Haredim without internet
Do you think the approach of the Haredim who do not have an Internet connection in order to avoid being exposed to external content that has no point at all and can even cause considerable harm is wrong in your opinion, and if so, why? And it is not to say that they need to know how to cope, since we see the Haredim who “cope” and are stuck in front of a screen for half a day as one of the people in our unfortunate generation dependent on screens.
In my opinion, the approach is wrong because it is part of the world and the Torah must be applied in the world. No Torah was given to the ministering angels. We do not recommend that anyone live in the desert or in a monastery despite all the concerns and failures of life in society. The women of the Askalim is a phenomenon that even the Haredim deny.
It is impossible and wrong to build a world of faith and religion on escape and hiding. The Torah was given for existence in this world and not in the world of souls.
And by the way, the long-term costs of hiding will be greater than the costs of the mixed path. Secularization today is the product of an ultra-Orthodox reaction to the Enlightenment. There too, they tried to hide from the world and boycott it, and the results are before us.
Therefore, I am both fundamentally and ideologically opposed to the path of concealment and isolation, even if the damage of openness is great, and I also think that the damage of openness is much smaller. One of the problems in the discourse is that the Haredim have adopted a Haredi method of measuring damage, and when the axis system is curved, a curved line is perceived as straighter than a straight line.
By the way, what bothers the Haredim on the Internet is not staring at screens, nor is it pornography or violence or modesty. What bothers them is the exposure to the world, to ideas and knowledge, which they have no way of dealing with. The easiest thing is to become Haredim and differentiate yourself in the hope that the questions will not arise and there will be no need for answers. During the Enlightenment, this did not work, and I think it will not work today either.
Secularization happened all over the world (all religions) starting from the Enlightenment period. So on what basis do you single out the Jews whose process happened because of the Haredi reaction? Or are you trying to claim that all over the world they reacted in an “Haredi” manner?
First of all, it is clear that the entire Western world responded in an ultra-Orthodox manner. Second, the fact is that the ultra-Orthodox response that many see as the safe path has completely failed. If anyone wants to argue that another path would have led to a better outcome, the burden of proof is lower on them.
Usually, when a path fails, the burden of proof is on those who claim that it was still the optimal outcome.
First of all, it is clear that we need to define what is meant by the term “better way.” If we mean the percentage of people who have come to error, it requires us to assume which is more correct (heresy or faith). If we mean the dropout rate (minus perhaps reversion), then today we see that there is a higher dropout rate in the national religious community (there are no precise figures for the ultra-Orthodox, but you don’t need them to understand that these are lower numbers). Of course, this is not a causal study with a control group and an argumentative experiment, there may be many other factors, but the very fact that the national religious community is unable to keep such a high number of children religious suggests that the burden of proof is precisely on you.
This is true in the short term and in the obvious (in external indicators of abandonment). We can already see today that it does not hold up in the long term.
And that is even before the shortcomings of the Haredi path itself. In other words, even if it were to excel in preservation, it would not preserve the correct religion. So what is the point!? I was talking about this when I said that there is measurement on a crooked axis system.
But here is not the place for all this discussion. I have written about it several times in the past.
There is a lack of accuracy in several things here. The Haredim oppose screens only because of exposure to external ideas. This is largely due to idleness and lack of modesty. At least at the level of the discourse between the “righteous” and the ”moderns”. This is mainly because of these reasons.
Speaking of the burden of proof, regarding the dropout rates, you must provide evidence that the hidden dropout rates are so high. This is an unsupported claim. (Regarding this too, it should be borne in mind that by not leaving the community, they are at least preserving the next generation)
You must also provide evidence that it will be different in the long run. There is a very clear correlation between the level of openness and dropout, not necessarily in the Haredi sector, where it can be attributed to concealment, but also among parts of the national religious sector.
The correlation that Yossi mentioned between openness and dropout is true not only in the Jewish world but also in the general world. The Christian and Muslim groups that are more integrated into the general public have much higher dropout rates than the more segregated groups. (The reason is very simple: society influences)
Rabbi Michi is right that we need to check whether we are preserving the right thing at all, and therefore preservation is not the only consideration. But that does not mean that it is not a serious consideration that needs to be taken into account.
And what about the halachic problems associated with watching on the Internet?
What about the halachic problems involved in walking down the street (forbidden sights) or driving a car (you can kill or be killed)?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
