Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Pious Perverts

My BMG-going brother-in-law is getting married this summer to a girl from Lakewood, in a Lakewood wedding hall. We found Easter dresses – I mean, wedding gowns – for my daughters for a great price, but were told they would have to wear shirts under the (sleeveless) dresses to cover their arms. My daughters are seven and four. Worse, this dictate was passed to us by my wife’s sister, who was similarly surprised and dismayed when her mother told her that her one-year-old had to have her arms covered. My mother-in-law said it was implied to her that everyone must conform to Lakewood standards of tznius.

Tznius is touted as virtuous, and the tznius frum woman supposedly is not identified solely with her body, in sharp contrast with the debauchery of the general culture, where women are sexualized and objectified. In truth, tznius (at least in its current incarnation) creates a culture where women are highly sexualized, so much so that they are basically walking sex objects. Granted, they’re valued on how well they keep their sexuality from distracting men, rather than on how much they flaunt it, but that just makes it worse. It lets the society pretend that it’s exceptionally virtuous, that it’s not sexualizing women, while in fact it’s making women’s sexuality their most salient feature.  The culture around an underwear model is not claiming piousness,   while the pious tznius culture sexualizes women so much that even an elbow is pornographic.

Nor is it just a matter of social norms, of what is and isn’t considered acceptable to show in public. Women are told that their greatest mitzvah is tznius, just as men’s greatest mitzvah is learning. And why is tznius so important? Not as an end in itself, but so that men don’t chas v’shalom notice anything sexy, because apparently a man noticing a woman and thinking, “Hey, she’s pretty!” is a horrible aveirah. To say nothing of actual sexual thoughts. For a woman, it’s not talmud torah k’neged kulam, but hiding-that-you’re-at-all-attractive k’neged kulam.

Which brings me back to my daughters and niece and their sleeveless dresses.  If the reason for tznius is lifnie iver, the concern that a non-tznius woman will cause a man to have sinful thoughts, then it follows that anything banned for tznius reasons must be at least somewhat arousing. And because we don’t pasken halachos based on far-fetched cases, it must be something that is arousing to most people, and not just one or two people with strange predilections. It further follows that if little girls are made to cover their arms for tznius reasons, then it must be that the average person in the society finds little girls’ arms sexual. [For the record, I doubt that anyone in the yeshivish world has thought through the logical implications of tznius for one-year-olds, but still…].

So not only are adult women sex objects whose sexuality must be minimized to prevent sin, but even little girls are sex objects! And they have the chutzpah to call secular society sick!

Monday, April 7, 2014

Producing Prayer’s Perceptions

From Cults In Our Midst, by Dr. Margaret Singer, among persuasion techniques used by cults are:

Continuous overbreathing causes a drop in the carbon dioxide level in the bloodstream, producing respiratory alkalosis. In its milder stages it produces dizziness or light-headedness. More prolonged overbreathing can cause panic, muscle cramps, and convulsions. Cults often have people do continuous loud shouting, chanting or singing to produce this state, which they reframe as having a spiritual experience
Constant swaying motions, clapping or almost any repeated motion helps to alter a person's general state of awareness. Dizziess can be produced by simple spinning or spin dancing, prolonged swaying and dancing. Group leaders relabel the effects of these motions as ecstasy or new levels of awareness.

As a teenager I would often get dizzy during Shacharis. And the shukeling in some shuls, to borrow an image from Mark Twain, could power a city if only someone would find a way to attach the bobbing upper bodies to a generator.

The above techniques are not used in the frum world for blatant manipulation in the way they’re used by cults, but it seems likely these behaviors – prolonged chanting causing changed breathing patterns and repetitive motion – evolved and became a standard part of davening for the same reasons that cults urge them on their members. They are physiological means to produce real experiences which can then be pointed to as experiential proof of the validity of davening in particular and Judaism in general.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The General, the Rabbi, and the Roman

I just came across something interesting.

In his “War of the Jews,” Josephus describes how he attempted to defend the town of Jotapata. Convinced that the town would fall to the Romans, he suggested that he should sneak out and raise an army to lift the siege, but the townspeople refused to let him go. When the town fell, Josephus was captured. When he met Vespasian, the general in command of the Romans, he predicted that Vespasian would become Emperor. When this happened two years later, Josephus was released and granted full Roman citizenship, land, and new wife.

This reminded me of something I had learned in school.

The gemara (Gittin 56a-b) tells the story of how when Yerushalayim was besieged by the Romans, R’ Yochanan ben Zakai suggested surrendering. He was overruled, and so had his students sneak him out in a coffin. Once outside the city walls he went to Vespasian’s tent, where he predicted that the general would become Emperor. When this happened, R’ Yochanan was granted favors by the new Emperor, including the right to establish a yeshiva in Yavneh and transfer the Sanhedrin there.

 The two stories are strikingly similar. It’s hard to swallow either as historically accurate, but Josephus’s story was written by the man himself, only decades after the event. The gemara was written centuries later. Which seems more likely:
  1.  Nearly identical stories happened to Josephus and to R’ Yochanan ben Zakkia – and in both cases Vespasian was surprised by the prediction, apparently having forgotten whichever came first.
  2.  Josephus attributed R’ Yochanan ben Zakkei’s story to himself.
  3. Josephus’s story, having been written down, was in circulation in the Roman world, and particularly in the Jewish Roman world. Passed around orally by the mostly illiterate public, at some point, the story was misattributed to R’ Yochanan ben Zakkai, and this version was canonized by the gemara.

I’m voting for #3.

Everyone’s A Slave…

“You’re either a slave to Hashem or you’re a slave to your taivos.” How many times have we heard that? It's one of the standard kiruv sound bites, and is a particularly grating one. It sounds profound, is meant to suggest that no one can be free, and that, as long as we’re all slaves, being a slave to God is better than being a slave to our desires. I think it’s time to put this banal assertion to rest.

Before I get to deconstructing the logic of the claim, here’s something funny. I wanted to find out where the idea comes from, so I typed “a slave to god or a slave to your desires” into Google. The first result is a passage from the New Testament, Romans 6:16-18:

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.”

I went through a few pages of results and tried variations of the search phrase, and it really seems that this idea comes from the New Testament. How funny that Rebbonim and Roshei Yeshiva are giving mussar shmusen based on something written by the apostle Paul!

The claim itself is a false dichotomy. It suggests that there are only two choices. Either one does as Hashem commands, or one is a slave to his “taivos,”  which literally mean “desires” but in this context means “base desires:” pleasure, money, power, etc. As someone recently pointed out, even if it’s true that everyone is a slave to something, why would it have to be base desires? Someone could be a slave to his compassion, or his sense of justice, to caring for his family or to improving his community.

Hidden in the claim is another sound bite, the often-heard canard that without God, there is no morality, so of course if one doesn't enslave himself to God he will be overwhelmed by his base desires.  It’s not true that without God there’s no morality, but, more importantly, the notion that if someone isn't a slave to God he’ll be only concerned with fulfilling his base desires is demonstrably false. It’s just not true that non-religious people’s lives are non-stop orgies.

The corollary is also not true. Religious people are not free of their desires by virtue of being religious. There are religious people who are overwhelmed by their base drives. The idea is that you must be a slave to something; being a slave to your base desires is bad; so be a slave to God, which will prevent you from being enslaved by your desires. Yet one can be a slave to God AND a slave to his desires, so what is gained by being a slave to God?

In addition to being a false dichotomy, it also uses an equivocation fallacy. Being a slave to an intelligent Being and being a “slave” to your desires is not the same thing. Webster defines “slave” as:

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

Neither is a  good situation to be in, but the first one is worse. Someone who is a slave to his desires may have serious problems, may even destroy his life, but he can, in theory, overcome his difficulties and regain control. Someone who is chattel is no longer someone in control of his own fate. He is property, just a thing to be used as his master sees fit.

I’m thinking about going through all the kiruv sound bites like this, and then create an index. Here's a short list:

  • You’re either a slave to Hashem or you’re a slave to your taivos.
  • Without Hashem, everything is hefker (there’s no morality without God).
  • There are no questions, only answers.
  • Our grandparents died for their beliefs.

And maybe some of the proofs?:

  • There’s an unbroken mesorah.
  • Our sifrie Torah are exactly the same as ones that are hundreds of years old / the same as what was handed to Moshe on Har Sinia,
  • The Kuzari.
  • The four-animal proof.

Any more?

Friday, May 31, 2013

Biblical Record, Excerpt, Bamidbar 13-14

From the official biblical record, as recorded by a duly appointed stenographer, Bamidbar 13-14


Gen. Moshe Rabeinu: Gentlemen, what happened?  I’ve been hearing rumors that it didn’t go well.

Maj. Shaphat Ben-Chori: Sir, it’s all there in our report. The land is beautiful, but the cities are heavily fortified. As you can see from the grapes we brought back, everything grows big, and that includes the people. We saw a group of men, they must have been thirty feet tall! I recommend we exercise extreme caution.

Lt. Calev Ben-Yefunah: We can do it Sir! Give me a platoon, I’ll clear out the whole country!

Maj. Ben-Chori: I’m afraid that’s not realistic, Sir. We’re going to need artillery to knock out the city defenses and close-air support to deal with the giants. Even then, I’d say odds are they’ll crush us like a bug. Anakite armor could roll over us like a man stepping on a grasshopper.

Capt. Gadi Ben-Susi:  We may have to abort the entire operation, head back to Egypt.

Lt. Yeshoshau Ben-Nun: General, Sir, with all due respect I think that my superiors are overstating the danger. The land is great, I think it’s well worth the risk.

Lt. Ben-Yefunah: Give me a squad, Sir, and I’ll take their capitol by nightfall!

Gen. Rabeinu: That’s hardly realistic…

Lt. Ben-Yefunah: Give me permission, Sir, and I’ll conquer the whole land by myself. Just say the word!

Maj. Ben-Chori: Lt., have you been drinking?

Lt. Ben-Yefunah: I’ll rip them apart with my bare hands! I don’t need air support! The President said we could do it, and I believe in him! Starts singing patriotic song.

Gen. Rabeinu: Sgt., please remove the Lt. and take him to the stockade.

Lt. Ben-Yefunah is removed from the room by MPs. The phone rings.

Gen. Rabeinu: Yes Mr. President?

President Gd: What does the recon team report?

Gen. Rabeinu: They say we can expect heavy opposition, and victory is in serious doubt. We may have to abort the whole mission.

President Gd: WHAT?! After everything I’ve done for this nation, they don’t think I can lead us to victory? Why, I ought to have them lined up against a wall and shot! In fact, I ought to have all defeatists shot! I’ll notify the secret police. How dare anyone doubt me!

Gen. Rabeinu: Sir, don’t you think that’s a bit extreme? What will the Egyptians think? They saw you lead us out of  Egypt and they know that you’re administration is still in power. They’ll say that you’re executing people because you can’t lead us to victory, and you’re hoping that people will be too scared to call you on it.

President Gd: Oh, fine. I won’t have the recon team executed. But I’m not going to help. Fat chance you have of winning without me!

Editors note: An assault was attempted the next day, but was pushed back by elements of the Caanani and Amaleki Defense Forces. This may have be due to the inability and/or unwillingness of Gen. Rabeinu to oversee the operation, as he felt his first loyalty was to the President. Or it may simply be that the local defense was too formidable for the Israelite forces, as the recon report suggested it would be.  Another attempt wouldn’t be made for an entire generation.

Yated Endorses Palestinian Policy

In this week’s Yated, the editor bemoans the insufficient respect accorded to the Gedolim by their political opponents. He writes, “…how dare they attack the Torah, its leaders and its followers with wide smiles on their faces. How do they pontificate in all varieties of media, promoting their own political futures by bashing shomrei Torah umitzvos? “ and says that it doesn’t matter if accusations are true, any criticism of the Gedolim is wrong, “The complaint against [Miriam] was not that she spoke untruths and not that she fabricated a scandal about Moshe, but, rather, that she lacked the requisite humility, reverence and awe when discussing the gadol hador, the k’dosh Hashem, theav hanevi’im.”

The notion that someone should be immune from criticism because of their position is perverse and dangerous. If anything, those in positions of power are the ones who we need to be the most critical of, as mistakes they make have the potential for catastrophic consequences.

What’s really interesting, though, is that apparently the Palestinian government agrees with the Yated that one must never be disrespectful of one’s leaders.

According to this article,a 26year-old Palestinian was sentenced to a year in prison for posting a picture of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a humorous caption. He was sentenced for “cursing the president,” which apparently is illegal in Palestine.

The thing is, he didn’t “curse” the president, he was merely insufficiently respectful.

This is exactly the sort of thing advocated in the editorial. Not prison per se, but the attitude that making light of a leader is a grave offense. Apparently Israel’s opponents are, at least in this area, morally refined, while the non-Chareidi Israelis are disrespectful cretins. Either that, or enforcing unquestioning respect of leaders is an element of all repressive societies, and the Yated is just doing its part to shape public opinion and enforce unquestioning respect.

Friday, February 8, 2013

The Scientists’ Cabal

I realized recently that the Chareid world HAS to adopt the attitude that anyone who questions the party line is part of a conspiracy to destroy religion in general and Yiddishkeit in particular. It’s the logical conclusion of their belief system:

1. Torah is obviously true – Avraham Avinu realized that Hashem runs the world while sitting by himself in a cave at three years old.
1a. Given that Torah/Yiddishkeit is obviously true, anyone who seriously questions any part of it must be trying to poke holes in it in order to justify his desire to disregard the mitzvos.
2. Huge chunks of modern science call traditional understandings of the Torah into question.
2a. It must be that the scientists are trying to poke holes in Yiddishkeit  order to justify their desire to disregard the ratzon Hashem.
C. There is a huge conspiracy among the world’s scientists to actively discredit religion.

If you need more proof of the conspiracy, well, a huge percentage of scientists are atheists or deists. Obviously they’re trying to justify their beliefs by asking questions on Judaism. It CAN’T be the other way around, that their scientific knowledge and inquiries lead them to become atheists and deists, because, as stated in premise 1, it is so obvious that the Torah is true that even a three year old could figure it out on his own!

It follows that anyone who reconciles what we know about the how the world works and what traditional sources say in favor of the real world is part of the conspiracy and/or has been seduced by it.