Q&A: Haredim Without Internet
Haredim Without Internet
Question
Do you think the approach of Haredim who do not keep internet access, in order not to be exposed to outside content that has absolutely no value and can even cause significant harm, is mistaken in your view? And one cannot say that they simply need to learn how to cope, since we see the Haredim who “cope” and end up stuck for half the day in front of the screen like everyone else in our miserable screen-dependent generation.
Answer
In my opinion, the approach is mistaken, because this is part of the world, and the Torah must be implemented in the world. The Torah was not given to ministering angels. We do not recommend that anyone live in a desert or a monastery, despite all the concerns and failures involved in living in society. The “shawl women” phenomenon is something that Haredim too reject.
It is neither possible nor right to build a world of faith and religion on escape and hiding. The Torah was given to be lived in this world, not in the world of souls.
And by the way, the long-term costs of hiding will be greater than the costs of the more integrated path. Secularization today is the product of the Haredi reaction to the Enlightenment. There too they tried to hide from the world and boycott it, and the results are before us.
Therefore I also oppose, in principle and ideologically, the path of hiding and separatism, even if the harms of openness are greater, and I also think that the harms of openness are much smaller. One of the problems in the discourse is that the Haredim adopted a Haredi method of measuring the harms, and when the coordinate system is crooked, a crooked line looks straighter than a straight one.
Discussion on Answer
Secularization happened all over the world, in all religions, starting from the Enlightenment period. So on what basis are you singling out the Jews and saying their process happened because of the Haredi response? Or are you trying to claim that throughout the world everyone responded in a “Haredi” way?
First of all, clearly the entire Western world responded in a Haredi way. Second, the fact is that the Haredi response, which seems to many people to be the safe path, failed completely. If someone wants to claim that another path would have led even lower, the burden of proof is on him.
Usually, when some path has failed, anyone who claims that this was nevertheless the optimal result bears the burden of proof.
First of all, obviously one has to define what is meant by “a better path.” If the intention is the percentage of people who arrived at error, that requires assuming what is more correct: heresy or faith. If the intention is the dropout rate from observance (perhaps net of people who later return to repentance), then today we see that there is a higher dropout rate in the Religious Zionist public (there are no precise data among the Haredim, but you don’t need such data to understand that those numbers are lower). Of course this is not a causal study with a control group and an experiment—there could be many other factors—but the very fact that the Religious Zionist public does not manage to keep its children religious in such high numbers suggests that actually the burden of proof is on you.
That is true in the short term and on the surface (in external measures of leaving). Already today you can see that it does not hold up in the long term.
And that is even before the disadvantages of the Haredi path in itself. Meaning that even if it excelled at preservation, it is not preserving the correct religion. So what is the point?! That is what I meant when I said that the measurement there is done in a crooked coordinate system.
But this is not the place for this whole discussion. I have written about it several times in the past.
There is some inaccuracy here on several points. The Haredim do not oppose screens only because of exposure to outside ideas. A lot of it is because of idleness and lack of modesty. At least at the level of the discourse between the “righteous” and the “modern.” It is mainly because of those reasons.
As for burden of proof: regarding dropout rates, you need to bring proof that the rate of hidden dropout is so high. That is an unsupported claim. (And even regarding that, one should take into account that by not leaving the community they at least preserve the next generation.)
You also need to bring proof that it will be different in the long run. There is a very clear correlation between the level of openness and dropout, not only in the Haredi sector, where this can be attributed to concealment, but also among the different parts of the Religious Zionist sector.
The correlation Yossi mentioned between openness and dropout is true not only in the Jewish world but also in the broader world. Christian and Muslim groups that are more mixed into the general public have dropout rates far higher than the more separatist groups. (The reason is very simple: society has an influence.)
Rabbi Michi is right that one has to examine whether they are preserving the right thing in the first place, and therefore preservation is not the only consideration. But that does not mean it is not a serious consideration that needs to be taken into account.
And what about the halakhic / of Jewish law problems involved in viewing the internet?
What about the halakhic / of Jewish law problems involved in walking in the street (forbidden sights) or riding in a car (you could kill or be killed)?
By the way, what troubles the Haredim about the internet is not staring at screens, nor pornography, violence, or modesty. What troubles them is exposure to the world, to ideas and knowledge, which they have no way of dealing with. The easiest thing is to frighten people and separate oneself, hoping the questions won’t come up and there will be no need for answers. In the Enlightenment period that didn’t work, and in my opinion it won’t work today either.