From: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: O-C-R debate)
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:15:57 GMT
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet

I know it's long.  I apologize.  I had too much free time.

ds: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
me: me

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.

me: 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's like the exchange in "Fiddler on the Roof."
   A:     x
   Tevye: You're right
   B:     not x
   Tevye: You're right too.
   C:     not (x and not x)
   Tevye: You're right too!

What's the solution?  Well, there are probably several, probably all
less than ideal.  We can stop discussion.  [But that would prevent
arguing, which seems to be one of the 613 mitzvot, so this would violate
the sensibilities of the Os.]  We could just say everyone is right,
no matter how wrong they are, and leave it at that.  Or we could go right
on discussing, trying to understand (without necessarily accepting)
each other's approach.  Continue respecting each other as a feeling,
thinking, concerned Jew.  And stop expecting to convince the other
group.  Keep the dialog going.  At least if one group understands the
other, we may be able to avoid the knock-down-drag-outs

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.  It will
prevent descendents of, or converts to Orthodoxy from marrying their
possible co-religionists among the Rs, since they can never know
whether these people are real Jews (according to Jewish law).  Issues
like this will continue to cause bitterness.  Solutions will be found,
however, only with honest, open dialog.

me: I think this is a cop-out.  I will always try to put forth "my side"
me: in this discussion.  Not to win, but because I do truly believe it to
me: be correct.  I much prefer having someone else on the court, though.
me: The fact that you spend the time to argue your case means that Judaism
me: means a lot to you.

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?

me: Implicit in Orthodoxy is a belief that non-observance of the halakha
me: is wrong.  We can beat around the bush all we like in order to be
me: Politically Correct, but it doesn't change the fundamental belief.
me: Likewise, the Reform belief is that halakha is not binding, and is
me: therefore unnecessary.  Yes, it's fine if you want to do it, but
me: there is no requirement to observe.  That is saying that the Orthodox
me: are wrong in their fundamental belief.

ds: However, Reform does not reject Orthodoxy as a valid expression of Judaism.
ds: Orthodoxy must by its very definition reject Reform as a valid expression
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
ds: of Judaism.  There's a fundamental asymmetry here.

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

ds: When it comes down to it, I value the unity of Jews much more than any
ds: particular branch of belief.  I'm here to stay.  But don't expect me
ds: to defend either Orthodox's view of Halacha or Reform's discarding of
ds: tradition.  That argument, I am still firmly convinced, will get us
ds: nowhere on a forum like scj.  Those sorts of discussion are better
ds: left for face-to-face meetings when a certain amount of decorum
ds: (noticeably absent from UseNet - an interesting psychological study
ds: could be made :-) ) prevails.

Amen.  (except for part about the defense of halakha :-)

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish