Friend: Hi, Lubab. How've you been?
Lubab: Good. What's going on?
Friend: I'm glad I ran into you. The wife and I are have some college kids over for Shabbos as part of a kiruv program. We want to invite you and Mrs. Lubab over for lunch. These guys need to see that you can be both normal and frum.
Lubab: Normal and frum, eh? Er, I only meet one of those two requirements.
Friend: Ha! No really, we'd love to have you.
Lubab: Actually, my in-laws are coming over so I'm going to have to pass. Sorry.
Friend: Oh well. Maybe next time.
I feel like Orthopraxy is catching up with me. Orthopraxers, do you have experiences where you have to misrepresent yourself or lie about your beliefs?
19 comments:
"I feel like Orthopraxy is catching up with me. Orthopraxers, do you have experiences where you have to misrepresent yourself or lie about your beliefs?"
It didn't sound like you lied.
I bite my tongue in certain social environments, but generally I try to be up front. But also I don't need the whole world knowing my thoughts about every little matter.
Sounds like most people.
When at a function & I am asked if I davened mincha yet I nod with an affirmative. If don't particularly care for the questioner, I tell him I don't daven. (somehow this gives some type of perverted satisfaction). I ordered both Auslander books from Amazon. It should be an enjoyable read. BTW Naomi Regan is in town this this promoting her latest indictment on the frum world. If I am on the west side I will make a point to attend
RG,
> It didn't sound like you lied.
Maybe not, but I misled in my own little way.
You'll have to decide whether you're going to be orthoprax or not. If you're orthoprax, you're not hiding anything, just some personal opinions about issues that are nobody's business.
On the other hand, if you're giving up practice, there's no avoiding the inevitable awkward confrontation with your friends...
"Lubab No More said...
RG,
> It didn't sound like you lied.
Maybe not, but I misled in my own little way."
But you're rabbi knows. Your wife knows and your friend could figure it out if he wouldn't have thought you were not serious. If you can feel honest then you must be. Lying only can be a necessary evil never an ideal.
DrJ,
> If you're orthoprax, you're not hiding anything, just some personal opinions about issues that are nobody's business.
That's true most of the time. But if I'm orthoprax I'm not going to agree to serve as a role model of an orthodox person (like in my post). Personally, I also wouldn't encourage someone to be orthodox if they had a choice. But that's another story.
I hope this is not going to sound too extreme, however for the sake of clarity could we clean up the terminology a little bit?
According to my dictionary, "orthopraxy" means "The treatment of deformities in the human body by mechanical appliances."
"A person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion" or "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" is called in English a hypocrite.
LMN,
I think that it would be wise to not heed JP's sarcastic and unhelpful postings. We all know what we mean by orthopraxy. It is not hypocritical any more than is an American who acts patriotic to his country, even though he may not believe all of the national myths. By being orthoprax you are participating in Jewish national life, even if you don't buy into all of the rabbinic teachings.
On the contrary, orthodoxy of the type that JP describes advocates outward ritual piety while at the same time justifying the deaths of millions in the holocaust due to their "sins"... I invite all of you readers to decide where the hypocrisy is here.
What would you call a Catholic priest who administers communion each Sunday morning while secretly not believing in God and having a girlfriend?
What would you call a Jewish man who belongs to an Orthodox synagogue and performs Kiddush for his family every Friday night, while secretly not believing in God and not observing the Sabbath?
We have word for this in English. We don't need some sort of Orwellian Newspeak.
JP,
It's not what you call the priest or the guy who makes kiddush. It's whether there's something morally wrong with the inconsistency.
What exactly is wrong with the Catholic priest in the example you give? If he hears someone's vidui, tells him to say some Catholic brochos in accordance with Catholic halacha, and the Catholics then consider the sin as being absolved, what do we care what you call the priest. It makes no difference. It's no different from any other inconsistency that we see all the time.
As I see it if you want to argue that there's something morally wrong with what he's doing, then you need to make out your case. As far as I've seen, you haven't.
Ichabod Chrain
The priest is certainly doing something wrong. He is misrepresenting himself. People want a real priest. The nonbelieving Jew by making Kiddush doesn't lie. He can only lie by giving a false impression. Nonreligious Jews make Kiddush all the time. That's not a false impression in and of itself.
Nowhere does the Torah say you have to fulfil all the mitzvot to perform any of them. I know some BTs in progress who keep kosher at home only and wear sheitels while droving to their local chabad.
RG,
If the priest is doing something wrong and the guy who makes kiddush isn't, then JP's analogy doesn't hold.
But my question involved assuming that the priest's absolving the sinner of his sins works, or that a Catholic would consider it to have worked. Then he's not misrepresenting the effectiveness of what he's doing.
So if you assume that what he's doing is effective, then you have to explain what the problem is with what you call his misrepresenting himself.
Ichabod Chrain
I mean if he is giving the impression that he is a believing priest. I have to admit though that since Catholic clergy whether following the Vatican or not are still all in the same organization you may be right. If the Church where this one is a priest is supposed to be "Orthodox then the priest would be misrepresenting himself" otherwise no.
"If the priest is doing something wrong and the guy who makes kiddush isn't, then JP's analogy doesn't hold."
I know. I'm not a party line guy so I don't pledge allegience.
In my orthopraxy, i feel more guilty about being the third person for a mezuman or the 10th for a minyan.
at that point, it is definitely questionable whether they can count you or not.
JP,
But that's just it. It's not what you call him, it's why you call him that. I wouldn't say he's a hypcrite because he's not insisting that you do something that he avoids doing.
The situation you've given is different. So you have to explain why you're faulting them, or what it is about hypocrisy that you think is bad, because I'm not sure that what's wrong with hypocrisy exists in the examples you've given.
So by calling the people in your example hypocrites, and not explaining what's wrong, you're avoiding the issue. Unless you can say what's wrong, calling someone a hypocrite is no different from saying I don't like his taste.
Ichabod Chrain
Post a Comment