Yehuda Meshi-Zahav says many ultra-Orthodox are
fighting virus, but a worrying number refuse and won’t reconsider even
as death toll rises and hatred of community spreads
I'm going to try and speak carefully here because I want to make a point without it being taken as applying to any actual group in particular, or groups in general.
My point is this: before asking someone to act self-disciplined, the one who makes the request should ask themselves if the person they are asking is self-disciplined.
Sometimes what appears to be self-disciplined behavior is actually habituated behavior ingrained in someone by their family or society. Other times, the appearance of self-discipline in someone is the product of an obssession the person has that they give in to.
To me, the ultimate example of true self-discipline is Yitzchak Avinu. He learns he is to be sacrificed by his father, and instantly aligns himself with the mission. He realizes his son whom he considered for decades to be the one to carry on the family's legacy is in fact not going to have that role, and he, Yitzchak the father, accepts that reality and acts accordingly.
In this country, the U.S., there are pockets of people, especially in urban areas, easily identifiable, that have within in them a large percentage of people who from time to time coalesce into mobs and riot or loot. To some extent, society just accepts this and moves on.
I think the Jewish community has pockets of people who have demonstrated a capacity to act as a mob.
I personally try to avoid these areas I'm calling "pockets" because the inhabitants can quickly turn aggressive and it is just not worth it to take a chance by going in to a place where even armed law enforcement can find themselves endangered on occasion.
In regard to the pockets within the Jewish society, the reason for the mob behavior seems to be self-preservation. The preservation and continuity from generation to generation of a certain way of life seems to require and be determined by the mob maintaining self-conformity.
This brings us back full circle to my original contention: self-maintained communal standards which are used to coerce individuals to act in lockstep through physical, emotional, and peer pressure is not synonymous with self-discipline.
The ebb and flow of the collective community behavior (a wordier, but nicer way, way of characterizing mob behavior) may not be amenable to any easy and/or spur of the moment remediation. The existence of leaders in that kind of community, may not translate into leadership in all areas of communal life. The leaders may be following the people on certain issues, thus only giving the illusion of leadership -- illustrating the explanation of what it means for a leadership to have the face of a dog: a dog may seem to lead its master when in fact it is taking its cues from the master.
The problem is that, for any minority group, the behaviour of any one member or small cluster automatically reflects on the entire group. This is not right or fair but it is what happens. A group of Chareidim riot and burn masks in Borough Park and people look and say "Look at the Jews". And these Chareidim, when challenged, say "We don't care what the Goyim think!" Well they should because the rest of us live among Goyim and have to fear their behaviour towards us after watching the news.
Thanks for the upticks KA. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-amy-coney-barrett-11602629853?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 “Democrats also distorted the risks that the Court will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges that divined a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution because Justice Antonin Scalia dissented and Judge Barrett was his clerk. Yet Justice Scalia dissented because the Court was imposing policy preferences by diktat. As he explained, “the substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” but the judiciary’s hubris in divining a new right signified “that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” He was right then, but tens of thousands of same-sex Americans have been married since Obergefell. This is the definition of a “reliance interest,” and conservative judges take it seriously. There is no way a conservative Court is going to invalidate those marriages.” Abhorrent: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby; and let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. But you must keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of those abhorrent things, neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you; for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you. All who do any of those abhorrent things—such persons shall be cut off from their people. You shall keep My charge not to engage in any of the abhorrent practices that were carried on before you, and you shall not defile yourselves through them: I the Lord am your God.” (Leviticus 18:22-30). Scalia dissented Obergefell v. Hodges. Good, and Amy was his clerk to dissent to give right to same sex marriage. Scalia said court was wrong to create a right by diktat. Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago is one of tens of thousands of same-sex American marriages. My theory. People do restrain themselves (Joe Orlow’s self discipline) on impulses for same sex and other abhorrent behavior. USA is a good country. How dare the Democratic party openly support same sex rights! This will backfire. Trump: four more years.
I'm going to try and speak carefully here because I want to make a point without it being taken as applying to any actual group in particular, or groups in general.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: before asking someone to act self-disciplined, the one who makes the request should ask themselves if the person they are asking is self-disciplined.
Sometimes what appears to be self-disciplined behavior is actually habituated behavior ingrained in someone by their family or society. Other times, the appearance of self-discipline in someone is the product of an obssession the person has that they give in to.
To me, the ultimate example of true self-discipline is Yitzchak Avinu. He learns he is to be sacrificed by his father, and instantly aligns himself with the mission. He realizes his son whom he considered for decades to be the one to carry on the family's legacy is in fact not going to have that role, and he, Yitzchak the father, accepts that reality and acts accordingly.
In this country, the U.S., there are pockets of people, especially in urban areas, easily identifiable, that have within in them a large percentage of people who from time to time coalesce into mobs and riot or loot. To some extent, society just accepts this and moves on.
I think the Jewish community has pockets of people who have demonstrated a capacity to act as a mob.
I personally try to avoid these areas I'm calling "pockets" because the inhabitants can quickly turn aggressive and it is just not worth it to take a chance by going in to a place where even armed law enforcement can find themselves endangered on occasion.
In regard to the pockets within the Jewish society, the reason for the mob behavior seems to be self-preservation. The preservation and continuity from generation to generation of a certain way of life seems to require and be determined by the mob maintaining self-conformity.
This brings us back full circle to my original contention: self-maintained communal standards which are used to coerce individuals to act in lockstep through physical, emotional, and peer pressure is not synonymous with self-discipline.
The ebb and flow of the collective community behavior (a wordier, but nicer way, way of characterizing mob behavior) may not be amenable to any easy and/or spur of the moment remediation. The existence of leaders in that kind of community, may not translate into leadership in all areas of communal life. The leaders may be following the people on certain issues, thus only giving the illusion of leadership -- illustrating the explanation of what it means for a leadership to have the face of a dog: a dog may seem to lead its master when in fact it is taking its cues from the master.
Didn't know chareidim were the only ones defying regulations. Must only be chareidim at telaviv beach and packed at all the bars.
ReplyDeleteAlso I know you're a close confidant of Rav shternbuch, and as far as I've heard, he's very lax and refuses regulations.
The problem is that, for any minority group, the behaviour of any one member or small cluster automatically reflects on the entire group. This is not right or fair but it is what happens.
ReplyDeleteA group of Chareidim riot and burn masks in Borough Park and people look and say "Look at the Jews". And these Chareidim, when challenged, say "We don't care what the Goyim think!" Well they should because the rest of us live among Goyim and have to fear their behaviour towards us after watching the news.
Thanks for the upticks KA. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-amy-coney-barrett-11602629853?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
ReplyDelete“Democrats also distorted the risks that the Court will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges that divined a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution because Justice Antonin Scalia dissented and Judge Barrett was his clerk. Yet Justice Scalia dissented because the Court was imposing policy preferences by diktat. As he explained, “the substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” but the judiciary’s hubris in divining a new right signified “that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” He was right then, but tens of thousands of same-sex Americans have been married since Obergefell. This is the definition of a “reliance interest,” and conservative judges take it seriously. There is no way a conservative Court is going to invalidate those marriages.”
Abhorrent: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby; and let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. But you must keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of those abhorrent things, neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you; for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you. All who do any of those abhorrent things—such persons shall be cut off from their people. You shall keep My charge not to engage in any of the abhorrent practices that were carried on before you, and you shall not defile yourselves through them: I the Lord am your God.” (Leviticus 18:22-30).
Scalia dissented Obergefell v. Hodges. Good, and Amy was his clerk to dissent to give right to same sex marriage. Scalia said court was wrong to create a right by diktat. Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago is one of tens of thousands of same-sex American marriages. My theory. People do restrain themselves (Joe Orlow’s self discipline) on impulses for same sex and other abhorrent behavior. USA is a good country. How dare the Democratic party openly support same sex rights! This will backfire. Trump: four more years.