies which favor them? If yes, then I'll ask you the same question which I asked Happy above: What position are you coming to argue against??? Is anyone arguing that charedim should advocate for things which go against their values???
Let's look at America, a democracy. A western democracy. Where people can live and do and be exactly as they please because there is no threat from any religious group that they will use their democratic power to change the system. Even if all the Christians got together to vote in a certain set of Christian laws, the core of the country is to be "areligious" with religious freedoms. But this also means that a Christian group can lobby for government funds and still not teach evolution, and in fact ban teaching evolution. That is not against democratic standards at all. That is their personal right to uphold their Christian values, and get government money for it by playing the political game. Chareidim in Israel have every right to use the government to uphold their religious beliefs.
Your first point about 14 year olds is irrelevant, unless you explain your position more clearly.
"Even if all the Christians got together to vote in a certain set of Christian laws, the core of the country is to be "areligious" with religious freedoms."
If they tried to pass christian laws, it would be struck down as a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution. And they wouldn't be able to claim that they just 'want to be left alone.' Likewise, most charedim in Israel don't 'want to be left alone.'
"But this also means that a Christian group can lobby for government funds and still not teach evolution, and in fact ban teaching evolution."
If they lobbied to have christian priests get a stipend for studying in a catholic seminary, mandated road closures on christian holidays, and also claimed special exemptions from generally applicable laws, there would be plenty of outrage.
"That is not against democratic standards at all."
If your argument is that anything which happens in a democracy is inherently 'democratic' that's obviously true by definition. Is that what you're arguing? And if it is, then in the event that Lapid were to become prime minister and the knesset were to pass a law cutting off all funding to charedim, and freezing any bank accounts they own, that would also be playing by the democratic rules.
I'm not sure where we are disagreeing.
Yes, if Lapid would win the democratic vote, they would be playing by the democratic rules, of course!
I'm not sure which laws we are trying to pass that violate "the constitution". We are a Jewish state, and our right to exempt our students isn't ridiculous. Yes, we need some kind of reform given the overwhelming rise of numbers, and probably some reform will come, whether Charedim slowly stop making Israel their home, whether laws are passed and compromises are made, whether we have an internal awakening to the needs of society and Charedim create their own frum battalions for 28 year olds. But if they can't understand the importance of our Yeshiva system, and the laws are in place to accommodate our needs, they can be mad and outraged, but we are still entitled to our opinion. What are you disagreeing with exactly?
It could be that we aren't. Cheers, if that's indeed the case. When I read the post, it seemed to me that you were making a much more sweeping argument. 🤷♂️
Cheers indeed!
Unless you articulate what it is that you disagree with. My main point was simply that we have strong values and since they don't acknowledge our values, we have no choice but to fight for our rights democratically, and we should.
I've been arguing for that for many years.
(And I saw many good points in קו ישר , so I linked a bit)
https://www.kav.org.il/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%96%D7%99/item/2649-%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%94%D7%91-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94