Attachment parenting is not for me. I don’t like people hanging on me or touching me all the time, and I hate being tethered. But who knew it was so controversial?
Bad for the kids… bad for the marriage… bad for the mom… are these accusations true?
After reading about Mayim Bialik’s book and other “out there” attachment parents, I decided to analyze my feelings, and here’s the conclusion I came to. I don’t know if attachment parenting ultimately produces: better or worse kids; kids that are more neurotic or more confident; more exhausted or more serene parents. All I know is that I couldn’t do it.
What impressed me about Mayim is that she didn’t seem to arrive at this parenting approach emotionally, based on her personality. She arrived at it, initially, scientifically.
“Writing her Ph.D. thesis on the role of hormones in obsessive-compulsive
disorder in children with a particular genetic condition, Ms. Bialik
thought deeply about the science of human attachment. At the same time,
friends whose attachment-parenting approach she had once found “kooky
town” (“All they talked about was their kid, and their kid was always on
them,” she said) seemed to be getting impressive results.”
(OK, it helped that she “fell in love” with nursing on demand [aaaagh!!].)
So why am I talking about this?
Pull out the words “attachment parenting” and insert “Orthodox Judaism.”
How many people who feel it’s “not for them” feel the need to dis the system? To prove that it’s flawed? Its proponents backward? Its products worse off for the experience? How rarely have I heard someone admit: “It’s not for me, but I admire it and admire those who are willing to put in the hard work because they consider it a worthwhile system for a better future”?
How much education have the detractors of attachment parenting amassed about what it really means – or is most of the backlash due to ignorance, stereotyping, fear of the unknown and perceived judgment at the hands of adherents?
Recently I posted something about Homecoming on Facebook. One respondent angrily expressed the social mayhem and damage that ensues from these high school dances. A friend of mine later commented (in person – yeah, for reals) that this person was obviously a baal teshuvah – one who adopts Torah observance as an adult – who was unpopular in high school. The assumption was that people arrive at Orthodoxy for emotionally needy reasons.
I reacted by doing something that’s becoming a habit: I lent her a book. This one was by a popular and cool Jewish guy, a consummate jock and highly successful business person, who nevertheless felt that “something was missing” in his life, and intellectually, philosophically, researched and eventually adopted observant Judaism.
If kosher, Shabbat, and other observances are “not for you” that’s cool. I get that. I won’t say I agree, but I, as a detachment parent, get it. But please don’t feel that you then have to dis the system. The system exists – has existed – for thousands of years. Accept it if you wish; accept parts of it if you dare; ignore it if you must. But try to stay philosophical about the issues.
Very interesting! I think people have to do what works for them. I can agree with something scientifically and still know it would not work for me. Or at least not yet! Some things you must do to understand..naaleh v'nishma. Something's are too far from your comfort zone to ever try.
I don't think that orthodox Judaism is in the same category as attachment parenting, "g- d said so, so I do it" now where you fall within Judaism does have to do with your comfort zone!
there are many different ways to parent with great results. there are many different reasons to choose religioun too. i can never understand 'anger' as a reaction to anyone's choice (unless it's harmful, of course)
I really like the analogy you've made here. Because the detractors often behave in a similar fashion.
What bothers me, when it comes right down to it, is the chutzpah one must have to judge others so harshly. Let us say, for just one moment, that people do arrive at Orthodoxy for emotionally needy reasons. How wonderful it is that God and the mitzvot can fill that void. That should be something to respect and value rather than denigrate and undermine.
We all have our (valid) reasons for how we choose to live.
I'm sure some people are drawn to Orthodoxy because it meets their emotional needs. Similarly, some people may be drawn to a career in physics because it meets their emotional needs. Does that invalidate the entire field of physics?
In fact, I think judging, condemning, and belittling people are major signs of emotional neediness.
You know, both of you, that's a really good point that i never thought of. People go into all sorts of things for emotional reasons. Why is religion not a valid one?
I can see the argument against adopting a religion for emotional reasons. Either its teachings are true or they aren't; emotion doesn't enter into that. In fact, I would have a problem with any religion that was made up to conform to people's preferences.
I do, however, object to the disqualification of the entire religion simply BECAUSE it meets its adherents' needs. Even if someone comes to Judaism for emotional rather than logical, intellectual reasons, that says absolutely nothing about whether the Jewish teachings are true.
But I don't know if your friend was using this as a reason to reject Orthodoxy. (Was she?) Perhaps she was simply assuming either that Orthodox Judaism isn't true or that even if it is true, most people aren't motivated to change their lives for intellectual reasons.
No, I think what bothered her bothered me too: that an emotional reaction prompted a philosophical house of cards (of course, all this was assumption). If a person reacts emotionally, knows it's emotional, and acts accordingly, tra la la and live happily ever after. Often people don't even fully understand themselves why they go into decisions, and usually it's a combination of the two.
Wouldn't it be nice if Orthodox Jews could accept, and not "dis", secular society?
Hi tesyaa! Welcome to the blog.
I'll copy here something I posted on Facebook about this point:
Again, I don't have a problem with philosophically assessing another way of life, and coming to the rational conclusion, upon research/reflection, that it is or isn't a productive system (or even that individual adherents or components are mistaken). What I'm against is the knee-jerk rejection (on both sides, as you aptly observe) that arises from fear and ignorance and unwillingness to consider it an option.
I totally agree with this. If orthodoxy is working for someone/many people (and it clearly is!), that's awesome! I pretty much feel the same way about any religion that doesn't hurt people. I would also ask that more orthodox folks show us non-observant folks the same curteousy. 🙂 I think this is an area in which you excel, Ruchi.
Agreed and thanks, Becca.
I am all for civil discussion of differences and respectful tone.
But is there a difference between our more public ways of discussing things and our private, passionate views? In private I might truly think that someone else's parenting is kooky or, in contrast, coldhearted or too harsh. And I might discuss that with a spouse or close friend, because I really really care about how I raise my kids and I also even care about the kids in the family in question.
I also always figured that with your passion for Judaism that you really DO think–and not just philosophically–that "Jewish souls" should live Jewishly, according to (what you see as) the objective pattern for what that is. But, as discussed in the previous post about recycling/kosher, it's not kind nor effective to simply decree that to people and to criticize their non-Jewish habits. Privately I figure you are more vehement about that, but in conversation with others it is diplomatic and productive not to just blast your passion at people.
Strangely I feel like the current post speaks against the 'relativism' that you have criticized in the post on 'the right to be wrong' and elsewhere. If someone really really really believes that a certain way of living or raising kids is the healthiest, and others are truly unhealthy, that does imply a 'dissing' of other ways at least in one's private thoughts and possibly private sphere, although it is not diplomatic to do that aloud.
So does this speak against dissing other people's ways of doing things in our own heads?
As I reposted from Facebook above:
"Again, I don't have a problem with philosophically assessing another way of life, and coming to the rational conclusion, upon research/reflection, that it is or isn't a productive system (or even that individual adherents or components are mistaken). What I'm against is the knee-jerk rejection (on both sides, as you aptly observe) that arises from fear and ignorance and unwillingness to consider it an option."
Personally, I try to follow this approach both in public and in private – to keep things issue-oriented and not personal. That said, sure, I'm more passionate in my own space and tone it down in public – but again, even that passion would be directed toward an issue/idea – not against a person. Fear, ignorance, etc, are far more likely to produce hateful feelings directed toward people as opposed to being able to keep them about the issues. People in emotional turmoil have a hard time reining it in that way.
Certainly, what exists inside your own head is far less hurtful/damaging than what you say aloud – even in private – but know that your "private" attitudes will likely ooze out one day.
Can you clarify this:
"Strangely I feel like the current post speaks against the 'relativism' that you have criticized in the post on 'the right to be wrong' and elsewhere."
Rereading the post again now I think it's more just about civility and displayed respect. Probably on this blog people aren't going to comment in favor of incivility and disrespect, though. Or that gets moderated out.
Not really. It's about whether people criticize a system because they'd rather not research it or have the strength to do something that requires a lot of work.
Interestingly, I haven't had to moderate out a comment in months.
Now that last point is really interesting. I wonder why. Is it:
1. People who want to be uncivil don't find this blog appealing?
or
2. People who want to be uncivil don't bother because they know such comments won't be posted anyway?
or
3. People who would be uncivil in a context where that's acceptable will be civil here because that's the norm and the atmosphere?
1. Wouldn't anyone find this blog appealing? 😉
2. Yes
3. Yes
I think. Would love to hear more conjecture on this.
Patricia Nielsen Hayden is a professional forum moderator on Boing Boing and also is one of the moderators for the the blog Making Light. She thinks a community becomes more like itself as time goes on – if there is a tradition of civility it becomes more civil, but if nastiness is allowed to take root the environment becomes nastier. Here is one of her articles about approaches to blog moderation.
Argh! Teresa Nielsen-Hayden (Patrick is her husband). Please edit the original post if you can Ruchi. Thanks.
I couldn't, because then I'd lose the link.
That was an amazing article. Wow. I've never read such specific moderation advice. Very, very interesting. Thanks.
Hmm. I think it's clear from those remarks that the FB commenter went to coed Homecoming dances and therefore is likely a BT if observant now, and that he/she had a lousy time at those dances, based on the assertion that mayhem and damage ensue. So I think there's a good bit of evidence to support saying that that person is likely a BT who wasn't popular in high school. I don't see at all how you jump from that to interpreting that to mean "this person became Ortho due to emotional neediness." That seems like a huge and unjustified leap, unless there's more info that we don't have.
"How many people who feel it's "not for them" feel the need to dis the system? To prove that it's flawed? Its proponents backward? Its products worse off for the experience? How rarely have I heard someone admit: "It's not for me, but I admire it and admire those who are willing to put in the hard work because they consider it a worthwhile system for a better future"?"
I definitely understand what you're saying, when I first began learning Judaism from an Orthodox Perspective I "dissed" the system more often than I'd like to admit. However, as I grew, I still took issues with areas of it, but still began to see it as the correct way to practice Judaism. That being said, I often find myself at odds with various Rabbi's and some of my Orthodox friends who cannot fathom how someone could have learned as much as I have and still not be frum (or at least growing faster). It is frustrating to me that they refuse to consider that aspects of Torah can scientifically refuted. They refuse to accept that there are totally valid, reasonable and scientifically sound alternatives to believing that the Torah is the divine word of G-d. Just because I have researched and critically thought about multiple sides on this issue does not mean that since I came down on a different side than someone that I must be insane. I actually had an (Orthodox) friend who expressed concern that there must be something wrong with me since I wasn't observant, because it was so obviously the correct path! (side note: She's a close friend and I wasn't offended). Although, I'm going to seminary next month, so we will see where that path takes me.
OOTOB fan:
Many people (not just Jews or religious people) take a simplistic view of things and insist that there is no other way of looking at them. You clearly don't see things simplistically. Complexity makes life harder, but the world really is complex.
Many people (not just religious people) have a mental block when it comes to science. Others are simply not interested. So instead of looking into apparent conflicts between science and religion, they choose one side and deride the other. Nonreligious people will put down anyone who believes the world was created; religious people will put down anyone who believes it wasn't. In most cases, neither side has investigated the matter.
Bear in mind that the fields that tend to conflict with religion are the more speculative, historical ones: paleontology and cosmology. These are fields that try to figure out what happened in the past, whereas in fact they can only figure out what might have happened.
There are Orthodox Jewish scientists who have written about apparent conflicts between science and the Torah. I've read quite a few books on the subject, and some of them are definitely meatier than others. A key point is that they accept both as sources of truth.
Well put.
I'll add this, OOTOB fan: if people react emotionally, or form opinions emotionally, and they admit it and own it, I have absolutely no problem with that. The problem I have is when people form opinions instinctively and emotionally, and then blame (poorly researched) philosophy to justify their emotional response.
Ie, "attachment parenting couldn't possibly be healthy for the children." Well, maybe the real thing going on is that I just don't feel like sharing my bed with the kids.
DG: "Bear in mind that the fields that tend to conflict with religion are the more speculative, historical ones: paleontology and cosmology. These are fields that try to figure out what happened in the past, whereas in fact they can only figure out what might have happened."
Scientists use the scientific method and piece together what they know in order to form a more accurate picture of our past and where we came from. We should use reasoning, logic, observation, science and fact to help us build a picture of what the world may have looked like many years ago. As scientists learn more, they revise what they know to improve our understanding of the world. Science is our best bet to tell us the "how's" of the laws of nature, the way the world functions and where we come from.
Ruchi, I understand what you're saying about emotional pull, but even if the person admits that they arrive at a conclusion (that science contradicts) emotionally, that doesn't make it true and to me that is a huge problem. The fact that a person is emotionally pulled to Torah doesn't make the science that contradicts the historical accuracy/literal interpretation of it any less true. Just because a person may feel something strongly or want something to be true doesn't actually make it true.
There are those who think the question of truth is not relevant to the issue of whether they do Jewish practice or not. They ask instead 'do I want to live in a tightly knit yet geographically dispersed community? Do I want the discipline of an externally derived code of action and ethics that makes every mundane action into 1 of significance? Do I want to feel a part of a great chain that extends for thousands of years into the past, and will continue far beyond my lifetime? Do I think that the inherited survival wisdom of the Jewish people is more likely to have produced a good way to live than the recent radical changes of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on individualism?'
To these people, the questions such as 'did the flood (or even the revelation at Sinai) really happen might be interesting, but they are irrelevant to the question of whether this is the way they want to live and the community to which they belong.
A problem with trying to live this way is that the defense of "don't judge Judaism by how Jews act" is less useful. If you've joined a community because you think it is a good way to live, evidence that it actually is not a good way to live is a powerful disincentive.
1. "Scientists use the scientific method and piece together what they know in order to form a more accurate picture of our past and where we came from."
I agree.
2. "We should use reasoning, logic, observation, science and fact to help us build a picture of what the world may have looked like many years ago."
"May have" is a key phrase here. Exactly what I was saying when I wrote, "they can only figure out what might have happened." I'm not sure what you mean by "fact" in addition to observation and science.
3. "As scientists learn more, they revise what they know to improve our understanding of the world."
Ideally, although like other people, they may be so invested in their theories or their status that pride or fear of a loss of professional status may hold them back from making such revisions. People tend not to like to admit they were wrong. I'm not belittling scientists as a group; I'm merely saying they're human. And there have been plenty of cases of fraud, fudging, and other unpleasant things in science.
4. "Science is our best bet to tell us the 'how's' of the laws of nature, the way the world functions and where we come from."
The laws of nature and the way the world functions — absolutely. As for where we come from, that's where science may fall short. Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive. When we draw conclusions from it — i.e., saying something could have happened; therefore it did — we are risking being wrong.
Furthermore, scientists, quite rightly, leave God out of the equation because God is not subject to scientific study. But that doesn't mean He doesn't exist and hasn't intervened; it merely means that scientists can't take Him into account in their experiments. Miracles are, by definition, unscientific. That means that they not only can't be proven; they can't be disproven.
Paleontologists can examine fossils and try to figure out how one organism evolved into another, but they can't be certain that this really happened. They can only say that in their judgment, it is the most likely scenario. Certainly the randomness that is part and parcel of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is an unprovable assumption, based on the belief that God doesn't exist.
5. "The fact that a person is emotionally pulled to Torah doesn't make the science that contradicts the historical accuracy/literal interpretation of it any less true."
Absolutely. Nor does a person's emotional pull to secularism make incorrect scientific theories any less false. Our opinions and desires don't make things true or false. In any case, Judaism doesn't insist on literal interpretations. Some Jews do (which is part of what I was talking about when I mentioned simplistic views), but there are other opinions as well.
There's a classic book entitled "Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems," ed. Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb (Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists and Feldheim Publishers, 1976). It's a collection of articles, mostly by Orthodox Jewish Scientists, that present a range of opinions and perspectives on these issues. There's also a fascinating book called "Not by Chance" by Lee Spetner, who has published papers on evolution in academic journals, including Nature and the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Although he's an Orthodox Jew, the book is not about Judaism; it's about problems with the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
Since I've probably already set a record here for the longest comment ever on Ruchi's blog, I'll stop now.
OOTOB, I'd like to respond to this:
"Ruchi, I understand what you're saying about emotional pull, but even if the person admits that they arrive at a conclusion (that science contradicts) emotionally, that doesn't make it true and to me that is a huge problem. The fact that a person is emotionally pulled to Torah doesn't make the science that contradicts the historical accuracy/literal interpretation of it any less true. Just because a person may feel something strongly or want something to be true doesn't actually make it true."
Much of religion in general, as DG says, is beyond science. Personally, not that I'm a major scientist, I don't have a problem with Torah and science. There is so much gray where things can be understood in a variety of ways. What I mean is more along the lines of what Larry says – I want to belong to this because it feels good – it's so honest, I just respect that. I want to eat donuts because they taste good. I'm not going to pretend they aren't a really poor food choice.
Or vice versa: "I just don't feel like I can conform that much or be restricted that much" is so much more honest and real and ultimately a greater catalyst to arriving at wherever your "truth-seeking" brings you – as opposed to *feeling* that way emotionally and then insisting on explaining it all philosophically: "it's backward, it contradicts science" – which would require a lot more learning and research than most people invest.
Oh, and incidentally, DG: I'm sure you know by know that I just love long, well-thought out comments here. They make the conversation awesome! So keep 'em coming.
Larry: to your final point, I wonder… If you meet a select few incredible people – that are incredibly spiritually refined, kind, and good, and have gotten that way through adherence to Torah, would it negate the "bad apples" and societal problems that you'd encounter?
Incidentally, OOTOB Fan, I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying evolution didn't occur. Judaism isn't opposed to evolution either. The main theological problem with evolution is if you insist that it happened by chance. There are also various approaches within Judaism to the age of the universe. Sometimes these arguments get so politicized that people (on both sides) can't bring themselves to search for or be open to the truth.
I think it's comforting to know that there are brilliant scientists who, knowing a lot more science than I do (I only have a BA in it), believe that the Torah is true. They don't think the Torah is incompatible with science.
Larry, this is really interesting, "There are those who think the question of truth is not relevant to the issue of whether they do Jewish practice or not." I always thought there were some great aspects to an observant lifestyle, but didn't realize there were too many observant people who prioritized their love of the Torah community and it's structure/lifestyle over the question of if Torah is truth. To me they go hand in hand- I live this way, in this community because I feel it is the truth and G-d wants me to live this way. Another reason I assumed almost all Orthodox Jews believed in the historical accuracy of the Torah is because usually when I'm at a Shabbos table someone will say, "In this weeks Parsha, when Noah did X,Y,Z" or ,we can also learn from "Abraham when he did A,B and C" etc. as though the event happened. If you didn't truly believe it happened but were still observant, I'd imagine it would be difficult to surround yourself with people who thought it did happen.
DG: Can you suggest another method (aside from Science) that would tell us the "hows" of the history of the world. I assume (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth) that you would trust the Torah's version of history over sciences. Why do you think the Torah makes a stronger case? Can you point to evidence outside the Torah (secondary sources) to help support that the Torah has historical accuracy?
Ruchi, when you said this "I just don't feel like I can conform that much or be restricted that much" is so much more honest and real and ultimately a greater catalyst to arriving at wherever your "truth-seeking" brings you – as opposed to *feeling* that way emotionally and then insisting on explaining it all philosophically: "it's backward, it contradicts science" – which would require a lot more learning and research than most people invest." If I understand correctly, you're saying people would look at Orthodox Judaism and say "not for me, too many rules/restrictions" and then work backwards to try to undermine the legitimacy of Orthodox Judaism. But, couldn't you go about it in the opposite way? As in researching Torah's version of the history of the world and then researching science's version and then making a decision that Torah wasn't the truth/ you didn't want to be Observant from that decision. I don't think everyone turns away from Observant Judaism because it's "too hard, too many rules etc." but because some people reject the giving of the Torah from G-d and it's historical accuracy.
Thank you all for taking time to respond to my post(s)!
It is difficult (and becoming more so) to be 'out' as Orthopractic (one who follows Orthodox practice without necessarily sharing Orthodox belief). IME in real life the community doesn't spend much time at all on the questions like 'is the Torah literally true', 'did the revelation of Sinai actually happen'. We all talk as though it did and get on with our lives. The topic flourishes on blogs, in part because you can use pseudonyms to express your questions with limited fear of consequences. Because of this culture of silence, the percentage of Orthodox who are really Orthoprax is unknown – and that's probably for the best, as long as it doesn't inspire witch hunts.
Before I lived in an Orthodox community, when it was a 3 mile walk to Chabad on Shabbos morning, I used to stop at a Reform shul at the halfway point and stay for the Rabbi's pre-service bible study class, then walk the rest of the way to Chabad to daven. I took a houseguest along one week, and he was flabbergasted. 'They all talk about the Torah and bring in archeology and talk as though it was stories and you just sit there and don't argue with them!' My response was that if I argued with them I would have to do that every week, and we'd never have any other discussion, and if that happened they would rightfully expel me. I told him the story of Rebbe Meir and Acher the heretic, and how Rebbe Meir 'ate the pomegranate and threw away the seeds'. He came back repeatedly as a Shabbos guest, but he never returned to the Reform shul, which I think was a perfectly acceptable outcome.
OOTOB:
You ask: "But, couldn't you go about it in the opposite way? As in researching Torah's version of the history of the world and then researching science's version and then making a decision that Torah wasn't the truth/ you didn't want to be Observant from that decision. I don't think everyone turns away from Observant Judaism because it's "too hard, too many rules etc." "
My answer: YES. You could. My experience? Most don't. Specifically, "researching Torah's version of the history of the world," which would require serious and prolonged Torah study, which most skeptics never undertake in their quest for truth. BUT if someone DID, and arrived at the conclusion you suggest, I would be filled with respect for the journey and process, of course amid sadness that I believe their conclusion erroneous.
Larry, as an aside, I have been repeatedly confused by both Conservative and Reform clergy and members as to the perceived "factual veracity" of Torah stories. I do love your story. It brought tears to my eyes. I'm not quite sure why.
"Can you suggest another method (aside from Science) that would tell us the 'hows' of the history of the world. I assume (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth) that you would trust the Torah's version of history over sciences. Why do you think the Torah makes a stronger case? Can you point to evidence outside the Torah (secondary sources) to help support that the Torah has historical accuracy?"
The Torah is not primarily a history book, and it isn't a science book at all. It talks about the beginnings of the universe, but it does so in very little detail and certainly not in scientific terms. Some of the supposed contradictions between science and Torah are really just contradictions between science and the most popular (generally the literal) interpretation of a certain passage in the Torah. In such a case I would not believe the literal approach, and therefore it isn't a conflict between science and Torah.
In other cases, the problem with determining history through science and then deciding that the Torah is inaccurate is this: Scientists figure out, based on the laws of physics and biology, how something must have happened if there was no Divine intervention. But according to the Torah, there WAS Divine intervention! Lots of it! So in such a case there really is no conflict.
If you're talking about not just cosmology and paleontology but also archaeology, bear in mind that the "conflicts" tend to be based on lack of evidence. For instance, they used to say that the Biblical accounts involving camels at the time of the Patriarchs couldn't be true because camels hadn't been domesticated yet. Then they discovered proof that camels had indeed been domesticated. To a large extent, archaeology has actually corroborated accounts in the Torah. See http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf, chapter 5.
"Scientists figure out, based on the laws of physics and biology, how something must have happened if there was no Divine intervention. But according to the Torah, there WAS Divine intervention! Lots of it! So in such a case there really is no conflict."
Why DG. I think that is positively brilliant.
Wow . . . very interesting indeed!!!!!
Sometimes I have nothing new to add–just wanted to say it was a very thought provoking post. Love what Rebecca said up top.
Thanks, Nina. I think the criticism of the "emotionality" stemmed from the fact that she assumed that his *emotional* experience birthed a *philosophical* distaste for homecoming and the like. Which was my main point.
Such an interesting post. Loving your blog!
Thanks, Keshet! Welcome to the comment section 🙂
I'm separating this from the thread above because I don't want to muddy the nice line it has. And it's not really the topic of your post.
Ruchi: "[people] . . . that are incredibly spiritually refined, kind, and good, and have gotten that way through adherence to Torah"
I know you think they are kind and good *because of* their adherence to Torah. I feel like they are kind and good, and also they adhere to Torah. Maybe Torah adherence helped them developed the kindness and goodness but I am not at all sure that adherence can make people good in the first place.
Thanks for your organizational literariness 🙂
OK. Let's go on your terms, that Torah adherence helped them develop into such (although I could bring you examples to the latter). Then what? Then how would you answer the question?
I think the question you mean is the one to Larry, which you are allowing now to be modified in accordance with my suggestion, so it would then be something like "would [meeting people who had developed their own goodness and kindness from adhering to Torah] negate the "bad apples" and societal problems that you [have encountered among O Jews]?"
I hope I have reconstructed that properly. But the question as is doesn't really fit me, because I haven't ever encountered any O Jews in real life, or more than a very few in extremely superficial ways. So I'd probably have to have a lot more real-life encounters with O Jews to feel like there even are bad apples, much less a preponderance of them or even "relatively a lot" of them.
I have only news and internet portrayals to go on for the question of bad apples and such. I recognize that mainstream news coverage of ugly events or even just unflattering portrayals of O Jews in the news or on the internet can't be taken as the 'real' story about O Jews as a whole (which I learned here is less homogeneous than I ever understood before). Nonetheless your post expressing your utter rejection of the Beit Shemesh spitting was really important, because it was concrete evidence that even "ultra" (not the preferred term) or "very" O Jews would speak out to say what Torah is truly about and how those behaviors (by people with whom you might otherwise in many ways identify) misrepresent Torah values. So I guess that is an example to me of someone who develops her (in my view very own) goodness and kindness in adhering to Torah. I very much admired how you said that those Jews were going against Torah values in their behavior, although I gather it was an ambivalent issue or a sacrifice to speak negatively of other Jews.
Your other posts and the whole blog of course also demonstrate goodness and kindness, but maybe in that particular one the fact that it seemed like a harder thing for you personally to do made it, to me, all the more admirable and striking.
In real life, I guess if I got to know O Jews who seemed to have developed their own good qualities by adhering to Torah that could presumably inoculate me against other potential encounters with O Jews who don't seem to have those qualities.
I don't think the post will squeak in before Eastern Standard sunset. Shabbat shalom in case it does.
Yes for reconstructing the question properly.
Sidebar: it wasn't hard for me to write that post, about Beit Shemesh. It oozed out of every pore of my being, and every single Orthodox person I know agreed with me. (Hope that doesn't diminish your view of its significance 🙂
We all know bad news sells and good news is *yawn* boring. READ ABOUT THE NANNY WHO MURDERED THE KIDS. Don't bother writing about the millions of nannies who take good care of the kids. Right?
So it's a shame. I invite you to come spend a Shabbat in my community and meet the many, many incredible, spiritual, giving, talented, selfless, kind people that comprise this community – and that attribute all above qualities to the guidance and beauty inherent in Torah.
I'll give you a truly stupid but fresh example. Today I spent Shabbos with my in-laws. At some point over Shabbos the power went out. It was cold and rainy out; the food for the next meal was in a crock pot; there is a very expensive tank of fish that is dependent on power to survive. NO ONE in that home got angry, lost their cool, or had any kind of mood alteration whatsoever. Here were the comments I heard: "It's a blessing in disguise." "Everything is meant to be." "Thank God it wasn't anything worse." Many other quotes from Torah thoughts were tossed around to keep the moods good and spirit of Shabbat intact.
To answer my own question to Larry, it does. Negate the bad apples, that is. Because the good guys are such DUE to Torah, and the bad guys are such DESPITE it – because the ignore its directives.