Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents - a Reaction

Yitzchok Adlerstein writes an interesting piece about Evolution and Intelligent Design in Cross Currents. What makes it interesting is that Adlerstein is a generally a hard-line, fundamentalist Haredi who has little patience for those who would evince any doubt about the divine origins of Torah and the ultimate and exclusive correctness of his brand of Judaism. Having just finished Karen Armstrong's book "A Case for God", I understand a little better why a fundamentalist feels the need to reconcile his religious view with science. To Adlerstein's credit, he is not just rejecting science, but trying to come to terms with it:

Maybe I’m not properly Orthodox, but evolution is just not an issue for me. [...] I recognize that I am in the minority in this regard (although not so sure if this is true for frum folks with scientific background), but I made peace with evolution years ago. I’m neither convinced of its truth (although it explains volumes of collected phenomena that no one in the frum community even begins to deal with) nor convinced of its untruth. Of course I reject one small assumption made by some evolutionists, including the most strident and vocal ones. They believe that not only did G-d have no part in it, but that having adequately explained the Great Mystery of Life, there is no need to believe in G-d, c”v. My belief is that if the Ribbono Shel Olam set up the original conditions, including the physical constants of nature in such a way as to produce the world as we know it, using natural selection and about 15 billion years (a span of time so large I simply can’t wrap my mind around it to decide whether the scenario is plausible or ludicrous), I for one would have no objection. As R Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote in the infancy of the theory – well before he could, in all fairness, properly analyze it, but also before over a century of corroborating evidence – if the theory turns out to be true, we will stand in even greater awe of the wisdom of HKBH. There is wondrous elegance in reducing all of existence to what was contained in the singularity that preceded the laws of nature as we know them. Reducing all there is to a mysterious oneness has great appeal to me.

Adlerstein has been willing to loosen his grip on a literalist meaning of the Torah, at least the first chapters that describe in decidely non-scientific terms the creation of the world. This can be no easy feat for someone so squarely in the Haredi camp. He goes on to acknowledge the advantages of a non-literalist view to the scientist: "Evolution provides a framework for understanding much of the natural world... The language of biology is the language of evolution, and it has been that way for decades."

But Adlerstein knows that there are many in the Haredi camp may be better off simply keeping science at an arms length:

If you have no occasion to ever step over the threshold of modern science, there would seem to be little reason to abandon the plain meaning of the opening of Bereishis. This seems to be the message of quite a few Gedolei Torah who live in communities in which science simply doesn’t figure. Their advice should be vigorously heeded.

It is unfortunate that Adlerstein thinks that anyone should heed advice to remain ignorant. Ignorance is the antithesis of what Judaism stands for; Judaism has always been a search for truth. The greatest Jewish theologians and thinkers have been those who have understood that truth is elusive and conditional, subject to change and refinement through the introduction of new data.

But all of this discussion could be simply avoided by acknowledging that the purpose of science is neither to prove the existence of G-d nor to describe G-d's ways in the world. Neither is subject to scientific proof nor can they be disproved by any scientific method. Science, not religion, can explain the physical processes by which the piece of rock on which we exist came into being. Science, not religion, can explain the biological mechanisms by which single-cell protozoa may have mutated and evolved into human beings as well as other species. But science can provide no moral reason for that mutation, nor should it try. Having become human, science can not tell us how to live our lives with meaning, cope with adversity, die with dignity, and find our way to the bright light that is G-d's love - that is the realm of religion. So, I agree with Adlerstein (a rarity) when he says: "I feel comfortable getting up in the morning and shouting, 'Mah rabu ma’asecheh Hashem…!'"

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com The New York Times reports on a case in Great Britain in which a family is suing a Jewish Day School because the school rejected their son's application to the school.

A few of the relevant facts of the case:

• The boy's father is acknowledged to be a Jew.


• The boy's mother is a convert in the Progressive movement (the European equivalent of Reform)


• Religious schools receive funding from the state

The family sued and lost in the lower court, but the appeals court overturned that decision stating: “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

The case is now before the English Supreme Court.

I have no insight into English jurisprudence, but it seems to me that the argument of the decision of the appellate court is right but for the wrong reason. The appellate court should not get involved in the question of whether a Jew is anyone who calls themselves a Jew. If a religion sets certain tests on one's membership, that is the business of the religious community and the state should not get involved. Where the court should get involved is to decide how the state determines where the authority for determining religious membership lies. Does the state recognize different types of Judaism (Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc) or does the state recognize only a religion called Judaism? If the former, then the state has determined that there are actually many different religions, each calling itself Jewish, but each in fact distinct and therefore entitled to define membership according to its own rules. However, if the state determines that there is only one religion called Judaism within which there are several legitimate but variant streams, then the state may elect to recognize that any person who is acceptable to one of those streams is a Jew for the purpose of the state's functions. The state may also choose to disenfranchise all of the streams but one or to create tests that allow a determination of what is considered a legitimate stream for the purpose of state recognition within the body called Jews.

The mistake that the appellate court makes is in trying to make a state determination of who is a Jew. The court would be better off determining who can legitimately make that determination within the competing Jewish claims.

But most important for Americans, this is a cautionary example of the slippery slope that could affect Jews in this country should state financing of private, religious schools be enacted. Once a school opts to accept state financing, whether offered directly in the form of grants or indirectly in the form of vouchers, the school loses substantial control to determine who may and may not attend the school. In a school whose population is itself a statement about the school's philosophy, this could be a serious challenge to their identity.

One could use this case to warn those in the religious community who support school vouchers to be careful what they wish for.

Send Bush | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Send Bush as Middle East Envoy: Ami Eden notes that "Writing in Newsweek, Gregory Levey argues that President Obama should tap President George W. Bush to be his Middle East envoy..."

Levey writes: "During the Bush years, Israelis were consistently among the few foreign populations that gave the American president high approval marks -- often in far greater proportion than Americans themselves... Neither Obama nor his proxies enjoy anywhere near the same level of faith. ..."

How does this make any sense. Send someone who is a proxy for the Israelis and whose every proposal will be seen as an Israeli proposal and not as a third-party U.S. proposal? This makes no sense at all.

Obama is in a much stronger position to move the Palestinians towards the measures that they have to take to make negotiation acceptable - unfortunately, there is no Israeli partner anymore either. So, for the time being, Obama would best serve the interests of the Middle East by keeping an engaged mediator who will help to defuse tensions and keep low-level talks going until both parties are ready and able to move to more serious final stage talks.