From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: O-C-R debate)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:32:26 GMT

In <9207282134.AA28097@ptms_dev.sbi.com> gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com
(User - Don Gertler) writes:

>ds: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
>dg: Don Gertler

ds: I believe that the so-called "O-C-R" debate is ridiculous.  It is
ds: completely impossible for Conservative or Reform Jews to win such a
ds: debate, because those Orthodox who choose to flame are convinced that
ds: they are right and that there's no room for argument.  Any arguing
ds: must be done on their principles or it is rejected.

dg: Let me see.  Conservative and Reform Jews DON'T think they're right?

ds: Sure they do.  But they *don't* say that Orthodox are wrong.  That's
ds: the difference.  Conservative and Reform allow for the possibility of
ds: several "right" ways withing Judaism.

dg: The two systems are mutually contradictory.  The Os say that x, y and z
dg: MUST be observed.  Any Jew who doesn't do them is not following Judaism
dg: properly.  That is, he/she is wrong.  The Rs say that it's okay not to
dg: follow x, y and/or z.  You may if you like, but it is not necessary.
dg: Thus, O is wrong, at least in its belief that all these laws MUST be
dg: followed.

I posted on this point earlier.  While in some sense C and R may imply
that O is "wrong", it is merely a disagreement, not a condemnation.  It
is an unreasonable person who thinks that anyone who believes differently
from him is "wrong."  For example, I hold certain political beliefs.
That doesn't mean that anyone who opposes those beliefs is wrong.

dg: And, of course, the Orthodox always win the argument?  Then why aren't
dg: you Orthodox?

ds: I didn't say they always win.  I said that they are convinced that they
ds: are right, and will only argue on their terms.  I am not Orthodox because
ds: I refuse to accept some of the Orthodox axioms.  Therefore, I refuse to
ds: accept any argument based on those axioms.

dg: How is this different from the hard-nosed [my term, not yours] Orthodox?
dg: Above you say, "Any arguing must be done on their principles or it is
dg: rejected."  Here you say, "I refuse to accept some of the Orthodox axioms
dg: ... I refuse to accept any argument based on those axioms."  You correctly
dg: point out that the difficulty with such a discussion lies in the respective
dg: axioms of each group.  We won't accept yours; you won't accept ours.

The difference is this:  I respect the Orthodox viewpoint, and have great
respect for those who sincerely believe Orthodox axioms, and use them to
try to live a good life as G-d wishes it.  However, some of the Orthodox
refuse to grant even this to any other movement, condemning it instead, and
insisting that it's not real Judaism.

dg: Instead, we discuss the legitimacy issue.  The Os feel we were all given
dg: a gift with a massive responsibility.  (Some gift, huh?)  They see others
dg: rejecting that responsibility and thus the gift itself.  It's sort of
dg: a collective gift.  We vote either to take it or to leave it, as a group.

The legitimacy issue is a non-issue.  Orthodoxy can, by definition, never
accept C or R as legitimate, so who cares?  Why should C and R waste their
time trying to "prove" legitimacy?

dg: The Rs, if I may be so bold, feel that it's very good to learn about
dg: the Torah.  Perhaps they even feel it's a gift from G-d, though possibly
dg: not transmitted as directly.  They feel that one is not obligated to
dg: observe (all) the dictates of the system as it was handed down through
dg: the generations.

dg: Now, if the Os are right, then the Rs are absolutely wrong.  If the
dg: proper receipt of the gift enatails this level of responsibility, then
dg: lack of observance by some could be tragic for all.  If the Rs are
dg: right, then, technically, there are no strings attached.  Anything we
dg: do or do not do is okay.  In which case the Os are deluding themselves,
dg: as well as wasting much effort.

dg: Yes, it's very nice to say they're both right, but that's not an
dg: honest approach.  They can't both be right.  They may both be free
dg: to practice as they see fit, so long as they harm no-one.  But to say
dg: they're both right doesn't make any sense.  "We have to" and "we don't
dg: have too" can't both be right.

A very good argument.  But I'd venture to say that we can never be
100% sure who's right, so until that argument is settled by divine
intervention, we should cool the flames and accept one another.

[...]

>We'll never get to the point where the Os accept R conversions, for
>instance.  The Os should realize that this naturally irks the Rs.
>But the Rs must realize that this combined with patrilineal descent
>could cause the greatest schism ever between the two.

Here, I'm with you.  I believe that that move was extremely
irresponsible.  Even if R sincerely believed that patrilineal descent
would retain more Jewish-identifying kids, they should have considered
much more carefully the effect on Jewish unity.  That decision is one
of my major problems with R.

>ds: But listen - surely, from an Orthodox point of view, Reform has no
>ds: case to argue?  Surely anyone who says that the Torah is not the
>ds: direct word of G-d simply cannot be accomodated within Orthodox
>ds: belief.

>And vice versa.  If our premise is that the Torah is the direct word of
>G-d, and your premise is that it is not, then what case do we have?

You misunderstand.  I'm more of an "agnostic" on that point.  I simply
do not know whether the Torah is the direct word of G-d or not.  I'm
inclined to believe it was written by people, but I admit to the
possibility I may be wrong.  But I have to choose one way to live my
life, and I have to balance the probabilities.  So, from my point of
view, I would never say that the Orthodox axioms are incorrect.  Just
that I find them difficult to accept at this point.  Who knows, maybe
I'll change.

If the official position of Reform is that the Torah is *definitely*
not the direct word of G-d, then obviously I must reject that
position, too.

dg: Don't you see the contradiction in your statement?  You are not being
dg: intellectually honest if you say that our approach, which in its essence
dg: rejects non-compliance with the law, is a valid expression of Judaism.
dg: If it is, then it is the only one, in which case you would be Orthodox,

When I say that it's a valid expression of Judaism, I mean the actions
and lifestyles prescribed by Orthodoxy are valid expressions of
Judaism.  The beliefs are less important.  So someone who follows all
the mitzvot and obeys Halacha is expressing his* Judaism through
actions.  It is still possible for such a person to accept C or R as
valid, even though he chooses not to follow them.  I'd find it
difficult to call such a person non-Orthodox, even though some of his
beliefs differ from those Orthodox who reject C and R.

dg: or at least admit that Reform is not a valid form.  If you feel that Reform
dg: is a vaild expression of Judaism, then you must say that Orthodoxy is not.

Not at all.  See my paragraph above.

* his - read his/her, etc.

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________