...I've noticed that many of the Jewish bloggers I come into contact with speak in the negative about religion. Not that they're anti-religion, but it's what they don't want to do or what they don't agree with, and not what they do want to do. I wanted to know what people consider positive about religion and the positive things that they find important in their beliefs.I think many of the bloggers who speak in the negative about religion (myself included of course) actually have a strong affinity to their culture/former religion. IMHO when some people stop taking religion on faith and look at it with a critical eye they feel betrayed and lied to and then they may go blog (negatively) about it. I get the impression that many bloggers feel a strong connection to their religious culture they just don't like how the religion manifests itself. I also think there are bloggers who feel trapped in their circumstance.
I can say for myself that I'm not against "Judaism and everything it has ever stood for". My issues with it have more to do with the assumption that it is "Perfect and True in every way", the idea that it contains the "Ultimate Truth", and the inflexibility of the system. In other words, I probably wouldn't be blogging if I was Reform. ( I know there is the Conservative Apikoris, but I wonder if there are any Reform skeptic blogs?)
But this all skirts around the real question in Jessica's post which was "what [do] people consider positive about religion and the positive things that they find important in their beliefs."
In my experience it's much easier to point out what is wrong with religion than to pick out what's right. When a religion makes verifiable claims you can refute them. When a religion believes that their leaders are infallible and then those leaders do horrible things you can expose them. These problems are usually specific to a particular religion or sect. On the other hand most positive religious values exist independent of religion. People in secular society give charity, don't murder and love their neighbor. If I were to pick something specific I would say Orthodox Judaism does a pretty sweet job of creating communities. But maybe what it comes down to (in my case) is I feel like most of the positive things in religion simply don't require religion.
---
I'm going to be out-of-town for Pesach and will probably not be doing any blogging. Have a Happy Pesach everyone!
59 comments:
I probably wouldn't be blogging if I was Reform.
Another reason Reform is leading the Jewish pack.
it's much easier to point out what is wrong with religion than to pick out what's right.
Ah, but this is the challenge. It's too easy for us to find the negative in general. In religion, in relationships, in career, etc.
I think it's all psychological fallout from us evolving from monkeys. Skittish, nervous little things. We'd all be much happier if we'd evolved from crocodiles.
How does that song go? "You've got to... focus on the positive, forget about the negative, [something else] on the affirmative...?" Anybody remember? (It's an annoying song, but i like it.)
I guess I phrased the last question a bit wrong. I didn't necessarily mean what do you find positive in a specific religion, but what about your religious/spiritual beliefs -- whether you are part of an organized religion or not -- do you find to be most important.
Jessica,
Either way, both are interesting questions. Good fodder for a futrue post perhaps.
Jessica,
It's not judaism per se that I'm negative about - it's religious fundamentalism, which includeds orthodox judaism.
There are many positive things about judaism - for me, it is the emphasis on the intellectual part of things. And, unique to judaism, study is of equal importance to the lay population - not just the clergy.
CandyMan without religion a lot of good ideas will be dropped and replaced with the idea that we can do as we feel. An example is you have a hard time finding a grounding for marital morals.
Rubbish.
Marital morals is hardly where I'd want to stake my claim, if I were arguing for religion.
For one thing, it is a classic case where, from a non-religious perspective, all the decision making belongs inside the marriage. It does not affect me one way or another if the marriages around me are conventional, same-sex, open, or plural.
Additionally, Judaism has strongly shifted its view of morality and marriage over the years, so it's hardly a case where you can point to Orthodoxy as an anchor of unchanging morality.
"It does not affect me one way or another if the marriages around me are conventional, same-sex, open, or plural."
It affects spousal realtions and children. In any event I was using it as an example.
"Additionally, Judaism has strongly shifted its view of morality and marriage over the years, so it's hardly a case where you can point to Orthodoxy as an anchor of unchanging morality."
Shifted in some ways but in many basic ways it is still the same. Even polygamy was hardly the norm if you were not a King.
Spousal relationships inside of a marriage are the business of the people inside of that marriage. If I'm not in that marriage, it doesn't affect me.
And as for marriage rules; what should the penalty be if a man rapes an unmarried woman but offers to marry her?
Oh, and as for polygamy, I could be mistaken, but I thought there was a fairly significant number of polygamous marriages among the refugees from the Arab nations who entered Israel shortly after founding.
"And as for marriage rules; what should the penalty be if a man rapes an unmarried woman but offers to marry her?"
He had to under Jewish law marry her but she did not have to marry him.
"Oh, and as for polygamy, I could be mistaken, but I thought there was a fairly significant number of polygamous marriages among the refugees from the Arab nations who entered Israel shortly after founding"
I think you are right. But I was thinking of Talmudic and Biblical days and also nonArab countries.
If he offered, and she declined, what would the penalty be to him for the rape?
"Spousal relationships inside of a marriage are the business of the people inside of that marriage. If I'm not in that marriage, it doesn't affect me."
True but the same is for anything. Still it does affect them.
"If he offered, and she declined, what would the penalty be to him for the rape?"
There was a fine in any event.
Fine paid to the victim, or the victim's father?
((In any case, I think my point on this one is fairly clear. I find the current secular laws on rape far more moral than the biblical laws.))
"Fine paid to the victim, or the victim's father?"
Fine payed to the father if he is alive but a fine in any event. There was no prison system in Biblical days.
"True but the same is for anything. Still it does affect them."
Well, of course. But they chose the marriage (and presumably chose the marital morality as part of that).
The same is true of any of the myriad decisions that happen in a marriage -- it doesn't affect me one way or another how they divide chores, spend money, decide where or how to live, etc.
"Fine payed to the father if he is alive but a fine in any event. There was no prison system in Biblical days."
Sure, but there were plenty of penalties harsher than a fine.
And being forced to marry her and never be able to divorce her was not pleasant. I would recommend to actually study Jewish law in detail.
""Fine payed to the father if he is alive but a fine in any event. There was no prison system in Biblical days."
Sure, but there were plenty of penalties harsher than a fine."
But Jewish law doesn't impose just any punishment you can think up. There was no torture allowed.
"Dave said...
"True but the same is for anything. Still it does affect them."
Well, of course. But they chose the marriage (and presumably chose the marital morality as part of that).
The same is true of any of the myriad decisions that happen in a marriage -- it doesn't affect me one way or another how they divide chores, spend money, decide where or how to live, etc."
Fine businesses can say the same thing our employess and partners choose to join under our rules.
"But Jewish law doesn't impose just any punishment you can think up. There was no torture allowed."
My point is that this is a discussion on comparing systems of morality.
The fact that Jewish law had harsher punishments available to it, but does not apply them in the case of rape, is an important data point.
If I'm not mistaken, the penalty for publically eating a sandwich during Pesach is far harsher than the penalty for rape.
From where I sit (firmly raised in the ethos of the Haskoleh), that is deeply wrong.
"Fine businesses can say the same thing our employess and partners choose to join under our rules."
They certainly can say that. And within large bounds, they are able to do just that.
However, under American jurisprudence, there is a strong difference between matters of the home, and matters of the public sector, and regulation of commerce is in the public sector. American law grants great deference to families about their home life (something which I would expect the Orthodox in America to greatly appreciate, given that they benefit tremendously from it).
"The fact that Jewish law had harsher punishments available to it, but does not apply them in the case of rape, is an important data point.
If I'm not mistaken, the penalty for publically eating a sandwich during Pesach is far harsher than the penalty for rape.
From where I sit (firmly raised in the ethos of the Haskoleh), that is deeply wrong."
The only harsher punishment would be death. In American law that is not the penalty for rape but it is given sometimes for spying and insubordination in the army sometimes. Further the death penalty was virtually if not entirely impossible to impose in practice so as a result if death would be the penalty then most of the time the rapist would not have any formal Halachic punishment.
“However, under American jurisprudence, there is a strong difference between matters of the home, and matters of the public sector, and regulation of commerce is in the public sector. American law grants great deference to families about their home life (something which I would expect the Orthodox in America to greatly appreciate, given that they benefit tremendously from it).”
True but we all digress as the topic originally wasn’t about marriage law but about how marriage should be independent of law.
Orthodox Jewish marriage law is pathetic. A woman is not even capable of divorcing her husband. A woman whose husband is missing (or refuses to divorce her) is therefore aguna -- doomed to be a "living widow," barred from remarriage. Her husband, in the meantime, is free to go and marry whomever he chooses.
Pretty sad.
And don't even get me started on Biblical marriage law, much of which was cruel and unusual to begin with.
How did this blog topic bring about a discussion on marriage laws?!
“The Candy Man said...
Orthodox Jewish marriage law is pathetic. A woman is not even capable of divorcing her husband.”
If the two consent to a divorce then it has been even easier than a civil court as there is no need to claim something wrong on the part of the spouse you want to divorce. Further even in civil law where one partner refuses a divorce it impedes the process. In both cases Jewish and civil there are ways to deal get the divorce but it takes longer. A man is also in Jewish law now is not allowed to divorce his wife without her consent. The Ketubah had been made to make divorce not easy on the part of the man.
A woman whose husband is missing (or refuses to divorce her) is therefore aguna -- doomed to be a "living widow," barred from remarriage. Her husband, in the meantime, is free to go and marry whomever he chooses.
Not so as he cannot have more than one wife so ordinarily it will be a hardship for him as well. Further as for the wife whose husband is missing there is no divorce in that case. In that case we have to see if he is likely alive or not. In civil law as well if the spouse is really alive a marriage granted in a society where only one spouse is allowed at a time is not valid then.
“Pretty sad.
And don't even get me started on Biblical marriage law, much of which was cruel and unusual to begin with.”
That’s a canard on your part and completely failing to do what you would with NonJewish societies namely avoiding ethnocentrism and you the guy who was saying about not blaming and who feels we are just animals and so our claim to morality is all rights.
Whatever, Gamliel. These issues where a man refuses to give his wife a get come up every day. There's a place for righteous indignation within Orthodox Judaism, and this is one of them.
Talk about caught in a web... I feel sorry for those women. It seems all you care about is defending history.
Contemporary civil law allows for a divorce even if one party objects. Jewish law does not.
Contemporary civil law is symmetric as to the ability to marry while already married. Jewish law is not (the ban on plural marriage was an Ashkenazic experiment, and is due to expire any time now anyway, and even with it in place, there is still an out for men).
As far as judging ancient practices, I'm sorry if you had me confused with someone who thought that all cultural values were equal.
I don't.
And from where I sit, there is something wrong with a moral code that says that of three things: Eating bread on Pesach, Driving on Shabbos, and Rape, the weakest penalty to be imposed is for Rape.
So back to your original point, that morals are worse in the absence of religion -- well, we simply don't agree.
"There's a place for righteous indignation within Orthodox Judaism, and this is one of them."
Those who are the good guys always try to do something about it and are idignant about it.
"Talk about caught in a web... I feel sorry for those women. It seems all you care about is defending history."
That is a canard against me and is total CRAP. You are yet the one who only cares about defending history as you see it when it only involves Israel and Jews.
Contemporary civil law allows for a divorce even if one party objects. Jewish law does not.
Contemporary civil law is symmetric as to the ability to marry while already married. Jewish law is not (the ban on plural marriage was an Ashkenazic experiment, and is due to expire any time now anyway,”
It already did expire but is kept.
“ and even with it in place, there is still an out for men).”
Well there’s outs for women too.
“As far as judging ancient practices, I'm sorry if you had me confused with someone who thought that all cultural values were equal.
I don't.”
I didn’t think you did. I was talking to CandyMan.
“And from where I sit, there is something wrong with a moral code that says that of three things: Eating bread on Pesach, Driving on Shabbos, and Rape, the weakest penalty to be imposed is for Rape.”
Eatinmg bread on Pesach doesn’t involve death it is heaven’s business. Driving on Shabbos doesn’t involve death as a penalty. As for the death penalty it gets imposed in U.S. law for spying sometimes and insubordination in time of war in the military. Still that doesn’t mean that just because a spy would get executed his crime is more than a rapist. Punishment is not simply punitive.
“So back to your original point, that morals are worse in the absence of religion -- well, we simply don't agree.”
I said:” CandyMan without religion a lot of good ideas will be dropped and replaced with the idea that we can do as we feel.”
You should have read more carefully.
I further said to Candyman:”An example is you have a hard time finding a grounding for marital morals.”
Because in CandyMan’s case he was wondering what basis can be given for it.
Contemporary civil law allows for a divorce even if one party objects."
Not in the first instance.
Actually, no.
The punishments for crimes do represent the relative seriousness of them.
So, yes, in the United States, treason is considered a more serious crime than rape. Murder is considered a more serious crime than rape. There is in fact a case that was argued at the Supreme Court today as to whether the rape of a child is sufficiently bad meet the Constitutional bar for execution.
I thought that the penalty under Jewish law for violating the Shabbos is death. I believe the penalty for violating Pesach is excommunication. The penalty for rape is a fine that isn't even paid to the victim, but rather to her father, making it look far more like reimbursing the father for property loss than a penalty.
Divorce in the United States only requires one party to file. The other party can contest it, but I'm not aware of any state in this country in which if one party says "I want to stay married", the marriage must remain intact.
“Dave said...
Actually, no.
The punishments for crimes do represent the relative seriousness of them.
Usually but not always. If a government considers it more practical to have a stiffer sentence it does not always represent what is felt is a higher crime.
“So, yes, in the United States, treason is considered a more serious crime than rape. Murder is considered a more serious crime than rape. There is in fact a case that was argued at the Supreme Court today as to whether the rape of a child is sufficiently bad meet the Constitutional bar for execution.”
Yes I read about that.
“I thought that the penalty under Jewish law for violating the Shabbos is death.”
It depends what is done on the Sabath. Also now in Jewish law there is no such penalty but even when there was it was almost impossible if not totally to sentence anyone to death for anything. Instead in the absense of a legal procedure if someone was dangerous I guess they were put away in a dungeon or whatever to keep people safe. There was no formal prison system.
“I believe the penalty for violating Pesach is excommunication.”
For eating Chametz there is a heavenly punishment.
“The penalty for rape is a fine that isn't even paid to the victim, but rather to her father, making it look far more like reimbursing the father for property loss than a penalty.”
No it is paid to the father if he is alive but the payment is for all that she went through. It is a collection of different things that the fine is for. The father is only getting it because she was still under his roof.
“Dave said...
Divorce in the United States only requires one party to file. The other party can contest it, but I'm not aware of any state in this country in which if one party says "I want to stay married", the marriage must remain intact.”
In Jewish law a woman also has grounds to file. It is when there is contestment that things are prolonged.
@RG
>Those who are the good guys always try to do something about [the agunah problem] and are idignant about it.
Yes, we agree here. The good guys do always try to do something about it. Let's hope they continue to improve on the situation.
One of my friends figured out a way to work a pre-nup into her k'tuba... and it was approved by an Ortho beit din. This is a step in the right direction.
>In Jewish law a woman also has grounds to file.
Not true. A woman cannot divorce her husband by Orthodox law. Only he can issue a get, and if it is issued compulsorily it is null and void like any other document.
Since Mishnaic times there have been Rabbinic workarounds to this issue, but the fundamental ("Biblical") law has not changed.
Ok. So we agrre on something. I have a relative who was in a bad marriage and a very great Gadol got her out of it.
">In Jewish law a woman also has grounds to file.
Not true. A woman cannot divorce her husband by Orthodox law. Only he can issue a get, and if it is issued compulsorily it is null and void like any other document."
He gives the get into her hand. She can file for divorce though. She does have grounds for it.
"Only he can issue a get, and if it is issued compulsorily it is null and void like any other document."
If a Jewish court forces the husband to consent it is valid. We say that deep down he wants to follow Jewish law even if we have to whip him, penalize and shame him to get that deep.
Since the topic of rape has been raised, I wanted to point out one of the absolute low points of the Hebrew Bible: a law permitting the rape and forcible marriage of the gentile captive woman.
Lest you say, "It is not rape," realize that the text itself calls it rape:
"And if you do not desire her, you should set her free, you should not sell her for money... since you have (already) raped her." (Deut. 21:14)
i.e., It's bad enough you raped her, but you want to sell her after that? Well, at least the text kinda admits that rape was not the nicest thing to do.
As a Jew, let me say to everyone reading this, I apologize for this ridiculous verse and the fact that it has been tolerated in our holy books for so long! It should be ripped out of those holy texts and thrown in the garbage where it belongs.
"And if you do not desire her, you should set her free, you should not sell her for money... since you have (already) raped her."
It doesn't say rape.
"13. And she shall take off the garment of her captivity, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
14. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you have humbled her."
"Humbled?" HA! No, the root ANH in this context means rape, just as it does in the case of Amnon and Tamar and Dinah and Shechem. Even the apologists recognize that this is the simplest interpretation of the verse.
If you really think it means "humbled," then I'd have to say you've never read it in the Hebrew. I've never encountered ANH meaning humbled anywhere... the root of the word is affliction, as you should know from the "bread of affliction" in the Passover Seder. "Afflicting" a woman means raping her, as by Dinah and Tamar.
Perhaps someone has confused the root ANV with ANH, and rendered it "humbled." In any case, it's a bad translation.
The guy is married to her. He was having relations with her married. Is there an obligation that it be raped. I tried looking for your translation amongst modern Christian ones even and frankly only saw mine strengthened.
So, let me get this straight.
A beautiful woman is captured in battle.
You decide to marry her (note that she doesn't get an option, at least in the text), so you take her home, wait a month, and have sexual relations with her (no statement as to whether or not she desired them), and if you don't enjoy it, you can kick her out, you just can't keep her as a slave.
And this is something you hold up as part of a laudable moral code?
Hehe, well Gamliel thanks for looking this stuff up in the translations. I did the same and was amazed to see that all these translations got it wrong. This does not particularly surprise me.
Anyways, the Hebrew source says RAPE in no uncertain terms. The link I provided earlier recognizes this, as should anyone with even a basic understanding of Biblical Hebrew. I don't know where the mistake crept in during the translations, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Septuagint purposely mistranslated this phrase in order to avoid gentile wrath.
I have already provided you with two examples of the Hebrew root ANH meaning rape in very similar contexts. The root generally means to afflict. If you think it means "humbled," then provide me one other case where this is the meaning of the root... because as I said before, I have never encountered the root being used in this way.
Again, this article seems to get the translation right. The woman who wrote it must have been able to read Biblical Hebrew, and had at least some familiarity with rest of the Pentateuch. That's why she didn't get thrown off course with bad English translations like RG did. It's worth checking out, although it's more drasha than academic work.
@RG,
>All you care about is looking politically correct.
Hehehe, this is about being BIBLICALLY CORRECT. And you as usual are wrong about what the Torah actually says.
"Dave said...
So, let me get this straight.
A beautiful woman is captured in battle.
You decide to marry her (note that she doesn't get an option, at least in the text), so you take her home, wait a month, and have sexual relations with her (no statement as to whether or not she desired them), and if you don't enjoy it, you can kick her out, you just can't keep her as a slave.
And this is something you hold up as part of a laudable moral code?"
They were married and it is saying about him divorcing her and her rights upon divorce. Maybe you would like to be judged harshly by future generations and not given consideration and the time needed to discover what motivated you.
"14. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you have humbled her."
She had been a war captive and was given time to mourn and then got married and she could not be treated as a slave.
It doesn't mean rape Candyman that's why she translates it as violated. If it meant rape then the same verse with Amnon and Tamar would not have said he overpowered her and violated her and lay with her. Only taken together do those three separate statements tell you Tamar was raped.
The word that she says is the root is the same word that is used to describe what a man who commited adultery did with his willing partner. She is not interpreting it correctly if she sees it as meaning sexual violence.
"Amnon and Tamar would not have said he overpowered her and violated her and lay with her. Only taken together do those three separate statements tell you Tamar was raped."
Correction even if it did not say "violated her" but as long as it still said "he overpowered her" together with "and lay with her."
She on the contrary I see just uses the word sexual violence more broadly as she says that rape is not mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:14 but rather she says that any consent was under the cirumstances of what happened.
RG, I'm glad you checked out the article. That's good enough for me. I suggest you let the possible translations stew for a while and see how you feel about it in a year or so. In any case, I appreciate the research you did and for bringing to my attention these (to my mind, mis-)translations.
Ok. Your welcome.
Post a Comment