The root of religious rejection
Last September, Spectrum published an article titled “Egregious Environment for
Davening (prayer services) in Newton,” written by Eli Cohn. Cohn, lamenting the
religiosity in Newton, argued, implicitly, that the reason why many adolescents refrain
from participating in a Minyan (required number for certain prayers) is laziness. Cohn
deemed these kids “Orthodox”, and “part of being Orthodox is the obligation to daven to
God every single day”. The next issue of Spectrum published a “Letter to the Editors”
written by Elisha Jacobs. Jacobs, bashing Cohn by defending Newton teenagers, wrote,
“The writer [Cohn] fails to think about the different situations in which every student in
the Newton Maimonides community could be.” I lend my sincere kudos to Jacobs for
quoting me in his letter; however, I interject by noting that this argument, which certainly
is not discussed solely in Spectrum, is blind to the fundamental problem that this
community bears, and thus are unaware of the defining aspect of the “Davening crisis”.
Jacobs supports Newton Middle and High-Schoolers, invoking the rule of “benefit of the
doubt” for those who do not apparently attend a Minyan; however, it would be erroneous
to deny the fact that many boys in high school do not attend a Minyan regularly, as
Halacha regulates. Benefit of the doubt does have its limits, and saying thus, there are
many people, not excluding adults, who intentionally skip Tefila Betzibur (prayer in its
proper place), let alone Tefila (prayer) itself. Nevertheless, this problem does not rest in
Cohn’s assertion, that is, laziness impedes on the Jews’ religiosity. This claim is based on
the premise that these “Minyan-deserters” are Orthodox, which is not entirely true, if we
define Orthodox as agreeing to the fundamental beliefs of a system of thought.
Bemoaning this inconsistency, which has not only been attempted by Cohn but also great
religious leaders of our time, will not have any affect on the youth of our generation, as
these rebukes are arrows directed towards the wrong target.
The Davening crisis does not stem from laziness, but rather a failed connection to
the pillars of Judaic thought. Many modern Jews do not approach Judaism with full
certainty. They are trapped in a disbelieving world, and thus become disbelievers
themselves. It is very easy to understand why many do not pray if they are not sure if a
God exists, because what then would be the practicality of prayer? An America
influenced by the Skeptic and Xenophanian legacies, including the Vienna circle with
their Logical Positivism, the Einsteinium revolution, and such figures such as Karl
Popper, have inflicted terrible wounds on Judaic practice. God’s existence, so to speak, is
under attack; “God is dead,” as Nietzsche proclaimed more than a century ago.
Spirituality, Mosaic authorship of the Torah, the divine source of the Oral Torah, and
such beliefs, are quite difficult to associate with in this era. As Rabbi Durani frankly
states, it is a miracle for students of our age to be religious. The Davening crisis should
not be viewed as the core of problems, but should be seen as a trail to a deeper crisis. The
lack of Minyan-members is a mere branch of the trunk.
This Shul epidemic goes hand-in-hand with the breaching of Tzniut (modesty),
“half-Shabbos” (a phenomenon in which those who are addicted to text messaging do not
refrain from this habit even on Shabbat [during which such actions are forbidden]), the
deficiency in objective morality, and such modern failures. These all link back to the
philosophical predicament of belief in Judaism’s Orthodoxy. Rabbis who carefully
devote their time and devotion addressing this have done so in vain, for they fail to
realize the source of these ideas. I implore those who grieve over the spiritual
degeneration of modern times to stop asking their classmates to give an hour each day to
God, because such words are useless and futile. Rather, discuss the main problem at
hand: whether there is a God at all to pray to.
Religious Condescension
Condescension is defined as patronizing someone perceived as an inferior as a
function of arrogance. Unfortunately, condescension is manifest in many aspects of every
day life, such as a teacher to a student; a parent to a child; a friend to a friend, and so on.
The worst type of condescension stems from religious identity; that is, a superiority
complex which grows from an overly inner-sense of pride with one’s religious beliefs
and observance. This type of superciliousness has appalling consequences. This form of
patronizing only openly displays biting hypocrisy and, counter-intuitively, de-legitimizes
smart superior to idiotic inferior. Let us investigate the root of religious condescension
and then reveal its inherent inconsistencies (in the context of strictly a Jewish theological
context).
There are three chief examples where religious condescension is observable: the
intellectual, the Ba’al Teshuva (one who was not brought up as religious but chooses to
become religious), and the non-practicing orthodox. In each example, there are a few
factors that weigh in to the issues: intellectual ability, religious background and
upbringing, and the desire to feel religious. As these examples and factors are able to
integrate into complex systems (for instance, the intellectual can be a Ba’al Teshuva as
well), we shall deal with only isolated systems (an intellectual to the exclusion of a Ba’al
Teshuva). Of course, the apparent disclaimer is that not every intellectual harbors
religious condescension; however, every intellectual who does bear of theological
patronization has a large deficiency in his brain, in general, and maturity, in specific.
The first category is the intellectual, the one who feels a stronger connection to
Judaism through cognitive processes than any other humanistic ability (such as emotion,
etc). This person is, if not externally, then even at a subconscious level, insecure about
his intellectual capacity. There is a dynamic that he must trudge with: on one side, he
knows he is smart. He is aware of himself in the context of his intellectual community.
He knows that he can answer a torque question on his physics test with more agility,
proficiency and understanding than the student who dozes off in the back of the class.
However, on the other side, he is weary of doubts in his mind; he questions himself
whether the people around him hold him in such high respects. He wonders why not
every individual leaks an incredulous gasp of excitement when he is the first one to raise
his hand to answer the Talmud’s muddled question. He wishes to snatch the approval of
his friends due to the abnormal neuron activity in his brain, and so he devises ways to
command that respect. Then, the natural inclination to reduce the status of his friends is
galvanized in order to satisfy his need for approval. He will patronize his friends in order
to look more impressive in the formality of a community. Everyone else looks bad so that
he will look good. And even if this master of the Western Civilization feels in his heart
that everyone does respect the size of his brain, he will still tread upon the vile path of
condescension in order to prove to himself the veracity of his utterly shocking memory.
The second example of a person who brandishes the knife of religious
condescension is the Ba’al Teshuva, that is, someone who returns to Judaism from a
formerly weak connection to Judaism, if any at all. A person is intrigued by the Torah.
He seeks the face of God and strives for nothing but mastering his own service to God.
However, when the commandments oriented towards God are improved and enhanced
upon, the commandments oriented to his fellow are trampled upon. The Ba’al Teshuva is
constantly looking for ways will be the most pleasing in the eyes of the Halacha and God.
This disposition towards extreme piety will become an instinct for him, and this wreaks
consequences to a great magnitude. He will feel a constant urge to display his religiosity
to the world; he will then search for even a minor transgression his friend committed in
order to selfishly ascertain to his friend, and to himself, that he person is now an servant
of God. To this “holy” person’s dismay, he who criticizes another’s religious deficiencies
cannot be termed as a Ba’al Teshuva; rather he should be deemed as a Ba’al Ga’ava
(wielder of pomposity).
The last example is the orthodox non-practicing Jew (the description Harry
Austryn Wolfson gave to himself). Orthodox is a word that pertains to one’s beliefs, as in
“correct beliefs” (ortho: straight, right, correct; dox: opinion, tenet). This person is born
into a religious environment and thus Judaism is deeply ingrained into his psyche, but he
does not want to follow the Halacha (Jewish law) as is commanded (this could occur
because many factors which are beyond the purposes of this article). The orthodox nonpracticing is in a viscous vacillation because he abhors Halachik consistency, but he feels
guilty about his lack of homage to the hallowed tradition. In order to reconcile this
dilemma, he takes upon the most irrational, literalist and stringent beliefs in the history of
Jewish intellectual history. This reconciliation alleviates his guilty conscience, such that
he does not feel the need to properly observe the Halacha. However, this intellectual
protection against his guilt does not end at the person himself; in order to maintain his
religious identity, anyone else who does not acquiesce with him must be a Kofer
(heretic). Once he adopts such an extreme opinion, anyone else who dissents must be
wrong in every other aspect of one’s observance.
One who selfishly quenches his thirst with religious condescension in order to be
dubbed as religious cannot be religious. He who exhibits such patronization is nothing
but an annoying hypocrite and misguided blind creature whilst his judgment is clouded
by the thick smog of pretension and haughtiness All elements of religious condescension
grow from a selfish desire to feel important and special. One who may fall into one of
these categories should contemplate and focus on his friend’s upbringing, sincere love
and fear of God, and dignity. As the Queen ask in their song Pressure, “Why can’t we
give love that one more chance; give love, give love, give love ….”
Writer’s note: although the third person pronoun to denote the subject of
religious condescension is consistently written in the male form (e.g. he, his, etc), the
critique applies to both men and women alike; all can be victims of this psychological
deficiency.
Apikprsus in the Beit Midrash
The Beit Midrash is the house of study in which a Jewish intellectual mind is
built. It is the frame of reference upon which a Jew builds his life around. The Beit
Midrash represents the core of existence for the Jewish mind, and within this isolated,
parochial domain can a Jew approach the world with a sturdy mind. Through the prism of
and filter of Torah achieved through rigorous and disciplined study in the Beit Midrash, a
Jew has nothing to fear regarding his beliefs; in theory, in having careful attention to the
philosophy and divine law of Judaism, the young Jew can acquire for himself a
“transportable” religion whereby he can roam the world, strictly adhering to the Halacha
(Jewish law) while being immune to incorrect and wrongful ideologies. The Jew, whose
foundation is achieved through the learning in the Beit Midrash, can engage the world
with a unique inner sense of serenity, with the knowledge that Judaism is the correct
religion and nothing will deter him from his faith. However, in practice, it seems that we
are afraid of “the other side”. An uncountable amount of sermons and speeches have been
delivered concerning the dangers of foreign ideas, and not a small quantity of ink has
been spilt on the topic of the necessity of estrangement from non-Jewish outlooks. I pose
a simple question: if Judaism is so sure of itself, why are we so cautious of even a cursory
glance at non- Jewish sources? Is it not through the analysis of Torah that we will never
abandon our faith? It seems as though that this distancing causes the opposite of our
goals! The more internal recoil we generate, the greater insecurity we reveal of ourselves!
Isolating the tender mind of a youngster creates xenophobia, and thus a strong foundation
can never be built, as the greatest fear is fear of the unknown.
Therefore, I am compelled to enunciate a radical, yet productive tactic. Instead of
shying away from fallacy, I propose we face it head to head; the more we become
exposed to it, the stronger our identities become. When the child learns that father is not
afraid to battle with “the dark side”, the child will grow up with a sense of pride in his
faith and will eventually be sturdy enough to pass on to his own children the torch of the
Mesorah. I say, we should bring Apikorsus (heresy) in to the Beit Midrash. Invite
Spinoza to your Sicha (Torah lecture), and from his critique of Judaism you could learn
the beauties of authentic Judaism. As you learn the Shulchan Aruch (Jewish text on law)
regarding the verse “Hark O Israel,” lie down on your couch with Freud and discuss with
him his attack on God. While decoding Genesis chapter one and two with standard
commentary, touch upon the documentary hypothesis. Does not the Talmud devote
several passages to the unfortunate life of Elisha Ben Avuya (an infamous heretic)? Is it
not our Oral Torah itself which describes the Sadducees’ and Baithusian’s attack on
Pharisee eisegesis? If we express our unshakable faith manifest in the knowledge of
heretical ideologies, we will be confident and instill confidence in our children. I am sure
that one can formulate numerous objections to this approach; the greatest complaint is
that the study of heresy creates heretics. That is why I believe it is not everyone’s duty to
distill that kind of information; however, it should be the obligation of the responsible
and wise, such as one’s very own Talmud teacher, to filter through this body of
knowledge and pass it down to the young mind, and it should be the privilege of every
student who searches for God to be able to recite Shas by heart, cite the major criticisms
of the Halachah, and then systematically dispel any conflict. I am well aware that there
will be at least an initial recoil to the ideas expressed in this article, but that exact flinch
reveals the weakness of the already set-up system. As an intelligent young woman stated,
“Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.” Teach a man to fish, teach him to
live; similarly, teach a Jew the uniqueness of Judaism, teach a Jew to live Halachah.