In response to Yitz Blau’s response to Jay Hendel:
<<
I am not sure how far he is pushing this line of thought but if the claim is that all people who abandon frumkeit are actually using theological and ethical complaints as a cover for their desire to simply have a good time, then I categorically disagree. Such a claim would be unfair and untrue.
>>
Claiming that all people who abandon frumkeit are etc. etc. would be very strange, and I think that even considering that as a possible interpretation of Hendel’s post is unfair (and likely untrue).
<<
It is unfair because it lets us off easily while accusing the opposition of bad faith. Our opponents are placed in a bad light and we do not have to respond to any difficult questions because the criticism is not authentic. How is this different from atheists who claim that religious people are simply looking for a reward in heaven or are acting out the need for a father figure? We should avoid the kind of reductionism of Freud or Marx that arbitrarily debunks any kind of idealism.
>>
None of the above makes the accusations unfair. Convenient, self-serving, unhelpful, yes, and certainly we are often on the receiving end of such assumptions, but there’s nothing inherent that prevents one side from being right while the other – making similar claims – is wrong. I can kind of see the point if Yitz is using “fair†in its meaning of “judiciousâ€, as in “that’s a fair pointâ€, but if he means it was somehow underhanded I don’t think he demonstrated that.
<<
Secondly it is not true. Many of us in education have counseled students who desperately wanted to maintain their faith with a portion of them succeeding more and others less. Some of them had experienced severe difficulties such as chronic medical problems or the death of a close relative. To say that they were actually motivated by the desire to fool around and eat cheeseburgers seems almost obscene.
>>
The inner working of someone’s faith – or lack of it – doesn’t seem like a thing that can be known; not even by the someone himself, much less an outsider. I understood Hendel’s post as saying the Mirvis’ own account centers around personal, rather than theological, issues. He’s not reading her mind – much less her soul; he’s reading her book. And I’ve never understood why one’s beliefs should be affected by personal tragedy, since the existence of tragedy cannot have come as a surprise. Agreed that cheeseburgers are probably not a major motivator, but those are easy to find. The desire to think of oneself as “enlightenedâ€, for example.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2018 07:46PM by mlb.
