My 2 shekels' worth on the Rabbi Kimche Letter

I was originally going to write this as a response on the facebook wall of Andrew Gilbert, but obviously it got a bit long for a response...

I am referencing Rabbi Alan Kimche's Open Letter about Limmud which you can find here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-gilbert/rabbi-kimches-infamous-innaccurate-and-in-some-cases-offensive-article-on-attend/10152061054651392 and also Dr Harris Bor's response which you can find here: http://jacquelinenicholls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lets-be-honest.html

.

I thought Harris Bor's response on Jacqueline Nicholls blog was exceptional, spot on, humourous and incredibly insightful. But I was not in any way offended by the original letter from Rabbi Kimche. I may have found it to be inaccurate (nothing new when talking about Orthodox rabbis characterisations of non-Orthodox Judaism - have we forgotten that the former Chief Rabbi of the US called Reform Jews, "those who destroy the faith" and a "false grouping"). I thought that what he said about LGBTQ Jews was offensive, but I was not offended, since I would expect nothing else - mainstream Orthodox Judaism is homophobic. So I think that Rabbi Kimche's main point needs to be understood - let's be honest.

Rabbi Kimche, from what I know of his reputation (and I might be wrong), is a good representation of mainstream orthodoxy's rabbinate. What we need to be honest about is the fact that the vast majority of UK Jewry doesn't believe in the type of Judaism these people espouse, and yet for the past couple of centuries, they have been propping up this necrotic institution of the United Synagogues and their affiliates.

I think that we should have an open honest conversation, and we don't need to take offence too easily when people disagree with our viewpoints, our understanding of the world or our values. I disagree with Rabbi Kimche, but we can disagree and respect each other's right to do as we wish, and he has every right to use his office to convince people why they should reject the wonderful beit midrash which is Limmud. He has every right to reject my understanding of Jewish history and Jewish identity.

If there is one place where Dr Bor's characterisation of narrow-minded Orthodoxy fell down, I believe, it is in the idea that he believed that somehow this type of Orthodoxy will cease to be vibrant. Dr Bor recognises that in fact, intolerance breeds itself very well and that the anti-modern forms of Jewish community are the only ones genuinely thriving numerically in the UK and around the world. We, on the liberal side of this debate also need to be honest - and admit that Rabbi Kimche has some good points to make (isn't that the point of the Limmud ethos - that we can learn from those people with whom we fundamentally disagree). When he accuses non-Orthodoxy of encouraging assimilation, he is obviously talking from ignorance, but nevertheless, it encourages us to ask genuine questions about what assimilation does mean to us today and where we stand on such an issue. How do we anticipate and react to the growing numbers of Jews who find non-Jewish partners and how do we help them to create meaningful lives within these partnerships?

Most of all, I think that the Progressive reaction to Rabbi Kimche's letter misses the main point - which is that it is not talking about us at all (though of course we are pawns used by him to make his point). But Rabbi Kimche is not talking about us and he is not talking to us, but rather to those members and leaders of "modern" or "open" orthodoxy, and he is asking them to be honest. He is asking people who use the moniker of Orthodoxy to be honest about that usage. In what way are "Orthodox" leaders who reject his fundamentalism, reject his obscurantism, reject his intolerance, reject his homophobia, reject his xenophobia really Orthodox? That is the question he is asking, and the honesty he is seeking. In the end it has nothing to do with Progressive Judaism - we just look on from the sidelines, wondering whether the leaders of "Modern" or "Open" Orthodoxy still want to share a camp with Rabbi Kimche and the other Orthodox rabbis who oppose dialogue and debate, or whether they want to share a camp with those who support it.

I am not trying to deny the leaders of Open or Modern Orthodoxy the right to define themselves as they wish, or to re-define Orthodoxy, but I would ask, together with Rabbi Kimche, for some honesty. I think that the leaders who Rabbi Kimche wants to reach, people like the incredible (Hopefully chief-rabbi-to-be), Rabbi Rafi Zarum, could probably give a fascinating response to Rabbi Kimche and to me, about the radical honesty which underpins Open Orthodoxy. I would love to hear it.

Monarchists - You can't have it both ways

I am a republican.

No don't worry - not a Republican, a republican. I believe the UK (and all other monarchies) should be a democracy - they should get rid of the Monarchy and become a republic.

Most of the time when I enter debate about this, the Monarchist side will usually come up with the following points:

1. They're great for tourism - the UK would lose so much money if they got rid of the Royals.
2. They do no harm.
3. They don't impede democracy, they have no actual role in government.
4. They're great for tourism
5. The UK is a constitutional monarchy - it is simply an effective way of having a head of state who has no executive functions.
6. They're great for tourism.

Now - anyone who can read and add up will realise that there are actually only 2 arguments here, one repeated so many times that people think its true, without any actual proof is that they are great for tourism. The other three supposed reasons are in fact also just one - they actually don't do anything - so they're doing no harm.

Ignoring the fact that they are a really really expensive redundancy - the interesting thing is that this point actually undermines the only other point monarchists have - and particularly Jewish monarchists.

I was recently accused of being unpatriotic because I did not want to say a prayer for the queen. I was told - how could I not want to honour the monarch of this country which gave so many of our grandparents refuge. Ignoring the fact that the Royals were probably very sympathetic to many of the people organising the pogroms and mass murder which forced us to flee - this often heard canard should theoretically completely undermine the main point of monarchists - IF the monarchy has nothing to do with actual government, then the monarchy had nothing to do with our receiving refuge! So - Monarchists can't have it both ways. Either the Monarchy are not involved in government, and therefore had nothing to do with the country giving Jews refuge, or the Monarchy does involve itself in government - in which case there is no democratic process.

Really - i despair!