How do Orthodox Jews explain the Exodus?

Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Link



One of the first things I came across that began my path towards doubt was the population problem of the exodus. The Torah tells us that 600,000 fighting men left Egypt during the exodus, which would amount to about 2 to 3 million people in total. What is the problem with this scenario? Egypt at the time only had about 2 - 3 million people in total! This would have meant that all of Egypt was practically gone at the time of the exodus, yet with all of the well documented history we have from Egypt and the surrounding nations at that time, not one thing mentions this, nor does it indicate that anything changed at all.

But it gets even better, apparently our tradition tells us that it was only 1/5, others say 1/50 and others say 1/500 of the Israelites left Egypt. So conservatively using the 2 million estimation that right before the exodus there were 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or even 1,000,000,000 Israelites living in Egypt. Now if that isn't totally absurd I don't know what is.

Has any Jewish scholar addressed this issue? Do frum Jews simply blind themselves to this glaring problem? I know that I did for a long time, before I finally came to terms with its implications.
Posted by Skeptitcher Rebbe at 9:34 PM
==================================================

22 comments:

Lisa said...
Well, there are a few things:

1) How do you know that Egypt at the time had about 2-3 million people? How much of that is based on conjecture from the average settlement in Egypt at the time (and we'll get to what "at the time" means in a bit), and how many settlements in Goshen (eastern Delta) were included in the survey?

2) When are you looking in Egyptian history? Are you looking at the 18th or 19th Dynasties? The two strongest dynasties in all of Egyptian history? Or are you looking at the end of the 6th Dynasty, as you ought?

http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html

3) Midrash is midrash. You can't use a literal reading of a midrash in that way. You might as well ask how Pharaoh's daughter got her magical stretching powers. חמושים means armed. That's simple pshat.

As far as your last question, yes, most Jewish scholars just ignore the issue. But in part, that's because the various disciplines of ancient near east history (Assyriology, Egyptology, Archaeology, etc.) take a lot of time to master. And most secondary sources in the field make assumptions that Orthodox Jews disagree with. Since they aren't qualified to discuss these assumptions, let alone challenge them, they step back and say either "Naarischkeit -- it's obviously prejudiced against us" or "It will eventually be explained, even if we don't understand it now." The first of those is obviously nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The second isn't.

I did some graduate work in Assyriology at Hebrew U back in the late 80s. And I can tell you that much of what's touted as a scholarly consensus is only really the consensus of a handful of scholars whose views can't easily be challenged if you want to continue on in the field. And there are many assumptions made in the field that pre-exist the field itself and are simply never seriously addressed.
October 6, 2010 12:34 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Lisa,

First off thanks for the comments, I really appreciate them. As to your points:

1) I am basing this off of the work of Archeologists. I will get back to you on your points once I try to find out exactly how this figure was determined but I think you would have to argue that the population was vastly different than what has been determined which sounds like it would be a stretch.

2) To argue that the exodus occured during the 6th dynasty sounds pretty ridiculous. The 6th dynasty lasted from about 2345-2181 CE. Looking at Melachim I 6:1 "And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year after the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month Ziv, which (is) the second month of Solomon's reign over Israel, that he did (begin to) build the house of the Lord." This tells us that the building of the first Temple under Shlomo HaMelech was 480 years after the exodus. Even using the latest date of the 6th Dynasty 2181 CE this would mean that the building of the first Temple would have occured at around 1701 CE! Do you think that is a reasonable? Based on Melachim the earliest the Exodus could have been would be around 1500s CE. Well after the 6th Dynasty.

3)Good point.

Also the practical implications of a group of 2.5 million Jews is very problematic as well.
October 6, 2010 4:38 PM

Lisa said...
SR,

A group of 2.5 million Jews is problematic in the sense that overseeing them is like herding cats.

As far as the date of the 6th dynasty is concerned, that's one of the assumptions I'm referring to. Did you know that the approximate date for the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age is based on a misreading of a biblical verse? That mistake predates modern archaeology as well.

You know I Sam 13:9, right? It says אין חרש בישראל and goes on to say that the Jews had to go to the Philistines to get their tools sharpened. And the King James translation gives that Hebrew as "There was no smith in Israel", which is commonly assumed to refer to a blacksmith. The division of human history into Stone and Bronze and Iron ages is as old as ancient Greece, so someone looked at this verse and concluded that they'd found the dividing line between the Bronze and Iron Ages in Israel, right? Because the Philistines had iron, and the Israelites didn't.

The problem, obviously, is that חרש doesn't mean blacksmith. A חרש ברזל is. But the verse doesn't say that. A חרש is anyone who takes a raw material and turns it into something refined. A חרש אבן is a stonesmith. A חרש זכוכית, if the term ever appeared, would be a glazier.

But the assumption was that the Iron Age started around the time of Saul. At least in Israel. And the chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia have coalesced around that. Egyptian kings and dynasties were once considered to be consecutive in all cases. As a result, Egyptologists put the start of the 1st Dynasty at about 6000 BCE. Eventually, they proposed overlapping dynasties and reigns in order to bring it down to where it is now, at about 3100 BCE. Largely (though not entirely) because of the Bronze/Iron thing.

But if you look at the archaeological history of the land without dates (and archaeology is without concrete absolute dates in this period; no coins that say 3000 BCE), you can see a series of settlements of the land by different cultures. You can see a lot about their level of material culture and about how levels of habitation began and ended. A layer of ash between two levels suggests strongly that the lower (earlier) one was destroyed in fire.

And what you get matches the biblical historical narratives. It's just that with the chronology of Egypt stretched out artificially like it's on some Procrustean bed (or Og's, if you like), everything gets labeled differently.

There are many reasons why the end of the Old Kingdom (end of the 6th Dynasty) should be dated to the time of the Exodus. And there are other issues as well. Shlomo's kingdom is utterly missing from the archaeological record. Unless you assume that the Bible was making most of it up. But there's archaeological evidence of a huge empire stretching from the eastern Nile Delta up to the Euphrates. Its inhabitants spoke Biblical Hebrew and used biblical weights and measures. And scholars are split on whether it fell apart due to invasions from Egypt or civil war. Which you'd think would be an obvious match. But since that empire was during the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt (right before the 18th Dynasty), it "couldn't have been Shlomo", and it gets called the "Hyksos Empire", despite the fact that ancient documents that mention the Hyksos (like Manetho) say that they ruled from Memphis, far to the south of the southernmost part of the empire, and don't even suggest that they ruled anywhere outside of Egypt.

Anyway, there's a short piece I ghostwrote about 15 years ago on the subject. It was for Jewish Action, so it's not exactly a scholarly piece, but if you're interested, I put the link in my initial comment.
October 6, 2010 5:27 PM

Rabbi Jeffrey Falick said...
"And what you get matches the biblical historical narratives."

Um, no, Lisa, just...no.

There is no material evidence whatsoever of an exodus taking place. There is real scholarship easily available on these matters, notably Finkelstein and Silberman's "Unearthing the Bible" is an excellent starting point. There is evidence of major population upheavals and settlement in the highlands around 1200 BCE. This is suspected to have been caused by a re-organization of Canaanite life. These were possibly the real ancestors of the Israelites. Again, see Finkelstein and Silberman.

It is true that there is archeological support for the events of the bible, broadly understood, from after David/Solomon and on. There is absolutely no evidence of an exodus or conquest as described in the bible. Egyptology, with tiny exceptions, is irrelevant.

www.TheAtheistRabbi.com
October 7, 2010 2:36 PM

Lisa said...
Jeff, Unearthing the Bible is sitting on my bookshelf, about two and a half feet away from me right now. What makes you think I haven't read it?

What you don't understand is that their view assumes the conventional chronology of the strata. It can't be used as a support for that chronology without it being circular reason.

I laughed a lot while reading that book. Not because I don't respect their scholarship. On the contrary. The scholarship I disrespect is the sort that "broadly understands" the biblical historical narrative. If there's no room for the biblical account of Solomon's kingdom in the Iron Age or at the end of the Bronze Age, say so. People like Hershel Shanks who weasel around with their "broad understandings" in order to shoehorn the biblical account into the archaeological evidence are unfortunate.

But while I read that book, I did so with the question of the dating of the stratigraphy in mind. And all the way through the book, supposed "conflicts" turned out to be nothing but artifacts of an incorrect stratigraphic dating.

I've been meaning to post a commentary of the book on my blog, going over these "conflicts" point by point. You've given me some more impetus to do so.

Did you read the article I linked to above? Bear in mind that the biblical historical narratives being accurate doesn't in any way prove that the religious elements in the Bible are for real. Your atheism is safe on that count. But the royal inscriptions from Egypt and Assyria are just as replete with supernatural events and claims that their deities got involved with the events. Scholars don't throw out these inscriptions because of the religious aspects; they simply disregard them for the purposes of history.
October 7, 2010 2:51 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
The following comment is from gntessler

They were unable for some technical reason to post this comment themselves, so they e-mailed me and I am posting it on their behalf.

dear SR;
I tried to post on your site, but was unable to get past the 'select profle' part. bottom line: dont give up your skepticism! I would like to comment on Lisa's comments.

The date of the exodus of Israelites from Egypt is usually in the framwork of 1500-1200 BCE. A few opinions have pushed it back to the 1700 BCE era. This is the opinion of Immanual Velikovsky and David Rohl, whose theories on the dating of the exodus have been definitively refuted. Lisa would have you believe that the exodus was in the 6th dynasty ( 2323-2150 BCE ) because of the nonagenerian, Pepe II ( 2246-2152 BCE ). This date, you may notice is 1000 years earlier than the generally accepted date of the exodus !!
Secondly, as far as the number of Israelites, 600,000 men between the ages of 20 to 60, plus their wives, children and elderly would be, as you mentioned approximately 2,500,000 people. The statement: Midrash is Midrash is just a silly statement. Rashi states that during the plague of darkness, 80% of the Israelites died. Today, all, i.e. 100%, Torah-observant, God-fearing Jews absolutely believe this Midrash. It is irrelevant to Reform and Conservative Jews, since they generally don't believe the exodus even happened, ( See passover sermon of Rabbi David Wolpe, 2001 ). This would mean that there were at least 12,500,000 Israelites on the day before the darkness plague. Remember, although the Israelites may have been slaves, they were not in a concentration camp nor gulag, where a few guards could guard many thousands of prisoners. This was an active Egyptian civilization. Estimates or "guesstimates" of the Egyptian population at the time of the exodus was between 2-3 milliion up to 5 million people. Of course these numbers could be based on errant information disseminated by a coterie of conspiratorial egyptologists. Anyway, this would put the population of Egypt at that time to be close to 20,000,000!! An absolutely impossible number.
October 7, 2010 8:13 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
The following comment is from gntessler continued...

SR, if you wanted to use any of the above as a comment on your site, that would b OK. You should know that many, many, many dates and events in just the Chumash have been refuted by data and logic. Even in Nevi'im, the numbers of soldiers in Israelite armies are beyond credulity. Although we all agree that the Torah is not a "History Book", it does give dates and events that can be verified or falsified.
I would like to close with a "Vort" from this week's parsha, Noach.
The world was created in the year 3761 BCE ( 5771 CE, which we celebrated on Rosh Hashana , 5771 -2010 = 3761 ). Noach was born in the year 1056 , 2705 BCE. At the age of 600 yrs, Noach set sail in his ark with his menagerie and relatives, 2105 BCE. In the year 2104 BCE, Noach descended from the ark, presumably finding a world totally devoid of life, possibly plant but certainly no animals. All the events of the story can be explained by one word: Miracle ! except one.
In the year 2104 BCE , Egypt was in the First Intermediate Period ( 2181-2055 BCE ) There is absolutely no evidence of a sudden cessation of life in Egypt. History in Egypt was continuous as is well documented. Further east, 2104 BCE was the twilight years of the Sumerian civilization and the rising of the Akkadian civilization, which was called the Sumerian Renaissance. Again there is absolutely no evidence of an end to civilization in that year, and historical documention shows continuity. Further east we come to the Indus Valley in India. In the year 2104 BCE, the Harappan culture was in full swing. Again no sudden cessation of life. And finally, even further east, in China, the Xia dynasty existed. Although several decades ago, the Xia dynasty was thought to be only a legend, there now is documention of its existance. It was followed by the Shang dynasty.
The discrepancy between the dates and details of the Flood and historical continuity of these civilizations cannot be explained away by "miracles".
October 7, 2010 8:15 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Lisa,

You claim that the Exodus occured during the 6th Egyptian dynasty, correct?

For clarification do you believe that the Exodus occured in the time around 2300-2100 BCE or do you think that the 6th Egyptian dynasty occured around 1500-1200 BCE?
October 7, 2010 8:25 PM

Lisa said...
SR, I think it happened in either 1476 BCE or 1310 BCE.

I'd like to reply to gntessler's comments.

Bringing up Velikovsky and Rohl any time someone suggests that the conventional chronology may be wrong is an ad hominem fallacy. For the record, though, Velikovsky was wrong because his chronology was unworkable, and because he was trying so hard to make the archaeology fit the biblical accounts that he made some embarrassing (for him) mistakes. He also had no familiarity whatsoever with Akkadian or Egyptian, and he came up with a lot of whoppers as a result.

"Midrash is midrash" is not a silly statement. You're unfortunately right that there are a lot of haredim who take midrashim too literally, too often. But it doesn't change the fact that Rambam and his son Avraham both referred to anyone who takes midrashim uncritically and literally is a fool. Which is a fairly strong statement.

I'm not interested in answering for the Artscrollists and DaatTorahists.

I'm a "Torah-observant, God-fearing Jew", and I don't take that 80% thing literally. And before you ask, I'm not one of those radical left-wing-barely-modern-orthodox Jews, either. So the 12.5 Million figure is nothing but a strawman argument. Please, by all means knock the strawman down if you like; it doesn't interest me.

And again, when you say "Estimates or 'guesstimates' of the Egyptian population at the time of the exodus was between 2-3 milliion up to 5 million people", you're begging the question of what "at the time of the exodus" means, and what the source of that estimate is. Your comment about "a coterie of conspiratorial egyptologists" is yet another strawman. I didn't say that, and I don't believe it. I think the men and women working in this field and related fields are honest and intelligent and seeking the truth just as much as anyone else. I also think they're hampered by an incorrect chronology.

Hidden assumptions are insidious, because they never get addressed. Not to prove them and not to disprove them. They're taken for granted the way fish take water for granted and we take air for granted.

And "many, many, many dates and events in just the Chumash have been refuted by data and logic" is a vague claim that I don't think you can substantiate.

Lastly, in terms of the Flood happening during the FIP in Egypt, you're again relying on the conventional chronology. I'm certainly not suggesting that there was a global flood during the FIP. Did you see someone else making that claim, or is it a third strawman?

See, I'm not interested in proving the Bible right. Though it seems to me that you're very interested in the converse. "dont give up your skepticism!" comes across as the sort of thing a kiruv worker or missionary might say. I certainly wouldn't want SR to ever give up using his mind critically, but I get the feeling that you want him to be a "skeptic" (in the sense that you use it) uncritically.

I'm like 90-95% convinced that it's all true. Which is enough for me until evidence to the contrary comes along. It was a lot less before I started studying ancient history. And gntessler: there's a difference between studying a field and rummaging through books trying to find talking points that can be used as bludgeons against those with whom you disagree. I'm just saying.
October 8, 2010 11:36 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Lisa,

Thanks for your comments again. Since you seem to be fairly involved with this subject could you inform me how the archeologists came up with their current chronology and what assumptions they made that were evidently false, in your opinion? Is there any place, preferable online, where I can read up on what the archeologists discovered as well as the ancient documents that these archeologists used?

I see what you are saying about how archeologists may have been basing their findings on mistaken assumptions, I just find it difficult to accept that Egyption history as it is currently determined by the majority of educated archeologists in the field could happen to all make a mistake of this magnitude, ie essentially shortening Egypts history by at least 700 years or so. Also do you have anything from archeologists who have seen and rejected this view so I could see both sides of the argument, because you seem to be saying that archeologists of today are refuting another view of history not the one you are supporting. If they have not refuted this view, why is that? Has it not been presented to them?
October 8, 2010 12:39 PM

David said...
There's a bit of a trick, here. People (and, Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong) who believe in the Torah don't generally do so because archaology has proved some or all of it to be accurate. They accept the truth of the Torah as an a priorii fact. People who approach it from a scholarly perspective generally don't accept the Torah simply because there's little archaological evidence to support the history therein. However, those who both accept the Torah as "true" and have some interest or acceptance of modern scholarship will generally find (and often go to great lengths to find) some way to reconcile-- at least in their own minds-- the archaeological evidence with the Torah.
October 12, 2010 8:29 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
David,

The problem isn't the lack of evidence for the Torah, it's the evidence that has been found which plainly contradicts the Torah's account.
October 12, 2010 9:38 AM

Anonymous said...
great dialogue -- LISA, for all of us who have no idea what to think, and are trying for years to make sense of our Judaism, please consider some long form article or a book. If you want, I will put you in contact with some publishers who could be interested. You write very clearly, you have done a lot of research, you have much to say. If you are persuasive, it could really help us all in our profound confusion over Torah, history, accuracy, archaeology, etc.

Tuvia (Todd)
October 13, 2010 9:07 PM

Lisa said...
Tuvia, I've been working on a book for a while now. But a full time job and a 10 year old daughter aren't conducive to research and concentration. If you're interested, you could email me at lisa at starways dot net.
November 2, 2010 12:46 PM


Skeptitcher Rebbe said...

abele derer said...
There are a couple of points that I will focus on, the stronger ones that you mentioned.

1. The Aztec myth does not mention the number of witnesses. In fact, according to one version I read, all of them met in a cave. Most caves aren't too big. So it MAY have been a small number of people who were believed to have been on the journey.
Second, how do you know anyone believed the myth? In fact, according to a Lous Weisburton in "Aztec Civilization" the Aztec's are known to have deliberately REVISED their own history to glorify their past"(24). That means that no one believed it. They wrote a glorious history, after they were conquered by the Christians. Did anyone believe the sexy myths? We have no way of knowing, and the fact that each version of the journey contradicts the other versions tells us that no one believed it. Kinda like the Harry Potter myth.
Third do they have the ANY commemorations of the event?

2. I don't have the burden of proof to show that the chain never broke. Indeed, it is possible that the chain broke. It is possible that flying-spaghetti monsters convinced them to accept a false history. All I am saying is that the evidence I am presenting has never been wrong and nothing even remotely close to it has been shown to be wrong.

3. I will focus on one of the poins I mentioned, that the sinia events were a miracle. All I am saying is that we have no right to assume that God would have caused various beliefs about the miracles. Citing a non-miraculous event is of no use when trying to decipher HOW God makes people think when He perfoms miracles.

3. The Zeitoun apparitions are an interesting case, one which I actually wrote a paper on when I was in college.
So how should we deal with this case? The first thing skeptics of miracles (me included)is whether there is a plausible natural cause of this phenominon. There is: Someone either in the vicinity or in the Church itself used a flashlight or spotlight to create a "flashing intermittent light," the words used by one of the witnesses.
So, the believers respond, "but we searched the area and we didn't find a spotlight in the vicinity."
Skeptics: Who searched? How many people searched the church or the vicinity? The answers are not forthcoming.
In short, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE. I believe that there was a "flashing intermittent light." However, I merely claim that it was a natural event.
Do you believe that manna fell for 14,600 days? You don't. You simply ignore the evidence. And for no reason (you present an alternative naturalistic approach, which is also possible.)
The point is that optical allusions do exist. And hallucinations do exist. What is remarkable about the sinai history is that it is too extensive for it to be the product of a hallucination.

4. Regarding the Radak, that's my point exactly. Fifty-five years is too short of an amount of time for the chain to be broken. Also, the chain of miracles wasn't neccesarily broken -- so you haven't met your burden of proof.

5. Indeed, however, why did so many people forsake the Torah? Because, as the Rambam tells us, people are beholden to the beliefs of their neighbors. It is human nature. And it's very sad. God can bang you over the head a hundred times -- but you will still be more-impressed by what people around you do. A friend of mine, a frum guy, said that he was as devistated by the Jets recent playoff loss than he was by his broken engagement (which she broke)!! And I believe him. If every new yorker is into the Jets, we are into the Jets.
God realized that the only way for the Jews to believe was for other nations to believe in the historicity of the Torah. Before the Jews were exiled, God ensured that other nations would believe in the Sinai events -- Christians and Muslims.
January 25, 2011 2:12 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
1. I don't see why any of these questions couldn't be posed towards the Sinai myth. I don't see how a commemeration of the event adds or detracts anything from the likelyhood of any story being true.

2. If you are trying to claim that the story of the revelation at Sinai is true, simply because the story exists and was accepted as truth, then any break in the chain shows how this story could be made up, and the descendants of that group convinced about a story of this nature of which they never heard before. It seems that it is plausible that the story was made up, and that is the most rational thing to assume. Just because something hasn't been disproven (I think there is enough evidence to disprove the event though) doesn't make it true.

Can you prove that Mohammed didn't get a revelation from G-d? Can you prove that Jesus wasn't ressurrected? I think you get my point.

3) Again I am unsure about what you mean here. G-d isn't causing people to believe certain things about these events, the events themselves give rise to memories upon which people structure their beliefs. I don't see how a memory of an event should make a difference if it were miraculous or natural as long as it was an important event for the nation/group of people.

3(again)) Same skepticism could (and should) be applied to the sinai event. What sort of people investigated the Sinai event? How many?

Apparently most of the narrative seems to be based on natural events with additional (miraculous) things entering the story over a period of time. How do you know that it was G-d speaking and not some other person? Weren't the people forbidden from approaching the mountain? Could that possibly have anything to do with some trickery going on that Moses didn't want the people to find out about.

I agree with your skeptical analysis, I just wish you would be consistent in your approach to faith/miracle claims. I am skeptical of all such claims, and Sinai is no different for me.

4) Why is it too short of a time? When a chain of tradition is broken it is broken. If the people need to be taught about the Torah they should have known about and they accept it even though they hadn't heard of it before, this disproves the Kuzari argument whether it be 100 years or 1 year. 55 years definitely seems like more than enough time to me, I don't see why not.

5) Yes, they went after their neighbors culture, a convinient place to introduce an embellished story about a national revelation for which the nation of Israel "forgot" because of their attraction to the idols of their neighbors.

I don't see this as supporting your point that the Sinai event must be true. It sounds more like the opposite. Many of the Jews, (and others like the Samaritans, etc) will accept a myth like that of Sinai to be like their neighbors who believed in it, even though they never received any tradition of it.
January 30, 2011 2:47 AM

abele derer said...
1. The fact that the event was believed to have been commemorated with everlasting commemorations makes it MUCH harder for people to accept the event. Here, people shouldn't have merely asked: Why didn't we hear about the event from our ancestors but ALSO, "Why haven't we heard about the Sabbath if millions of our ancestors were commanded to keep it it forever?"
The Aztec myth does not claim any commemorations (and, again, it fails to mention the number of people).

2. I don't care if you think that it is plausible for this thing to have been made up, plausible that my evidence is fallible. Show me that it is indeed plausible for people to accept false national, heavily commemorated history. The only way you can do that is by showing a parallel event.
I don't know if Muhamed is lying. Buy I do know that the evidence he is presenting is fallible: People always lie. If I have fallible evidence for a miracle, I ignore it.
3. Again, you are claiming that God, even when performing a miracle, would SURELY not intervene to solidify the nation's unified and unanimous belief and acceptance of this event. How do you know? Please show me at least three confirmed miraculous events, and show me that these miraculous event lead to divergent beliefs about these events, and you will have made a relevant point. Until then, you haven't.
3 (again). OK. So you are claiming that you believe that manna fell for 14,600 days, but that you skeptically claim that it was a natural event? If that is your claim, then you aren't attacking Kuzari. You are presenting a different argument, which we can discuss.
4. If it was for 55 years, then IT IS NOT BROKEN. Broken, in this context, means that people believed in an event which they could not have checked its veracity from their ancestors. Here, they could have. SO YOUR POINT IS OF NO RELEVANCE.
January 30, 2011 4:54 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
1. I think the entire Aztech nation is said to have witnessed these miracles, and as it was a myth about their origins, I have no reason to assume that they didn't believe it. Most of the myths of ancient peoples were believed to be true by the populace, I see no compelling reason to assume the trend was changed in this situation.

2. You are trying to prove the event of Sinai out of the story itself. History shows that people are extremely gullible and ancient peoples were especially so, not to mention they were also very superstitious and had little to no access to check facts, nor the motivation to.

If the statement "People always lie" (which btw isn't true, but I understand your point, that people will often make up or exaggerate stories) is enough to dismiss Mohammed, then I see no reason that the evident statement "People are very gullible" can not equally dismiss the Sinai event.

3. I find it funny that your use of evidence against the Sinai event (that there aren't any divergent claims) you claim is a result of G-d's tampering with our brains. If that is the argument you use, then why should I accept the stories of people who's minds are so easily tampered with. Why would G-d need to tamper with peoples brains anyhow? It seems a rather suspicious presumption, one that could prove any event and doesn't add weight to the Sinai story, but rather weakens it.

3 (again) I never said I accepted the event as stated. You don't accept the story about The Zeitoun apparitions exactly as stated, but rather ignore the religious aspects of the story and understand them of exaggerations of a natural event. I see it the same way with the manna. There was probably some food that the Israelites (or some other people) may have had access to in the desert. They found it in the morning and assumed it had fallen from heaven. This happened sporadically from time to time, but eventually the story was told as if it happened every single day, except Shabbos.
January 30, 2011 10:02 PM
P

How Identities Cloud Judgment

Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Link


I recently cam across this article: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html and I thought I would share it here.
Keep Your Identity Small

February 2009

I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.

As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

What's different about religion is that people don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion, because people feel they have to be over some threshold of expertise to post comments about that. But on religion everyone's an expert.

Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.

But this isn't true. There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. But the more precise political questions suffer the same fate as the vaguer ones.

I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities.

Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that's false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
I think this article is very insightful and has some very good points. It makes me want to reconsider how I identify myself or at least how the way I identify myself may skew my beliefs.

However, even if you think you don't identify with a group you may still be falling into the above trap. For example, I am not sure how much of my argument for circumcision has to do with my identity (probably a lot) as well as I am unsure how much other peoples arguments against circumcision has to do with their conceived identities (either as atheists or whatever). It seems to me that people should always be on guard against the traps in our minds that we set for ourselves. You can never be too sure that you are arguing solely on rational grounds and that your personal emotional attachment towards a topic has nothing to do with your positions.
Posted by Skeptitcher Rebbe at 10:23 AM
================================================
4 comments:

Anonymous said...
I don't identify (much) with Jewishness even though I was born into a Jewish family. As a I get older my identification gets less. But it will probably be there somewhat forever. I don't see it ever going away completely. Somethings are impossible to remove even if you wanted to
December 2, 2010 1:41 PM

Questioning Yid said...
I found this article quite interesting myself. I am all too familiar with the detrimental effects of identity on parties being able to relate. I have a deep-rooted Jewish identity, but it was formed in a mixed marriage and a predominantly Christian school. As I moved beyond the early stages of being a Ba'al Teshuva, rather quickly I might add, I returned to my identity incorporating my non-religious and non-Jewish background. I disagree with the general idea that any sense of identity is detrimental. It is through our identities that we find others with whom we relate and form friendships, communities, and societies. Perhaps, rather than avoiding things entering our identity, we should instead work to ensure our identities are not just tolerant of others, but are open to differing identities and points of view. We should identify as people interested in getting to know and understand the thoughts and feelings and beliefs and identities of others and welcome them with open arms. I think that is the true step beyond.
December 13, 2010 9:07 AM

Anonymous said...
The premise of this article is wrong. JavasScript does always lead to an argument.

Mac vs PC? Yankees vs Redsocks. Apple, Microsoft, Google... all of it.
February 28, 2011 4:49 AM

MatureDurai said...
"I disagree with the general idea that any sense of identity is detrimental. It is through our identities that we find others with whom we relate and form friendships, communities, and societies. Perhaps, rather than avoiding things entering our identity, we should instead work to ensure our identities are not just tolerant of others, but are open to differing identities and points of view."
Well said,Questioning Yid!Cheers!
August 1, 2011 1:28 AM

Circumcision. Should it be banned?

Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Link

I have been having a rather heated discussion with Brian Westley on OTDs blog post about circumcision here.

While I don't believe that circumcision has any superstitious benefits, I do believe it does have real social ones, namely avoidance of ostracism from within the Jewish community for your child (if you wish to be a part of the Jewish community). Also there isn't a reverse ostracism from outside the Jewish community either (having a circumcision is very common for non Jews as well). Since I don't think that the costs are too significant (mild memoryless pain for a short while, recovery in about a week) I think it should be up to the parents to decide whether or not their son should get one as an infant and shouldn't be banned universally.

What do you think?
Posted by Skeptitcher Rebbe at 11:28 AM
=============================================
28 comments:

G*3 said...
I don’t think anything should be banned unless it’s shown to be harmful. Circumcision has not been shown to be harmful, therefore it shouldn’t be banned.
November 28, 2010 12:04 PM

Bob said...
Male circumcision is a safe, popular, healthy & beneficial procedure for individuals & parents to choose. It provides benefits such as 12x less likely for UTI, +22x less likely for cancer, 28% less risk for herpes, 35% for HPV & 60% for HIV/AIDS. The risks are about 0.2% and are typically minor & easily corrected.

Parents should research circumcision and make an informed decision for the health & well-being of their son.

More information can be found at the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

http://www.malecircumcision.org/

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/104

http://www.circinfo.net

http://www.medicirc.org
November 28, 2010 12:16 PM

Baruch Spinoza said...
I have a different why I am against banning circumcision. You can read about it here ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/11/ban-circumcision.html ).
November 28, 2010 1:50 PM

Caroline said...
Eliyahu Ungar Sargon made an interesting film on the topic
"Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision"
http://cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/Home.html
November 29, 2010 4:04 PM

Caroline said...
Also,

Jewishcircumcision.org
jewsagainstcircumcision.org
November 29, 2010 4:05 PM

Hugh7 said...
Isn't "avoidance of ostracism" an unworthy motive for cutting part of a child's genitals off? If the community ostracises someone because of something someone else hasn't done to them, shame on that community! Who do they think they are? Let them mind their own business!

@G*3: How about the fact that a significant number of men hate the fact that it was done to them? More than 70 have signed up for a class action. Apart from certain harm, the risks, from unaesthetic outcomes all the way to loss of the penis and death, go underreported.

Bob's figures need context. For example, since less than one in 100 boys gets a UTI, by his own figure, 991 circumcisions in 1000 are wasted. His citations are laughably biased.

#Jewish philosopher: Only for adult volunteers where AIDS is rampant. The protection (even if genuine) is only for infection by men from women, very rare in the US.

A small but growing number of Jewish parents are choosing to name their sons without surgery. Contact details for celebrants, including a number of rabbis, are here. One, in New York, has celebrated hundreds.
November 29, 2010 6:04 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Hugh7,

Many people permanently alter the bodies of their children in ways that don't affect the functionality of those bodies, but are done solely for the reason to avoid social ostracism. Such things like altering a deformed ear or nose which funtion totally normally from a medical standpoint but are seen by most in society as being an abnormality.

I don't see why allowing a parent to alter their minor childs body is acceptable in the above case is acceptable whereas with circumcision doing it for the same reason considered unacceptable. I am willing to change my mind on this, I just haven't been convinced that the differences in either scenario are too far removed or that the effects of circumcision are so negative and harmful to oppose the practice universally.
November 29, 2010 7:34 PM

Tony said...
Skeptitcher Rebbe,

The above is acceptable because it is a deformity. The foreskin is not a deformity. It is a normal body part. No one is suggesting that medically necessary circumcision is unacceptable. Proxy consent has validity. But altering a child's healthy body to avoid something that may not happen or may not bother the child is bizarre.

For example, I have red hair. I was mocked for this throughout childhood (and still am, amusingly). Should my parents have forcibly dyed my hair to save me from this social torment? That's not permanent, either. The correct analogy to circumcision, of course, is for them to continue forcibly changing my hair color now based on their opinion of my body, whether I want it or not. Since I can't undo the circumcision they forced on me.

Yet, I'm indifferent to the ridicule I receive about my hair. Why should I care what my peers think? They can judge me for being who I am, but that doesn't lessen me in any way. I learned that because I was mocked for who I am. It's a cliche, but the social attacks made me stronger, not weaker.

As for the effects of circumcision, it's objective harm. It's a surgical alteration that removes healthy tissue and nerves. It creates a wound. It leaves scarring. There is a risk of infection and complications from the surgery. And it alters the functioning of the penis. (An objective claim, unlike the subjective question of whether it's better or worse.)

Does the individual want any of that? I don't. Why should my parents' misguided, inaccurate perception about my body rule over my (lack of) need while I was in their care? As I said, at 37 years old, it's a decision they're effectively still making for me. Permitting that under proxy consent is flawed.
November 29, 2010 9:22 PM

Hugh said...
As a common slogan has it, "A foreskin is not a birth defect", and it is very odd to treat it as though it is. (People in the US seem far readier than elsewhere to modify their children for conformity's sake alone, as witness the preoccupation with straight teeth. It may also have to do with the economics of the health care system.)

Circumcision does affect functionality. I don't imagine you have talked to many intact men in detail about exactly what is conferred by their foreskins. It has been described as "a symphony of sensation" - not just more sensitive, but better sensitive. Cutting off the foreskin, with its ~20,000 nerves specialised for feedback, is like pulling out the accelerator pedal and leaving an on-off switch. You can still get there, but the journey is not as enjoyable.

Forgotten pain was still pain at the time, and how long does it take to forget? Taddio et al. found circumcised babies react differently to the pain of vaccination, months later. Crimes committed on drugged victims are still crimes, even though they are not remembered.
November 30, 2010 3:59 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
But its only considered a deformity by social standards not natural ones. The weird looking ear functions just as well as any other ear. If you are indifferent by the ridicule you receive from your hair, why should you try to alter the shape of the ear so that your son or daughter wont be? If it really makes you stronger why is it altered at all if there is no medically necessary purpose? It is for purely social reasons it is altered so why alter it? Deformity is only something you in your society consider abnormal, what is to stop another society from considering it an acceptable deviation?

I have heard opposite accounts on how sex life after a person had a circumcision was actually improved. More nerve endings doesn't necessarily mean better sex.

Sex may or may not be more enjoyable with a foreskin, but for those who have one they will never be able to tell what it is like without it. For those without one (even if it was voluntary) will never be able to go back, so its not really like an individual can compare sex life with and without a foreskin and then choose to have his foreskin. So I don't really see that as a strong argument, since comparisons and decisions based on that comparisons with regards to sex are practically impossible.

Hugh, I would like to see the study by Taddio if you don't mind. I think that is an interesting factor to take into account, as long as I understand what exactly was tested and what the findings were.
November 30, 2010 10:23 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
One more comment, I just don't really agree that circumcisions really are all that harmful. I am beginning to think that the benefits I am describing are not really all that rational.

But if I were going to try to force my views on my wife and refuse to let her circumcise my son I think I am going to have to have a really convincing argument for the horrible and terribly harmful thing circumcision is, and as of yet I am not convinced that it is. I still see it as a fairly mild operation with very little functional difference in the person. If it wasn't a common practice and my wife didn't insist on its importance I definitely wouldn't do it but as things are now I don't believe my son will be all that upset or resentful, because it really is not such a big deal IMO.

If I had convincing evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that circumcision is something that truly is harmful to a child then I would reconsider position on it.
November 30, 2010 10:47 AM

Tony said...
I'm not suggesting I think parents should have surgery on their children if the child has a deformity. I have a family member with a mild birth defect. It hasn't been corrected because there's no need. My only point is that I won't judge parents who face that tough decision for their children. At least they're confronting an abnormality.

Parents who circumcise their normal children don't face that decision. They're deciding in favor of common at the expense of normal. That's not a valid decision by proxy.

What is it that's preventing you from seeing the harm of circumcision? I'm genuinely asking because I'd like to persuade you, if you're open to listening. I think you are.

Circumcision is objective harm. That much is undeniable, as there's a wound after the surgery. I accept that the value of that harm weighed against the claimed benefits is subjective to the individual.

For me, it's not close. It's a net harm because I don't value the cultural conformity it was meant to confer, and I resent my parents for forcing it on me. But I don't expect that everyone will or should have that opinion. I only expect everyone to understand that anyone could have that opinion. Parents aren't psychic. Imposing their preferences on their child when those preferences do physical harm is wrong because the child may not want the potential, subjective benefits the parents value.
November 30, 2010 4:22 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
"What is it that's preventing you from seeing the harm of circumcision?
....
Circumcision is objective harm. That much is undeniable, as there's a wound after the surgery."

Well I guess the objective harm as being minimal enough for it not to really matter. To me its like parents who choose to pierce their daughters ears as an infant. There is pain and there is permament scarring to the ears. No medical purpose, only for social reasons, and who knows if the child would want their ears pierced.

I think your arguments are valid, but there are two main reasons I don't feel that the harm is significant enough for me to be universally against the practice.

1) While there is scarring, it is "normal" scarring in our society and the pain for infants truly is minimal if the procedure is done properly. My son when he was circumcised cried literally no more than a few seconds, the wound healed in a couple of days, and he didn't show any discomfort in that area since the cut was made.

2) The pain and distress for those who wish to be circumcised later on in life, even a young child a couple years old is very very high, and the healing process takes weeks and sometimes over a month. If my son did decide, at an age where he could consent, that he wanted to be circumcised, to fit in or for other reasons, I would have to put him through a horribly painful procedure. I know of one Jew who is very upset with his parents for not getting him circumcised since he did want to fit in later in life and the procedure was very painful, he said he could barely walk for weeks. I would much rather spare my child of having to make that decision at all and give him a relatively painless memoryless surgery over that scenario.

There are no guarantees either way and a son could be equally upset with his parents for either not circumcising him, or for circumcising him. Like you said parents aren't psychic and it is impossible to tell what is the likelyhood for either case, but for a Jewish family it is likely to be higher than for a non Jewish one that the child would rather have a circumcision, but there aren't any garuantees.

For you it was a net harm, for others it could be a net gain. For me it was a net gain, I probably would have been just as pissed at my parents as you are if they hadn't circumcised me since I would have to go through this grueling process which could have easily been avoided as a child.

Thus I view the decision from the parents perspective to be basically on neutral grounds. There is a possibility it will be a net gain or loss for the child to circumcise, but it is also possible it will be a net gain or loss for the child to not circumcise. Since the likelyhood of all the cases are unknown I don't feel like there is a general net harm to the procedure and I basically view it as net neutral.

btw I am enjoying this conversation very much and your comments have been very thoughtful and engaging. Thanks.
November 30, 2010 5:44 PM

Rabbi Lamech Somayach Meshumad Meshubach said...
If you want Jewish boys to avoid HIV keep them away from Rabbi Yehudda Kolko at Yeshiva Torah Temimah in Brooklyn, NY.
December 1, 2010 12:25 AM

Tony said...
The facts that pain can be minimal (not entirely verifiable) and not remembered aren't relevant. Such reasons could justify any number of invasive procedures on a child. If you numb him up, you could punch him in the face and do less permanent damage than circumcision. It's an intentionally absurd example, of course, but it gets at my point that all of the extraneous factors we wrap into this discussion distract from the core. The act needs to be judged on its objective facts, not the subjective add-ons each of us value in our own way.

Yes, I think it's likely that a significant number of boys left intact and raised Jewish would want circumcision. I don't see a conflict there. This isn't about despising circumcision, per se. Whatever might motivate someone to choose it for himself is valid for him. I don't think circumcision itself is automatically bad. But force is. This is about each individual retaining choice over his own (healthy) body.

In economic terms, the basic concept is that all individual tastes and preferences are subjective. I don't value circumcision. I value not being harmed (however minimally one might judge it). I don't value cultural conformity. I don't value the potential health benefits. And so on. That's my collection of preferences. Yours are different and they're no less valid. But each of our preferences are only valid for ourselves.

Overall statistics show a different story on what males left intact will likely choose or need. The percentage of circumcision among those men is very small. That's useful for the general population.

But you raise a valid issue within the ritual subset of circumcision. It's necessary to address this. Again, all individual tastes and preferences are subjective. Circumcision has claimed benefits, claimed harms, and objective harms. Each individual can decide for himself how he weights each item. For Jewish males who would have to choose circumcision later in life, they would decide whether they value the commandment and/or social benefits more than the real physical cost(s). If they choose circumcision, yes, the healing process will be challenging, although I've read anecdotal evidence across the spectrum of possible experiences for adult circumcision. (I wouldn't confine the choice to 18+, just consenting males.) But they will be choosing for themselves that the benefits are more than the costs. Males raised Jewish who later reject circumcision or Judaism entirely are stuck with their parents' choice.

I think our difference is partially in utilitarian (i.e. community) versus individual thinking. I have no issue with decisions for communal reasons, but the individual is superior in the narrative of rights. He must choose permanent inclusion in a community. Without the option to exit, even if he wouldn't exercise it, it's an issue of force.

The remaining issue is, of course, our evaluation of the objective harm. I think the comparison to ear piercing is useful, but the difference in degree is significant. Ear piercing doesn't remove a normal, healthy body part. It doesn't alter the functioning of a body part. The loss of the foreskin is a significant portion of the harm. Most boys will come out of circumcision with the typical, intended results, and the wound will heal. But the foreskin will be gone. It won't be there to protect the glans. It won't be there to provide gliding action during sexual activities. The nerve endings are gone. Whether or not these are acceptable is, again, unique to the individual. But they are real, and we can't know what the individual will want.
December 1, 2010 11:16 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
"Overall statistics show a different story on what males left intact will likely choose or need. The percentage of circumcision among those men is very small. That's useful for the general population."

Part of the reason that is the case is because the pain involved is tremendous for adults to undertake a circumcision. This is why mild pain in the procedure for an infact is indeed useful information since it is contrasted in relation to the same procedure on an adult where the pain is significantly higher.

When you don't circumcise an infant who grows up to be an adult who wishes to be circumcised you steal from him the opportunity to have a memoryless and significantly less painful operation to achieve the same results. In my determination the choice that a parent has to circumcise their infant son is a different choice than that an adult has to circumcise himself. He can't choose to have a memoryless, less painful procedure as an infant, that option was only available to his parents who decide whether or not to chose this option for him.

My preferences are indeed different than yours, but my preferences are as follows in decending order [circumcision as an infant(for myslef)] > [circumcision as an adult] > [No circumcision]

The likelyhood of my preferences being in line this way was, in my own opinion, rather high seeing as many children from Jewish families do wish to be a part of the Jewish community and in so doing for the most part wish to be circumcised. Their preferences would likely be close to my highest preference, of having my circumcision as an infant.

But to go even deeper parents are continually given license to decide for their children things that will permanently change and effect their children to a far greater degree than circumcision would. Very often do parents make these decisions for their children based on assumed preferences without the childs consent. Sometimes they get it wrong but many times when the parent is consientious they get it right. Why should this decision be excluded from a parent on the issue of circumcision but not on the countless other more impactful issues such as:

1) Whether or not they will grow up in a specific religious community or not.
2) Whether they will be in close contact with many relitives, like grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins or not.
3) What type of education they will receive.
4) What (if any) musical instruments they will learn.
5) What (if any) additional languages they will learn.
6) What sort of nutrition they will receive as children.
7) Whether or not they will be immunized against various diseases.
8) Whether they will be breastfed or bottlefed.

The list can go on and on. These items permamently affect the child in a much more impactful way than circumcision, most of the time they are done without the childs consent and they are irreversable. The child grows up and is happy with some of the decisions his/her parents made on his/her behalf without his/her consent, sometimes they are unhappy. The same is easily said of circumcision. I am very happy that my parents made the decision that I could never make, to have an infant circumcision, for me.
December 1, 2010 12:44 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Tony, a bunch of your previous comments seem very similar to one another. Did you want me to delete any of them for you.
December 1, 2010 12:51 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
I would agree with you for the most part, basically if I believed that the parents choice to circumcies was the same choice as the individuals to circumcise himself, because the significant differences in pain. If the choice was essentially the same (for example using a special dye that permamently changes your hair color) I would agree with you that this decision should not be up to the parents because the choice can just as easily be given to the child when he can consent. The choice between infant circumcision and no circumcision, and the choice between and adult circumcision and no circumcision is are significantly different choices in my determination. The person can't choose to have a circumcision as an infant.

Also I believe that the impact of having a circumcision vs not having one is minimal, greater than ear piercings no doubt, but still relatively minor compared to most of the more impactful things parents are warranted to do (and rightfully so) to their children without their consent that are also irreversable.
December 1, 2010 1:12 PM

Tony said...
Yes, please delete them. Google gave me errors for length. I waited and refreshed and nothing showed up, so I assumed they were lost. I apologize for that.
December 2, 2010 11:18 AM

Tony said...
I agree that the pain involved for adults is a reason why more intact males don't choose circumcision. That supports me. They reveal their preference for avoiding pain more than being circumcised. That's instructive. When you circumcise an infant who grows up to be an adult who wishes to be intact, you steal from him the opportunity to have his normal body and no painful operation. There are opportunity costs on both sides. But only in refraining from non-therapeutic circumcising do you allow every individual to get as close to what he wants as possible.

The problem is assuming that the pain is mild for an infant or milder than adult circumcision. We don't know how different they are, if at all. It's obvious that infants feel pain. How do they process it? Do they want that? That's not an end to the debate, but it looms much larger when the surgery is not needed. The facts that an intervention can be only mildly painful and memoryless are irrelevant. It doesn't add anything to the discussion of ethics.

It's also worth noting that adults can receive proper pain management tailored to their response and can choose how much skin to remove (and whether or not to remove the frenulum).

I concede that most Jewish males left intact would ultimately choose circumcision. I think that percentage would decrease over time, but I accept that it will be a majority for a long time. However, I can't accept that we should ignore the minority to avoid a painful choice for the majority. The majority can still get most of what they value. They also might find that their preference changes from:

[circumcision as an infant] > [circumcision as an adult] > [No circumcision]

to:

[circumcision as an infant] > [No circumcision] > [circumcision as an adult]

With infant circumcision, the minority can get none of what they value. Even on utilitarian grounds, defending circumcision doesn't work.

I think your list of options is useful. I agree, there can be a permanent effect, but that isn't guaranteed. For 1-5, those are not permanent. They can be overcome, with a caveat about the potential death of relatives with whom parents forbid contact. Nutrition and breastfeeding matter, and to a large extent, I think interference with those decisions is wrong. As long as the child is not malnourished, it's a parental decision.

The only item similar is vaccination. It's an intervention, it carries risk, and it's in essence permanent. However, vaccination deals with diseases that have few, if any, better prevention methods. Unlike circumcision and female-to-male HIV transmission, for example, a child can get measles in the course of normal social interaction. More importantly, vaccinations work with the body's natural functions to kick-start it. Circumcision for health (not really our focus) or social reasons works against the body, changing it to meet beliefs. That's the crux of where it differs and why standards for interfering with parental decision-making are different for the two.

I disagree that these permanently affect the child in a more impactful way. I was sent to church as a child. I've rejected that. (Disclosure: I'm agnostic.) I was given musical lessons for an instrument I didn't want, so I stopped when I could. As an adult, I'm now learning an instrument I like. I was raised an omnivore, and I'm now a vegan. And so on.
December 2, 2010 11:34 AM

Tony said...
(This is the second half. I'm assuming the first half will show up before this, eventually.)

I will always be circumcised. And I will always be against it for myself. It can't be overcome. You value circumcision, particularly that it was done to you as an infant. That is correct for you. But your conclusion is not mine, as I know you understand. We all have a basic right to be free from unwanted harm. A person can't choose circumcision in his infancy, but he also can't unchoose a circumcision in his infancy. That's the core fact. Until a child can offer consent, non-therapeutic circumcision is an unethical violation. Proxy consent is invalid.

There is no corresponding right to grow up* circumcised. Yes, you would have to choose it for yourself, with all of the drawbacks that go with it. Again, that's revealed preferences. It leaves the individual to evaluate and determine his own life. If you value circumcision more, you would suffer for a brief time, but you would ultimately get most of what you want. I will suffer my entire life and never get back any of what I want. I'm stuck with my parents' preference, or at least what they incorrectly assumed I'd want.

Related: On Monday, you posted Sara Bareilles' "King of Anything". Since I first heard it, that song resonated with me for a parent-child relationship, generally, and circumcision, specifically. For what that's worth...

* As I stated earlier, with any proposed prohibition on non-therapeutic circumcision of minors, the requirement should not be iron-clad on the age of majority. With the right textual protections against coercion, I'm fine with the individual's consent at whatever age he concludes he wants to be circumcised.
December 2, 2010 11:36 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Tony,

Thank you for your well thought out and elucidative comments. I will have to chew them over a bit.

I will give you my initial reaction though. First off I think that the permanancy of all of the choices parents make in my list are in the realm of altering you in regards to your mind not your body in general. You will carry with you the connections you make as a child for the rest of your life. Sure you can learn a new language as an adult, but your mental skills will never be able to improve as much as if you had learned it as a child. I do believe that experiences you have as a child will alter your mental state for the rest of your life, either for good or for bad, and I believe a altering a persons mental state is more impactful to their life than the body altering of a circumcision.

I just simply haven't been convinced that I should universally reject this practice. I think that if I were to agree with your logic, which I think is very reasonable, I would also have to universally reject the practice of infant ear piercings (IEP). It seems to me that you wouldn't reject IEP because of the scale of harm done in your determination is not significant (correct me if I am wrong). I can't see how IEP are different than infant circumcisions in any other way. If the scale of harm done can be a determining factor in whether or not one should reject a procedure of this kind (and I think it is) then I am simply not convinced that the scale of harm is significant enough for me to oppose it. I would oppose other similar procedures whose harm I consider too significant to allow (such as cutting off a childs arm or tattooing disgusting images to a childs face) and I would not oppose practices I don't consider significantly harmful (like IEP, or a small tattoo on an inconspicuous part of an infants body assuming doing so doesn't make the child look abnormal, or circumcision).

As you said earlier:

"The remaining issue is, of course, our evaluation of the objective harm. I think the comparison to ear piercing is useful, but the difference in degree is significant"

Who gets to decide where to draw that line of where the degree of significance lies? I think it is hard to tell where it does and circumcision may be close to where that line gets hazy or it may not. I still am unsure about it being ok but I am also not convinced that it is unethical.
December 2, 2010 12:07 PM

Tony said...
"... You will carry with you the connections you make as a child for the rest of your life. ..."

I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with that. I probably did, since I was nonchalant on discarding some of my parents' decisions. I do carry the connections. We're all a collection of our experiences, not just the ones we like/choose/etc. Is it better to say "reduce the permanence" or "lessen the effect" of past parental decisions, or something like that? I still think that's different from circumcision, since I can't undo any of its effects.

Regarding IEP, I think parents shouldn't do it. It carries risk of infection. The incidence is rare but awful when it occurs. I think it treats children like dress-up dolls rather than children. Parents aren't considering that their children will one day be independent people with their own preferences. I've met women who wish their parents hadn't pierced their ears. Not many, but they exist. (Like circumcision, it should be allowed when there's consent, not the age of majority.)

As for a prohibition, it's tricky. I'd support it, and I think it's justified. But it's not a battle I'm interested in fighting, precisely because the difference between it and non-therapeutic circumcision is significant.

Drawing a line on significance is about objective facts. I think the line has both on the same side, against. If it's somewhere between the two, it's not so much about where that line is or who decides, but why it's drawn between them. Ear piercing affects a normal body part and exposes the recipient to some risk. Circumcision removes a normal body part, denying aspects of the human experience to the individual.

I respect your need to ponder our discussion and will not try to convince you further. We've hit the bulk of the discussion, anyway. I obviously hope my position will eventually convince you. Regardless, I commend you for thinking. I rarely encounter anyone who supports proxy consent for non-therapeutic circumcision who is willing to think. Most proponents already "know" everything (i.e. a subset of facts with many errors) they need to know. Thank you for being decent.
December 3, 2010 11:30 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Tony,

I have really enjoyed all of your comments. I commend you for your consistency and I think your reasoning is totally sound. Like I said earlier I will have to dwell on this some more before I can make a decision, but you have given me a lot to think about, and who knows I may very well oppose this practice in the future. But like all things I think all people should take their time with developing their beliefs and should do so with the utmost care, which I can see you have done with your position on circumsision.

I don't think I have really anything more to say on the subject either. Again thank you for the engaging conversation and for visiting and reading my blog. I really do appreciate it and love discussing difficult issues like this with open minded, thoughtful and respectful people such as yourself.

Take care and have a wonderful winter season.
December 3, 2010 11:49 AM

Questioning Yid said...
How delightfully refreshing to see a thoughtful and respectful dialog between opposing parties on a hot-button topic that never devolved into puerile and pugnacious exchanges. Thank you both for restoring a bit of my faith in humanity and true discourse!
December 13, 2010 9:20 AM

Jasmine said...
I'm against it for a very simple reason: bodily autonomy, which I consider sacrosanct (as far as an atheist can, anyway). People (and that includes infants) have the absolute right to decide what gets done to their bodies. Since an infant obviously can't make such a decision, the only ethical procedures are critical, life-saving ones. Others must wait until they are old enough to decide on their own. Surely that's not too much to ask?

Suppose it were considered socially important to give an infant a giant facial tattoo that marks them out forever, regardless of their later wishes. What would we make of that?

With the case of the deformed ear, again we must wait. Perhaps the child will not consider it so bad after all. Perhaps in the future such things will be accepted. Perhaps in the future there will be better ways to fix it. Who knows? Not us.

I submit that parents who surgically modify their children without permission are placing their own social discomfort over the wellbeing of their child.
December 20, 2010 12:07 PM

Balboa said...
I don't think circ should be banned for adults who choose to do it for themselves. I do think parents should not have unnecessary surgeries done on infants. especially not in synagogues with parties and smiles while the infant cries for help. I relented and had it done for my son after about a month because it would have cost me my marriage and my kids didn't deserve that.
December 26, 2010 3:08 AM

I love my Wife!

Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Link



My wife is the best. I just can't get over how damn lucky I am to have her. I know that changing your worldview from frumkeit is hard and can be very depressing, but for me so far I have been able to handle it pretty well because of her.

She is still frum and doesn't yet know that my view points on Yiddishkeit and religion in general have changed so drastically, but when I speak to her about more OTD type topics she is always very understanding and insightful. She always thinks her views through and never falls back into some of the nonsensical arguments I hear from many frummies.

Not only that but many times she comes home with her own complaints and criticisms of Yiddishkeit. They are honest criticisms and although she tries to see it from anothers perspective, if it is ridiculous she points it out and isn't afraid to challenge it. She is intelligent, thoughtful, determined, caring, understanding, nurturing, dedicated and extremly beautiful.

I am reminded of a time earlier in my life while I was beginning to become frum. It came to the point where I desperately wanted to be seperated from her since she wasn't Jewish at the time and wasn't really interested in an Orthodox conversion. It was very hard for us, and I didn't want to deal with the stress of it, especially knowing I was sinning by dating a non Jew. We ended up breaking up for a couple of months before we got back together again. I just keep wondering what would have happened had I met and married another girl, maybe FFB or something. I couldn't imagine what a mistake that would have been.

I was such a moron for even putting her through all of that hardship and for what really. I regret it yet it brought us closer in a way and now I am in a great relationship with her so I guess it wasn't all that bad.

I still am unsure how she would take the idea of me not believing anymore though. I am glad that we have a good relationship with her family though, and since we got back together after our seperation I have always made a point of making sure that family should come first, even above religion. I think that is mainly what has made it work for us really well.

Before we got back together she told me that she didn't want to be second in my life. She asked that she be set before my faith, before G-d. At the time I was very upset she would ask something like that from me. How could I put my love for G-d behind anything? Anyone? Isn't loving G-d the most important thing?

It took me some time, but after our seperation I realized that she really was very important to me. She gave me purpose, pushed me to be better, and most of all was there for me, was really there for me. Not only that but I wanted to be there for her. I wanted her to be happy. I wanted her to be safe. I came to the conclusion that I really would put her before G-d and my faith.

I think that it is vital to put your family before your faith. Otherwise you will end up putting them through so much negativity for the sake of something that really isn't so important. I have known of a man who went off the derech and left his wife and children, totally abandoned them, and for what? I have the same amount of disdain for that person as I would for a person who rejected their own children for being gay or going off the derech or whatever.

People should really get their priorities straight and know that there are people out there who you really should dedicate your life to, and as a plus they actually exist.
Posted by Skeptitcher Rebbe at 1:25 PM
========================
12 comments:

Yossi said...
Interesting post. I have been dealing with faith issues of my own. I have been posting at the Richard Dawkins site. Many of the people there, including Dawkins, have suggested that I "come out" to my family, reagrdless of the cost to them. I have made it clear to those people that no matter what my "faith" I will not destroy my family just to make a philosophical point.
November 4, 2010 3:05 PM

no one said...
Very insightful post
November 4, 2010 3:13 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
I can definitely see your point. It is a very delicate issue and for many atheists outside of the frum community it is kind of hard for them to understand what it is really like going OTD in the frum community.

I wouldn't necessarily take their advice unless they were in a similar situation as you are in.

I like Dawkins a lot, but sometimes I think he may go just a tad overboard. I beleive that he thinks there is nothing good about hiding your atheism from certain people, and I think he has a point in that the atheistic community in order to gain strength needs more people coming out of the closet. But there are always options to weigh and everyones situation is different and those different circumstances need to be taken into consideration.

I would say take your time. It is a big life changing decision and there is no reason you should rush into anything.

I plan on taking my time.
November 4, 2010 3:19 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
no one,

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed it.
November 4, 2010 3:21 PM

ki sarita said...
Many people do not leave their families voluntarily when they go OTD- they are forced out for just expressing their thoughts, rejected by the people who supposedly loved them, not the other way around.
November 7, 2010 11:47 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Ki sarita,

Oh I agree 100%. I was just explaining one situation where this is not the case. For the most part I would say that OTDers are very good people, but there a few OTDers who I wouldn't mind giving a kick in the tuchos to.
November 8, 2010 1:35 AM

Anonymous said...
Skeptitcher and Ki sarita,

I have personally witnessed both tragedies and am aware of many cases in each category. It is never pleasant, but the best cases always involve the family being supportive of the OTDer, and the OTDer being supportive of the continued religiosity of the others. I have been blessed with a best friend, chevrusa, and a full support network who are all wonderful and understanding. We are respectful and accepting of each other. I still cook for them (I know kashrus better than most of my friends), and they still invite me for Shabbos. You are lucky to have such a wonderful wife, and I hope she will be as supportive as my friends have been. And maybe I'll be lucky enough to one day find someone as amazing as her to share my life with.
November 8, 2010 2:44 AM

Baal Habos said...
After much torment, I came out to my wife. It worked out better than in my wildest dreams. She was very understanding of what I had been going through, and after 3 or 4 years, without any pushing on my part, she came around totally to my way of thinking. All I did was expose to some of the literature I had been reading, science, philosophy, bibilical criticism, etc.

But I must caution you, we had a very good relationship to begin with (married more than 25 years). I don't think everyone has such a good outcome. Unfortunately, it's way too late to change course in life, with married frum children and all. Your mileage may vary and good luck.
November 13, 2010 6:42 PM

Anonymous said...
"el panav ashalem lo."

Agnostics, atheists, rejoice. You'll have your day in court. Good luck.

How odd of God to choose the Jews.

Those who aren't ffb have incentive to return to the womb, their milieu. For those whose beliefs are based upon group think, mindless frum people, da'as toireh etc. all should know better. To reject belief based upon biblical criticism is shoddy spirituality. We are more than the sum of our parts.

If you leave the community, nobody will be shocked. But, offering encouragement to others to follow your example is not righteousness, reb.
November 16, 2010 4:35 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Anon,

Your comment is rather confusing. I don't know why you think you know me well enough to say that no one will be shocked if I left the community. I have a feeling that many people would be shocked. Also I have no intention of leaving at this stage of my life, and it is possible I never will. Although I notice problems in the community that isn't to say that there aren't similar or additional problems outside the community.

I don't push people to follow in my footsteps. These are my own personal opinions about my situation and what I experienced. I don't think anyone should follow in my footsteps or anyone elses for that matter, they should decide for themselves what life they wish to live, and if that means being religious then I fully support that. If it means leaving religion then I fully support that as well. Life is confusing and difficult and I am not about to tell others how they should deal with it in their own personal way.

Also I don't reject belief based on biblical criticism. Biblical criticism seems to make sense given the circumstances but I don't hold it up as evidence against belief in the Torah's divinity/truth.
November 16, 2010 8:50 PM

Anonymous said...
What say ye then, reb, to what Rashi cites on "im bechukotai telechu: "lo lamad, lo 'asah etc." Does this pattern conform to your own?
December 2, 2010 2:29 PM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Of those seven things enumerated by Rashi I will tell you that this pattern didn't conform to my own.

1) [First, a person] does not learn [the Torah]

I did learn Torah and still do.

2) then, he [subsequently] does not fulfill [the commandments]

I did fulfill the commandments, and still do.

3) he then despises others who do [fulfill them]

I most definitely don't despise others who fulfill the commandments, many of my best and most trusted friends fulfill the commands, including my wife.

4) then, he hates the Sages,

Totally not true.

5) prevents others from fulfilling [the commandments]

Again, totally not true and I haven't prevented anyone from fulfilling the commandments.

6) denies the [authenticity of the] commandments

This is true.

7) and [finally] denies the very omnipotence of God.

This is also true.

This is not the path I have taken to denying the authenticity of the Torah and of Yiddishkeit.

The path I took was through continual study and reasoning to decide that I no longer believed in the precepts in the Torah and Yiddishkeit. I never hated Frum Jews, still don't, and I never wish to stop Frum Jews from doing mitzvahs, if anything I help promote it in my daily life. I still keep the mitzvahs and I still learn Torah daily.

I hope that answers your question.
December 2, 2010 3:52 PM

Five stages of Mourning Orthodoxy

Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Link


I read a few things here and there about how there is some sort of grieving or mourning process when going OTD. Looking at the five stages of grief identified by the Kübler-Ross model:

1. Denial: This is the first reaction and it shows. Pretty much any Orthodox Jew who learns about evidence that contradicts the Orthodox worldview begins with this stage and many stay in this stage, I would argue for a large part of their lives. When the evidence that denies the validity of the Torah presents itself to an Orthodox Jew the reaction is to deny that the evidence is really credible or that it can be applied to refute the Torah. These sort of rationalizations are all too common. I was in this stage from the moment I became Orthodox and would constantly fall back to this first stage until recently.

2. Anger: When I began to argue with the non Orthodox world in favor of the Lubavitch worldview, I would present our "beautiful" Torah and it's "perfect" message. I thought this surely would bring those Jews who were not connected with Yiddishkeit into the fold, how could it not. The only reason they didn't already accept it is because they never heard of it before, I reasoned. When my views were challenged I fell into stage one, denial, where I brought my rather "weak" rationalizations of the apparent problems but presented them as strong evidence (although it was nothing of the sort). This may have gone on for a while back and forth until my rationalizations and denials ran dry, at which point I became angry. "Why are they being so stubborn?!" I would think to myself "They are just trying to be jerks/trolling/are in denial/etc!" I would honestly get very frustrated and very angry and occasionally it would come out in my posts as insults, but I would try to hold off on that and was usually pretty successful in being polite, with my pent up emotions still inside. Later I would often scream my frustration out in the car when I was driving home alone. Usually cursing and then feeling guilty about it later. It seems really silly now that I think about it, it was so childish like a baby who didn't get his way. Is that really what having the truth feels like? Usually over time I would ignore the issue and then start all the way back at square one, denial. Other times I would move forward just a bit.

3. Bargaining: Sometimes if the anger stage didn't revert me back to denial I would try a bit of bargaining in my approach. Sometimes I would bargain with G-d. I would ask G-d to give me the insight to show these lost Jews the beauty of Torah, the simcha of frumkeit, in return I would go out and help more Yidden become frum. Other times I would tell G-d I would learn more Chassidus, daven more, say tehillim, etc in order for Him to help me in my arguments. When this clearly failed to work I began bargaining in my arguments themselves. Well if only I became more open to their view points or if I said nice things about them or their posts in other more pareve topics I could win them over. I would compliment them, concede more often and go around and search for posts that I didn't disagree with and would praise their opinions. Maybe later they would do the same for me when I would argue a point as well. This also failed miserably and it was really stupid of me to think it would work. So what if someone was nice to you or whatever, non frum people being nice to me never moved my opinion about their views an iota so why should it do so for their opinions about my views. So when this failed I would either move backwards to anger or even denial. Rarely I moved forward.

4. Depression: When all of my efforts of rationalizing would fail, and venting my anger didn't work the final form of bargaining I tried led me to become really depressed. This was because I bargained that if I were to view this problem from the atheistic perspective, perhaps I would find the flaw in their thinking, but lo and behold I would find no flaw. How could this denial of the "truth" have no flaws? What am I doing wrong? Why is G-d not helping me? Why would G-d let the atheists win? At some points I would give up all hope and maybe over time forget about it all. Three times I moved forward.

5. Acceptance: What do I mean when I reached acceptance three times? Wouldn't the first acceptance be when I stopped believing? When I would reach this stage it was with different issues each time. First with the idea of Homosexuality. After much struggle I came to accept the fact that there was nothing wrong with Homosexuality. I accepted that people are just born differently and that there really is nothing wrong with being gay, and that to oppose it really is evil. How did this not break my faith in that the Torah which explicitly rejected this attitude, who knows. I mostly just put it out of my mind and didn't think about it. Later I came to accept that the creation story and the flood story were nonsense and totally incorrect. In a sort of Slifkinesque way I argued that this didn't affect the basic truth of the Torah and then went back to stage one. Finally I accepted that TMS didn't happen and that what I had been sold about the Torah was indeed false. Belief in TMS was always my foundation for believing in the truth of Yiddishkeit. Once that fell it all really fell. I have accepted that there is nothing divine about Yiddishkeit and that it was all man made.
Although I no longer grieve over my faith in Torah, I am still grieving over my reduction in practice. I currently consider myself Orthoprax but I have a creeping feeling that me trying to hold on to Jewish tradition is nothing more than denial and rationalizations. I am still trying to figure that part out. Who knows, maybe at some point I will be in total acceptance of an atheistic lifestyle. All I know is that its hard to let go.

=================================================

15 comments:

G*3 said...
This is clever.

For the record, mourning doesn’t always include all of the stages, and there’s no particular order that they’re supposed to appear in (as implied by “moving forward” or “moving backward”).
October 25, 2010 12:09 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
I guess that makes more sense now. When I thought about this idea I felt that I skipped around between quite a lot. Now that I know they aren't meant to be in an order that makes more sense.

I probably could rewrite it to be more accurate with this new information, but I don't really care all that much to go through all that again.
October 25, 2010 12:48 AM

Anonymous said...
I went through much the same process falling out of Orthodoxy, except for me, the centrality of all five stages was my own sexuality. At age 16, I came out of the closet to my parents, apparently socially accepting Reform Jews. Before then, I had made a move toward more traditional Judaism in an effort to reexamine the faith I had abandoned briefly several years earlier, and was keeping an elementary form of Kashrus. After telling my parents about this new self discovery, they began throwing out reasons for why me being gay was a shanda for myself, for them, and for my newly found religiosity and observance. While none of what they had to say holds any water, at that point in my life, it was very convincing, and I decided I must be mistaken.

I strengthened my commitment to tradition, and when I arrived at college, gravitated towards Chabad and began observing the Mitzvos quite diligently. I never accepted the young earth concept or the flood story as told, and while I believed the concept of TMS, never felt it was central to my faith (remember I was brought up Reform, and to me that was just a nice idea, but not terribly important). My denial was primarily about my own orientation, and it persisted even as the other stages ebbed and flowed through my psyche.

I moved sporadically through the various stages, but the central denial never left. Around the end of my sophomore year, I accepted that I had homosexual desires, though believed they were merely a test and that my job was to overcome them. I believed (because I learned on several frumishe web sites) that if I were to pray and learn more, the feelings would go away. I would get angry when nothing helped and would sometimes look for more radical methods. I would bargain that if HaSham would remove from me even some of the feelings, either about specific individuals or overall, I would take on new chumras. I even took upon myself SN as an attempt at bargaining. I became very depressed at the thought that nothing was helping and that I was doomed to eventually falter and that there would be no help for me then. By the end of college, I had accepted that I would not be able to get rid of my sexual desires, and by the end of a period in Yeshiva, I had accepted that I would eventually have to let them play out, but still denied that I was gay.

It wasn't until a year after leaving Yeshiva that I finally came to accept myself as gay, but took several more months before I accepted that I would have to share this with anyone. Once I had finally come to accept both that I was gay and that I couldn't go on hiding the fact from everyone for the rest of my life, I began an extreme and rapid move through the stages, though this time the pervasive one was depression. Finally, after the support and acceptance of numerous friends, I finally came to full acceptance of myself, and that was when everything fell through. For me, perhaps, I was grieving first my sexuality, and only later, upon accepting that, my orthodoxy. I, apparently unlike you, still believe in God, but have taken the other approach and have abandoned most religious practices.

Thank you for the interesting post. It was a springboard for some wonderful self reflection.
October 28, 2010 12:31 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Anon,

Thank you for your comments, they were very moving.

I am suprised at your parents reaction, being reform and all. Have they accepted your orientation yet? Are you on good terms?

I currently have a friend beginning to become a BT and she had told me initially that she was gay. Now it seems she plans on just putting it all behind her and to "become" straight. I am very nervous for her, because I am afraid she will have some very tough times ahead, especially if she decides to get married and have kids early on before making sure that this is the right path for her. Do you have any advice for me in this regard? Should I mention something to her or should I let her figure it out on her own? What would you have wanted done if you had a friend like me while you were still frum?

Thanks again.
October 28, 2010 1:00 AM

Anonymous said...
I have not told my parents again this time around. Having made me as uncomfortable as they did the first time, I'm afraid what it will do now that I am coming from a place of actual acceptance of self and not simply new self discovery. On the one hand, they may now be fully accepting, but on the other, they may respond even more negatively than before. We are currently on very good terms and I hope to keep it that was as long as possible. It is a constant worry of mine, though.

As for your friend, you are in an awkward position. Should you choose to say something to her, you could potentially destroy your friendship and/or send her into deep self denial. On the other hand, you could help enact change in her, allowing her to find self acceptance by seeing a friend who cares about her either way. Keep in mind that sexuality is not as static as some would have you believe, and while I was always attracted to men and hiding from that, there are those who do change. It is possible that her orientation has changed in her life, and you suggesting otherwise could be offensive to her. Also keep in mind that there are religious gay people and that this might be a fair community for her.

I was never open enough to share with anyone that I had thought I was gay, and on the (originally) rare occasion that someone suggested it to me as a possibility, I went into full denial. That she is or has been open enough about her orientation in the past means there is some room for you to speak with her about it. If you feel you have a strong enough relationship that you could discuss it in a non-confrontational way, it might be positive. But no matter her response, it is your responsibility to be supportive. If her orientation has indeed changed, she needs supportive friends with whom she can speak openly. If it has not, she will eventually need someone to be there for her as she goes through the process of accepting it all over again.

I hope that helps, and you are welcome to share my comments with her should you so choose.
October 28, 2010 2:31 AM

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...
Anon,

I hope that you are able to reconcile your relationship with your parents in a postive way. It must be very hard. I wish you all the best. You may already know this but I am sure there are support groups with people who are gay who had or are having similar dilemas. I am sure they could give you great advice on how to handle the situation.

Thank you so much for your advice. I will have to dwell on this for a while. I think that I may wait some more to see how things progress before I begin any sort of conversation about it with her. My wife is closer with her than I am and since we haven't lived in the same city for a while it may seem akward. Anyways thanks again for the advice, it was very helpful.
October 28, 2010 10:35 AM

Anonymous said...
I have no idea where I am on that scale, I suppose bouncing around denial and depression at the same time. Do you know of anyone who is considering going otd or who is otd who is willing to meet? I am still in the community but am struggling and would like to meet others with similar issues. I would like to make a meetup but am unsure how to proclaim a meetup and not fear getting outted before I'm ready!

take care
sdebeau@yahoo.com
November 4, 2010 2:55 PM

Balboa said...
Interesting blog... Anon, I wish you could be comfortable with the idea of no go. it took me a while after I realized the tora was not divine to let go of god. it made me happy at first but it really isn't an easy thing to incorporate into one's life.
December 26, 2010 2:57 AM

Anonymous said...
skeptitcher rebbe --

you're still Jewish as Tevya!

Tuvia
March 29, 2011 4:28 AM