a) I'm going to be brief (probably a mistake) because it's erev Shabbat b) the day job has its time demands and c) I'm trying to cut down on the length of postings.
b) I tend to agree with Shmarya's comment
c) I'm not impressed with the postings. None of them come out and say what needs to be said. Rabbi Adlerstein's 'defence' was extremely even-handed, and doesn't give any view on the actual ban. Toby Katz is clearly troubled by the issue, especially at the level of the human consequences for Rabbi Slifkin, (and herself acknowledges the "conspicuous silence" of C-C), but "can see why the ban was necessary" etc etc. I find her second posting absurd (and I'm using strong language for reasons that I will explain below). Rabbi Feldman's post, if it is meant to be indirectly about the Slifkin affair, is -well, indirect! Dr. Schick's post (and I have a great deal of respect for Marvin Schick) seems to imply that the reason why the 'Cherem' should not have happened is because of image.
There are issues of process: A person's life and career have been ruined; Rabbis whose religious and moral authority is meant to be exemplary have apparently signed documents without any semblance of fair process; and our community is being dragged another step into witch-hunts, heresy-hunts, the persecution of individuals and massively powerful 'thought control'. There is a moral issue here on which all of the Cross-Currents posters to date are silent.
There are issues of content: Rabbi Slifkin's view is not non-Orthodox. Most people agree with that. Too many people are now scared stiff to simply say it out loud, on the record.
In his weekly email, Rabbi Jeremy Rosen is the most recent to say what we are all thinking, and as usual he says it well:
===== and, by the way, rather than regarding Rabbi Slifkin's responses on his own website as "overly long" (Dr. Schick) , I think that they are models of restraint, derech eretz, and patience. He shines - morally and intellectually -- compared to 99% of the other comments on this issue. He is clearly a gentleman, and a true "Gadol".If the Judaism that survives is one that insists on banning ideas it finds challenging, if it insists on claiming that any view to which it has not yet accommodated itself is automatically heretical, then, frankly, we will have two Orthodox Judaisms--the Judaism that keeps halacha and thinks, and the Judaism that keeps halacha and does not think. The Orthodoxy that allows people to enquire and examine other ideas, and that which is running scared of the unknown, like Medieval popes.
Shabbat Shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment