(Part I)
What does it mean when we say that a statement or even an entire work is heretical (kefira)? Examples of statements that have been, at one time or another, been declared heretical by Jews would be: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life," (John 3:16) "Religion is the opiate of the masses," (Karl Marx “Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right”) "the Bible was formed from the documents J, P, E and D" and "man is descended from monkeys." How are we able to say that such statements, and by extension the books in which they are contained, are in contradiction of statements of dogma and therefore heretical? There are a number of possible models which one can use in order to tag a text as heretical. The most obvious way would be to interpret a text and decide if it contains any heretical assumptions; this can be referred to as the Interpretive Model. Another way to go about the task would be to decide if the author had intended the text to mean something that is heretical; this can be referred to as the Authorship Model. A third way with which one could decide the matter is to look at how the text has generally been interpreted; this can be referred to as the Historical Model. The final possibility is what I like to refer to as the Community Model in which we would assume that the communal body is licensed to eliminate ideas that it views as dangerous and as such the community has the right to, on a whim, declare texts to be heretical. As I will attempt to demonstrate, each of the first three views, taken to their practical applications, lead to extremely problematic situations where we would either have to declare "safe" texts to be heretical or not be able to justify, on a rational basis, declaring certain "dangerous" texts to be heretical.
The problem with the Interpretive Model is that, once you start putting texts under a theological microscope you can find heresy almost anywhere. Take something really innocent like an Uncle Moishy song, a major staple of my childhood. If you think about it, the lyrics: "Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere," taken in their literal sense, are highly heretical because they imply that Hashem (God) occupies space. This could only be possible if God were a physical being or had some sort of physical element to him.
Everyone would agree that within the four-cubits which define "here" for me at the present there is a being named Benzion Noam Chinn, a desk, a computer, a copy of the 6th edition of Wheelock's Latin
So maybe you could tell me that Suki and Ding, the makers of Uncle Moishy, only meant the song in a poetic sense. I would respond that first of all I never did see any notice on any Uncle Moishy tapes saying: "Warning, to all philosophically inclined children, this song should only be understood as a figure of speech and should not be taken in any way shape or form literally, Chas V'Shalom (God Forbid)." Even if such precautions had been taken it still would not allay the concern that the people behind Uncle Moishy were covert Pantheists, trying to poison the minds of innocent children with their heresies, because I could argue that not only are they Pantheists but they are also Straussians. They very well may have read Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing
(Just to make you breathe easier, I do not actually believe that Uncle Moishy is the product of a Cabal of Straussian Pantheists. I do not consider the collective intelligence of the Jewish music industry to be high enough to actually know anything about Spinoza, Pantheism or Strauss let alone to be able to conspire to inculcate children to those ideas.)
4 comments:
I know Suki. I could ask him for you :p
Baruch Pelta
bpelta.blogspot.com
I think the kids would become secret panentheists, which is acceptable. Only if Hashem is limited to being everywhere - i.e., He is only the whole of the Universe, is the statement heresy.
Which is why I prefer my music - especially religious music - to be without words.
Hashem is one of the many names of the supreme being's qualities.
I remember the very first time I read about Strauss. It was in Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil. If I had known he [Strauss] had covered Manonides (The guide for the perplexed).
Listened to Uncle Moishy's song about seatbelts.
I do not know that I would have encountered Strauss outside a specially Jewish milleu, unless it were political.
But isn't a big element of pantheism anthromorphism, which is heretical according to Mamomedies?
And the supreme being is described in negative terms. Isn't that heretical, too, if you're supposed to believe that He exists? But having positive things which aren't really there is more heretical.
(Yes, relativist heresy!)
That's right, according to Chassidus, whose ideas Uncle Moshy is promoting, Judaism is panentheistic. Or, as Kabalah puts it, "Les asar panui minei."
Post a Comment