Similarly, an approach used by many kiruv workers is simply to get people involved, and then keep them involved until they 'feel' something. I've been advised by people I've spoken to about my lack of faith that I should "do mitzvahs", "put tefillin on everyday" and "pray even if you don't get anything out of it."
But practicing religion is different from simply identifying with the culture. Other countries, nations, and cultures exist. Judaism is all those things too... but different. It exists as a culture and as a nation and as a state and people identify with each of those aspects of the religion. But ultimately it rests on the religion. If you take the religion out of it does it really hold together? Then again, most of the skeptics I talk to (or read) aren't looking to chuck all of Jewish culture when they chuck religion. They just want out of the aspects that they know aren't true or that they disagree with. But I digress...
Is
-------------------------
Thanks to a very generous donor the LubabNoMore/CandyMan Obama fundrasier is only 3.4 times chai away from reaching our goal! Be one of the 3.4 donors (of just $18) who helps push us over the top!!!
We need a President with the courage and integrity to change Washington. If you're sick of the last eight years and want a President with a different agenda please vote for Barack Obama this November. If you want to do more join me in supporting Barack by making a donation to the LubabNoMore/CandyMan fundraiser.
27 comments:
Interesting questions
From what I heard, it has to do with being responsible for our brothers and sisters. That's why people feel the need to help.
But a person can only guide someone so much, eventually it's up to the second person to decide whether or not to continue along this road.
My tips to others are to read info on Jewish topics, talk to someone, and tell Hashem how we feel
shalom
I think that kiruv is essentially missionizing, but technically we don't call it that when Jews are try to influence other Jews, but essentially its the same process: trying to attract others to your system of values and beliefs, using social, emotional or intellectual means. If you think about, its they way that all religions started out and spread.
There may be something real to the idea of 'naaseh venishma'-- that the practice can generate a certain feeling. I believe that in psychology there is something called neurolinguistic programming (NLP) which says something similar.
On the other hand, it can go in the opposite direction as well-- somebody who had been practising mitzvot his whole life continues doing so out of rote, while in fact losing the feeling behind it, and becomes a skeptic. I think that is the story of many of the readers on this blog...
"Is an aim of NSCY and other kiruv groups simply to get people involved until they can't make the distinction between "being religious" and identifying with the culture, and community?"
Is an aim of AA and similar groups simply to get people to be sober until they don't want to drink any more? That's probably part of it.
Lvnsm27,
>From what I heard, it has to do with being responsible for our brothers and sisters. That's why people feel the need to help
You're talking about motive. I have no doubt many kiruv working do what they do because they believe that they are saving people. What I'm talking about are tactics.
"But ultimately it rests on the religion. If you take the religion out of it does it really hold together?"
Well, paradoxically, you seem to defend the religious point of view when you say that.
From a purely neutral perspective: No one ever has proven the existence of G-d (and even the jewish religion stipulates that this is not possible), but the "jewish culture" exists as a reality in this world.
So if you stipulate that there is no G-d, than you assume that the whole thing holds together without a G-d.
I think there can be a "cultural praxis" without the basis of religion.
The problem is only that most people will perhaps not be ready to take upon themselves a lot of discomfort to uphold their "cultural specificity" (like Shabbat, kashrut, etc) if they do not believe that they will get a reward if they do or that they will get punished if they don't.
I think, for example, that the practice of daily Tefila with Kavana has an effect on your psychic constitution, even if you do not believe in it... I mean it has been shown by MRI that Buddhist Monks have different brain patterns than people who do not practice daily meditation. Why shouldn't Tefila have a similar effect, that you can prove objectively.
So I think that, from an agnostic's point of view, it is perfectly compatibly to be agnostic and meticulosly observant of the halacha.
Of course, this is not the religious point of view.
FYI: I edited the post. I wanted to talk about the tactics of kiruiv (and self brain washing) and it's clear the words "an aim" were not making that clear.
Is a tactic of NSCY and other kiruv groups simply to get people involved until they can't make the distinction between "being religious" and identifying with the culture, and communit
I don't think it's a sinister or even a conscious aim, but certainly I think it's a reality. The reason people are pulled in is because they see a bunch of other people (their friends) who are also into it. It's just like any other peer pressure phenomenon.
Ultimately our beliefs and ideas are so, so, so heavily influenced by the neighborhood in which we live. If you want to learn the truth, move.
In the book, "My Year In Radical Islam". The author speaks about being taught to get people to perform and action long enough and the belife will follow soon after. He didn't realize until it was to late that he was falling for that trick himself.
I'm all for people being more religious and active in the community. But psychological strongarming is the exact same as if I pinned them down and put tefillin on them. Let the sparks of desire to do mitzvot come from within and from hashem, and I'll be there to help them as much as I can, as they need it. Everybody around me knows that i'm the local shliach's leg man and all they have to do is call Chabad and one of us will be out in a flash. No need to do any psychological strong arming to anybody.
BTW, My name is Shmuley, I'm new to blogger, and I've enjoyed lurking on your blog for a while now.
AVi,
I'm curious. Why are you so strongly against voting for Obama?
LUBAB my friend. You want to know why I am so against voting for Obama, read this please, Avi *****************************
A strong effort by the Jewish community to stand up and show the world that we are united in our fight against this madman has been hijacked by those with a political agenda. We are extremely disappointed that in response to political pressure from partisan organizations, Governor Palin has been disinvited to the "Stop Iran" rally in New York. We are disappointed that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Biden chose to participate in this important event. Yet again they have missed an opportunity to stand up to Iran and have their voices heard," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "Senators Obama and Biden and their supporters have handed Ahmadinejad a big win."
I am sending you the whole article in it's entirety.....Avi AP:Ahmadinejad Says Israel Won't Survive
Washington, D.C. (September 19, 2008) -- The Associated Press reported yesterday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at Israel on Thursday, saying the Jewish state would not survive, even if it gave up land for a Palestinian state.
He also dismissed allegations that his country is trying to make nuclear arms.Speaking to reporters in Tehran, the hard-line leader smirked at the former mantra of the Israeli right of a "Greater" Israel that would include land Palestinians want for a future state. The idea has since been abandoned, with the Israeli political consensus now being that there would be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, on either side of Israel.
"I have heard some say the idea of Greater Israel has expired," Ahmadinejad said. "I say that the idea of lesser Israel has expired, too."
Ahmadinejad used the news conference to speak at length before traveling to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly that opened Tuesday.
The Iranian president repeated previous anti-Israel comments, calling the Holocaust a "fake" and saying that Israel is perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian people.
Yesterday Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks expressed outrage that the planned "Stop Iran" rally in New York had been hijacked by those with a political agenda.
"A strong effort by the Jewish community to stand up and show the world that we are united in our fight against this madman has been hijacked by those with a political agenda. We are extremely disappointed that in response to political pressure from partisan organizations, Governor Palin has been disinvited to the "Stop Iran" rally in New York. We are disappointed that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Biden chose to participate in this important event. Yet again they have missed an opportunity to stand up to Iran and have their voices heard," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "Senators Obama and Biden and their supporters have handed Ahmadinejad a big win."
BTW, My name is Shmuley, I'm new to blogger, and I've enjoyed lurking on your blog for a while now.
Welcome, Shmuley! Nice to see you step out from the shadows.
Every village has it's idiot but only in Israel does the village idiot run the country.
You don't live in America then.
Are you trying to be the village idiot of Crown Heights. I mean trying to get Jews to give money for Mr. Obama ? I think that has got to be the dumbest thing imaginable.
I actually think diplomacy with Iran is in our best interests. Call me crazy.
That is not to say there is no place for protest. It is to say that protest should be done thoughtfully. And it should be coupled with education and outreach. This was MLK's approach in the segregated South.
If you are concerned about a nuclear Iran - truly concerned - then you should set aside your pride issues (which is how you are thinking) and start thinking about how to make Israel a safer place to live.
Avi,
Again, why are YOU so strongly against voting for Obama?
The text you cut & pasted written by people with a political agenda complaining about people with political agendas doesn't really explain your point of view.
The text you cut & pasted written by people with a political agenda complaining about people with political agendas doesn't really explain your point of view.******************************
Sure it does. That article was not copied and pasted. That was the article in it's entirety. When Iran says that they intend to wipe Israel off the map as soon as possible, what are you gonna do?? Obama says lets discuss it guys, what is there to discuss ?? Iran has already made it's intentions clear. This requires action not talk. Obama is not the man to lead us anywhere but into more trouble. And being that you like me are an agnostic or atheist saying tehillim is not the solution....Avi
Avi,
So you're saying you are against voting for Obama because of his willingness to engage in diplomacy with Iran. OK. You didn't really say that before, nor does the article make that clear.
Of course if diplomacy is your concern you should know that with regard to Iran Bush also prefers diplomacy to bombs.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/america/prexy.php
Just saying.
Lubab. Of course diplomacy beats any other option. But when push comes down to shove, who is more likely to do something that may be unpleasant?? I believe that Obama like Kerry before him just wants to be president at any cost. I do not trust him, i believe that I see through him and I am sure that many other Americans agree with me. This is not the man who can lead us into a brave new world. Very much on the contrary if this man gets into office he will lead us into chaos and trouble. Who do the Arabs want to win the election ? That should tell us a great deal about what we can expect from Obama. A lot of hemming and hawwing but very little decisive action. I dont believe that we have the luxury of a weak willed president at times like this......Avi
I am inclined to agree with Avi.
Although Obama has alot of good will and detailed plans for America, in the end we need someone with courage and clarity of vision regarding the realities of human nature, including the nature of the West's enemies. Good will wont go very far with Al Qaida and Iran and Russia.
America has declined under Bush, some of which his fault and some isn't. The economic problems come from excessive greed and profligate consumerism, not because of Bush's policies.
I know it is unlikely that you will change your mind but I do want to address some of these misconceptions about Obama.
> we need someone with courage and clarity of vision regarding the realities of human nature, including the nature of the West's enemies.
Obama isn't some sort of wimpy push over. Take his position on going after Bin Laden even if we have to invade Pakistan. Definatly not from the liberal "lets all be friends" playbook. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
> The economic problems come from excessive greed and profligate consumerism, not because of Bush's policies.
I'm going to disagree with you there. The economic problems ARE due to Bush's lack of action on what was an obvious problem. (There will always be greed. The founding fathers understood that and built it into the system). A true free-market will result in monopolies. You need regulation to keep things fair. Bush failed to enact proper regulation and failed to step in when this crisis was developing.
John McCain has said previously "I know a lot less about economics that I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Based on his recent repeated claims that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" I gather that he is still ignorant on economic issues.
A McCain presidency will just be more of the same.
America has declined under Bush, some of which his fault and some isn't.
The Bush presidency has been a disaster. The Republican party has failed by every measure. How anyone can even think of voting Republican after the mess they've made is beyond me.
But go ahead and support them if you want. Go ahead and vote for Bibi if you want, too. Won't matter. Y'all already had your day in the sun, and your parties f*cked it all up royally. If I were you, I'd be rethinking everything. But somehow, people after a certain age don't seem capable of that... sigh.
This November, the Republican party and the religious right are gonna get fired. It'll be a beautiful thing to kick all those old fools out on their asses. These failed policies - what we need is a clean sweep. No more of this religious crap. No more making wars when we don't have the means. No more arrogance - no more arrogance of the hawkish, religious right which starts fights like a belligerent child and then expects America to go down for its sins.
The day of religion and jingoism in politics is dead. The days of escalating conflict are dead. We're taking it in another direction. You can be part of it, or you can be passed by. Your way has failed, whether or not you realize it now or ten years from now.
I'm not THAT old (48)!
I'm not in anybody's pocket. I voted for Clinton both times. I voted for Ehud Barak over Bibi in 1999. I voted for Olmert and Kadima in 2005. But I think different times call for different leaders. I hope Tzipi Livni succeeds in making a deal with the Palestinians, but I'm pretty sure she won't because the Pals can't accept as a minimum the maximum Israel can give. The conflict is insoluable, and any belief otherwise represent magical messianic thinking. Similarly, in America, we need a Churchill, not a Chamberlain.
If the Iranian lunatic's speech at the UN yesterday doesn't convince you that he is today's Hitler, than nothing would. In 1939 would negotiation have avoided war? Maybe only if we would have just surrendered ahead of time.
> we need a Churchill, not a Chamberlain.
Please tell me you don't buy into Bush's false accusation that Obama's plan is the same as Chamberlain's actions.
Please watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w
> Iranian lunatic's speech at the UN yesterday doesn't convince you that he is today's Hitler, than nothing would.
Ahmadinejad is a major concern. Obama understands that andhas condemned his remarks. But don't make the mistake of assuming the correct approach with Ahmadinejad is what worked with Hitler. Different tyrants need different approaches.
> In 1939 would negotiation have avoided war? Maybe only if we would have just surrendered ahead of time.
Why do you equate negotiation with surrender? Chamberlain's approach was to try an buy off Hitler, NOT to negotiate with him. Bush's approach with Iran has been a call for negotiation. Why is it cool when Bush suggests it but it's an issue when Obama brings it up?
I, too, favour "diplomacy" at this point-- which includes threats of sanctions, firm red lines, and international isolation. I don't favor fake "negotiation" that gives the Iranians a forum to stall for time and to spread their antisemitic radical ideology. My sense is that Obama would prefer the latter like many of the Europeans.
With regards to the financial meltdown, blaming Bush is disingenuous. It is the result of decades of irresponsible behaviour in the financial sector, unbridled consumerism and the lack of proper regulatory oversight. This caught everybody off guard, both on the left and the right.
> I, too, favour "diplomacy" at this point-- which includes threats of sanctions, firm red lines, and international isolation.
How can you favor "diplomacy" but not "negotiation"? You're arguing semantics. Bush doesn't want "diplomacy" with Iran. He wants to negotiate with them about their nuclear facilities.
If you want threats of sanctions and isolation (which can only work with red lines) then you should check out Obama's plan for engaging with Iran.
"If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
Source: BarackObama.com/Foreign Policy/Iran
> the financial meltdown
Even the media was talking about the dangers sub-prime mortgages for a very long time. And the real experts knew it was an issue. Buffet saw it coming. When people began defaulting on their mortgages en mass Bush should have come up with a plan. People saw this coming. Bush was either unaware or he simply trusted the free-market to sort it out.
Lubab,
How can you even think of voting for Obama after this mess? You're seriously blaming Bush for this? He was trying to stop it. So was McCain.
It's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama cohorts Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Acorn who were letting Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae grow, and making banks loan money under the Community Reinvestment Act. It was arguably Spitzer who forced AGI to change leadership to the guys who were in power when it failed.
So ask yourself who do you think is better able to solve the problem-- McCain who was trying to limit Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae or Obama, whose idea of a solution is a bail out plan that gives a ton of money to Acorn, and whose advisors got rich off the current debacle?
If this is what you want, then go collect money for Obama because what you'll get is more of the same.
And did you see the latest out of St. Louis about the Dem prosecutors who are going to prosecute those who run "false" ads about Obama? That's the type of people you'll have in power under an Obama administration.
As far as negotiating with Iran, Obama is probably going to put in Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher, who've already made a mess of things. And if Obama tries to negotiate with Iran he's the one who's going to blink first. That won't be the case with McCain or Palin. I doubt that Iran or the Russians or the Chinese will try to pull the same stuff on McCain or Palin that they'd pull on Obama
Ichabod Chrain
IC,
I am not looking to change your mind. You've clearly already decided who to vote for. But please tell me how Bush was trying to stop this crisis. What did Bush do to stop this problem before it got out of hand? As for McCain, he was saying just the other week that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Face it. McCain doesn't know what he is talking about when it come to the economy.
You argue that McCain is fighting for less government involvement but that is what got us into this problem in the first place. The government didn't step in and regulate the sub-prime mortgages before that situation got out of hand. Now we are all paying for it.
On foreign policy:
Are you seriously arguing that Palin can hold her own in the international arena? Palin's only claim to foreign policy experience is that Alaska is close to Russia. You think Putin will go easy on her because they were "neighbors"? She is way out of her league. The possibility of a Palin administration is reason enough to vote Obama.
As for McCain, he was wrong when he said Iraq would be easy. McCain was wrong when he said that we would be greeted as liberators. McCain was wrong when he said we would find WMD. The guy seems to lack judgment when it comes to international affairs.
Lubab,
Maybe I can't change your mind either, but let me try to answer your questions. As I said, the Republicans including McCain were trying to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Dems, who controlled Congress, were stopping them. The Clinton DOJ's enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act also helped create the problem.
As for foreign policy, I would just take what you said and substitute Obama for Palin. (BTW the interview that CBS had with her was reportedly heavily edited) And yes I do think that if the time comes, Palin is far more likely to effectively negotiate than is Obama. In fact I don't even think a serious argument could be made otherwise.
As far as Iraq goes, I think the war was justified. Obama didn't even want to go in there even when everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. Obama has voted with the Dems to delay funding for the war to support their agenda even though the delay was harming the troops.
Lshona Tova,
Ichabod Chrain
Post a Comment