Deborah Feldman's new book is out. I could use a copy (hint hint). I have not had the chance yet to read the book, and I'm ashamed to admit I haven't even watched her numerous interviews on the View, CNN, etc. I will get around to that shortly. It seems there is a lot of controversy. The Orthodox world is, of course, angry that she bashes their world. Even among the ex-Orthodox she has quite a few detractors, and the main argument I get from that side is her story about a kid who had his head sawed off (is that right?) may have in fact been a suicide rather than a homicide. I don't know. I think it's okay to question her story, and if this one does turn out to be an exaggeration, she should take flak for it.
That said, I'm very happy that she has written the book. She brings a lot of publicity to the OTD world that really wasn't there before. Bottom line, there are not many published OTD authors who discuss OTDness in particular, and she has achieved substantial success at the young age of 25. I say congratulations, and I hope when the dust settles she will be vindicated. Besides, some of the criticism directed at her strikes me as of the petty and jealous sort, and I'd hate to see the OTD world divided over such minor issues.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Shiur
I went to an interesting shiur today. I was at my campus Hillel, and someone talked me into staying for an hour to listen to a rabbi speak. I stayed, and had a somewhat interesting time. The rabbi was not insufferably boring. He was slightly entertaining, and seemed quite caught up in the material he was teaching. He was discussing the weekly parsha about Moses and the plagues in Egypt. He stressed how the Bible has God telling Moses to raise his hand and his staff, and “hand” is mentioned a few times. He tried saying that this is because Moses was such a servant of God that his hand was like God’s. That sort of thing.
It was fairly interesting, and I’ve heard far worse lectures. Still, I didn’t like the emphasis on God and serving him (as well as the hairsplitting with grammar, but that’s minor). It was all Moses, God and very lofty and abstract. Way too theoretical. Very little relevance to daily life, and even less relevant on a human, or humanistic level. For example, he pointed out that Aharon hit the water for the first three plagues as opposed to Moses WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING the famous midrash that says this was because Moses was grateful to the water, so to speak, because it saved his life as a child and therefore he wouldn’t hit it. Simple lessons like that that I remember from kindergarten Pre-1A I find I can relate to, and all the abstract, technical stuff about sticks and hands, not as much.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Jewish Philosopher
The only Internet character more repulsive than Garnel (if this is possible to envision), Jewish Philosopher, is back to his evil, trolling ways. He is harassing a blogger that I have a lot of respect for, The Atheist Rabbi. The Atheist Rabbi is a rabbi for secular humanist Judaism, and judging from my numerous interactions with him in the J-blogosphere, is quite a mensch. Jewish Philosopher has chosen to single him out for especially spiteful treatment, publishing a plethora of personal information about him, including details on his employers (I suppose he hopes to get him fired for his blogging the way he was fired for his own blogging. Only difference is the Atheist Rabbi has not harassed anyone. Further, the rabbi has not even bothered Jewish Philosopher on his own blog - these attacks are entirely undeserved).
Be sure to let Jewish Philosopher know what you think about his bullying. Also, do your part to get Blogger to ban Jewish Philosopher from the blogosphere by reporting him to Blogger. Click "report abuse" on the top left of his blog, and when prompted, report him for hate speech. Maybe if enough people complain, Blogger/Google will actually do something.
Be sure to let Jewish Philosopher know what you think about his bullying. Also, do your part to get Blogger to ban Jewish Philosopher from the blogosphere by reporting him to Blogger. Click "report abuse" on the top left of his blog, and when prompted, report him for hate speech. Maybe if enough people complain, Blogger/Google will actually do something.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Garnel, Goebbels, and even more Goodies
The Jewish community is going crazy about the riots in Beit Shemesh and some of the awful fighting that’s going on there between national religious (and even MO) folk and hardcore UO types (and even some moderate haredim. This sort of fighting is not entirely new, but it is probably the case that most of this fighting is usually between the crazies and the police, army, and non-frum Israelis. It’s interesting to see this fighting take place within the larger frum world, and to watch MO folk like Garnel nearly suffer aneurysms as result.
Garnel reports that
On Shabbos morning I was speaking about the situation with a friend in shul and what he said really shocked me. He told me that this was civil war, Jew on Jew, just like in the time of Chanukah. He felt that these extremists were the new Chasmonaim and that responsible religious Jews had a choice - line up with them and stand up for Torah or line up with the Hellenized Chilonim. It was that simple for him. When I pointed out that there were plenty of religious Jews lining up with the Chilonim because these Chareidim are no Chasmonaim but just barbarians looking for an excuse to cause trouble he dismissed me by saying that any religious Jew who sides with a Chiloni is already Hellenized and no longer really religious.
"Including me?" I asked.
At that point he realized he had crossed a line and tried to backtrack but the damage was done. I don't think I'm going to learn with him for a while.
"Including me?" I asked.
At that point he realized he had crossed a line and tried to backtrack but the damage was done. I don't think I'm going to learn with him for a while.
It's been nice to watch Garnel literally shit his pants over the Beit Shemesh madness and the riots and insanity that are happening there. Modern Orthodox and charedi fanatics are practically killing each other over there, and it's the best Garnel to do to refrain from strangling a few extremists himself.
It’s nice to watch Garnel suffer this way. It’s nice to see the shoe on the other foot. Payback’s a bitch. He harassed the fuck out of me for months when I started this blog (starting with this mess of evil) followed by months of ruthless flaming. As an arrogant theist, he relished the opportunity to rub my face in my supposed lack of morals, my “sense of my own divinity” (I shit you not), and my extreme lack of morals and sexual self-restraint. He didn’t know the first thing about me, mind you, and all of this “information” was gleaned from a few generic paragraphs from this blog. In other words, he acted like a monster troll from hell, and it’s nice to see the doc served a taste of his own medicine.
He never misses the opportunity to ridicule those to his left. Atheists, Avi Weiss-type MO folk, and just random secular people are all subject to his wrath. Of course, he mostly doesn’t criticize his own MO types, and only rarely and extremely cautiously criticizes UO and Meah Shearim types (he has been seen to invoke the pathetic and cowardly “the rabbis don’t know what they’re signing – it’s all the work of askanim (activists) more times than I like to remember, an argument even honest, mentschlach types like Brooklyn Wolf are sadly not immune to). To see the shit finally hit the fan and fighting break out between different factions of Orthodox means the battle lines have been drawn, and he has to finally take his perverted gaze off those to his left and focus it on those to his right. He finds himself in a similar position to me: being insulted and devalued because of his status to the left of some crackpot. It’s not a fun place to be. Anyway, the fighting has been going on for a little while, and we will see if and when it ends. Yossi Sarid has a slightly-extreme piece in Haaretz about halacha’s poor treatment of women. I think some of his points are quite strong, while some may be slightly overstated. Either way, I think his points are worth discussing, and angry attacks on his character are really uncalled for. Rabbi Fink discusses it with some reasoned criticism of it. Rabbi Hoffman from Vos Iz Neias has a really unfair article in which he practically calls Sarid a Nazi (he says, “with these unbecoming lies and fabrications how are you any different than the greatest of the anti-Semitic writers and orators that history has had to offer?”) which is particularly offensive in light of the use of Nazi imagery by the Beit Shemesh extremists recently. Here is an article from Daat Emet on the subject of women in halacha. Oh, and for those of you expecting a condemnation from rabbis, here’s a condemnation of the secular government by the world’s second most famous haredi rabbi. Yes, I’m sure he has no idea what he’s signing and it’s all forged by people. While we’re at it, I heard the Brooklyn Bridge is going on sale this afternoon.
Meanwhile, I’m doing okay. I haven’t blogged in a few months, and I may get more active in the future. No guarantees though. I recently found a new OTD blog, which looks really promising. The writer has a mature, thoughtful voice and I’m sure you’ll enjoy his take. Here’s a post I particularly enjoyed. Here’s another new blog that I haven’t really had a chance to read yet. Here’s another.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Ledge of Fail
I looked forward to seeing The Ledge. The director kept promoting it as the atheist “Brokeback Mountain.” I finally managed to watch the thing (thank goodness I didn’t pay for it) and was quite disappointed. Not only was the acting horrendous (with the possible exception of Patrick Wilson), the plot was shallow, lame, insensitive, and dull.
The main character, an atheist (played by Charlie Hunnam), falls for the wife (Liv Tyler) of religious wingnut (Patrick Wilson) and persuades her to sleep with him. Perhaps we are supposed to be impressed by the fact that the main character is an out atheist yet not entirely immoral (though most people, atheists included, do not sanction extramarital affairs). Maybe we are to be awed by the clear role reversal, as the religious nut is the clear villain and the godless heathen is the hero. Either way, I was unimpressed.
The part that I liked the least was its strong focus on death. There are a lot of moments in the movie where characters reflect on the passing of a loved one. The hero lost his only daughter in a tragic accident. The religious freak spoke to parents right after the loss of their child. If the film’s obsession with death weren’t enough, it then goes on to relay extremely childish, shallow conceptions of death and the afterlife. The movie implies atheists cannot deal with death; only theists can because of their belief in the afterlife. Theists can hardily survive the passing of a loved one; atheists have no way of coping with the loss. How is that a pro-atheist message?
I’ve been fortunate to have not yet lost a really close relative. I can’t imagine the loss of a loved one is simple to overcome, for theists or non-theists. I can allow that belief in an afterlife can provide some comfort, but just a little. To propose that belief in an afterlife greatly lessens the pain is to cheapen the human grieving experience and to minimize a very real sorrow. I know my mother was devastated when she lost her father seventeen years ago. Whether or not she believes in an afterlife, I don’t suppose there is any easy way to assuage the pain. While belief in an afterlife may have some benefit, to promote it as the answer to grieving strikes me as profoundly juvenile and simplistic. This is aside from other obvious problems, such as the lack of evidence for life after death, and our subsequent uncertainty that we do, in fact, survive our demise. In reality, belief in the afterlife is an overrated way of coping with death that is useless to atheists and barely useful to theists. In the Jewish tradition, the way the loss of a loved one is dealt with is by “sitting shiva,” or receiving a week of support from family and friends. You’d think the afterlife would play more of a role, wouldn’t you? I’ve been to many shiva houses, unfortunately. I’ve never even once heard a whisper about the afterlife while there. And if the afterlife is such a big deal, why is it barely mentioned in the Old Testament?
There have been other atheist and atheist-friendly movies each more well-deserving of the title “Atheist Brokeback Mountain.” Examples include Religulous, Whatever Works, Chocolat, and The Invention of Lying. These portray atheists in a favourable light and don’t systematically butcher major concepts and questions. If you’re looking for a movie that deals with death and loss, I can’t think of a better example than Hereafter. Although not at all an atheist movie, it deals with the topic with great tact and sensitivity, with little to no theism invoked. The Ledge, in contrast, manages to insult the intelligence and emotions of both theists and atheists alike.
The main character, an atheist (played by Charlie Hunnam), falls for the wife (Liv Tyler) of religious wingnut (Patrick Wilson) and persuades her to sleep with him. Perhaps we are supposed to be impressed by the fact that the main character is an out atheist yet not entirely immoral (though most people, atheists included, do not sanction extramarital affairs). Maybe we are to be awed by the clear role reversal, as the religious nut is the clear villain and the godless heathen is the hero. Either way, I was unimpressed.
The part that I liked the least was its strong focus on death. There are a lot of moments in the movie where characters reflect on the passing of a loved one. The hero lost his only daughter in a tragic accident. The religious freak spoke to parents right after the loss of their child. If the film’s obsession with death weren’t enough, it then goes on to relay extremely childish, shallow conceptions of death and the afterlife. The movie implies atheists cannot deal with death; only theists can because of their belief in the afterlife. Theists can hardily survive the passing of a loved one; atheists have no way of coping with the loss. How is that a pro-atheist message?
I’ve been fortunate to have not yet lost a really close relative. I can’t imagine the loss of a loved one is simple to overcome, for theists or non-theists. I can allow that belief in an afterlife can provide some comfort, but just a little. To propose that belief in an afterlife greatly lessens the pain is to cheapen the human grieving experience and to minimize a very real sorrow. I know my mother was devastated when she lost her father seventeen years ago. Whether or not she believes in an afterlife, I don’t suppose there is any easy way to assuage the pain. While belief in an afterlife may have some benefit, to promote it as the answer to grieving strikes me as profoundly juvenile and simplistic. This is aside from other obvious problems, such as the lack of evidence for life after death, and our subsequent uncertainty that we do, in fact, survive our demise. In reality, belief in the afterlife is an overrated way of coping with death that is useless to atheists and barely useful to theists. In the Jewish tradition, the way the loss of a loved one is dealt with is by “sitting shiva,” or receiving a week of support from family and friends. You’d think the afterlife would play more of a role, wouldn’t you? I’ve been to many shiva houses, unfortunately. I’ve never even once heard a whisper about the afterlife while there. And if the afterlife is such a big deal, why is it barely mentioned in the Old Testament?
There have been other atheist and atheist-friendly movies each more well-deserving of the title “Atheist Brokeback Mountain.” Examples include Religulous, Whatever Works, Chocolat, and The Invention of Lying. These portray atheists in a favourable light and don’t systematically butcher major concepts and questions. If you’re looking for a movie that deals with death and loss, I can’t think of a better example than Hereafter. Although not at all an atheist movie, it deals with the topic with great tact and sensitivity, with little to no theism invoked. The Ledge, in contrast, manages to insult the intelligence and emotions of both theists and atheists alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
