 |
| Dovid Din |
Update - added comment of Midas HaDeen
"Shulem Deen has a fascinating story to tell, and he tells it with exquisite sensitivity. All Who Go Do Not Return gives us not only an insider's glimpse into a shrouded world few outsiders get to see, but also a movingly told narrative of one man's struggle toward intellectual integrity. The setting may be the world of Hasidic Judaism, but the drama and the insights are universal."
—Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction
I first need to state some facts up front.
1) I have now read all of Shulem Deen's well written book about how he went from being a pious chasid to an apikorus. My initial impression just got reinforced as he went into more detail later in the book 2) I knew his parents from Yeshiva Shor Yoshuv - in particular his father Dovid Din 3) This book is different than others written by formerly frum people. The author comes across as genuinely likable, upset that he lost his faith and so far not explicitly advocating that others follow him in his path. 4) The main reason why I am writing this post is because of the strange reaction I got from Prof. Shaul Magid a former student of Shulem's father - who wrote a review of the book in Tablet Magazine.
My concern is to understand why this book was written. What was Shuleem Deen's motivation in describing his loss of faith and describing in great detail the words and acts of his friends and family - even when they don't come across as very positive? It is presented as someone who asked questions in a world where questions are forbidden. While that contains some truth - you need to realize that is not where he comes from but where he deliberately placed himself.
His parents are both baalei teshuva - former hippies - who were very good at dealing with questions. His father in particular was very well educated in the secular sense and was involved in kiruv of all sorts - in particular answering questions dealing with faith. In addition his parents had a large number of contacts with top notch kiruv experts who deal with all sorts of questions. So far there is no evidence in the book that Shulem took the trouble of going to these people to get answers. Why not?
In short - Shulem Deen took it upon himself to move into the world of Square Chassidim who strongly believe in simple - non intellectual - faith. He wasn't born into that world and he clearly did not belong there. He says he did it because they didn't require an entrance exam! And yet when boxed into a non-thinking world where he didn't belong - proclaims that he left because he couldn't get answers to his questions!
One other point - there is the underlying theme that in fact there are no answers for his questions. because they are so devastatingly powerful. Basically if one doesn't have simple faith - then there is no faith because there are no honest rational answers to his questions. This is simply not true.
This is a reflection of my basic concern - he is setting up straw men, avoiding presenting the full story - because he in fact has an agenda. He is presenting himself as doing what any truly honest man would do when faced with the questions and the anemic answers - giving up a phony religion. In sum he implies that, only someone who accepts that faith means believing something that make no sense - can truly be religious.
My last point for now is how he depicts his relationship with his father. As noted before his father was very intelligent and involved in asking questions and kiruv of those who had questions. He was very articulate. However there is no indication that he ever engaged his father in a serious discussion - even when given the opportunity. While it is true that his father died when he 14 - there were ample opportunities because there were many people who his parents knew that are experts in dealing with questions. The book so far only indicates a single individual that he discussed his questions with - why? Why didn't his father prepare him to be able to deal with questions? It seems that in fact his path is a reaction against his father - though he doesn't spell it out. Is there more to the story than he is telling us? What in fact was his relationship with his father and is his heresy the result of his relationship with his father?
I remember learning the Maharal together with Dovid Din with Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz. The Maharal strongly states the importance of asking questions and not silencing them. And yet Shulem Deen ended up with a type of chassidim who live very closed isolated lives - that think the opposite of many other frum Jews - including his father. His failure to be able to live a closed intellectually barren form of Yiddishkeit led him to reject Yiddishkeit - why?
==========================
This video indicates that Shulem Deen didn't regretfully leave the religious world but in fact is celebrating his freedom from a repressive religion and culture - which he hopes to save others from.
=====================================
update by an commentator Midas HaDeen
==========================
This video indicates that Shulem Deen didn't regretfully leave the religious world but in fact is celebrating his freedom from a repressive religion and culture - which he hopes to save others from.
=====================================
update by an commentator Midas HaDeen
I just read the post on Shulem Deen. I did not
read the book, and I know nothing personal of him or his parents. But
the subject is actually very relevant to all of us. Questions about
faith. We are obligated to address this matter, as it is a pillar of
our very existence. We reaffirm this with recitation of kriyas shema
daily. We are the עם הנבחר, and have a special relationship with our Creator.
Our
emunoh involves several aspects. If we are conscious of them, we can
pursue being “people of faith”. If not, we are groping in the blind.
For starters, we are born into emunoh. Dovid Hamelech A”H notes, מבטן אמי קלי אתה,
drawing attention to the faith that existed at birth. If we further
recognize the drosho of Rav Simlai that the fetus studies the entire
Torah in the womb prior to birth. On top of that all, we enjoy our
earliest years being exposed to values of Torah and kedusha. This
emunoh is labeled in sforim as אמונה מתוך קבלה. It is that faith into which we were bred and born.
We
then engage in exploration of our own, wondering, questioning,
investigating, studying. If we are fortunate to have the proper
direction, rebbes, talmidei chachomim, healthy resources, we receive the
guidance and direction to develop אמונה מתוך חקירה.
The sforim explain why neither of these two alone is adequate. But
both together can be quite powerful. Either alone is balanced on a
pointy base, and there is great risk that even minor breezes can topple
it.
The
best, the most frum, the most erudite and learned, of the holiest stock
of yichus and upbringing require both of these foundations to achieve
the level of an “עובד ה'”.
They bear the same obligation to recite the 13 Ani Maamins every day,
and cannot point to their choice “frum” levush as the badge of faith.
It requires constant effort and maintenance. Yes, questions,
exploration, not completely taken for granted. This is explained at
great length in many great works that address hashkofoh, including
Chovas Halevavos, Moreh Nevuchim, Tanya, Nefesh Hachayim, Maharal, etc.
The baal teshuvah begins the entry to a frum lifestyle with a handicap. He/she starts with only אמונה מתוך חקירה, having missed the privilege of הורתו ולידתו בקדושה.
The complete faith of this individual is founded on only personal
exploration, with the requisite limitations that result from this.
There is a very different basis for living as a Yid, with questions
about the same basics that FFB’s take for granted. The stereotypical
baal teshuvah who asks questions about everything is seeking to
compensate for the background that is lacking.
I
don’t know Shulem Deen, nor his family, nor his life experience. I can
feel sorry for his missing out on a guiding light of mesorah which many
of us are fortunate to have. His efforts to seek truth are not missed
by me, a mortal observer, and I do not question whether there is some
reward in “yeneh velt” for that. However, I do feel quite strongly that
his failure to find the embracing warmth of קבלת עול מלכות שמים in
his pursuits is not a model for others. Making this into a book to
show others is not, in my opinion, wise or constructive. It may be his
defense to assuage his guilt, where he points to a system that failed to
“answer his questions”. I do not defend the “system” either. It seems
to have been ill equipped to provide answers that would meet the needs
of the missing mesorah. Perhaps far more serious is the observation
that the present level of יראת שמים as should be expected from the average Yid, in which there is an appropriate level of דע מה למעלה ממך עין רואה ואוזן שומעת וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבים is
insufficient. This is obvious when one examines the desperate need for
filters on computers and phones, as well as the “history” discovered by
computer technicians on the hard drives of the most observant of חסידים ואנשי מעשה.
As a community, we are not offering enough for the FFB. This is
apparent in the struggles of some mainstream FFB’s, and in the foibles
and follies that occasionally get publicized of “frum baalei aveiroh”.
If it is not enough for those who are born into a completely “frum”
lifestyle, it is inconceivable that it will suffice for the incoming
baal teshuvah who is missing that background.
No,
I will probably not write a book about deficiencies of the frum
community. Another dirt throwing book is neither needed, nor welcome.
The books to write and the direction change that we sorely need are
about the abundance of wealth that exists in being close to HKB”H. It
is the אהבת תורה that
must be instilled in our children. It is about the precious privilege
of being able to daven and perform mitzvos. It is about the all
encompassing life of mitzvos that give us the ability to connect with
HKB”H in every single facet of our lives. It is about the enjoyment and
gratitude that we can have in our everyday lives, knowing that HKB”H is
the force behind every event, who granted us the greatest gift of all
existence, מתן תורה.
If he says he is an apikorus, then why do u need to find explanations? Is there a good vs a bad apikorus? I am reminded of R' Chaim's famous words, that nebach an apikores is still an apikores. I am not judging the writer , since that is Hashem's Judgment. If you demand honest intellectual analysis, then you have also to look to the other side (no pun intended) where critics of Orthodoxy and especially of Kiruv orthodoxy make the same claim, ie that they do not give an honest and objective appraisal of them mes of Orthodox Judaism's claims. One example, which I myself have found to support this, is that there is no unbroken mesora - The Torah was lost at least twice in the times of Melachim, both Hezekiah and Yoshiahu, as is recorded in both Melachim and Divrei Hayamim.
ReplyDeleteA lot of Kiruv arguments are based on the total ignorance of the BTs.
Regarding Prof Magid, he is famous for having left religion and deny everything.
One of the features of becoming a BT is that there is a balance between reason and social or religious pressure. At some point, one chooses emunah rather than questioning every single statement in the Torah and /or Halacha. This can rebound in one way or other.
I firmly believe in G-d and His Torah. Having said that, I still know that the framework, i.e. the type of communities that we have developed because we feel it is most conducive to living a Torah life, has it's strong points and it's failings.
ReplyDeleteThis book is about a young man's life story, that clearly shows how the system failed him. It is quite evident, when reading the book, that his purpose is NOT to besmirch the Frum community. I don't necessarily advocate reading the book, but if we choose to read it, I think we need to be mature enough to listen to his story without attacking him. Instead, perhaps we need to take stock of those things in our community that aren't working so well, (at least not for all our members.) Or perhaps it will serve us well (if we choose to read the book) to look in on our communities from an outsiders perspective and come to appreciate how they might be perceiving us.
I get the feel from reading this review of the book, that somehow it is believed that we MUST find a way to discredit his story, or else he will be proven right and our way of life will be proven wrong. I think this approach it immature, and unfair.
Perhaps we can be big enough to hear what this man is saying without feeling threatened.
@Eddie - I am surprised that you take the view of Reb Chaim. To the Brisker an apikorus - even unintended even for a sincere believer is still an apikorus. There are clearly other views.
ReplyDeleteRaavad (Hilchos Teshuva 5:5): We don’t have the ability to know how G d knows about all His creatures and their activities. The Rambam did not conduct himself in the manner of the wise. He should not have started something which he didn’t know how to complete. He started with the difficult question of reconciling G d’s foreknowledge and free will. But at the end when he was unable to answer it, he indicated that it was necessary to simply accept the principle of G d’s knowledge on faith. It would have been better for him to have left the matter in its simple state and not bring it to everyone’s attention and then leave them in doubt which might now genuinely bother them…
The Brisker's have a rather closed understanding of intellectual investigation - similar to the Ravad's view when he attacks the Rambam for raising a question which doesn't have a clear answer. that includes Rav YB Soloveitchik
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind) concluded: … the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious world perspective.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Lonely Man of Faith): I have never been seriously troubled by the problem of the Biblical doctrine of creation vis à vis the scientific story of evolution at both the cosmic and the organic levels, nor have I been perturbed by the confrontation of the mechanistic interpretation of the human mind with the Biblical spiritual concept of man. I have not been perplexed by the impossibility of fitting the mystery of revelation into the framework of historical empiricism. Moreover, I have not even been troubled by the theories of Biblical criticism which contradict the very foundations upon which the sanctity and integrity of Scriptures rest.
There clearly is a difference between one who is sincerely seeking out the truth and one who says he doesn't like Yiddishkeit. You might be aware that various rishonim state that errors made from a sincere misunderstanding do not make a person an apikorus. In short you either are very ignorant of the variety of legitimate religious thinking and questioning or you are playing devil's advocate.
If it is because of ignorance, t I have many sources on these issues in my Daas Torah.
Probably not a good idea for the child of thinking BT types to go into New Square. Even if the thinking BT has figured out why he wants to be in New Square, that doesn't mean it will be a fit for his kids. The BT might be countering his own upbringing. That's fine for him. But the child of the thinking BT has been seen the thinking example and that's not going to work all that well in New Square.
ReplyDeletethis wouldn't be the first case of children of BTs going off because their parents were too extreme.
I don't know if that's what happened here. I don't know these people. But it could be what happened.
Besides the no entrance exam (non) requirement, why did he switch from a (presumably) litvish atmosphere (shaar yoshuv is pretty inclusive, accepting, warm atmosphere) to a cold (non inquisitive, provided you comply with pretty simple, non demanding
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to say that Deen is an apikorus according to virtually any of these views on apikorsus.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a bit of both - I mentioned that view of R' Chaim of Brisk because R' Bleich mentions it in his book "With Perfect Faith" which looks at the 13 principles. I am not necessarily taking R' Chaim's view myself, but I am trying to understand your dismay at the book which is the journey to apikorsus. Since some of my own views have at times been called such or bordering on such, I have to be careful.
ReplyDeleteI asked a Sephardi Rav once, about the binding nature of the 13 ikkarim, and he suggested i read Albo's book of Ikkarim - which I have not gotten round to.
Some people like Yiddiskeit but don't feel they can believe in it.
But the problem is a problem - if you accept that someone reaches apikorsus by honest intellectual enquiry is not the same as someone who just wants another lifestyle, that is interesting, but what if you do not have the answers ? Prof Magid is someone who brings big intellectual arguments to deny the whole Torah - I think he is genuine, but mistaken in many areas. But he denies Divine authorship of Torah, as well as G-d 's existence - but it is genuine. It is difficult to reconcile this, and sometimes I am more open minded than at other times.
I did not read the book, and I skimmed through Shaul Magd's review.
ReplyDeleteMagid has a weird idea that loving Hashem more than a child should preclude a person from having children. I guess Western Culture's idea of loving thyself more than a child is perfect.
Deen was fourteen when his father past away. It left a him deeply hurt and with a huge emotional gap. From the few people I know who've been orphaned, they told me that it took them years to forgive their father for leaving them. It may not be a logical reaction, but it is an understandable emotional reaction to a child who has gone through the harrowing experience of losing a parent. That's why the Torah is so strict about the way we treat orphans. To entrench the abandoned feeling that Shulem felt was the last time he saw his father. As Shulem was on the way to catch his bus for yeshiva, he went to say goodby to his father. His father was in the middle of davening Shmone Esray, and did not say goodby. (He did touch his hand). This is an emotional issue that seems not have left Shulem until today.
Skver is a warm, caring and, inclusive community full of kindness, which can be very attractive to a boy who has a huge emotional gap of having lost his father. It seems to have served him as a temporary patch on a serious injury. It sounds like it was more of an escape from his terrible and excruciating pain, being lost and unanchored, than anything else.
It therefore ran its course, since if the underlying issues were not dealt with, he had to escape from this as well. If he does not deal with the underlying issues, we cannot expect him not to bolt from his current lifestyle as well. Its not the lifestyle Shulem, it's not the faith, it's the unfinished emotional business.
... the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer
ReplyDeletedoes not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be
satisfied with any cognitive demonstration.
An excellent formulation of a fundamental truth.
@just another - I get the feeling reading your understanding that no one is allowed to criticize anyone who criticizes yiddishkeit - rather we must understand what fault exists in yiddishkeit that led someone to reject it. That you need to discredit anyone who defends yiddishkeit against those who have rejected it.
ReplyDeleteIn short - you are claiming we must presume that every apikorus and anti-Semite has a legitimate gripe that we need to be mature enough to hear.
I gather you haven't read the book but just looked at the reviews.
Add me to the commenters perturbed by the need to "explain away" Shulem Deen's story. His story is his reality. It stands for itself. People attempt to defend frumkeit by identifying where he went wrong - why was he in Skver? why didn't he speak to his father about his questions? what's his agenda? - to arrive at the inevitable and incredibly narrow-minded, "he's just trying to explain his shortcomings and mistakes."
ReplyDeleteNone of that matters. A story is not a syllogism. It does not follow from his story that frum people are wrong, just as you are certainly not making the claim that no broadminded child of baalei teshuvah could possibly be happy in Skver or could possibly be unsatisfied elsewhere. We are all the product of infinite variables - environments, families, character influences, experiences. If I had been born to Christian or atheist parents I would undoubtedly not be frum. If my aunt had four wheels, etc. The same array of factors put Shulem Deen where he is. None of that delegitimizes his story.
@whosevelt - you are basically arguing that the world is functionally random to the human mind and we can't explain events by causation- at least not a causation that human beings can grasp..
ReplyDeleteAs not only a frum Jew but a psychologist - such a view is nonsense. you should do away with psychology,, economics, history, sociology - etc etc. All of which have as a basic premise that we can identify patterns of causation
Per charedi teaching of chassidic or yeshivish, or nothing.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such "charedi" teaching, except in your imagination.
I think I now see where you are (both) coming from , ie DT is looking for reasons why someone leaves the frum life - and since this may be part of a larger phenomenon, it might also help those who are still frum in finding better ways at dealing with their challenges within.
ReplyDeletethere is causation, but people become frum not always from purely scientific and logical considerations, but from emotional ones. And it is emotional ones that often are the cause for them to leave. Of course we tend to use logic to justify our actions, but that can also be challenged. If i may bring in another discussion which we recently had - an article critcising MO. One of the critiques (either inside or from the comments) was that MO tend to use halacha or mitzvos as means to self fulfillment. And hence they will, alelgedly, bend halacha each time it doesn't fulfill them.
Regardless of the truth or accuracy of this statement, it might provide a lesson in how Orthodoxy , or those worried about Jews leaving religion, must respond. It has to offer fulfillment, because if it doesnt, then people will seek it elsewhere. R' Professor Twersky has written so many books, but he admits they all say the same thing, that self esteem is the key to happiness. Why has he reached this conclusion from having a largely frum clientele? it must say something about how halacha/hashkafa is there to break down one's self fulfillment and self esteem. Didn't Chazal do a social experiment when they tried to stop the yetzer hara, only to find there were no eg laid the next day! Which is my theory of how the yetzer hara cannot really be destroyed, but channeled into other ways of ra.
I read the book from cover to cover. And no, I don't believe that we may not respond to anyone that criticizes Yiddishkeit. I just happened to have found while reading the book, that the author was simply relating his experiences, and was not looking to negate Yiddshkeit. I feel the book was very sensitively written, and if one feels offended while reading it, I believe it is perhaps because he is uncomfortable with how the author experienced our world. I'm trying to bring the point across that listening to the authors honest rendition of his life doesn't and shouldn't in anyway take away from our own Yiddishkeit. (that is - if we choose to read the book - then it is only mentchlich for us to listen to the author with respect, as he wrote about us in a respectful manner.)
ReplyDelete@Just another - I suggest you reread it. He clearly is saying that there are many questions regarding beliefs and facts that do not have reasonable answers.
ReplyDeleteThe book is not neutral. He clearly is saying that religious people are unreasonable for blocking out heresy and heretics. He doesn't understand why his children should be shielded from his lifestyle and from him.
In sum he shares your views that anything which is said calmly and with a minimum of negative words needs to be respected or tolerated.
Tolerance for heresy and values that are offensive to Judaism is not a Jewish concept.
It is true that he came to the conclusion of heresy. I would be perfectly ok if you contradicted him on that point, and I too don't agree with his conclusions. What is upsetting to me is the need some feel to negate him as a mentch, to portray him as someone who is out there to besmirch us, and thus is a horrible person.
ReplyDeleteTake for example how Skwere cut him off from his children. I can see the need for Skware to do that, given the profound damage it can have on a child's faith the notion that one can "choose" whether to be frum or not, as his father choose. However I also must say I cannot claim that the steps that were taken in order to estrange him were necessarily the most spiritually productive path. First of all it involved lying and cheating ( to him,) and secondly, can we really be sure that for the children this was the best thing to be done.
So how should they have dealt with the problem? I don't know, but I do know it is complex, and we cannot ignore the negative side to how it was dealt with.
Now Deen honestly portrays what happened to him. For example, he doesn't deny where he might have crossed over a boundary and allowed his children to watch TV at his house. He clearly accepts responsibility of how his decisions negatively impacted his wife and children. He actually even states at the end of the book how this book is only his perceptive and he is sure if his wife would write a book it would probably be totally different.
I feel our response to the book needs to come from the same honest and mature place that he used in writing it; i.e stating where we disagree while listening to him with respect as every human being, (who comes from a mentchileche place) deserves to be listened to.
That is not what I am arguing at all. I don't deny that the factors you described may have contributed to Deen's travails. Literary scholars analyze fiction on the basis of the author's personal life; you can certainly suggest his personal issues led to certain problems.
ReplyDeleteI am questioning the purpose of such analysis. Unlike literary scholars, you are not looking for deeper meaning hidden beneath the text. This article looks to dismiss whatever "argument" his book supposedly makes by countering that his outcome was unique to him, caused by his own issues. This comes across as desperately apologetic and Deen has not made any accusations that would require apology. It is just his story. Accept it.
@whosevelt - we have a fundamental difference and you haven't presented anything to convince me to support your view
ReplyDelete@just another - while we both can share the experience of reading his book - you clearly are missing some important information which he deliberately either distorts or skips over.
ReplyDeleteIt is just his story. Accept it.
ReplyDelete"His story" is one of choices, some of which are anathema to a religious Jew. I don't see why I am obligated to "accept it."
I'm afraid that the Chareidi embrace of anti-zionist
ReplyDeleteYou are not obligated to accept his correctness. But a story is not judged solely or primarily by the correctness of its protagonist's actions. You are also not obligated to read his story, if you don't like it. The book is his portrayal of his experiences, presented for entertainment rather than historical accuracy. We're not sitting on a committee that decided to use his book as source material for why people leave frumkeit. The frum community reads *every* story as an argument. It is not an argument and it is not a challenge. I empathize with his journey and I am still frum. I don't understand the need to explain away his story, as though it makes my children safer if I convince myself Shulem Deen made bad choices.
ReplyDeleteThis is different from a book like Deborah Feldman's or Leah Vincent's. Those books were intended to make a strong point about the frum community. While I personally prefer to give both of them the benefit of the doubt, I understand that those books espouse negative generalizations about the frum community, which ought to be repudiated when they are untrue.
Thank you Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn for devoting so much time and space to this important subject! This is a phenomenon unto itself in that few have really focused on what becomes of the children of Baalei Teshuva, and it's not such a happy and simple story!!
ReplyDeleteAnyone in Kiruv knows that it is one thing to Mekarev someone and make them Frum, but it is quite another thing as to how that will all pan out with the children of BTs! At times children are caught in the middle of at one time having secular parents and then having Frum parents, very confusing. Then even if children were born after both their parents became Frum, they still carry a genetic code, they can sense it from their parents at home, from contact with secular relatives such as grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, and from the way others look at BTs (usually it is tough for BTs toi make it fully in Frum societies, and kids sense the ambiguity, ridicule, ambivalence, dissonance, and even hostility that BTs face!)
Many 100% frum and serious Frum BTs have kids that go off the Derech to one degree or another, or drop out of Yeshiva and Bais Yaakov, or cannot stay married and get divorced, as if they are picking up on themes and past patterns in the lives of their parents that may have been suppressed but are there all the time unconsciously. Sometimes even rabbis in Kiruv have this happening to their kids, it is well-known even the best Chabd Shluchim and Shluchos have kids that go off the Derech, maybe from being around too many secular kids too often at home and in day schools with mixed frum and non-frum student populations.
So really it is no surprise that this can happen even to someone as famous as Rabbi Dovid Din Z"L who had a great reputation in his day, but he like many others are not immune to this happening to their kids that they go off the Derech.
So this entire subject needs more discussion and hopefully there can be many more posts about this subjects. Incidentally, it may be worthwhile to remember the Chazal that Torah is inherited by Yerushah but it must be earned by everyone. After in the course of the last 200 years or so the Jewish people went from being a mostly Torah-observant nation to going off the Derech on the national level, and only in recent decades has the path changed as Torah Jewry has been reborn and flourishes, in addition to a return to Yiddishkeit Baal Teshuva movement, and this challenge and pattern goes on all the time as each and every Frum Jew has to deal with being loyal to Yiddishkeit and also ensuring that one's children remain Frum, and for Baalei Teshuva it is a challenge within a challenge and then some.
Thanks again for this important post!!
Yokel, while your post is brilliant and worth paying attention too, however, in the case of children of Baalei Teshuva and children of Rabbis and Rebbetzins in Chinuch and Kiruv, especially in out of town settings (meaning outside of the New York City, or Brooklyn specifically, area) what happened to Rabbi Dovid Din's son can happen to anyone in any setting be it Litvish, modern, or any part of the Frum world. Kids of BTs go off the Derech and it has never been faced up to and dealt with. How could it be if the Frum world is struggling and has not come up with an approach to the kids of well-established FFBs going off the Derech in droves.
ReplyDeleteWhile your critiques of Skver are valid in many ways, but that is still not the real issue or problem. There is a deeper question that is puzzling everyone, it's kind of a Parah Adumah paradoxical question, that how could it be that the same things that make a secular ("contaminated") person Frum ("pure") yet at the same it time the same circumstances and even the same person doing the "purifying" i.e. Kiruv, has around him and her his closest flesh and blood that become "defiled" i.e. they go off the Derech...sometimes perceptibly and quickly and at other other times imperceptibly and slowly and and then one day they find their kids far, far away from where they themselves are and would have wanted their kids to be!!?? It can happen anywhere any time to any one, in a non-Chasidish open and loving home, or with a Rebbe or without a Rebbe, it just happens as we see and it can be very jarring and shocking.
Like looking at a building that seemed solid come crashing down time and again. Obviously there is something wrong with the way the ingredients were mixed, or poured in, or with the way the building was put up, that it has a tendency to collapse. If airliners collapsed as often as such kids crash, there would never be a plane that is allowed to fly and carry passengers. So the question is, what is causing all the crashes so often and what can be done to fix it so that it never happens or that it it hardly happens. That is the big question here.
@whosevelt - this is not a question of whether you feel warm and fuzzzy when you read it. This is not a sporting or entertainment event that we applaud the skill of the contestant- without requard to any moral issues.
ReplyDeleteshulem Deen is the one who has made his life story available to the public with the clear goal of holding himself up as an exemplar. He is the one who is pushing that people should buy it and find inspiration. He is the one who is encouraging frum people to reach out for freedom from the restriction of religion.
Rather odd that a religious person is applauding his activity which clearly violates the religion you claim to follow.
Bottom line you are viewing it as a secular goy and not as a observant Jew
I think you meant to write "he was thrown away from" not "he threw away he threw away...his marriage and his children"
ReplyDeleteno I meant to write what I did
ReplyDeletePlease forgive my intrusion, but I think there's little conflict here. WV seems to be saying that there's no need to decry the books contents because it is a story, not a polemic. It's not trying to criticise Judaism or any brand thereof. It's a personal story, an anecdote. To attempt to delegitimize his story is a nonsensical task as the author is not attempting to say 'my way is the right way so it should be a template for others to use'.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, WV to my read is suggesting that only by accepting the book at face value can we then begin the analysis DT suggests is critical (and the author seems to feel as well, apparently admitting as much in more than one place in the book.
So, accepting the story on it's terms is what enables us to delve into the [psychological, intellectual, etc.] failures within.
Of course if WV disagrees...sorry? :)
A very interesting and enlightening comment.
ReplyDeleteYou are not obligated to accept his correctness.
ReplyDeleteWell, of course not. My point, though, is that I'm not obligated to accept its incorrectness either. I'm free to criticize and reject his worldview and choices if I wish. I am under no obligation to allow his version of his story to stand unrebutted. Once a person puts his story out into the public square, it ceases to be his private business, and becomes in a sense public property.
Can someone enlighten me, what is "emunas tzadikim" and is there a source for such a concept?
ReplyDeleteAlso how does one asses a tzadik to see if he actually is one, if he is being judged purely on righteousness, what entitles a person to be a designated a "tzadik."
I've heard of emunas chachomim (Avos 6:6) but chochma is something that can be assessed..
To my mind, the sad state of his parents' marriage, and his father's mental illness, stand as a defense of sorts for the son's behavior. אלוקים יראה ללבב -- only Hashem knows the truth of Shulem Deen's heart -- but from my very limited perspective, I can see why such a troubled upbringing should have produced a troubled, dissatisfied person.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why those who wish to defend Deen reject this point of view, unless what they actually wish to defend is the legitimacy of rejecting Torah b/c of questions of faith.
@roeh - emunas tzadikim is a major concept in chassidus
ReplyDeletesee for example
(59) ספר ליקוטי הלכות יו"ד - הלכות נדה הלכה ב
כי באמת הכל אחד כשמאמינים בצדיקים, מאמינים בה' יתברך. כי אי אפשר להאמין בה' יתברך בלא אמונת הצדיקים, כמו שכתוב, "ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו", כי הא בהא תליא. וכמו שאמר רבנו, זכרונו לברכה, כמו שה' יתברך נמצא בודאי, כמו כן נמצאים צדיקים בודאי בכל דור ודור, ומחמת שפגמו בברית קדש והפשיטו הדעת מן האמונה, שזהו בחינת שבירת כלים ונשבר ונתקלקל האמונה והדעת אצלם, ומחמת זה באו לידי כפירות בה' יתברך ובצדיקים אמתיים ונדמה להם שהם חכמים גדולים, ואינם רוצים להשליך שכלם העכור והפגום המלכלך בזהמת תאות נאוף, ומקשים קשיות, חס ושלום, על ה' יתברך או על צדיקים וכשרים אמתיים וכל זה מחמת פגם הברית כנ"ל.
(50) ספר עטרת ישועה על מועדים - סדר הגדה לפסח
א"י ברוך שומר הבטחתו לישראל ברוך הוא שהקב"ה חשב את הקץ לעשות כמה שאמר לאברהם אבינו. הנה איתא במדרש לא נגאלו ישראל אלא בזכות האמונה שנאמר ויאמן העם וישמעו [עיין בילקוט שמעוני פרשת בשלח רמז רמ]. וגם גאולה העתידה תהי' בשביל האמונה, ויש ב' אמונות אמונת הבורא ואמונת הצדיקים כמ"ש ויאמינו בד' ובמשה עבדו [שמות יד לא]. והנה ראש למאמינים הי' אברהם אבינו ע"ה כמ"ש והאמן בד' ויחשבה לו צדקה [בראשית טו ו], ועל כן נפקדה שרה כשהי' [אברהם] בן ק' שנה והיא היתה בת צ' שנה, רומז (בזכות) [על זכות] שתי אמונות, כי ק' רומז על שמו של הקב"ה שנקרא קדוש (כמבואר בשבת דף ק"ד.), וצ' רומז על אמונה בצדיק. וזה שכתוב ויאמ"ר ל"ו כ"ה יהי"ה זרע"ך העולה דו"ד מל"ך ישרא"ל, כמ"ש בספר ברית כהונת עולם [עיין באמרי נועם בפרשת חיי שרה מאמר יג בד"ה א"י ואברהם זקן] כי הוא ע"י האמונה שכתוב אח"כ בפסוק והאמן וגו'. ועל כן אמונ"ה עם צדי"ק ואמונ"ה עם הוי"ה עולה משי"ח ב"ן דוי"ד, כי ע"י אלו ב' אמונות יבוא לנו משיח בן דוד. וז"ש גם כאן 'חשב את הק"ץ לעשות כמה שאמר לאברהם', והיינו, שהי' להם אמונה בד' ובצדיק הרמוז בתיבת ק"ץ כנ"ל ועי"ז נגאלו. וזהו 'וענו אותם ת' שנה וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו כו'', כי ת' עם הגו"י עולה משי"ח ב"ן דו"ד. ואח"כ מסיים 'יצאו ברכוש גדול', כי יצ"א ר"ת א'מונה צ'דיק י'י, הכל לרמז, כי כמו שהיתה גאולת מצרים ע"י האמונה, כמו כן אי"ה לעתיד תהי' גאולתנו ע"י האמונה. והבן:
(23-24) ספר אמרי נועם על התורה - פרשת ויחי
[מ]:
א"י האספו כו'. כי עיקר הגאולה תהיה על ידי בחינת האמונה, כמו שהיתה גאולת מצרים, כמאמרם ז"ל כדאי האמונה שהאמינו בי, עיי"ש [עיין במכילתא יד טו, שמות רבה פרשה כא אות ח]. ואי אפשר לבוא לידי אמונת אלקי עולם אם לא על ידי אמונת צדיקים, כי הוא כמו סולם לעלות על ידי זה מאמונת צדיקים אל אמונת הבורא ב"ה. וכמו שאמרו הקדמונים לפרש [בזמר ברוך ה' יום יום] יצוה צור חסדו קהלותיו לקבץ, היינו, אותן אנשים שיקהלו לפעמים לקבל פני צדיק הדור, אלו האנשים יתקבצו אל משיח צדקנו. וזה צדי"ק עולה ב' פעמים אמונ"ה שעל ידי הצדיק באים לאמונה האמיתית. ובחינת אמונה היא בחינת מלכות כידוע [עיין בקהלת יעקב ערך אמונה], שהיא כנסת ישראל סופא דכל דרגין, הנקראת אחרית הימים, שהוא האחרית של כל הספירות. ולזה כאשר רצה לגלות את הקץ אמר להם 'האספו', היינו, העיקר תלוי אם תאספו עצמכם אל הצדיקים וליהנות מאורם. על כן רמוז בר"ת ה'אספו ו'אגידה ל'כם א'ת, שם אלו"ה, אשר במילואו כזה, אל"ף למ"ד וא"ו ה"א, עולה במספר צדי"ק. ועל ידי זה 'ואגידה לכם את אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים', היינו, מה שאתם זרע ישראל נקראים בשם אחרית הימים, יען כי אחיזתכם היא בבחינת אמונה, סופא דכל דרגין, אי אפשר שתבואו למדרגה זו שתהיו נקראים בשם זה, אם לא על ידי 'האספו', היינו אסיפת הצדיקים, אז תזכו לבוא על ידי אמונת צדיקים אל אמונת הבורא, ותזכו לגאולה על ידי זה אשר תלוי באמונה:
sad story - someone tries to leave Skvere, and has hsi house burnt to the ground. This might be what can be expected in Scientology or ISIS.
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy of "Emunas Tzaddikim" is that anyone can claim to be a Tzaddik, but if you question it, they will burn your house down. This has nothing to do with the Torah or Moshe. The Torah commands us to question a Navi's credentials, and gives us license to reject him if his claims are proven to be false.
Thank you I appreciate the sources.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any knowledge about the tzidkas of any particular chassidishe rebbe, however I assume that there must be some standard to measure tzidkas it can't be just because someone is a bnsh"k he is automatically deemed to be a tzadik.
Another excellent comment. You've articulated a framework for the worldview of a certain set of "at-risk" youths. It resonates with me. I suspect it doesn't cover the full spectrum of at-risk behavior, but there is a lot of truth there. You might also note the failure of another popular means of "treating" these behaviors -- medicating children whose behavior deviates from the norm, despite the often-dangerous side effects of these powerful drugs -- a questionable therapy at the best of times, but to be viewed with utmost suspicion in this context.
ReplyDeleteYou are two for two on this article. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. The one thing I disagree on is that "a very strong foundation in Torah Hashkafa" helps address these needs. If Torah Hashkafa means conventional wisdom among Charedi leadership, it fails completely. If Torah Hashkafa means intellectual, God-based understanding of Torah and our role in the world, it may be true but it is almost non-existent in the public realm. You might as well tell someone, if you have the answers, you have the answers.
ReplyDeleteMany rabbonim, gedolei gaDor (over the centuries) have children who have gone OTD. While perhaps BTs are more subject to this, its not their exclusive purview.
ReplyDeleteBut the topic will make a good study for a PhD thesis.
At this point in time, Deen is clearly a rabid religion-hater, who is held out to be a hero by the Footsteps crowd that lack his erudition, intelligence and power of persuasion.
ReplyDeleteNot convinced?
See this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XVRiLNrd0
I suspect that the book's more neutral tone is the consequence of an adviser/editor/friend who wisely counseled him to "tone it down" because anger doesn't sell to a wider audience, as opposed to sounding rational and balanced, which does.
The youtube video is the "real" Shulem. As I mentioned in my longer post, I knew Deen's mother and brothers. The intensity and anger probably reflects his real personality.
A pity he doesn't use his anger constructively. And a pity on our community for not doing their homework and learning that anger IS sometimes Halachically justified.
Besides, even if Deen's intentions would have been noble, we would be obligated to address the factual issues that he mentions, so that our passion to Judaism isn't negatively effected.
I don't doubt that his book has already swayed some "on the fringe" that were "straddling the fence".
This comment, taken in contrast with the comment from "David" below, demonstrate where you and I differ. I am not defending Deen. I am not judging him at all. His book is not defending him or condemning Skver. I agree with you that his upbringing led to his outcome. None of this matters, though, because neither me, nor the book engage in any kind of judgment on Shulem Deen's actions.
ReplyDeleteThe book that Shulem Deen wrote is about: what it is like to lose ones faith when one is deeply immersed in a world that exists on faith.
The book that you seem to have read is about: why all the things that Shulem Deen has done are really not that bad.
You argue that he has no excuses - it's still his fault because he did this or that which is what caused his problems. I respond that I don't have an opinion about his excuses. I read a book about losing one's faith when one is deeply immersed, etc. Did he lose his faith under the circumstances described in the book? Were the consequences as he described them?
I am judging your choice to engage the book as you did. Frankly, it is worrisome that many frum people cannot even conceptualize of engaging *any* such book with *anything* other than moral judgment.
@whosevelt - I would suggest you write a Shulchan Aruch about the "correct" way of reading books. About how it is important to maintain the "correct" understanding of a text according to the blurb.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever read book reviews? Where did you get this rule that there is one way a book is to be understood and that any other understanding is illegitimate?! That is absurd.
Furthermore your understanding of what I said is simply wrong. The boxes you use to understand and define things need to be replaced.
It is worrisome that you can be so far off in your evaluation and understanding of what we have been discussing.
Try thinking outside the box
@Eddie before you so boldly posul a widely accepted belief first try and understand what it is and whether the problem is the implementation rather than the concept
ReplyDelete@yokel - how about writing a guest post. Either on the issues you have just commented on - or a new topic of your choice
ReplyDeleteDdnt s deen say he regrets his having to leav? (Not his having to leaveg, but he wishes he could have stayed.)
ReplyDeleteThe quote you bring from Likuttey Halachot states "כמו שכתוב , "ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו
ReplyDeleteMoshe and Yeshoshua were teh primary Naviim, as it is stated that the people accepted Joshua like they accepted Moses. Now the concept is fine, but if we rely on the verse of the Torah from Az Yashir, we have to implement the full Torah rules on who is prophet. I am not speaking necesasrily on whether there is prophecy today, that is an entire subject on its own. I am saying that it is easy to designate someone as a Tzaddik, but that doesnt make them the same as Moses or Joshua.
the concept is an interesting one, but identifying the real Tzaddikim is more problematic.
DT, while anorexia is a psychological illness, it is incorrect to call anorexics "crazy."
ReplyDeleteYou bring excerpts of the book where Mrs Deen, being exasperated by husband's deteriorating health, and realizing that he was indeed suffering from anorexia, calls her husband crazy - and this is sufficient proof to you to refer to Rabbi Deen as a crazy father who damaged his son so terribly that he ultimately had to leave Yiddishkeit.
Well, knowing Mrs Deen personally, (and by the way, that is why I read the book from cover to cover, intently,) and having heard her speak about her late husband from time to time, I think the picture you are painting is very far from the truth.
Actually, I believe the response Rabbi Deen gives the author when he questions him about Momy's accusations reflects a man who respects his wife deeply, but is unable to overcome his anorexia.
I was very impressed with Mrs. Deen having the ability to see through the cloak of piety and state clearly what was happening, i.e. that her husband was dying from anorexia. She then does whatever she can to save her husband, including threatening to request a divorce, in order to shake him up and get him to deal with the real issue.
I would say that this is a way more evolved (and psychologically healthy) way of dealing with difficulties than the Square Chossid in the book who runs to the Rebbe requesting Deen be expelled, ie. killing the messenger, rather than listening to Deens sensible solution to meet his son on Halachicly permitted turf and thus save his son's Yiddishkeit.
Of course his father's passing was extremely traumatic to Deen. He says so himself. And yes, it was chilling to read the part where he predicted that he would turn into a shagatz. But the book clearly depicts Deen struggling with the inconsistencies he was forced to live with in his community, and not with unresolved childhood issues.
If your assumption is correct, that Deen really is just looking to fill some unmet psychological need, and that is why he drops Yiddishkeit, and he purposely writes the book to somehow portray himself as an honest truth seeker who had real questions that he couldn't find answers to in order to mislead us from what was really going on for him, then why would he include the episode of how he predicted after his father's traumatic death that he would ultimately become a shagetz? Wouldn't that unmask him?
I don't believe that Deen left because of questions he couldn't find answers to, (even though I believe he does believe that that is why he left.)
I even feel that the question that started all this, (i.e. if Yiddishkeit can be proven or if one needs to believe blindly, as Deen feels his father claimed,) is also a mistake, I believe Rabbi Deen was referring to faith being higher than mind because ultimately faith is something we feel in our bones, it's experiential, (and the question never was whether faith can be proven or not.)
I walked away from reading the book feeling that Deen left because of the countless inconsistencies he was forced to live with while he lived in Square. It is clear that most of the book is about his struggles to deal with these inconsistencies. Perhaps it might be true that had Deen grown up in a more traditional family he wouldn't have felt compelled to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But still, to claim that Deen left because of private unresolved family issues is highly inaccurate.
@Eddie - so what? That is not what you wrote in your previous comment.
ReplyDeleteAlso don't know why you are claiming that they need to be treated as if they are claiming to be prophets.
Tht is not the issue.
In short I would suggest you try to understand the concept before you try destroying or rejecting it
I should have said current charedi teaching.
ReplyDeleteThey reject MO as an option, though they accept their hashgacha (if heimishe food is not available) and their gitten, etc.)
actually, having seen this video, he appears to be a charismatic leader of the OTD crowd.
ReplyDeleteThe anger and hatred that you mention is understandable, and it is the flip side of what happens to a BT when they become frum and have to catch up and are mocked by the FFB for their lack of education, yichus etc.
I asked some American OTDs about the various sociological factors, and they said it is now quite a big issue within the Hareidi world. I asked if they feel so restricted , why dont they become MO and then they can still observe mitzvot, but do things like see movies etc - but this is not of interest to them, they have to be glatt treif, and do aveiros mehadrin min mehadrin. They also say that there isn't such an OTD problem in MO.
DT, while anorexia is a psychological illness, it is incorrect to call anorexics "crazy."
ReplyDeleteYou bring excerpts of the book where Mrs Deen, being exasperated by husband's deteriorating health, and realizing that he was indeed suffering from anorexia, calls her husband crazy - and this is sufficient proof to you to refer to Rabbi Deen as a crazy father who damaged his son so terribly that he ultimately had to leave Yiddishkeit.
Well, knowing Mrs Deen personally, (and by the way, that is why I read the book from cover to cover, intently,) and having heard her speak about her late husband from time to time, I think the picture you are painting is very far from the truth.
Actually, I believe the response Rabbi Deen gives the author when he questions him about Momy's accusations reflects a man who respects his wife deeply, but is unable to overcome his anorexia.
I was very impressed with Mrs. Deen having the ability to see through the cloak of piety and state clearly what was happening, i.e. that her husband was dying from anorexia. She then does whatever she can to save her husband, including threatening to request a divorce, in order to shake him up and get him to deal with the real issue.
I would say that this is a way more evolved (and psychologically healthy) way of dealing with difficulties than the Square Chossid in the book who runs to the Rebbe requesting Deen be expelled, ie. killing the messenger, rather than listening to Deens sensible solution to meet his son on Halachicly permitted turf and thus save his son's Yiddishkeit.
Of course his father's passing was extremely traumatic to Deen. He says so himself. And yes, it was chilling to read the part where he predicted that he would turn into a shagatz. But the book clearly depicts Deen struggling with the inconsistencies he was forced to live with in his community, and not with unresolved childhood issues.
If your assumption is correct, that Deen really is just looking to fill some unmet psychological need, and that is why he drops Yiddishkeit, and he purposely writes the book to somehow portray himself as an honest truth seeker who had real questions that he couldn't find answers to in order to mislead us from what was really going on for him, then why would he include the episode of how he predicted after his father's traumatic death that he would ultimately become a shagetz? Wouldn't that unmask him?
I don't believe that Deen left because of questions he couldn't find answers to, (even though I believe he does believe that that is why he left.)
I even feel that the question that started all this, (i.e. if Yiddishkeit can be proven or if one needs to believe blindly, as Deen feels his father claimed,) is also a mistake, I believe Rabbi Deen was referring to faith being higher than mind because ultimately faith is something we feel in our bones, it's experiential, (and the question never was whether faith can be proven or not.)
I walked away from reading the book feeling that Deen left because of the countless inconsistencies he was forced to live with while he lived in Square. It is clear that most of the book is about his struggles to deal with these inconsistencies. Perhaps it might be true that had Deen grown up in a more traditional family he wouldn't have felt compelled to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But still, to claim that Deen left because of private unresolved family issues is highly inaccurate.
@just another - you just keep repeating that I am wrong - but you offer no proof and accept that you believe it so. I am not wasting anymore time after this comment in responding to your serious distortions of texts and my words.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Dovid Din being crazy - there is more to the story and it is not limited to his anorexia. Please reread Prof Shaul Magid's comments again.
Shulem Deen was not predicting he would become a shagatz - he was actively working on it. This example of your either inablity to read correctly or your need to distort the words to fit your preconceptions.
“My plan,” I said to my friend Avrum Yida, “is to end up a shaygetz.” A shaygetz drove a sports car or a motorcycle . He cavorted with shiksas. He wore jeans and leather jackets. He didn’t bother keeping Shabbos or kosher. He was, in short, no different from a goy. The shaygetz declared God and His laws irrelevant. The shaygetz was unprincipled —there was no principle in sin. For spite, for temptation, for mindless apathy, for sheer wickedness— the shaygetz defied God , the rabbis, his parents, and all that was good and righteous and noble. I had no clear formula for becoming a shaygetz, but I was determined, in the meantime, to show my general intentions.
“GET OUT OF HERE!” the Ruv shouted, louder this time. “I won’t tolerate gangsters in my yeshiva! You are now expelled!” For a moment, I was struck by the word gangster, thrown into his furious Yiddish. Was I a gangster? The word was meant to shame me, I knew, but instead I felt proud. A gangster was worse than a shaygetz, and so I had achieved something. I turned and made my way through the hushed study hall. The students stepped aside to let me pass, through to the rear, past the last tables, where my classmates, the youngest group of students, stood watching me. I nodded to a few of them as I passed, offering a hint of a smirk, and opened the main doors and headed up to my dorm room. A hour later, I finished packing my things into my suitcase, but not before Reb Hillel appeared suddenly and delivered a slap to my face so forceful that the world went black for a long moment and I thought I was going to faint . When I finally looked up, Reb Hillel stood there in silence, contempt all over his face, and then turned on his heels and left the room. That night, I slept at the home of a kind rabbi in Montreal, who offered to let me stay until I could get a bus back to New York. As I dragged my suitcase into the small guest room on Durocher Avenue, I felt a sort of melancholic emptiness. I had been expelled twice now— first by the Skverers, and now by the Satmars. After I had been branded an outcast, my plans to become a shaygetz no longer seemed so hot.
Deen, Shulem (2015-03-24). All Who Go Do Not Return: A Memoir (Kindle Locations 3803-3814). Graywolf Press. Kindle Edition.
Deen, Shulem (2015-03-24). All Who Go Do Not Return: A Memoir (Kindle Locations 3745-3750). Graywolf Press. Kindle Edition.
As a 13 year old he actively works on becoming a Shagatz. Then he decides to turn over a new leaf and becomes a choseve bocher. Are you claiming that his actively working on becoming a shaygatz all throughout his adulthood?
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering who is distorting the facts over here.
@Eddie it is totally false to say that there isn't such an OTD problem in MO - it is worse
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ou.org/life/parenting/why-are-our-teens-going-off-derech-steven-pruzansky/
I had veered off the path, nearly lost my way, but had gotten right back onto it. After a year in Montreal, the Skverers took me back, and I spent two years at their yeshiva in Williamsburg, and then
ReplyDeletethree more at their flagship institution, the Great Yeshiva in New Square. I had become not a shaygetz but a serious student and later a respectable young man. Until now, at the age of thirty, when I had veered off the path once again. The reasons were different this time; yet in so many ways, they felt the same, as if I were a child again, a teenager, naturally inclined to rebel against authority. Except that this time, my sins were far greater. And this time, I had no intention of pleading my way back.
Deen, Shulem (2015-03-24). All Who Go Do Not Return: A Memoir (Kindle Locations 3822-3826). Graywolf Press. Kindle Edition.
Deen, Shulem (2015-03-24). All Who Go Do Not Return: A Memoir (Kindle Locations 3821-3822). Graywolf Press. Kindle Edition.
I looked at all the sources you mentioned above. you are right, the concept as discussed in those sources are perfectly fine (with me). They do not specify who the Tzaddikim are. Also, there are different meanings to the word tzaddik.
ReplyDeleteregarding prophets, it seems that these sources rely on the verse that Emunas hashem and Emunas Moshe are where we derive Emunas Tzaddikim from. the acceptance of Moshe as the Navi only fully took place on the other side of the Red Sea. It seems to me that comparing a modern tzaddik to Moshe would imply or require that kind of verification, or at least a modern equivalent.
I see hurt - not hatred.
ReplyDeletethis was what was said by the OTDs - perhaps they don't have knowledge or contact with MOTDS. or MOTDS are a different phenomenon, and do not form support groups.
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify: I did not read the book. I am responding to the comments made here. Perhaps you thought you were responding to RDE.
ReplyDeleteIf they were happy, they wouldn't evince such anger. He's not convincing.
ReplyDeleteThe rhyming is childish, and his accent reminiscent of the shtetl. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson:
Deen's rap/chant is like a
dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you
are surprised to find it done at all.
They might not view MO as a lechtchilah, but it is no way rejected as a b'dieved. One would surely prefer his child to turn to MO than ch"v become frei. It's silly to argue otherwise. But then again, MO does not view chareidism as a lechatchilah either, nor do chassidim view litvishe life as a lechatchilah. We all prefer the lifestyle we are used to.
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, in jewish history, there were many more children from frum families going "off the derech", assimilating, changing religion than children from baaley teshuva.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, your whole elucubrations are based on wrong assumptions.
I'm a bit perturbed by a dialogue here concerning whether Shulem's leaving the fold had to do with his coming from an emotionally unstable background.
ReplyDeleteIn light of my post concerning the gifted, as I see it, the discussion can be construed as an Ad Hominem attack.
Imagine a fellow Jew walking down the street, holding an attache case with important papers. A fellow runs past him and swipes the attache case, papers and all. The victim gives chase, while yelling out to frum passerby for assistance in apprehending the crook.
Now imagine this: A fellow Jew begins to give chase. As soon as a bystander sees him doing so he tells him to stop, saying "that guys father is crazy" - why bother giving him back his attache case?
No sane person would agree with such reasoning. Does his father's mental illness lessen his right - and our Mitzvah - in helping him get his property back?
Back to our story with Deen. Who cares what or who is father, mother, cousin, or cousin's aunt are or were? Are his complaints legitimate BASED ON THE CHARACTER TRAITS THAT HASHEM GAVE HIM, or not? If the complaints were indeed legitimate, were they addressed properly BASED ON THE CHARACTER TRAITS THAT HASHEM GAVE HIM, or not?
If he had legitimate complaints and they were not addressed properly, the crucial question is: Would then have played a large role in keeping him "on" the derech?
That is all we should care about!
I believe he had legitimate questions, they were not addressed properly and addressing them properly could very well have avoided his going OTD.
For example: Would and should a highly sensitive and intense individual be greatly bothered by the fact that he needlessly destroyed a good friends room based on his Mashgiach's "shoot for the hip" pronunciation of ובערת הרע מקרבך, as mentioned in the book? Or would a sensitive and intelligent Deen have perhaps noted that a caring and fair Mashgiach would have first checked the strength of the evidence showng that the boy might have contraband ... and even then he would have warned the other boys not to needlessly damage other items, etc. Would that possibly act as a wake-up call to a reflective Deen that he is being told to rely on the guidance of people that aren't necessarily so caring and fair?
I know the answers, because I know the place. They don't think much before they terrorize and they don't apologize much afterwards. (I was offered to have a Dinner made in my honor tho, which I promptly refused, since it was clear that their purpose was just political).
Remember: אל תדין את חבירך עד שתגיע למקומו doesn't only refer to those that "nebech" grew up in less than wholesome circumstances. It also refers to those that "nebech" ended up in an environment that not only doesn't give the proper tools for הערת השכל, but actually vilifies those that attempt to head down the path that might lead to הערת השכל.
if so, מה יעשה הבן שלא יחטא ... If he NEEDS הערת השכל and can find absolutely no guidance that might help him find it?
-=-=
My thanks to the kind comments made by kishkeyum and whosevelt. If I can, I'll bl"n do a guest post - time is a problem.
Also, wonder of wonders, today I was asked to help set up a curriculum for a graduate program in psychology that would be truly Torah Based. Is it coincidence? Does coincidence exist? Of course not!
As the book mentions
Having now read Magid's review, the impression I come away with is that Deen does not claim to have left Judaism b/c of intellectual questions to which he had no answer, but rather, his was an existential journey. He is no longer interested in this life, he wishes to change it, he does so. Here's the relevant paragraph in the review:
ReplyDeleteIn Deen’s book, there is little metaphysical
reflection, Talmudic hair-splitting distinctions, defensive
justifications. Deen just realizes, as naturally as a flower opens to
the morning sun, that he no longer believes. He did seek counseling and
rabbinic advice. But even as he tells those stories it is without
passion, in a perfunctory manner. He tells of a friendship with a young
man his age who teaches in a yeshiva for newly religious Jews in Monsey
who gives him books on science and philosophy written by Orthodox men
who claim to have come up with proof of God and the truth of Torah. None
of them quench his thirst because his thirst is not intellectual, it is
existential. He is not looking for proof. He knew what it was to
believe, from New Square and from his father, and thus he knows what it
is not to believe, also from his father. And he knew what he had to do. The question was only whether he was strong enough to do it.
He says the same himself in response to a question asked after a book reading. Here's the link (see his response to the very last question):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuTFEcB9Uyk
Separately, see his website, "Unpious," for a farily clear look at his anti-religious militancy. He's not just some gentle fellow yearning for faith and sorry that he lost it. Not at all.
http://www.unpious.com/
A fascinating (to me) interview with Dovid Din:
ReplyDeletehttp://thesunmagazine.org/archives/2575?page=1
Yokel for someone who is posing as very psychological you are being the most UN-psychological of all. Of course background matters! What are you talking about. Sure questions that come are important and maybe if they were answered right, he would have stayed Frum, but just looking at videos of him and the way he presents it is obvious, like daylight that he is his father's son. How could he not be?
ReplyDeleteYou are failing to make the right kind of argument. Here is what I think is important and that you lose a golden opportunity to address, is that when BTs come up with questions or start to act "too big for their boots" or just rub Frum people the wrong way, then that old Loshen Horah comes up, oh, "what can you expect all BTs are 'crazy'." It is a kind of institutional prejudice and narrow mindedness, just as various Ashkenazi prejudices against Sephardim are just racism and silliness quite often. So rather than face up to legitimate questions, people take the lazy way out and just unfairly notch up the questions and the challenge from the unknowns to "craziness" rather than deal with and answer the questions that would just show that they are stumped and cannot answer, and Frum folks like to act like a fake superior "master race" at times as if they just know the answers to everything when they are just, well, "yokels" and cannot answer deep questions about either the meaning of life or "what does Jdaism say about XYZ?" or just answer all the "Why?" questions!
However that does not detract from the fact that there is a direct connection between parents and children in any situation and in any society. The phenomenon of secular Jews becoming religious and then spawning children that they expect to be "just like" all the other FFB's kids and surprise, surprise, often they are not and the kids then go on to create a predictable patterns of reverting to ways of life and even processes, conscious and unconscious, of their parents comes as a rude shock and surprise to the formerly secular parents who should not be surprised but they are not only stumped they act foolishly, or we act foolishly, by not seeing how there is a connection between the formerly secular secular parents and their newly secular children. It is an odd dynamic but is is definitely there, nothing to do with craziness or mental illness, just with natural human factors, such as "the boy is father to the man" and conversely it can be stated that that "the man is surely the father to the boy"!
Another quote from Shulem Deen which clearly illustrates the emotional - rather intellectual basis of his religious commitment. This is from a Facebook page
ReplyDeleteMy Father, R. Dovid Din
By Shulem Deen · Updated about 2 months ago
I
came across these photos of my father, R' Dovid Din. I don't have many
photos of him. He died when I was 14--it's partly the reason why I ended
up in Skver. I went to look for a father figure, I suppose. Although he
wasn't replaceable.
He was brilliant, compassionate, humble,
conceited, sensitive, an ascetic, a modern intellectual, a medieval
mystic, a little bit crazy, and saner than most people I know. He was
also, for the most part, just my father--funny, gentle, occasionally
angry, sometimes impatient, but always, always fiercely loving.
He also had a crazy life story. One day, perhaps it'll be told. Maybe. One day.
There is a deeper question that is puzzling everyone, it's kind of a Parah Adumah paradoxical question...
ReplyDeleteThis is a question that is bothering few, if any, people about Shulem Deen. He grew up in a very challenging household, with his father dying from anorexia while he was fourteen.
Your questions about children of go off is a loaded question. Are you claiming that there is a higher majority of children of "klei kodesh" who go off than of non "klei kodesh". Where have you picked this up from? A little look around and dealing with these type of youth will tell you that your claim is wrong. There clearly is not a higher percentage of wayward youth among the children of klei kodesh than among the rest of Frum Jews.
The question is a very different one - why are certain children not growing up religious. Anyone who's dealt with youth will tell you that the route of their problem is almost never - if ever - a theological issue that the kids have. It is emotional.
@David the warm fuzzy approach to kiruv is nice but it needs to be tempered with clear boundaries. Citing Rav Moshe for NCSY ignores the fact that his attitude towards apikorusus including the advocating of book burning. That he called Reform and Conservative rabbis heretics whose beracha did not merit an amen. That their marriages didn't even need a get. That he wasn't sure of there was such a thing as tinok shenishba etc etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen people attack Orthodoxy as narrow minded and intellectually dishonest, - there are times when a response is called for. When Shulem Deen blames Orthodoxy for his going off the derech - it is important to keep the game honest. When his book indicates that Orthodox Jews can't ask questions and that he was stifled because of that - it is necessary to point out that from his own words the problem was emotional not intellectual
There are definitely problem in the Orthodox world - as anyone reading my blog can see. But the world needs to be understood as it is - not according to a fictionalized version that was written to conform to psychological or ideological considerations.
@Daas Torah, thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I said anything different than you. I am glad!
Regarding R. Moshe's approach, of course, though for what it's worth (and as I'm sure you know) to my knowledge he did in actuality pasken there is tinok shenishba. He also was simply paskening on those matters, not railing and screaming.
Perhaps here is where we may differ: To say '...whose bracha did not merit an amen' seems to me already letting bias towards the person. I would say '...to whose bracha we may not respond with an amen'. The word 'merit' seems the culprit. I am certain R. Moshe was stating a fact with regards to the kedusha of the bracha and of the amen, period. The 'merit' of the bracha is not ours to know. We have a psak about the correctness of the action and must follow it. We may even be incorrect about a particular bracha, but the law is our and so we follow.
Finally, of course there are times to respond. We all keep saying it. But I'm pretty sure the general tendency is towards being cavalier in our determination of those times, and more negative in our response than is necessary. I am advocating balance and synchronicity in approach. We can be firm, calling people on their arguments and actions while offering respect, understanding, and care. I would argue it is in fact our obligation to do so.
We are not Pinchas, and I for one would not want to be. I'm sure I'd muck up the job something fierce.
Another observation is that while many BTs are very clever about
ReplyDeletebecoming Frum but when they finally become Frum they also sadly become
STUPID!! In their past lives they may have relied on their instincts and
inner voices, but all of a sudden they join Frum societies where
"gurus" take over and lowly functionaries with silly ideas about life
all dressed in Frum attire but totally incapable of running the Frum
lives of newly religious BTs and their families.
Very good point. I always tell my BT friends, when they ask me for advice, to rely upon their perfectly good common sense and instincts, and not farm out their brains to others.
One final point that I believe dovetails neatly with this whole back and forth. Even as we are talking amongst ourselves, the stridency (a nice word for it) of opinion and brusqueness of tone in some of these messages really undermines the message. How can it be a discussion if every other response is "No. You are wrong." or "You must not have read the same book I did." It's unnecessary and just detracts from the merit of the argument. It is, in fact, ad hominem (risking a definitional backlash here, but I'll take the chance.), saying 'not only is your point incorrect, but you are inept in your reading/thinking/writing.'
ReplyDeleteWe are adults. I appreciate a blog like this very much, and much thanks to the Moderator, but would feel all the better for it if we could express our views as 'opinions' and our understandings as 'facts' and 'citations' without personal investment. Some people here inspire me with how they approach dialogue. Others, less so. Regardless, I will do my best to keep my end of things up off the ground.
I found this amazing site to make a living online...I'm now close to making $3500 a month. http://tinyurl.CoM/os9ok4y
ReplyDelete@David - there is a time for polite chit chat and adding "in my humble opinion but you are entitled to your opinion" and there is a time to make clear that you won't tolerate an attack on what is dear to you. When someone is presenting a severe distortion and lies a what you know to be true - you don't smile and say "well you have your opinion and I have mine - the are functionally equivalent"
ReplyDeleteThe attempt to be nice and bend over backwards to be balanced and non-judgmental is part of the culture of political correctness. liberal Jews have learned their lesson well - but it is not the Jewish way to do things.
Throwing out everything that might offend someone - doesn't leave much.
In response I drafted a long shpiel about how I am not espousing political correctness at all, but suggesting sticking to the argument, not to commit association fallacy, to try to make sure you understand what the other person is saying, etc. All the foundations of proper argumentation. But I think instead I will simply say I believe you have so mischaracterized my comment that I will let any interested readers judge between what I wrote and how you interpreted it so as to draw their own conclusions. For my part, I believe your response underscores my point.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the people on this blog to whom such a tone is used are 'liberal Jews' who warrant the attacks I've seen just in these few comments. It's why I wrote in the first place.
As to the need to take a stand, here's at least one Rav's recent perspective on one instance: http://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2015/05/rav-shteinman-battle-public-chillul.html
You can, of course, explain why this is not relevant or I am misinterpreting it. No worries. But, as you say, you have your opinion, I have mine. Others will read and judge.
Thank you for your time.
David, your point is well taken.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess you do realize that this is a very sad topic for many of us.
I saw a picture of Shulem with his family while he was still frum, and then watched some of the videos of him talking now as a secular guy.
It is hard to believe that he is happier now, (i.e. that life is more meaningful and fulfilling for him now than it was before.) And I haven't come across anyplace where he claims that.
He just says that after having lost his faith it just felt very awkward and stifling for him to continue acting the part if he didn't believe in it anymore.
I think that is understandable; but then the question begs to be asked, "why did he loose his faith?"
I'm afraid I don't know why.
Of course I accept DT's position that he wasn't coming from an intellectual - truth-seeking place. Reading the book it didn't seem to me like Shulem ever claimed that. All he says is that once he lost his faith, reading up on intellectual arguments for faith didn't help him.
I actually heard him say on a video taken during his book launch interview, (I believe as a response to a similar question) that he sees his journey as an "existential one," (not an intellectual one.)
So that leaves us with the assumption that probably emotional issues were driving him.
I believe that must be true, yet I find it very offensive to read DT's description of Shulem as as son who has been badly so damaged by his "crazy" father. I think that too is very far from the truth.
Shulem seems to be dealing with emotional issues like most of us do. He seems competently able to be quite reflective, and to be able to hold other people's perspectives. He absolutely doesn't seem like someone less competent to deal with live's traumas then the average person.
So why did his journey lead him to loose his faith.
I DON'T KNOW.
Perhaps what is left for us to do is to pray. Pray for someone who has tasted the stuff that is so precious to us, and yet he someone couldn't tap into the beauty and riches of a Torah life in a sustaining manner.
@Just another - you still don't get it.
ReplyDeleteShulem Deen claims that he lost his non-intellectual faith as he tried for rational faith. But he couldn't get satisfactory intellectual answers so he doesn't have intellectual faith either. The book describes his journey into heresy - heresy in an intellectual not an existential issue.
The reviews describe the book as the result of asking too many intellectual questions - and not getting rational answers showing his integrity by giving it all up. What is it that you don't understand?
My point is that the issue is psychological/emotional and that his father is the crux of the matter. He exlicitly says that when his father died he tried being a shaygitz. He acknowledges that he went to square - a place totally inappropriate for someone like him - because he was looking for a father substitute. ETc Etc Etc
I hear you. Or am trying. :)
ReplyDeleteIn reality we all have our peckl. But we each have some venn-ish, proximal degree of understanding one another. I can't truly compare with him, and the complexity of human emotions and interactions means I cannot truly 'know' him (as I understand it the basis for much mussar, philosophy, and psychology). But I can use my peckl, experience, and imagination to try to see where he's coming from.
(As an aside, I don't understand how one parses existential vs. emotional vs. intellectual, but it seems to me existential is an amalgam of the other two).
So, looking for a philosophical basis to our existence is not a new problem. We accept there are no definite answers (this is the definition of faith). Still...
In my experience most people from stable environments vest in their status quo. Those from unstable backgrounds may be more mobile, but are more prone to volatility and consequent issues in direct proportion to that volatility. Peter Parker said "with great power comes great responsibility", but the more apt understanding I thin is from Yokel's point about sensitive and exceptional people, where "greater aptitude begets greater risk." If you are personally unmoored, have negative experiences with authorities in your life, and that comingles with religion, your emotional response to religion will almost certainly be colored darkly. Even fixing the relationship with the authority(ies) does not resolve negative those feelings to the religion as they have taken on a life of their own. "So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."
To suggest he lost his faith is to posit the faith was there in the first place. (@DT - I personally reject the concept of intellectual faith which you seem to imply with your latest post, if I understand it correctly) We see from Yoseph how his faith manifested in his time of trial in the countenance of his father. How easy is it for that to work in reverse?
The upshot is he's hurting. But as with a child or anyone else acting out, we respect their feelings, sympathize with their pain, and yet moderate - TO SOME DEGREE - their actions as DT suggests. To me, any other approach either enters into the realm of personal attack or intellectual brow-beating (if not sophistry). Worse, it demonstrates that the only time we react is when the person is acting poorly, which any psychologist [wink] or publicity hack will tell you simply reinforces the behavior. Ignoring his arguments other than to respectfully state that they are incorrect, then honing in on his humanity with support and respect is, as I understand it, the only way to begin to undo the damage done to him, and successfully mitigate the consequent harm he is capable of perpetrating en masse.
Ahh - so if you agree that his commitment was emotional, and he was raised in Satmar BT space , then moving to Skver, how do you expect him to leave religion on a scientific, intellectual basis? That is not how it works. A Rav in Chabad used to say that he doesn't believe in logical proofs, but in experience of things like Shabbes and Cholent. If someone bases their beliefs on cholent, then when the cholent burns or he finds something more tasty, he might also change his beliefs. On the other hand, if he bases his beliefs on logical proofs, then when he comes along a better argument that undermines his beliefs, he is also more likely to change his beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an answer to what is the best way, i don't have one. One measure i use is to say there are potential questions that i didnt consider 20 years ago, but lack of an immediate solution shouldn't be casue to give up belief. Solutions always come later on. It works both ways. the cpmputer codes of the Torah have been shown to be unscientific - so what happens when someone based their belief on them?
Thank you for both your surprise and selected quotes. I do not have a copy of your book unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteLet us say that my point is a definitional one. I (avoiding the word 'believe'!) consider the terms belief and faith fairly flexible as they are commonly used. One may suggest that faith is more 'blind' and 'broad', or that belief is more 'informed' and 'discrete'. Regardless, I find both these terms ultimately emotional in nature (I'll use faith for this point). One does not 'have faith' in God because of proofs. It may work linguistically, but as a matter of cognition I don't buy it. It seems to me faith is purely an emotional state. It may be influenced by externals such as intellectual or emotional proofs one way or another, but even then:
1) There are no absolute proofs in reality of God's existence that I am aware of.
2) If we had absolute proof of God's existence it does not negate our emotional state (i.e., we are entirely capable of absolute knowledge of God and still have a cheeseburger. This is the nature of emotions.)
Faith is an emotion, like happiness, concern, etc. It is a constructed entity within. It is influenced by both internal and external dynamics. Proofs like Rambam's Guide, ID, etc. are at best secondary or tertiary influences on faith, though perhaps effective if planted in fertile soil. The same is true of emotional appeals or proofs or of mystical ones. Whether these ideas are generated internally or from an outside source.
There is no 'faith' [or 'belief] that is not grounded in emotion. This is also the cause of so many arguments and misunderstandings, when people state as facts things they actually believe. I've seen it here in these very comments!
Put another way, 'intellectual faith' is an oxymoron as I define those terms. Intellectual components which support one's faith, sure! But faith is a purely emotional creature. At least as I understand things at this point. Truth is, I've never made a study of it so am just throwing this together. If there's a more accurate construct I'm very happy to listen.
ReplyDeleteDeen openly has said he regrets becoming secular since he lost his family as a result.
ReplyDeleteWhen was he ever Satmar? Neither he nor his father ever considered themselves to be Satmar.
ReplyDeleteI don't mark the phenomenon up to being offspring of FFB's or BT's, but rather the general lack of an intellectual basis for being Jewish.
ReplyDeleteMany FFB's remain religious out of habit, with not much real observance when it's difficult to observe. It's easy to eat cheese cake, and even not working on Shabbos is a learned habit.
Not so BT's and their offspring. The inborn inquisitiveness that brought the BT to the fold also makes them notice the warts in our society, and depending on the mix of life experience, character
traits and the backlash experienced, it causes more alienation in the BT crowd.
So my argument is VERY psychological - understand the fellow you're judging based on HIS psychological makeup.
Therefore, the inquisitive background that Shulem inherited is a blank slate that can be used for good and evil. His father mostly choose good, he choose evil.
As far as the free will, as i noted in my longer comment (by now, you surely know I'm competing with you for word count! ), it gets murky when one is conditioned to see good as evil and evil as good.
Sorry that time constrains didn't allow me to address your other important points: Not boxing with G-d and following instincts.
" If Torah Hashkafa means intellectual, God-based understanding of Torah
ReplyDeleteand our role in the world, it may be true but it is almost non-existent
in the public realm."
Yes - THAT is what i mean. we need to bring "intellectual, God-based understanding of Torah" back into the public realm. Perhaps the first step should be by proving the benefits that would accrue if we do so.
"I suspect it doesn't cover the full spectrum of at-risk behavior"
ReplyDeleteAgreed. As I presented it, my comment surely won't cover the full spectrum.
In actuality, the essence of the idea of over-excitables being prone to both an extra blessing and an extra curse CAN be applied to basically everyone; One of the flaws that Dr. Frances notes in "his" DSM is that in the quest for reliability context is ignored. From an "intellectual, God-based understanding of Torah" (in whoosevelt's words), EVERY character trait is multidimensional.
I can't emphasize enough the import of this fact. Rethinking every trait as having both good and evil, is in my humble opinion one of several factors that can totally transform diagnosis (both by removing stigma and also by decreasing the likelihood of false diagnosis) and revolutionize treatment (by aiming to sublimate and redirect, instead of repress and contain). But elaborating further would require another full post.
As to the point you make about medication - it's another unfortunate phenomenon that the higher echelons in MH have discounted, but nevertheless continues unabated. Officially, it's supposed to be an adjunct to talk therapy and / or skill training, but the reality is often very different. In practice I think the reasons for maintaining medications are more utilitarian than useful - it's the easiest way to go. I think that the difficulty of finding effective therapy, the unwillingness to "do what it takes" to make therapy successful, coupled with the perceived invincibility and coercive nature of MH treatment make it hard to fight.
When you say the "higher echelons in mental health" have discounted medication, sure you don't mean the higher echelons in psychiatry, whose DSM "bible" is compiled to create the impression that medication is settled science and not just a guess. In my limited experience, they have coopted even MSWs, many of whom seem to have a psychiatrist friend to whom they refer the patients -- whose numbers are legion -- who they decide would benefit from medication. Never mind that they have zero medical training, they are quick to take such decisions upon themselves. I agree that it is b/c they are unwilling to do the work, or maybe b/c they have no idea of what the work might be, or maybe b/c it has become common to pathologize what are actually benign conditions, and therefore drugs are the only thing that can possibly work.
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak about social workers attempting to diagnose neurological and psychiatric disorders, I believe it has much to do in the way social workers are trained. True, they legally may not "diagnose" any sort of condition - as they may only make "assessments" , they attempt to diagnose anyhow.
ReplyDeleteThey are trained to immediately mach "symptoms", mannerisms, emotions and quirkiness with some sort of, just any, condition. Psychologists, who receive many more years of training, are able to diagnose. Consequently, it is the social workers and the psychiatrists who are always medicating. The neurologists and psychologists have broader understandings of the human brain and human emotions, and therefore usually only suggest medication when it is indeed necessary.
shvieras haKeilim?!
ReplyDeleteThe psychologists don't medicate b/c they are invested in the efficacy of therapy. It is the basis of their education (and income), and they have spend years training for it. There is bitter enmity between the camps of psychiatry and psychology. MSW are simply undertrained wannabes who fit comfortably into neither camp. I am not overly impressed by any of them.
ReplyDeleteI just watched the closing comments of this video. If you take note, his closing statement is about success - leaving behind abuse. There are a lot of people who have been abused, and are angry at religion, an leave it. Conversely, others may have been abused in a secular context, and then seek a religious experience.
ReplyDeleteIt is not plain apikorsus, even though it resembles the neviei Baal on Mount Carmel.
Thanks for the reference; I'll be reading it when I get the time.Based just on your quotes, though, Frances is being disingenuous when he places the blame on Big Pharma and GPs while absolving psychiatrists of blame. In fact, psychiatry has been in bed with Big Pharma for years in myriad ways, most prominently financial. And those at "the very pinnacle" are part of the problem, since the problem begins with the DSM and it's many arbitrary (or shall we say phony?) diagnoses, for which Frances is certainly responsible, although he does not bear the blame alone.
ReplyDeleteI'll return your favor with links to other essential reading on this topic.
First, the book "Cracked: The Unhappy Truth about Psychiatry," by James Davies. He covers the topic like a horse blanket:
http://www.amazon.com/Cracked-Unhappy-Truth-about-Psychiatry/dp/1605986127/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432749936&sr=1-3&keywords=cracked
Second, two very important articles by Marcia Angell in the New York Review of Books, and an exchange with her critics:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/?page=1
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/illusions-psychiatry-exchange/
I just wanted to add:
ReplyDeleteIt would be a stretch to make so much out of one single person’s position, even if that person is as prominent as Frances. Psychiatry’s official denial of following the “chemical imbalance” / medical model is in fact almost universal. I think the best way to prove the point is by reading what “mainline” psychiatrists say on the subject. For example, here’s what George Dawson MD, DFAPA wrote (@http://real-psychiatry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/an-obvious-response-to-psychiatry-gone.html?m=1)
to rebut Peter Gøtzsche (@ http://davidhealy.org/psychiatry-gone-astray/):
Gøtzsche wrote:
“Most patients are told [Your disease is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain] but it is completely wrong. We have no idea about which interplay of psychosocial conditions, biochemical processes, receptors and neural pathways that lead to mental disorders and the theories that patients with depression
lack serotonin and that patients with schizophrenia have too much dopamine have long been refuted. The truth is just the opposite. There is no chemical imbalance to begin with, but when treating mental illness with drugs, we create a chemical imbalance, an artificial condition that the brain tries to counteract. This means that you get worse when you try to stop the medication. An alcoholic
also gets worse when there is no more alcohol but this doesn’t mean that he lacked alcohol in the brain when he started drinking.
To which Dawson replies:
“Psychiatrists were among the first people to look at the effects of social deprivation in orphanages, the effects of acute grief and loss, the effects of psychological trauma, the effects of a full gamut of psychotherapies, and the effects of family and environment. The biopsychosocial formulation of Engel in 1977 was an advance detailed in Science magazine. Any comprehensive psychiatric formulation covers all possible etiologies (as an obvious example see Systematic Psychiatric Evaluation by Chisolm and
Lyketsos). In addition there are many clinical methods where the diagnostic formulation is essential for the treatment plan for psychotherapy based treatment. By definition that formulation would have few biological references. So the alleged myth fails at the clinical level. It fails even worse at the neurobiological level. Chemical imbalance rhetoric always seems to ignore one huge fact and that is Eric Kandel's classic article on plasticity
in 1979 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Certainly any psychiatrist who saw that article has never bought into a "chemical imbalance" idea and I can recall mocking the idea when pharmaceutical companies presented it to my colleagues and I in medical school.
And finally, Gøtzsche’s retorts:
The facts are abundant. Many papers written by psychiatrists have stated this, and it is also what most patients say that their psychiatrists tell them. I have lectured for patients and asked them, and every time most patients say they have been told exactly this hoax about a chemical imbalance.
Ronald W. Pies, also wrote a long piece on the subject, over at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823368
Reading your abstracts of Epstein's paper, I fear that what is actually lacking is ability. What he is describing, it seems to me, is doable only by the most capable few, by true חכמים, which leaves the rank-and-file ... well, you know where it leaves them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that concerns me most about this epidemic of pathologization and medication of non-disease is the legal aspect. A child (usually a boy) acts out in school. The school psych drone prescribes Ritalin. The parent fears the side effects, and says his child is just being a normal boy. He refuses the drugs. The school notifies child services. After all, the child suffers from a "disease" -- it's in the DSM! -- and the misguided parents are withholding treatement. Child services compel compliance, or perhaps remove the child from the home. This is not a far-fetched scenario. I can imagine similar unpleasant things happening to adults should they be caught in certain situations. These careless people who Frances is defending have a lot to answer for.
It is absolutely what patients are told, in my limited experience. It is likely what the doctors believe too. They know only what they hear at conferences, often hosted by drug companies, who are represented by doctors who accept payoffs in the form of consulting fees, not to mention lavish junkets in luxury hotels.
ReplyDeletePatients are told as well that it is perfectly normal and proper to be medicated, and the onus is on the "unmedicated" people walking around with problems and worries. They're the ones out of step.
Gøtzsche mentions the effects of the imbalance that appear when medication is stopped, but he doesn't discuss the often detrimental effects of the medication while it's being taken. Peter Hitchens has pointed out that many of the mass murderers of recent times (e.g. the school shooters) are disturbed individuals who had been under psychiatric care, and were likely being given psychotropic drugs. Who knows what part the altered consciousness induced by these drugs might have played in their actions? The answer is: No one, b/c it's not being investigated or even mentioned. The drugs are assumed to be safe, b/c the doctors tell us they are, never mind that 99% of these doctors have never done a smidgen of research, and are not familiar with the litle that has been done, but just parrot what they are told by drug reps or, more accurately, doctors in the pay of drug reps.
"A Rav in Chabad used to say that he doesn't believe in logical proofs, but in experience of things like Shabbes and Cholent."
ReplyDeleteShulem Deen told me that he, as a chassid, held basically the same idea.
Shulem grew up in a predominantly Satmar neighborhood, and his father considered himself a follower of the first Satmar Rebbe ztz"l.
ReplyDelete