Refuge for Dropouts from Ultra-Orthodox Judaism in Germany

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The right to leave is not a right valued by the community of practitioners. By telling them that they have to value it, you are imposing your values on them. is that your intent? To tell others that they have no right to follow their value system because it doesn't conform to what you think is right?

I think it's dishonest to describe trying to force someone else to follow your value system as you following your value system.

But I don't care if you honor my right to do anything. Unless you are a governmental representative (and my right to practice is conferred or denied by government) or your not honoring me infringes on that governmental right that I do have, then I have no interest in whether you honor what I follow.

I'm just one voice - and one vote - out of many.

But if you care what rights the government enshrines, understand that my government - like many others - does not recognize the rights of a "collective." The only rights a collective has come from the individual rights of its members.

But you tie what is being taught (which is an extension of communal values) with the economic independence which you say is key to leaving.

It's one of them, yes.

So educating people in a way which is of value to the community becomes tantamount to abuse because it doesn't give over the freedom to leave the system? I see that as a stretch.

No, failing to provide basic education to children is an infringement of their rights in and of itself, and it sets them up for coercion and abuse later in life.

You can teach kids as much about the Torah or the Talmud as you like; just don't neglect the fundamentals that any person will need to be a functioning adult.

The modern biological system produces children who are prime candidates for abuse. Making a generalization like this is not particularly useful. Saying "they are well versed in something highly prized within the community" doesn't make them victims. In a system which values plumbing, a PhD in Literature has received substandard education.

Someone who has a PhD in literature got a high school education that included basic math, science, civics, etc., and decided for themselves to specialize.

And again: the victimization isn't from what you do teach them, but from what you fail to teach them.

I only think that the sub-society should be exempt from having certain larger values imposed on it.

On what grounds?

We have a complex and highly argued area of law about exactly this. During prohibition, sacramental wine was allowed.

... because of the impact on personal religious freedom if it were banned.

But animal sacrifice is not.

... because religious freedom has limits. It isn't license to do whatever you want regardless of its impact on others (whether animals or humans).

I impose my values on my children all the time. I made them get certain shots, determined their dress code and controleld their diet because, as a responsible parent, and a member of a society which formed me and helped me determine what my values are, those variables because within my administrative purview.

You are the steward of your children's rights while they're too young to exercise their rights themselves. This is based on the presumption that parents have the best interests of the child in mind.

This arrangement doesn't make your children your property, and it doesn't make it okay for you to try to deprive the adult that they'll become of choices they have every right to make.

Your right to practice your Jewish faith and your childrens' right to choose a different path, if that's what they decide, are the same right. It's hypocritical for you to deny this right for others while demanding it for yourself.

 

[rosends]

I think it's dishonest to describe trying to force someone else to follow your value system as you following your value system.

Understood, but teaching someone to reject my value system is certainly against my value system.

But if you care what rights the government enshrines, understand that my government - like many others - does not recognize the rights of a "collective." The only rights a collective has come from the individual rights of its members.

My government has to balance both -- the group does have certain rights (but that's a dicey political hot potato).

No, failing to provide basic education to children is an infringement of their rights in and of itself, and it sets them up for coercion and abuse later in life.

You can teach kids as much about the Torah or the Talmud as you like; just don't neglect the fundamentals that any person will need to be a functioning adult.

That brings up the difficult decision about what fundamentals does "any" person need to be functioning adult. Loads of religious Jews function very well in their own communities without skills that someone one town over might see as essential -- and vice versa.

Someone who has a PhD in literature got a high school education that included basic math, science, civics, etc., and decided for themselves to specialize.

And nothing in high school would prepare him to be a plumber so he would remain woefully unprepared and undereducated.

And again: the victimization isn't from what you do teach them, but from what you fail to teach them.

Only because you see not teaching certain things as infringing on some transcendent right.

On what grounds?

Free expression of religion.

... because of the impact on personal religious freedom if it were banned.

Yes -- because the government was allowing the expression of religious beliefs as codified within a community and instilled in people (you might say "forced"). So the governmental power to mandate behavior is tempered by a sensitivity to the communal values of the religious group.

... because religious freedom has limits. It isn't license to do whatever you want regardless of its impact on others (whether animals or humans).

Exactly -- but those lines aren't clearly marked or agreed upon. Circumcision, yes. Female circumcision, no. I have yet to figure that one out.

You are the steward of your children's rights while they're too young to exercise their rights themselves. This is based on the presumption that parents have the best interests of the child in mind.

This arrangement doesn't make your children your property, and it doesn't make it okay for you to try to deprive the adult that they'll become of choices they have every right to make.

Sure it does. It gives me rights over their well being and their entire process of growing up. I control the books that enter my house and the foods they can eat. They do not reserve the right to get sick with mumps later in life. I might put them in a college prep school and they will never take a class in wood shop so they won't have the skills to pursue that. As the parent, I make decisions impacting who they can (not just will) be. All because I believe I have their best interests in mind.

Your right to practice your Jewish faith and your childrens' right to choose a different path, if that's what they decide, are the same right. It's hypocritical for you to deny this right for others while demanding it for yourself.

Your saying that creates the contradiction we started with. My right to practice includes how I teach my children. Children do not have the same rights as adults. My practice of religion includes my rights to practice my parenting as a function of my religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Understood, but teaching someone to reject my value system is certainly against my value system.

If freedom of religion is against your value system, then what justification do you use to demand your own freedom of religion?

My government has to balance both -- the group does have certain rights (but that's a dicey political hot potato).

But you do understand that there are many, many countries that don't take this approach.

That brings up the difficult decision about what fundamentals does "any" person need to be functioning adult. Loads of religious Jews function very well in their own communities without skills that someone one town over might see as essential -- and vice versa.

As a starting point, how about this:

Here, like many places, we have governmental supports for people with mental and physical disabilities that are severe enough that they interfere with their ability to live or work normally.

If an adult without any mental or physical disabilities is so impaired by their poor education that, if the same problems were the result of a disability, they'd qualify for government aid, then there's something very wrong with the education system (and community) that caused this to happen.

And nothing in high school would prepare him to be a plumber so he would remain woefully unprepared and undereducated.

Again: if you think not being able to follow one's conscience on matters of religion is no more of a big deal than not being able to become a plumber, then maybe I should stop caring about your religious conscience.

Only because you see not teaching certain things as infringing on some transcendent right.

And it is. It's also grooming for abuse and coercion.

Free expression of religion.

Expression of religion is something that individuals do. A religious group's freedom is derived from the rights of its members.

Yes -- because the government was allowing the expression of religious beliefs as codified within a community and instilled in people (you might say "forced").

That's right.

So the governmental power to mandate behavior is tempered by a sensitivity to the communal values of the religious group.

What are "the communal values of the religious group" apart from the shared individual values of the group's members?

Exactly -- but those lines aren't clearly marked or agreed upon. Circumcision, yes. Female circumcision, no. I have yet to figure that one out.

While I would be fine with non-medical infant male circumcision being made illegal, I do see a major difference in terms of harm.

Anatomically, the male equivalent of female "circumcision" would be slicing the whole glans off. They're nowhere near the same.

Sure it does. It gives me rights over their well being and their entire process of growing up. I control the books that enter my house and the foods they can eat.

... only to a point, though. You have the right to choose between nutritious options for your children, but you can't feed them, say, styrofoam. Your right to make decisions for your children is predicated on the assumption that you're acting in their best interest. If this assumption were to prove false, you would start to see restrictions and oversight on those decisions... or maybe lose the right to make them altogether.

They do not reserve the right to get sick with mumps later in life. I might put them in a college prep school and they will never take a class in wood shop so they won't have the skills to pursue that. As the parent, I make decisions impacting who they can (not just will) be. All because I believe I have their best interests in mind.

That's right. But again: there are limits. Your rights as a parent are predicated on the assumption that you're acting in their best interest, and if this proves false, you lose that right... or at least have it restricted.

It wouldn't be okay for, say, a parent to instill a severe phobia of cats in their child to carry forward into adulthood... or to teach an LGBTQ child to hate themselves.

Your saying that creates the contradiction we started with. My right to practice includes how I teach my children. Children do not have the same rights as adults. My practice of religion includes my rights to practice my parenting as a function of my religion.

Your children have all the rights of an adult; it's just that you serve as the steward of those rights while they're too young to exercise them themselves.

Limiting the freedoms of the adult your child will become does them a disservice and is an abuse of your role as a parent, IMO.

 

[rosends]

If freedom of religion is against your value system, then what justification do you use to demand your own freedom of religion?

I love freedom of religion. Non-members of my religion have the right to be whatever religion they want. Members of my religion are bound by my religion's laws because, well, that's what the practice of religion dictates. This is a legal construct (like freedom of speech - I can believe in it but see its implementation as a non-absolute).

But you do understand that there are many, many countries that don't take this approach.

Sure!

If an adult without any mental or physical disabilities is so impaired by their poor education that, if the same problems were the result of a disability, they'd qualify for government aid, then there's something very wrong with the education system (and community) that caused this to happen.

And why do you assume that people in the Jewish community qualify for government aid because of a disability like what you describe?

Again: if you think not being able to follow one's conscience on matters of religion is no more of a big deal than not being able to become a plumber, then maybe I should stop caring about your religious conscience.

And, again, feel free to stop caring. That will have no particular effect on my life.

And it is. It's also grooming for abuse and coercion.

That is certainly your assertion and belief. It happens not to be mine.Feel free not to care about that also.

Expression of religion is something that individuals do. A religious group's freedom is derived from the rights of its members.

No, the rights of the individual are established and protected because the group is recognized as having rights.

What are "the communal values of the religious group" apart from the shared individual values of the group's members?

The institutionalized and codified defining features that the members subscribe to. The religion comes before the people -- they learn their values from the religion.

While I would be fine with non-medical infant male circumcision being made illegal, I do see a major difference in terms of harm.

Anatomically, the male equivalent of female "circumcision" would be slicing the whole glans off. They're nowhere near the same.

There are a variety of iterations of female circumcision and I have yet to see any as being a protected religious activity in the US. In fact, the US Gov't position on it specifically says that even if it is the expression of a religious tradition, it is not allwoed, no matter the scope, type or severity. In this case, regardless of its being type I, II or even Ia, it is not allowed.

... only to a point, though. You have the right to choose between nutritious options for your children, but you can't feed them, say, styrofoam. Your right to make decisions for your children is predicated on the assumption that you're acting in their best interest. If this assumption were to prove false, you would start to see restrictions and oversight on those decisions... or maybe lose the right to make them altogether.

Absolutely. So there has to be that measurable and accepted standards by which one can determine that there is a problem. Up to that point, the parent can act in the child's best interest according to the parents' understanding of that interest. That's an expression of communal value.

It wouldn't be okay for, say, a parent to instill a severe phobia of cats in their child to carry forward into adulthood... or to teach an LGBTQ child to hate themselves.

But teaching them to value themselves as a member of a group, so as to limit their tendency to move from that group is a problem?

Your children have all the rights of an adult; it's just that you serve as the steward of those rights while they're too young to exercise them themselves.

They have the right to drive? Or even to make decisions about their own well-being? There are categories of rights -- legal rights and human rights are very different.

Limiting the freedoms of the adult your child will become does them a disservice and is an abuse of your role as a parent, IMO.

I think that that is an oversimplification and, as a parent, I am glad I limited the freedoms my children could have become in certain areas. I limited their exposure to drugs because I didn't want them to become addicts. Sure, they could have, but I decided to limit them.

 

[Veyl]

I love freedom of religion. Non-members of my religion have the right to be whatever religion they want. Members of my religion are bound by my religion's laws because, well, that's what the practice of religion dictates. This is a legal construct (like freedom of speech - I can believe in it but see its implementation as a non-absolute).


Sure!

And why do you assume that people in the Jewish community qualify for government aid because of a disability like what you describe?

And, again, feel free to stop caring. That will have no particular effect on my life.

That is certainly your assertion and belief. It happens not to be mine.Feel free not to care about that also.

No, the rights of the individual are established and protected because the group is recognized as having rights.

The institutionalized and codified defining features that the members subscribe to. The religion comes before the people -- they learn their values from the religion.

There are a variety of iterations of female circumcision and I have yet to see any as being a protected religious activity in the US. In fact, the US Gov't position on it specifically says that even if it is the expression of a religious tradition, it is not allwoed, no matter the scope, type or severity. In this case, regardless of its being type I, II or even Ia, it is not allowed.

Absolutely. So there has to be that measurable and accepted standards by which one can determine that there is a problem. Up to that point, the parent can act in the child's best interest according to the parents' understanding of that interest. That's an expression of communal value.


But teaching them to value themselves as a member of a group, so as to limit their tendency to move from that group is a problem?

They have the right to drive? Or even to make decisions about their own well-being? There are categories of rights -- legal rights and human rights are very different.

I think that that is an oversimplification and, as a parent, I am glad I limited the freedoms my children could have become in certain areas. I limited their exposure to drugs because I didn't want them to become addicts. Sure, they could have, but I decided to limit them.

This seems to be taking into account the parent's religious rights as opposed to the child's. The law is intended to take both into consideration.

 

[rosends]

This seems to be taking into account the parent's religious rights as opposed to the child's. The law is intended to take both into consideration.

What law?

 

[Veyl]

What law?

Was not referring to any particular law, as it differs depending on the nation. Many countries protect freedom of religion, though, and in any case the law shouldn't prevent someone from acting morally.