A Chabad-Lubavitch Hanukkah

Pictures…

…from the main synagogue in Chabad world headquarters:

The empty chair sits unused, waiting for the late Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who passed away in 1994, to return.

The sign behind the menorah reads, "Yechi adonaynu moraynu v'rabbaynu melech hamoshiach l'olam vo'ed," "Long live our master, our teacher, our rabbi, king messiah forever and ever," and refers to the late Rebbe, who many Chabad followers believe is alive.

This is understood in different ways within Chabad.

The faction that controls this main synagogue believes the Rebbe is still alive and never died.

Others believe he went through what appeared to be death but really is not dead.

Still others believe he did die, but will be resurrected as the messiah.

At least one of these groups believes the Rebbe actually sits on that chair, makes blessings and prays. It acts as if the Rebbe is still physically present in every respect – even though he cannot be seen or heard.

All these factions regularly turn to the late Rebbe for guidance, reaching him in various ways depending on faction theology.

Some put letters of request randomly inside books of the collected letters of the late Rebbe, and then scan the two pages the request sits between for the Rebbe's answer to their question.

Others – those who acknowledge the late Rebbe's death or apparent death and burial – will go to his grave with the written request and will read it over the grave. The Rebbe's answer or his blessing then become apparent, either through a sudden burst of clarity or through unusual events following the supplicant's visit to the Rebbe's grave.

All these factions believe the Rebbe guides them individually and as a group.

All these factions believe the late Rebbe is or will be the messiah.

Comments

This is the funniest thing I have ever read. These people are crazy. I have spoken to some ChaBAD Rabbi's and aske about Rubashkin. They are accepting donations for his legal team. This is a violation of Federal Law. I am a former federal investigator and will be going to my former boss in NY to determine if an investigation is warranted. I believe the aleph people have violated the law and perhaps they can be shut down

[sage]

GO FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAKE OUR DAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[anonymous]

Could you please advise what Federal statute prohibits taking up a collection for someone's defense?

There seems to be a lot of talk on this website. I wonder how many people really believe that ChaBAD and the other ultra-orthodox groups in America actually are responsible for a large protion of anti-semitism. I am Jewish, but an American first. I am tired of people comparing normal secular american Jews to these cult people.
As for Israel. They should stand alone in the current situation they are in. They treat the arabs horribly. Just like jimmy Carter said, another south Africa. I have no problem with a Prredominantly Jewish country, but they need to remember. ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUALLY IN THIS WORLD. Peoples views are different. Actually, nobody knows what happens when a person dies. The buddhist's are probably right.

Now they're worshipping a fucking chair. What happened to the mystery meat menorah?
Aleph has needed close scrutiny for a while, a truly shady outfit.
Ditto sage, go for it and don't stop.

[yidandahalf]

that was me above.

[WoolSilkCotton]

There are several much larger Yechi banners hanging in that room, all year 'round.
And yes, they worship furniture.

[Hometown Postville]

I got my laugh for the day regarding "chair worship." To "...ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUALLY IN THIS WORLD...":isn't that what it's all about? Respecting and celebrating each other's individuality? Pay it forward!!!

[Yoni]

Sir - during your wasted 20 years in Chabad, did you personally believe the Lubavitcher Rebbe to be the messiah? I'm asking because back in the 1980s I had significantly more contact with Lubavitchers than I do now, and every Lubavitcher I knew back then claimed to be certain that the Rebbe at the very least "has the potential" to be Moshiach. You were supposedly a Lubavitcher back then, so I suppose you shared that belief. How do you justify that now? How did you allow yourself to be so brainwashed? How did you come to lose 20 years of your life on this BS?

Actually worshipping furniture is not so bad. After getting home from a 13 hour workday I worship my really nice chaise lounge chair.
how many little boys who sat on the Rebbe's lap were molested by him? Lots I assume. something needs to be done about Chabad. A good RICO case would really hurt

[WoolSilkCotton]

http://www.vosizneias.com/24946/2008/12/30/london-uk-drivers-to-take-10-year-health-checks-under-driver-licence-reforms/

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/medical/ataglance.
aspx

Maybe this could have prevented that accident the other day at the Chanukah party. However, the AARP and other senior citizen groups go nuts whenever any politician dares to raise the issue.

[Dr. Dave]

And these are the guys who made fun of the Breslovers for following a dead rebbe?

All together now!:

Na

Nach

Nachma

Nachman Me Uman!!!!

Hey! It's no sillier than "yecehi..."

[WoolSilkCotton]

You can't spell Chair without 'Chai'.
It must be a sign the rebbe is still alive.

[WoolSilkCotton]

++Yoni | December 30, 2008 at 08:53 AM++

Every devout chasid feels that his rebbe may very well be moshiach. (As did I, during my time in Lubavitch, while the Rebbe was alive and well). I assume this is also true of other chasidic groups.
It's a quaint notion stemming from the old country, and I was ok with it.

It's one thing for a group of chasidim, of any sect, to sit at a table, share a drink, talk about the rebbe and how great he is, whisper that maybe, just maybe, he could be the Moshiach, then everyone drinks a shot to toast the rebbe, I'm fine with that.

But once the Lubavitch lunatics let it become a media campaign, with huge Rebbe photos and portraits everywhere, rebbe key chains, clocks, pushkas, banners, etc. I realized it had gone too far. And when they kept it up, and then accelerated the nonsense after his death, I knew these folks had lost their minds.

[Lawrence M. Reisman]

"Every devout chasid feels that his rebbe may very well be moshiach. (As did I, during my time in Lubavitch, while the Rebbe was alive and well). I assume this is also true of other chasidic groups." I've spent a lot of time with other chasidic groups, and I never perceived that feeling anywhere! When Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum was alive and ailing, Satmarer used to proclaim "The Rebbe will live to greet moshiach." Note the operative word is "greet." Whatever might have been prevalent in Europe, it's not prevalent today. I afraid that WSC is projecting a modern Lubavitcher meshugas on the rest of chasidim.

All that having been said, I wouldn't make too much of the chair. Breslovers have been keeping the rebbe's chair for almost 200 years. In the Chaim Berlin Yeshiva, Rav Hutner's chair sits at the front of the bais medrash. I'm told the same holds true for Rav Aharon Kotler's chair in Lakewood. Of course, no one intimates that the former occupants of those chairs are still sitting there, literally or figuratively.

[Fleishike Kishke]

"Some put letters of request randomly inside books of the collected letters of the late Rebbe, and then scan the two pages the request sits between for the Rebbe's answer to their question."

The concise term is, "Igros Dip."

[steve]

how many little boys who sat on the Rebbe's lap were molested by him? Lots I assume.

You sick bastard! How many little boys and girls have you molested? Lots I assume. Go turn yourself in to the police now before you molest another. And make sure you delete all the kiddie porn on your computer before they confiscate it.

[yidandahalf]

Yes, there is even a Chabad website where one can do this online. The Lubavitcher Rebbe will tell your fortune. You don't have to do much but type in your question and press a button and voila! straight from the Rebbe's ghostly realm comes your answer. I cannot remember the site, too bad or I would post it.
WSC, surely the followers of Kotzk would not have entertained the notion the Kotzker was the moshiach, do you agree? Just my opinion.

[Yoni]

I agree completely with Lawrence. Through my mom I'm a descendant of the Ruzhiner chasidic dynasty, and on family occassions have the chance to shoot the breeze with a wide array of chasidim; I have never heard of any Boyaner, Sadigerer, Buhusher, etc. chasidim declaiming his respective rebbe to be the moshiach, or anything close. I sometimes frequent Belz and Gerrer shtiblach and have never heard anything which would lead me to think they believe their rebbes to be moshiach. This is not an innocuous and benign tenet of "all chasidim", and only a clueless Chabad ba'al teshuva could believe otherwise. I repeat my question to Shmarya - during your 20 wasted years in Chabad, did you believe your rebbe to be the moshiach, as all other Lubavitchers then did, and as you are imputing to all current-day Lubavitchers?

[Shmarya]

I repeat my question to Shmarya - during your 20 wasted years in Chabad, did you believe your rebbe to be the moshiach, as all other Lubavitchers then did, and as you are imputing to all current-day Lubavitchers?

I thought it possible, not absolute.

Dear Steve;
It happens to be a well documneted fact that there were severalboys who discribed inappropriate behavior while with the Rebbe. This information is nothing new. I happen to not like Chabad at all, they do more to promote anti-semitism than any other group. If you notice they do not do any military service anyplace. Sick boys. I give a good aqmount of money to groups that help runaway orthodox children. bigots they are all of them

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

One wonders where the rest of the Orthodox community left its intellectual integrity (i.e its beitzim). The meshichistim should have been soundly denounced as outside the Pale of Judaism. Yet because Chabad maintains shuls, schools, mikvas, and allegedly kosher food facilities through the world, hardly anyone seems to care what they believe. The fact is they are not orthodox, but orthoprax; only the deeds seem to count.

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

One wonders where the rest of the Orthodox community left its intellectual integrity (i.e its beitzim). The meshichistim should have been soundly denounced as outside the Pale of Judaism. Yet because Chabad maintains shuls, schools, mikvas, and allegedly kosher food facilities through the world, hardly anyone seems to care what they believe. The fact is they are not orthodox, but orthoprax; only the deeds seem to count.

[paul almond]

I'm a standard quasi religious mostly securlar jew. I'm appalled at the level of anti semitism displayed on this site. The Rebbee as a child abuser - where does that crap come from - antisemitism. Chabad worshiping a chair - antisemitism. Could the Rebbee have been the messiah? That was possible - it isn't now, and most Chabadnicks acknowedge that, and the rest will as time goes by. Chabad is the most valuable asset of the Jewish community, whenever the antisemitic posters here decide to do something comparable for the Jew, then they might have the credentials to critique.

[steve]

It happens to be a well documneted fact that there were severalboys who discribed inappropriate behavior while with the Rebbe

Documented where? If it were true, Shmarya would surely know about it, as he's probably one of the most knowledgeable historians when it comes to R' Schneerson. It's easy to make unfounded accusations and then say that they are "well documented" in order to make them sound legitimate. Posts like these from Mr. Blankety Blank hurt the credibility of real victims when they finally gain the courage to expose their molesters.

[ah-pee-chorus]

lets not jump the gun until all the facts are known. i heard 'the chair' gave a beautiful speech last week.

[ah-pee-chorus]

does the chair light the menorah?

[steve]

I should note that those that worship the rebbe as a deity or as the messiah do just much injustice to his legacy as Mr. Blankety Blank here with his wild, unfounded accusations. Rabbi Schneerson was a great rabbi who accomplished a lot in his lifetime. Let him rest in peace!

[ah-pee-chorus]

how do they know when the chair is hungry?
i had yechidus with the rebbe 3 times , and found him to be brilliant, charming , with a photographic memory. despite having met with thousands of people between my family's first two visits, which were almost 2 years apart, he remembered details from first meeting, without the benefit of written notes. i have no qualm with the rebbe ,other than his allowing the meshiach talk to gain strength without completely quashing it. but the current elohists and meshichists are quite worthy of derision.

[Yochanan Lavie]

No wonder the most important person in a corporation is called The Chairman of the Board. Maybe Frank Sinatra is moshiach (parody to come, when I'm not so busy).

I guess the lefties think Israel should just allow the Phallustinians to bombard them with rockets every day AFTER THEY"VE LEFT THE FUCKING GAZA STRIP. If Mexico rocketed Brownsville, TX, on a daily basis, in retaliation for Pancho Villa, would W. or Obama stand for it? No.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

++Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | December 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM++

You are a lucky man, APC, to have had yechidus THREE times!

++i have no qualm with the rebbe ,other than his allowing the meshiach talk to gain strength without completely quashing it. but the current elohists and meshichists are quite worthy of derision.++

Agreed!

[Nachum]

Considering that mashiach is supposed to be accepted by every Jew (every human being, in fact, but that's another story), it's kind of hard to say that he'll be a chassidish rebbe, because by definition, a chassidish rebbe is rebbe of only one group, not accepted by other groups, let alone non-Chassidim.

Of course, we can then wonder who *would* be acceptable to every Jew.

[ah-pee-chorus]

You are a lucky man, APC, to have had yechidus THREE times.
Posted by: WoolSIlkCotton | December 30, 2008 at 02:15 PM
i guess so, my father was mod. orth. and a dabbler in lubav. he was close with one of hecht bros. who got us in for bar-mitzvah meetings. i didnt realize the significance some placed on it till i would meet lubavs, who were practically in
awe when i told them. apparently even for lifelong followers this was rare. but i'm sure you would know better than i. their faces would usually drop when they saw my current (lack of )beliefs. but i do have very good memories of the meetings.

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

Dear Steve;
It happens to be a well documneted fact that there were severalboys who discribed inappropriate behavior while with the Rebbe. This information is nothing new.

It's new to me.

[Paul Freedman]

YL: finally a direct comment on the current war.

But what do you think are the odds that Olmert et al. have thought through to a ground campaign--OK you bomb your target list (seems they had about 400 targets) and you take out visible and known assets, but what if (as in Lebanon) those bombardments do not degrade the enemy to the point where you can dictate terms?

Do you turn to infrastructure? The usual option is to deploy your ground forces to create facts on the ground and control enemy movement but this doesn't seem to be on the actual agenda.

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

Could the Rebbee have been the messiah? That was possible - it isn't now, and most Chabadnicks acknowedge that,

False.

[ah-pee-chorus]

does anyone have any data, or an educated guess as to what percentage of current lubavs are elohists or meshichists?

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

finally a direct comment on the current war.

I've a got a short post on it ready to go for later tonight or tomorrow.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Of course, we can then wonder who *would* be acceptable to every Jew.

Posted by: Nachum | December 30, 2008 at 03:05 PM

NO ONE!!!!

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya, OK. Lebanon redeux or hammer of Maccabee?

The Chair keeps its counsel.

[ah-pee-chorus]

did barak and olmert really come to the beis hamikdash recently to consult with the chair? or was that unnecessary because the chair doesn't have a problem travelling to israel. that restriction only applies to humans in human form. we need to consult the chair for a ruling.
and can one purchase a seat on el-al for a chair? seems redundant.

[Paul Freedman]

APC:

so an old Jew is discovered by the Israeli navy on a desert island where robinson caruso-like he's fashioned a mikvah and even his own synagogue, phylacteries, and a torah scroll completed from memory. The sailors being Jewish understand all the pious zaken's accomplishments until rounding a corner they come across two empty throne-like chairs fashioned from bamboo and fronds.

What is that, they ask pointing to the chair on the right.

Oh, that's the throne for our Moshiach and master may be live forever.

And what's that one, they ask pointing to the chair on the left.

Oh, *him*--the putz.....

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul: lol, are you familiar with the cargo cults? my favorite is the john frum (how ironic) cult.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/john.html

[Paul Freedman]

APC:

OMG

in college anthro black and white films were screened showing hand-constructed "planes"--but wow, sweet jezus, this is on a whole other level, John Frum ..

...wa wa wee wa

[yidandahalf]

Very funny thread.
The individual who claimed MMS was a kiddy diddler - just my take but if he is not an anti-semite I think he is a very,very newbie who is just trying to fit in and doesn't understand much about what he posted about to begin with. As I said, just my opinion for what it is worth.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Paul: I am no military strategist. But no self-respecting country would put up with this shit. They wanted us out of Gaza- we left. Now they want us out of the Negev? Yes. They want us either up a chimney or swimming in the Mediterranean. One can argue about tactics, but that's the bottom line. When they accept our right to exist, we can finally have peace.

[Yochanan Lavie]

And a word from the original Chair Man: Francis Albert Sinatra!

Start telling the Jews, I'm leaving today
I want to be a part of it - Crown Heights, New York

These vagabond Shuls, are longing to pray
Right to the very heart of it - Crown Heights, New York

I wanna daven to a Rebbe, who doesn't sleep
And find he's king of the hill - it's our belief.

These Postville town blues, are melting away
I'll make a brand new start of it - in old Crown Heights
If I can fake it there, I'll fake it everywhere
It's up to you - Crown Heights, New York

Crown Heights, New York
I want to daven to a Rebbe, who never dies
And find he's a Shabtai Tzvi, top of Chabad , king of the Jews, A failed one

These little town Jews, are boring, oy vey!
I'm gonna make a brand new start of it - in old Crown Heights.
And if I can make it there, I'm gonna
see that chair:

It up to you - Crown Heights, New York

[WoolSIlkCotton]

YL, they should play THAT at the end of every Yankee game in the new stadium!

APC, I share in the feeling of awe of you, that you got yehidus with the Rebbe OBM.

Interestingly, the Rebbe had a nephew, his name was Barry Gurary, who lived in Montclair, NJ, and who was not religious. Imagine that, his uncle is the Chair himself, and Barry was an ah-pee-chorus!

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

(I don't know for sure just how religious or not Barry was, but he was definitely no friend of Lubavitch. Also, who knows how accurate the wiki article is.)

[ah-pee-chorus]

yidandahalf | December 30, 2008 at 06:37 PM
i think you're right. its easy to make hit and run accusations. and kol hakavod to shmarya for pointing out that he had never heard such a thing.

[ah-pee-chorus]

wa wa wee wa

Posted by: Paul Freedman | December 30, 2008 at 06:20 PM

whaddya say we start a cult of borat!!

[Paul Freedman]

YL: take no sh_t, fine, wage war, fine, but there has to be a plan to match your soldiers to some concrete goal you have in mind--some way to make the enemy do what you want without bluffs. if you want to just pound the bejazus out of them and say we will weaken you and hurt you and then we will stop and hope you learn your lesson that's one thing but these guys seem to make all kinds of declarations, we will fight forever, we will rumble into Gaza city, we will do all these things, we will transmogrify you and lately they pass on the ground ops and go back to an uneasy status quo ante.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I read that they had good intell and chose their targets carefully. But war always involves snafus and collateral damage.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yochanan Lavie : beautiful song. and regarding israel, i agree that israel must take whatever steps necessary to ensure a normal life for its citizens. the arabs want world to believe that if they decide to make life hell for israelis while killing 1 a week, lets say, then the proper response must be to kill one of them a week. its like saying if a man enters your home and begins raping your family, you cannot blast him with a shotgun to stop the assault, for that would be disproportionate. no, the most you can do is rape him back. well israel has the right to not be a rapee or a rapist(even a justified one) the threat must be eliminated as much as possible. this will require ground troops and, unfortunately many casualties.
where we disagree is that you say when they recognize our right to exist peace is possible. peace will always be an illusion.as i'm sure you know, islam does not permit any land ever under islamic rule to remain out of its control. add to that their claim of al-quds being their third holiest site, and you have a billion people who are quite certain that it is allahs will to do whatever it takes to reclaim it. to renounce rights to it is heresy. any treaties are by the definition of the koran only temporary, to be used to their advantage when they are not in position to win. add to that jews who are equally certain their book can beat up the koran, and they justify moving 400 settlers into 200,000 arabs of hevron, as their biblical right. neither side is permitted to compromise. god said so.
as long as religion exists and is taken seriously, the word peace should be replaced with ' a temporary break in the never ending islamic requirement and desire to kill all infidels,and institute sharia in all the world.' and when the whole world is under islamic rule, therer will be no one left to fight, and so peace will reign. thus islam really is the religion of peace.

[Paul Freedman]

APC: the cult of Borat--I want t-shirts, on the front, all yellow background, the Rebbe waves with the inscription: ikh hob dikh leeb, in the back, Borat with the motto: Throw the Jew down the well...

there's an episode where he's supposedly singing the Khazikhstan national anthem and he's singing the Hebrew song "T'koom atzlan" here he sings the virtues of potassium...

http://www.buzzhumor.com/videos/4384/Borat_Sings_at_Rodeo

[ah-pee-chorus]

WoolSIlkCotton | December 30, 2008 at 07:52 interesting. i wasn't aware of him.

[Paul Freedman]

APC/YL--my opinion is still that if your declared goals can't be met by your willingness to use military force you end up with the collateral damage, a loss of credibility, and the job still half done -- at this moment there isn't any indication that the cabinet, particularly Barak, are at all prepared to send in the army and are moving instead towards a cease-fire...They say the Army is urging such an operation but who knows if they are truly urging it or doing CYA. Olmert hasn't made up his mind what to do. My kibbitzing point is that now is late in the game to address this decision.




Last update - 03:16 31/12/2008


Cabinet debating 48-hour Gaza truce as international pressure grows

By Barak Ravid, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Hamas, Gaza, Israel

The cabinet will reconvene Wednesday to discuss a French proposal for a 48-hour "humanitarian" cease-fire, after failing late last night to reach a decision. Last night's meeting followed a day in which a Hamas rocket struck Be'er Sheva for the first time and the Israel Defense Forces completed preparations for a possible ground operation in the Gaza Strip. The Education Ministry announced that schools in Be'er Sheva would not open Wednesday.

In discussions with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni Tuesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak recommended seeking an exit from the fighting within the next few days, using one of the various international initiatives currently being worked on.

Barak also favors the French proposal for a 48-hour truce that would be used to examine Hamas' willingness to agree to a long-term cease-fire, in addition to its stated purpose of providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza's population.
Advertisement

But when Olmert visited IDF Southern Command headquarters in Be'er Sheva Tuesday, most of the senior officers with whom he met urged him to authorize a ground operation. People at the meeting said their impression was that Olmert agreed.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul Freedman : i don't even need to watch. seen it so much i practically have it memorized. do you want to see pictures of my sister? she number one prosti....
and in the movie he is constantly speaking hebrew.

[Paul Freedman]

WoolSilkCotton: Borat's a hoot! He's the creation of Sacha Cohen, a good Jewish boy who invented Borat, who supposedly hails from Khazikhstan ... well, if you can find the DVDs of his series or the movie you may enjoy it

[Paul Freedman]

lol!!!

Ali G is also very funny shtick

[ah-pee-chorus]

i hope the goal is :
1. to weaken hamas to point where they lose control to our good and dear friends fatah(who can be controlled and bought with gelt)
2. destroy most of underground city and its missile stores
3. retake philadelphi to stop their re-arming
4. change equation in hamasistan from : 3-4 rockets a day can make many israelis miserable and is worth losing a martyr or two for this purpose ... to... we cannot again risk hundreds or thousands of our fighters and our entire infrastructure for a few missile hits.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Olmert is arguably the worst PM Israel ever had, but like the proverbial broken clock, let's hope he gets this one right.

There are more peaceful forms of Islam, such as the Ahmadis, Alevis (not to be confused with Alawites), Sufis, and Ismaelis. They are a minority, but we can hope that Islamism will fail, as did pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, communism, and fascism, among the other "isms" they've tried. Then, the Arabs can either adopt one of these peaceful iterations, or they can go the Kemalist route and seperate mosque from state. Then, Islam will truly be the ROP, instead of the religion of war.

On a happier note: Thanks for liking my song.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Israel phones in warning to flee Gaza Strip strikes

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html

[ah-pee-chorus]

YL: do you really see any potential for a ratcheting down of islam? i don't, barring a nuclear attack. islam survived all the isms and has every demographic advantage. we are in big trouble.

[Fleishike Kishke]

I've heard that as a boy, Ari Halberstam, the young Bochur who got shot on the bridge, would go to the Rebbe's office and sit in his lap and get "farherd," (quizzed on what he learned in school) but that was in the context of a sad old man who never had his own children to play with, and certainly not grandchildren, but I never heard that there was anything inappropriate about the relationship, only ... drumroll ... that Melekh haMoshiach would occasionally kiss the young boy on his forehead ... the very spot the bullet would later enter ... but I believe that last part as much as I believe the other million legends.

[Aghast!!!]

I've been following what people write on this website and find most of it informative, if not entertaining.

However, I will not sit in silence when there are personal attacks on THE REBBE!!

Unfortunately for those who have never met him or have not had a chance or taken an interest to better understand his position and his teachings.

Please be warned! One is NOT TO START UP WITH TZADDIKIM; be he THE LUBAVITCHER REBBE, or any other Rebbe for that matter!

One who chooses to do so, should know that he is playing with FIRE!!

[ah-pee-chorus]

"One is NOT TO START UP WITH TZADDIKIM he is playing with FIRE"
Posted by: Aghast!!! | December 31, 2008 at 03:34 AM

i feel the same about hall-of-fame football players. careful what you say , especially about O.J.

[Paul Freedman]

APC: well, re: ". retake philadelphi to stop their re-arming"--they just seem very very very reluctant to take up a land position in Gaza -- a buffer on the Gaza/Israeli border, reestablishing a presence along the Gaza/Egyptian chokepoints, or chokepoints in the interior...

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul Freedman : yes.. they do seem quite reluctant and may not do it, but might feel compelled to as long as hamas retains control. were fatah to take control, might be different.

[Paul Freedman]

APC: well, we'll see. Folks keep raising the possibility of putting Fatah at crossing points or other arrangements but otherwise, moving the forward Israeli defense line westward doesn't seem such a crazy-nuts move...

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul : agreed.

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: You may be correct, but with 2 billion Muslims, one must be hopeful. Most Muslims are normal people going about their business, and many Muslim countries have no Jews, or no history of anti-Semitism. Thanks to the Iranians, Saudis, and the Palestinian issue, that's no longer the case. And even if 10% of Islam is crazy, that's a sh*tload of people.

Aghast: I never mean any disrespect to the actual Rebbe, o"h, just the Dagon they have created in his image. And even the actual Rebbe is not beyond reproach. He was a human being; not a Christ or even a Pope.

[Paul Freedman]

for those interested, here's Haaretz on latest back and forth:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051360.html

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yochanan Lavie : as you might have guessed about me, i don't have hope absent reason. using the last 60 years, post creation of israel, and the muslim reaction, i see no reason for hope. muslims around the world don't do too well with their neighbors. also. hope can lead to complacency, while fear is more likely to lead to action.

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: But isn't Islam the religion of peace (/sarcasm)?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yochanan Lavie : it absolutely is.. as per my 8:43pm post.
as long as religion exists and is taken seriously, the word peace should be replaced with ' a temporary break in the never ending islamic requirement and desire to kill all infidels,and institute sharia in all the world.' and when the whole world is under islamic rule, there will be no one left to fight, and so peace will reign. thus islam really is the religion of peace.

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: Blaming all religion for religion-justified violence is like blaming all of sexuality for sex crimes and perversion. Religion, like sexuality, is a deep-seated human need. Feminists say that rape is a crime of violence, and not of sex; which is true to an extent. But it is violence that uses a twisted form of sex. So too, Jihad, Crusades, etc., use a form of religiousity to justify inherently violent behavior.
I don't believe that Osama would have been a peaceful, tweedy, professor of evolution if religion did not exist. He probably would be into organized crime, or something.

That's not to minimize the impact religion has on people's lives; I am not a neo-Marxist who believes that the "root cause" of everything is economics. That is one reason Islamo-fascism is dangerous; you can't even appeal to their own sense of survival, unlike the Cold War. But I don't think it makes Gandhi (himself religious) into Hitler.

Arguably, it can make bad people worse, but it can also make good people better, and even non-evil run of the mill a-holes better than they might have been w/o it. Religion forces people to give to charity, and to grudingly act decently occasionally, when they'd rather not.

Religion can be a positive force, that inspires social activism (Wilberforce, MLK Jr., among many others), great works of art (too numerous to mention), ethics, and even a justification to get through life.

Scientists increasingly believe it's hardwired into the brain (although not a particular doctrine, of course). That does not prove or disprove God's existence, but does prove that He can't be gotten rid of. It was tried in the former USSR, and what took its place? Near deification of the Party and its heroes. Did it work? No. People just believed in nothing; alcoholism and abortion reached epic proportions. Some still believed anyway, despite great personal hardship.

Even today, in post Communist (or Putin's neo-Communist) Russia, where Christian Orthodoxy is back in style, the country has not recovered from its (literal) demoralization. The birth rate is so far below replacement levels, that many sober thinkers doubt that Russia can continue to exist in its current form, in the future. Ditto for secular Japan and post-Christian Europe. The future Eurabia, belongs to the fecund; the millions of Muslims imported to prop up the welfare state and keep society going. They have no interest in secular European culture. Even white Europeans, or in the UK, black West Indians, are converting to Islam. Nature abhors a vacuum. Like sex, religion fulfills an evolutionary purpose; atheists by and large don't reproduce (or at least in very great numbers; unlike believers).

Whether you love religion or hate it, believe in God or don't, the question isn't religion yes or no, but what kind of religion. Saying no religion is like saying no sexuality- "Due to mass rapes, sexual torture, slavery-prostution, pedophilia, bestiality, and STD's we hereby decree humans shall split apart asexually like amoebas." Just like we want to cultivate a benign, consensual sexuality (and punish those who transgress it), so too must we promote benign religions, such as Gandhi's hinduism, Wilberforce's Christianity, Heschel's Judaism, or Irshid Manji's Islam ("The Problem with Islam Today").

[Yochanan Lavie]

Getting back to the original thread, the empty chair reminds me of when Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost, and everyone else sees an empty chair:

LADY MACBETH
...Are you a man?

MACBETH
Ay, and a bold one, that dare look on that
Which might appal the devil.

LADY MACBETH
O proper stuff!
This is the very painting of your fear:
This is the air-drawn dagger which, you said,
Led you to Duncan. O, these flaws and starts,
Impostors to true fear, would well become
A woman's story at a winter's fire,
Authorized by her grandam. Shame itself!
Why do you make such faces? When all's done,
You look but on a stool.

MACBETH
Prithee, see there! behold! look! lo!
how say you?
Why, what care I? If thou canst nod, speak too.
If charnel-houses and our graves must send
Those that we bury back, our monuments
Shall be the maws of kites.

GHOST OF BANQUO vanishes

[Paul Freedman]

in defense of doubtful visions of seated royals:

"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream..."

[ah-pee-chorus]

YL: "Blaming all religion for religion-justified violence is like blaming all of sexuality for sex crimes and perversion. "

but we know that sexuality does in fact serve a real purpose, keeping our species going. on the other hand, can you tell me one moral act that can only be done by a follower of religion?

"Jihad, Crusades, etc., use a form of religiousity to justify inherently violent behavior. "

yes i am afraid they do, that form being the teachings of the bible. the bible is incredibly violent. is it any wonder that the heads of christian thought were fully behind the crusades? or that there is nary a muslim cleric of any repute who says suicide bombing is against the koran?

"That is one reason Islamo-fascism is dangerous; you can't even appeal to their own sense of survival, unlike the Cold War. But I don't think it makes Gandhi (himself religious) into Hitler. "

it is not just islam which is dangerous. religion is like a thought virus . it is passed on very effectively from one generation to the next and through sideways movements such as missionizing. once infected, the virus may have a relatively benign form in most hosts. however, the circular reasoning which is required for the host to continue belief,leaves the host open to every form of that virus, even the suicidal jihadist version. or the yigal amir or baruch goldstein version. does not the torah require homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath defilers to be killed? so it is not a stretch for a true believer to feel justified committing atrocious acts once the virus has taken hold. the virus is strong enough to convince some to violate the most basic survival instinct, inherent in all creatures. all for the betterment of the virus' continuity.

"Scientists increasingly believe it's hardwired into the brain "

there are definitely many characteristics of human thought and behavior which helped man survive, (or they wouldnt have been passed on ) religion makes (ab)use of many of these, including agency, fear, pattern searching, group cooperation etc.. we are indeed hard wired for these types of thought and action, religion is the misfiring of these concepts. each of these separately benefit man, while religion benefits only itself. if you are familiar with the concept of memes, religion is a memeplex. it too has evolved to ensure its survival.

"Arguably, it can make bad people worse, but it can also make good people better"

the data doesnt show this. studies of western democracies show that the higher the belief in evolution, the lower th rate of violent crime, teen pregnancy and sex,trans. diseases. you would never see 19 atheists flying a plane into a building. yet , there is nothing moral that an atheist cant do as well as a believer.

"Religion can be a positive force, that inspires social activism "

giving religion credit for a few religious people having defied their own religion's preachings relating to slavery for ex., is unfair. it actually serves to show that man's own morality far exceeds any dogma or bible, as good people had to drag their religion to a place of morality. believers in torah still maintain that human slavery is ok, under their rules. slavery in this country was abolished despite religion, not because of it.
as far as atheism having low birth rate, thats true. but what does that prove? just that atheism is non-dogmatic and its varied 'membership' have no specific requirements to populate the earth.
shouldn't the overwhelming quuestion be whether any of religions claims (eternal life, justice, etc..) are true? if it could be shown that belief in santa claus has some positives would you encourage adults to believe? isn't truth the most important characteristic for any belief system?

"the question isn't religion yes or no, but what kind of religion"

isnt that akin to . 'i dont care if the tooth fairy really exists, just what form of practice is followed by its believers.'

[Paul Freedman]

APC: I have to come back with YL's suggestion that there is always *some kind of religion* around even in secular garb--fascism, communism, any kind of "ism" can take hold, perfect Reason is an ideal betrayed by reality--Joe Stalin left the Orthodox fold and made the Inquisitions of their various examples look like pikers. I think Israel is a pretty neat accomplishment so far as Jewish state all in all for all the violence that goes with it

[Paul Freedman]

the Dali Lami seems like a pretty peaceful cat

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul Freedman : yes. it is and always will be here. but should it be respected? following a watered down version is admitting to the concept that a book was written by god, but with a more palatable interperetation. this supports the fundamentalists, as they are just better believers than you.

[Paul Freedman]

APC: well, yeah, there are contradictions, Terry Pritchard plays off the lack of ease faith in the divine brings in his Discworld series where gods need faith of men to survive and fundamentalist zeal real real fundamentalist zeal leads to all kinds of unintended hilarity -- but for me some kind of Belief is just part of the picture--personally I'm not convinced that the compilers of Tanach thought they were Vessels of Divine Inspiration although Believers they were

[ah-pee-chorus]

Paul Freedman : sounds like you are referring to a deistic approach. that is certainly less problematic for many reasons.

[Paul Freedman]

well, more like Reconstruction plus but with a nod to the Boss -- for me there is a God who is the God of Israel and also in some way syncs up with "rules of nature" and in some ways sits at the bar of nature like an outsize teamster who has been nursing a grudge since the day shift let out downing beer shots. Handle with care and make sure the plate glass is insured. Personally I'm just not cut out for observance but I don't myself think that the web and woof of Orthodox culture has to lead to close-minded chair worship.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Q:

YL: "Blaming all religion for religion-justified violence is like blaming all of sexuality for sex crimes and perversion. "

but we know that sexuality does in fact serve a real purpose, keeping our species going. on the other hand, can you tell me one moral act that can only be done by a follower of religion?

A:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30tier.html

Also, religion prevents despair. Secularism does not- period (or full stop, if you're not an American English speaker).
Religion fosters community and encourages procreation. Secularism does not.

Q:
"Jihad, Crusades, etc., use a form of religiousity to justify inherently violent behavior. "

yes i am afraid they do, that form being the teachings of the bible. the bible is incredibly violent. is it any wonder that the heads of christian thought were fully behind the crusades? or that there is nary a muslim cleric of any repute who says suicide bombing is against the koran?

A:
There are plenty of Muslim critics of suicide bombing, but they are shouted down. The Saudis and Iranians have the money. I will not defend the crusades, other than to point out that the violent spread of communism is also a crusade, quasi-religious in trapping but secular in ideology.

Opera, video games, TV, the movies, rock and roll, rap, and the blues are also incredibly violent, as is Shakespeare, Homer, and all great literature that isn't drawing room "chick lit" like Henry James, for example. And yes, numb nuts have been inspired by violent art, such as Charles Manson who was inspired by the wierd but wonderful "white album" to commit mayhem. People who are not mentally ill contextualize, analyze, and deliberate. They don't read about the Phillistines or the Amalekites and then shoot up a supermarket. Sick f*cks will always find inspiration somewhere. Maybe we should Disneyify the whole culture, making it banal but safe. Violent art speaks to the primitive side of our brains, but the overwhelming majority of people use it as catharsis, rather than an instruction manual. That holds true for the bible; we may experience Schadenfreude reading about Goliath getting beaned, but it doesn't mean we will take an AK47 to our noisy neighbor.

Q:
"That is one reason Islamo-fascism is dangerous; you can't even appeal to their own sense of survival, unlike the Cold War. But I don't think it makes Gandhi (himself religious) into Hitler. "

it is not just islam which is dangerous. religion is like a thought virus . it is passed on very effectively from one generation to the next and through sideways movements such as missionizing. once infected, the virus may have a relatively benign form in most hosts. however, the circular reasoning which is required for the host to continue belief,leaves the host open to every form of that virus, even the suicidal jihadist version.

A:
No, it does not. People question God, even in the bible. Martin Luther (the original)defied what was considered the universal church, at the risk of his soul, for what he felt was a better way. There is nothing about my belief in God, or that of my friends, that would tempt me in the slightest to commit murder or suicide/homocide. All ideas "infect" people through "missionizing." I could say the same about atheism.

Q:
or the yigal amir or baruch goldstein version. does not the torah require homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath defilers to be killed?

A:
Amir and Goldstein are reviled fanatics, except for a small segment of the population. Orthodox Jews are not the only Jewish theists, and even among the Orthodox they are considered to be nuts who misinterpreted the torah.

Again, not only biblical literalists are believers. Reform, Recon, and some "Conservative" Jews believe that the bible is totally a human invention, yet believe in God. Same is true in the Christian faiths. Some more traditional Jews, believe the torah is divinely inspired and carries the word of God (my camp) but is open to interpretation. Even the most Ortho-fundies admit that not all precepts are relevant to all times. We don't stone sabbath violators; even right-wing rabbis say we should have compassion on them and bring them closer to observance (as long as they are not violating out of knowledge AND defiance). Homosexual orientation is not itself a sin; up the keester for Easter is. Why that is so, and what exactly does that mean, is up for debate (despite what Ortho-fundies say). But nobody believes the religious death penalty is in force, disturbing as it is. Adulters have to be caught by valid witnesses in flagrante delicto. That has probably never happened. Most rabbis would urge marriage counseling or divorce instead.

Q:
so it is not a stretch for a true believer to feel justified committing atrocious acts once the virus has taken hold. the virus is strong enough to convince some to violate the most basic survival instinct, inherent in all creatures. all for the betterment of the virus' continuity.

A;
Same can be said of extreme nationalism, even of the secular variety. But a world government whose national anthem is "Kumbaya" will not work.

Most believers are not violent, even in Islam. So if this meme was so deadly, why hasn't the 90%+ of the population who believes in a diety manning the barracades as we speak. This meme also instills the idea that all men are created equal, that charity is a good thing, and that compassion comes before self interest. Scientists can, and have, discuss how such ideas could take hold. Secularism, or science itself, cannot successfully instill these ideas.

Social Darwinists (admittedly, a perversion of the great man's ideas) have justified slavery, genocide, eugenics, war, colonialism, Jim Crow, and other evils. Religious visionaries such as William Blake, John Brown, Wilberforce, MLK Jr., Heschel, to name but a few, have been a bulwark against racism- despite the (admittedly mistaken) scientific and secular notions of the day.

See:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/12/31/samuel_huntingtons_true_vision

excerpt:
...Huntington argued that American culture needed to be nurtured, not rejected in the name of a "multiculturalism" that too often serves as a stalking horse for anti-Americanism. He recognized that tolerance and pluralism are not modern inventions intended to replace America's traditional culture, but that evolving notions of tolerance and pluralism are a central part of the American tradition (a point Obama echoed somewhat in his famous "A More Perfect Union" speech on race last March). For example, every civilization has known slavery, but only Anglo-American civilization, fueled by religious and philosophical conviction, set out to destroy it, at enormous costs. Huntington offered "an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people."

Q:
"Scientists increasingly believe it's hardwired into the brain "

there are definitely many characteristics of human thought and behavior which helped man survive, (or they wouldnt have been passed on ) religion makes (ab)use of many of these, including agency, fear, pattern searching, group cooperation etc.. we are indeed hard wired for these types of thought and action, religion is the misfiring of these concepts. each of these separately benefit man, while religion benefits only itself. if you are familiar with the concept of memes, religion is a memeplex. it too has evolved to ensure its survival.

A:
Read the book by Loyal Rue, who I believe is not a believer "Religion is not About God." The short answer: religion is about people, and community, and fulfilling human needs. I'm not going to regurgitate my personal ancedotes about how misfits and outcasts like me find comfort and community only in a religious setting.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Not-About-God-Traditions/dp/0813539552/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230832628&sr=8-1

Universities and hospitals are also created with religious affiliation, as part of the faith mission. The catholics in particular are good at this; undisputably they created the modern idea of the university back in the supposedly benighted (and beknighted) Middle Ages. Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, etc.= all the ancient universities started as church schools, as did Harvard and Yale. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, now secularized, was originally a religious quest. I believe the Catholic church, for all its flaws, invented the modern hospital, but I could be wrong. Catholic hospitals and universities still serve people of all faiths, with no ulterior motive, as part of their religious mission. These institutions simply would not exist without it.

Also, one can argue that sex is only about perpetuating the species. Rather than endure the psychological hardships of a sexual relationship, why not artificially inseminate? (see: Brave New World). Of course, the counter argument would be that sex can build intimacy, trust, and yes, even pleasure. And I would agree. So one can say sex is a self-perpetuating meme that exists so that more people can be born to fuck, OR that it builds something greater.

Q:
"Arguably, it can make bad people worse, but it can also make good people better"

the data doesnt show this. studies of western democracies show that the higher the belief in evolution, the lower th rate of violent crime, teen pregnancy and sex,trans. diseases. you would never see 19 atheists flying a plane into a building. yet , there is nothing moral that an atheist cant do as well as a believer.

A:
The data also show that conservative Christians give more to charity than secular humanists do. And that the birthrate is plummeting below replacement levels in Western democracies. It is true that knowledge about birth control and biology are useful. Not all religious people object to that, BTW. Better safe than sorry. And there is no real contradiction between believing in evolution and in God, I do, unless you are an ultraliteralist.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect high rates of abortion and suicide are more common in secular countries, too. I could be wrong on that.

What about the Marxist guerillas who terrorize Colombia, and other countries? Indeed, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao, with their atheist quasi-religions, have killed more human beings than theist believers. The Arab Ba'athist form of National Socialism is also avowedly secular and predates Al-Qaeda. It too is responsible for over a million deaths, in Kurdistan, Israel, and Iran. (It was founded by a Christian, Michel Aflaq; Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's notorious henchmen, was also a Christian).

What about the Tamil Tigers, whose primary motivation is nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_tigers
Al Qaeda has copied the Tamil Tigers in using suicide tactics, not vice-versa.

Also from Wikipedia:
Tamil people (also called Tamils, Tamilans or Tamilians) (Tamil: தமிழர், tamiḻar [?]), are an ethnic group native to Tamil Nadu, a state in India, and the north-eastern region of Sri Lanka. They predominantly speak Tamil, with a recorded history going back two millennia.[9] Emigrant communities are found across the world. The Tamils are mostly Hindus with sizable Christian and Muslim populations. Tamil Jains form a small minority.

So, your elusive secular suicide bombers have been found.

Q:
"Religion can be a positive force, that inspires social activism "

giving religion credit for a few religious people having defied their own religion's preachings relating to slavery for ex., is unfair. it actually serves to show that man's own morality far exceeds any dogma or bible, as good people had to drag their religion to a place of morality. believers in torah still maintain that human slavery is ok, under their rules. slavery in this country was abolished despite religion, not because of it.

A:
It was more than a few religious people. Wilberforce and King changed the tone of their entire cultures, using religious arguments. These would not have resonated in a tone-deaf secular culture. The British Empire got rid of slavery, due to Wilberforce's religious arguments, even at the cost of a huge blow to its colonial economy (the main reason for keeping slavery- Jamaican plantation owners feared ruin). The British navy even intercepted slavers on the high seas, and repatriated slaves to Sierra Leone, at high economic cost. There is no rational econmic reason why they did that.

Slavery in the torah is not chattel slavery like the antebellum South, or Rome. It is indentured servitude; bad yes, but an improvement in the context of the times. Read "The Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs. No one follows everything in scripture, not even Samaritans or Karaites. Jews always wrestled with, and argued about, problematic verses. Even within the torah itself, Moses and Abraham argue with God. Only today's brain dead k'tanim say you must bleatingly obey passively, w/o question. It's a straw man.

Q:
as far as atheism having low birth rate, thats true. but what does that prove? just that atheism is non-dogmatic and its varied 'membership' have no specific requirements to populate the earth.
shouldn't the overwhelming quuestion be whether any of religions claims (eternal life, justice, etc..) are true? if it could be shown that belief in santa claus has some positives would you encourage adults to believe? isn't truth the most important characteristic for any belief system?

A:
As for Santa Claus, read the New York Sun's famous "Yes Virginia" editorial. The myth has no use for adult non-Christians, but one could argue that it encourages a sense of wonder for young Christian children. Children have a childish belief in things, including Santa and their idea of God (which is somewhat identical). Most adults grow out of it, and form more sophisticated beliefs, whether theistic or not. Disabusing children of developmentally appropriate belief does what, exactly?

People need to believe in something greater than themselves, or else they succumb to solipsism and/or despair. Since we cannot know ultimate truths, I believe, along with Gandhi (who I disagree with politically, but not philosophically) that whatever gets you through the night is alright (to quote Lennon). As an ethnic Jew, I chose Yahweh, my ancestoral God. (One can argue that secular Judaism doens't last more than 3 generations, but that's another topic). I reimagine him based on the notion of transcendence and incorporeality as refined by Plato and Aristotle and the sages who were influenced (sometimes knowingly, sometimes not) by them. Others can find transcendence in science, art, nationalism, nature, etc. Or any combination of the above, with or w/o God in the mix. It's all good, for me, as long as you don't kill except in self-defense. Most people, including me, need transcendence to make life bearable and coherent. If you take that away from us, you achieve exactly what?

The low birth rate proves what you achieve: s/he who dies with the most toys, wins. Why be cursed with a family- it'll just drag you down in your quest for temporal pleasure. And, altruistically, who wants to be born into this meaningless existence- where all we are doing is stimulating nerve endings and marking off time?

Q:
"the question isn't religion yes or no, but what kind of religion"

isnt that akin to . 'i dont care if the tooth fairy really exists, just what form of practice is followed by its believers.'

A:
This is argument from ridicule. I respect atheists intellectually, except when they do this. It's like saying: "In shul you look like a douchebag anyway, because you wear a towel and a funny hat." The idea of a governing intelligence, whether real or not, is at least plasible. Aristotle, Plato, Newton and Einstein all believed in some form of it; they may have been wrong but no serious person believes in the tooth fairy, invisible pink unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster. You can aruge that belief in a god is pernicious and factually untrue, but ridiculing the notion by comparing a sophisticated belief system to something like a tooth fairy is a combination of a red herring and a straw man. Who knows- maybe on some Polynesian island they worship a red herring and a straw man? I don't. The god atheists disbelieve in, I don't believe in either.

Why am I not a fundamentalist? Fundies are not better believers. Thoughtful atheists are better than thoughtless atheists. Thoughtful believers are better than mindless practitioners. Why? Because the god I believe in didn't evolve us a brain just be used as a yarmulke holder. Because the god I believe in needs to be held to high standards, just like s/he insists upon. Because the god I believe in tells us stories, but doesn't always tell us what they mean. Because worshipping rabbis and gurus, is idolotry. Because religion is supposed to make people better; if it doesn't it's time to reinterpret it (but not jettison the baby with the bathwater). Because "fundament" in Chaucer's Middle English, means "anus" (The Miller's Tale).

[ah-pee-chorus]

yl: when i have some time i will endeavor to respond point by point, but in the meantime, what is the evidentiary basis for any belief in an intercessory ,omnipotent,omnibenevolent etc.. supernatural being? and why the belief that unlike all of the billions of things ever written , the torah was either written, inspired or approved on any level by this (one?) supernatural being?

[ah-pee-chorus]

yl: i think you set some length record here. of course i spend a lot of time convincing women that width is more important. but lets get down to business.

yl: "religion prevents despair". Religion fosters community and encourages procreation. Secularism does not.

response: both the article and these points i don't dispute, but is there any reason to believe that any of its claims are true? i know of cancer patients who were so hopeful due to claims made by various practicioners of their ability to provide a cure. however, the happiness turned out to be illusory, as the claims were false. if religions claims are also false, does it still remain a net positive?
i think not but i can understand the other side. i want the truth, not false claims which might for a time raise my spirits.

yl: "There are plenty of Muslim critics of suicide bombing, but they are shouted down. The Saudis and Iranians have the money. I will not defend the crusades, other than to point out that the violent spread of communism is also a crusade, quasi-religious in trapping but secular in ideology.:

r: communism is more dogma, plain and simple. i am against all dogma. you are quite accurate in the quasi-religious aspect. it simply substitutes blind belief in an unproven system for god. i would also call "straw-man" on imposing any secular dogma on me. i am for rationalism and free, critical thinking.

yl: "There is nothing about my belief in God, or that of my friends, that would tempt me in the slightest to commit murder or suicide/homocide. All ideas "infect" people through "missionizing." I could say the same about atheism.

r: i'm not worried about your beliefs. you are not a literalist. my point is that when one assigns any level of divinity to a book, it lends credibility to other interperetations of that book.
regarding the atheism comparison, i , for one have never and would never ask or desire for anybody to accept any idea on "faith". the virus analogy was referring to getting others to share acceptance of a set of ideas for which the evidence is based on circular reasoning . the torah is true because god wrote it, how do i know god wrote it? the torah says so. non-acceptance of this not dogmatic.

yl: " Homosexual orientation is not itself a sin; up the keester for Easter is. Why that is so, and what exactly does that mean, is up for debate (despite what Ortho-fundies say). But nobody believes the religious death penalty is in force, disturbing as it is."

r: there are plenty who are ready for third temple when they are sure it will be. i know you are not among them. but all bible divinists lend them credibility.

yl: "This meme also instills the idea that all men are created equal"

r: it does? women are ones property in literal bible. non-jewish slaves are in no way your equal. so the lesson of bible is not this.

yl: "religion is about people, and community, and fulfilling human needs. "

r: so lets strip away the unsupported and potentially dangerous "i know what god wants" and we agree. we might call it secular jewish humanism.

yl: "Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao, with their atheist quasi-religions, have killed more human beings than theist believers. "

r: firstly, hitler spoke of divine providence many times. the s.s. had "gott mit uns" "god with us" onm their uniform belt buckles. http://www.pzg.biz/regalia_belt_buckle.htm

but there is another far more important point. it was not their atheism which demanded their actions. there is no atheist rulebook which calls for murder, or anything else. pol pot and mao were evil people who happenned to be atheists. if they both liked hot tea, would we blame that for their actions? that is far different than the crusades, or jihad, which are a direct result of belief in what god wants.

yl: "What about the Tamil Tigers"

r: a fair question. sri-lanka comes from a combination of the original lanka, with the buddhist word for holy, 'sri'
the tamils, as you point out were mainly hindus, having been religiously persecuted they responded with barbarism. but to imply that their religio-national response to buddhist oppression is not tied to religion is strained, at best.

yl: "who wants to be born into this meaningless existence- where all we are doing is stimulating nerve endings and marking off time?

r: who ever said that? i have much meaning in my life. i look at the beauty around me, marvel at the evolutionary process, enjoy my family and friends, and take much pride in being moral. i try to help those in need and attempt to leave the world slightly better (or at least no worse) than when i got here. the earth belongs to noone. and recognizing how temporary my existence is , enhances my desire to appreciate every minute i breathe. in the big picture of infinite time, i guess it is meaningless, but on a micro level i have much to live for, hope for, and enjoy, as i raise my family. and it works just fine without any self deception, or placebo effect.

yl:"This is argument from ridicule. I respect atheists intellectually, except when they do this. It's like saying: "In shul you look like a douchebag anyway, because you wear a towel and a funny hat." The idea of a governing intelligence, whether real or not, is at least plasible. Aristotle, Plato, Newton and Einstein all believed in some form of it;

r: i wasnt trying to ridicule, just to ask why the same criteria used to evaluate santa, the tooth fairy, etc.. despite that they may benefit children, is not applied to the god of the bible? and einstein, for one was certainly an atheist. his recently sold letter clearly shows that. he might have been a pantheistic atheist, but re. the bible, a definite atheist.

i have tremendous respect for all of your beliefs regarding your personal interperetation of the torah. you have allowed much thought and reason to enter the equation. but both orthodox jews, as well as other religions literalists are certain you are wrong and that you dont have that right. my only question to you, and all theists, remains on what evidence is any of it based? even if religion was a net positive, isnt the question of whether its source is god rather than a compilation of ancient myths and fears a valid one? if it doesnt matter to someone, thats an answer. but i dont think the question per se is disrespectful or out of bounds. (i'm not implying that is your answer) but please understand that my questions to those with religious belief of your kind,(non-literal) would be non-existent if that were the only belief espoused by religion. but literalists need to be feared and questioned.

If you want to know for yourself, go to the Ohel,ask sincerely things to the Rebbe and ,let a liitle time to pass,you are going to have a different perspective.
it is free o charge, you get free coffe and cookies
Just do it

[ah-pee-chorus]

Posted by: | January 01, 2009 at 10:29 PM

not sure if you're talking to me, but i met with rebbe more than once while he was alive, a lot of time has passed, and you're right, my perspective has changed quite a bit since then..

[Paul Freedman]

imo without direct religious experience, reported and unreported, religious faith would not survive, if people did not feel it and get it throughout the communities of believers the spiritual energy would not be there for better or worse to reengage with the entire textual superstructure of blah-blah-read-read-think-think-think evidenced and bureaucraticized institution-wize.

keep in mind that scientists, especially doctrinaire idiots, have come up with the most sincerely intended rubbish when trying to come up with first causes while avoiding that hideous g-word; selfish Dawkins genes grinding away in mechanistic perpetuity and multiple universes of infinite extent infinitely perpetuating (needed to "explain" the improbable constants sustaining life in the only universe we actually have evidence of) are evidence themselves of the i-will-believe-i-will-believe faith doctrines of a-theism.

literalists can believe whatever they want to, so what?

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Ironically, we are actually not so far apart as might appear on the surface. You are a secular humanist, and I am a religious humanist. Religious humanism has an illustrious tradition, stretching from late antiquity into the late 19th century. It became discredited as an incoherent compromise after that, particularly from the "Decadence" of the late 1890's to the aftermath of WWI. Religious humanism combines believe in a benevolent personal god with a celebration of the best mankind, his/her creation, has to offer. It elevates reason and compassion over dogma, but one cannot have a Weltangshaaung w/o some dogma or theorhetical basis, IMO. For some of us in this world, belief in a personal god is an essential. I am well aware of the excesses of religion, and I deplore them as much as you do. But balanced by reason and compassion, religious rituals and dogma offer comforting rhythms to my life and a plausible, if unprovable, explantion for why things are. If you can find meaning w/o it, gei gezunte heit. I am not fit to judge whose life is subjectively meaningful; I can only speak of myself and those like me.

Why religion and not "Spirituality?" Again, I do not speak for those who find a free-floating spirituality meaningful. I can only address why it doesn't help me. I need a tradition I can sink my teeth into, with rituals, books, art, etc., that I can both embrace and argue with.

Furthermore, spirituality can lead to navel gazing, which is a form of narcissism. Not all spiritualists are, but it can lead to it. Religion builds community; sometimes pernicious communities like Hamas, but oftentimes positive ones like the Franciscans.

Why traditional Judaism and not "progressive" Judaism? For me, liberal Judaism is just the democratic party with holidays. (I am an independent). An anthropologist acquaintance I knew explained that rituals need a "bite" in order to stick. The bite can be that they're expensive, unpleasant, etc. I think that's true. Something with a low bar of entry is not valued. Look at the lines in the 1970's in front of Studio 54, to use a banal example. If anyone could get in, no one would want to.

Anthropologists, psychologists, and literary critics, among others, point to the appeal of ancient myths. My seniors liked Beowulf better than the Canterbury Tales, even though the C-Tales are more "contemporary" in their concerns, and Beowulf is a more difficult text. Students viscerally liked the myth, as my freshmen like the Greek myths. So why not Hebrew myths (by myth, I mean legend, not necessarily something factually untrue. Myths contain legendized history as well as fabrication).

In Deep Space 9, my favorite Trek spinoff, Odo is a shapeshifter. The Vorlons worship shapeshifters as gods, but Odo is a rationalist dissenter and dislikes the fact that his people manipulated the Vorlons. He replies to one: "We have guided your evolution to believe in us as gods, so how can we be gods?" The Vorlon replies increduolously: "But that's precisely what gods do!" I agree. We have evolved as storytellers, so it is plausible (if unprovable) that a god would tell us stories; stories that could be understood on many levels- from the simple faith of a child, to an overeducated PhD. But as Rambam, Philo, and many others have pointed out, the goal is gain a deeper understanding. Childish faith is appropriate for children.

(A good book to read, for both believers and non-believers, is God, a biography, by Jack Miles.)

But I don't want an insipid religion that just feeds into one's narcisism or pre-existing agenda. I want one that challenges me. That's why the fundies are growing and the progressives are shrinking. The fundies offer clarity and the progressives offer pablum. The challenge for people like me is to maintain a basis or anchor of belief, ritual, etc., w/o becoming simplistic or even cruel. It can be done, even among the Modern Orthodox (I have seen this in my MO friends). (I am traditional, leaning towards MO, but somewhat heterodox).

Nationalism mixed with religion is a potent brew that often becomes toxic. Even atheists such as Hitler and Stalin can invoke religious language, even God, to stir up the masses. (Both did, even Stalin, during WWII). But without a liberal nationalism that respects the sovereignty and contribution of other nations, a country cannot survive. My grandparents did not emigrate to the USA to become "citizens of the world;" as Jews they were already considered "rootless cosmopolitans." And look at the UN; Israel and Zionism are condemned by such paragons of virtue as Zimbabwe and Libya. I don't want an unelected world gov't overriding the Constitution. Even Canada, a wonderful country, is becoming more draconian in restricting speech. As they say in Yiddish: "Die oylam iz ah Golem."

Atheism has no holy rule book, true. But because it has no rules it has no breaks on human behavior. If all atheists were like you, there would be no problem. But I don't think a moral code is sustainable w/o reference to a higher power. Neither did a deist like Thomas Jefferson, or an agnostic like Confucious. But I could be wrong.

The problem we all face is fanaticism. Relgiion does promote that, but unlike you I think it does more good than harm overall, and cannot be gotten rid of anyway. So I advocate thoughtful belief. Thoughtful non-belief is a good alternative, but it is not for me or most people. And as Paul said, who cares what other people think? Fanatics can be dealth with by a combination of military and law enforcement. And Paul rightly says that not all fanatics are religious in nature, unless one wants to broaden religion to include religion-like dogmas. But that can be an issue of semantics, and I don't want to be anti-Semantic.

If I were made into the universal Pope, as you proposed earlier, I would demand a few things. First, my title should be Head Honcho. Second: I am not infallible. Third: Faith and Doubt are partners, not enemies. Fourth: Religion is a cause too good to fight for. Fifth: Freedom of conscience is sacred. All people, male and female, are made in the diety's image.

Finally: All athiests shall not be harmed, and shall be fully enfranchised. To make sure no one harms you, APC, you shall have a mark upon you for identification. From now on, you shall be known as Citizen Cain (LOL).

[Paul Freedman]

YL: us spiritualists have our uses--but I am completely baffled:

"In Deep Space 9, my favorite Trek spinoff, Odo is a shapeshifter. The Vorlons worship shapeshifters as gods, but Odo is a rationalist dissenter and dislikes the fact that his people manipulated the Vorlons. He replies to one: "We have guided your evolution to believe in us as gods, so how can we be gods?" The Vorlon replies increduolously: "But that's precisely what gods do!"

WTF!!!!!?????????

I am watching my Babylon 5 DVDs now and the Vorlons are there too! The introductory movie features a despicable plot to kill the Vorlon ambassador and pin it on the commander of Babylon 5 (this commander is some kind of walking Dudley Do-right cartoon but I guess it would have been a bad thing to frame the wrong man)

Are these the same Vorlons? They are spiritual guides to the Nimbari and are preparing the alliance between the Nimbari and the Earthlings against the Shadows.

[Paul Freedman]

well, if by spiritualism you intend any belief or faith or attestation that doesn't have a ritual component within a halachically based faith community--so Gershom Scholem is a spiritualist, Kafka, ditto, W. Benjamin, also etc. etc. Not talking about Wica, New-Agism, whatever. Kabbalah is regularly misrepresented by the diluted dumbed down popularization--it's intellectual base really isn't touchy feely.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

Many thanks to all for your thoughtful efforts. I enjoyed and appreciated reading them.

[Paul Freedman]

WoolSilkCotton: you are a very gracious commentator--my impression as a secularist had been that in part the concept *was* to sit at the table or with the chevrei, the "just maybe" or maybe just a bit more than just maybe in that tone of voice and that setting was basic, esoteric but also a recognition of modesty and through the modesty of limitation, of garbing oneself properly--so too with the Rebbe too--not just to stamp out signs and tokens of the redemptions like vanity license plates....

[Paul Freedman]

YL: please don't misunderstand my little comment--once the chevrei get together to form an association/club, well, sure, i'd have to confess halacha rules

[ah-pee-chorus]

YL : you are a typical ivy-tower godless self hating liberal.. sorry i was channelling archie.
but really, we are not that far apart. we share the same goal.it sounds to me that for you, religion is a wonderful vehicle towards the goal of humanism (the non-capitalized concept of morality, as opposed to the definition of a given group)
whereas for me the goal is achievable on its own . there is , of course a huge chasm between both of those ideas and any form of literalism, including mod. orth.
correct me if i'm wrong, but when you see a conflict between what the literal seems to require and your innate sense of right and wrong, you reject the literal. i dont believe there are any 'met' conditions which would compel you to slay a sabbath defiler. but fundies of all stripes would absolutely be willing since they have either suppressed their own ability and/or desire to moralize, or have been dogmatically convinced that their thoughts on morality are highly irrelevant. where they conflict with torah, they know that they,not the torah, are wrong. i think we both find that abhorrent.
another difference might be that for better or worse, my brain does not permit me belief in anything, absent the (admittedly subjective) evidence, and when some level of evidence is present, my belief in such is commensurate with my satisfaction in the evidence. for many this equation is altered by the net effect of the belief. for me, and i suspect most non-theists, even if i was fully convinced of the positive result of said belief, for ex. a placebo, or religion, the equation remains unchanged. you might be surprised to know that i am quite involved in jewish life, school and synagogue, for i recognize many of the positive influences which can result from attachment to a community, nurturing and caring. at some point they may kick me out, but not as yet.

how dare you impugn the integrity of zimbabwe or libya. they shed a moral light on the world.
i like your rules of popehood. i'm preparing the white smoke.
on a more personal level, i am honored that a proffessor ,who readily throws in many references to things to which i am ignorant, is willing to engage a layman like me in an interesting and intellectual discussion.i think your students lucky. you have helped me broaden my scope of knowledge by looking up many of those ideas. and a shana tovah!

[ah-pee-chorus]

oops, i meant ivory- tower

[ah-pee-chorus]

paul: "imo without direct religious experience, reported and unreported, religious faith would not survive, if people did not feel it and get it throughout the communities "
that is correct, but not only doesnt speak to their truth, it screams loudly that this is an indicator of nothing but the human experience. lets take 2 contradictory concepts. one needs to accept jesus to get to heaven, and one loses place in heaven for same. it is a logical impossibility that they are both correct. ergo, the millions of religious experiences felt, quite assuredly by both sides adherents, include, at a minimum a 50% false positive,and not to exclude possdibility of 100% false pos.
these experiences were felt by believers in zeus, thor, and even by believers in such laughable recent additions, mormons , who dont mind that joe smith was a convicted fraudster, or that the basis of belief requires that native-americans descended from one of tribes. despite that dna-science disproves this beyond any rational doubt, its followers really feel gods prescence, and wear special underwear. do their experiences speak to the book of mormons divine authorship? and scientologists...

regarding science, the argument of first cause can and has been shown lacking. science is open to constant amendment,based on evidence. i've read much dawkins, and feel confident that whatever he offers as a possibility for how things could have begun, he would never say that one should have a high degree of confidence in anything until it has undergone much testing, has verifiable predictablity, etc.. since there is no such idea to meet these requirements vis-a -vis where the first matter or energy came from, science has not crowned any such thoughts with the term "theory", as opposed to evolution, or germ theory which have gone through incredible scrutiny, testing, modification to reach the point of near total acceptance in the scientific community. what separates atheism from blind faith, is that an honest atheist will readily admit that certain answers are still beyond current science to explain. but thats o.k. and the implication that if science admits to not knowing all leads to a reversion to the default response of god, is totally illogical.it is a creation of the creationists. why not believe that if science cant explain all, the world must have been created by an invisible pink unicorn? or the flying spaghetti monster? funny website http://www.venganza.org/

the constants, physicists and cosmologists know that there is quite a bit of wiggle room in any number of these constants, in conjunction with one another, which would still enable life as we know it. further, life has evolved in current form to be able to sustain in this world, with these constants. if constants were different, other forms of life unknown to us might have emerged. also, there being 10,000 billion, billion stars, there is quite a strong possibility of some acceptable level of fine tuning to randomly occur not just here, but probably on other distant planets as well. maybe many more.