You remind me of a story that I was saving for a post on my own blog when things would get too quiet, but the time has come to use it here:

A talmid of RYBS Z’tl was speaking about two years ago and used the word “teleological”. I think he realized that much of the audience(including myself), had heard the word, but had no idea what he was talking about, unless they took and remembered Philosophy 101. So he said, “I don’t either know what it means, but the Rav used to use it, so I am as well!”

Your comment really hit the nail on the head, rang the bell, or maybe pushed the envelope. Our Welt has never seen such a terrific Anschauung.

You have a bright future in Jewish academia. Make sure they pay you by the word. But I didn\’t see \”subsumed\” or \”rubric\” anyplace, so you need some more practice.

Your point about the usage of “weltanschauung” is certainly well taken, appreciated, and generally respected. Maybe, perhaps, and quite possibly,”efshar”, we might suggest or advance that “weltanschauung” is an example of a type of specialized word, term, jargon, or nomenclature, that is best left for writers that have experience dealing with technical, philosophical topics.

I do, however, agree, concede, and am generally– as they say in Latin– “modeh al haemes”, that language should be used to simplify, clarify, and elucidate, not to obscure, muddle and confuse, as you point out, illustrate and amply demonstrate. Some words may also have a certain sound, tone, ring, panache, and phonetic flavor, which we need to be sensitive to, careful, and precise regarding the related useage.

As Dr. Wilfred Funk and Norman Lewis advise:

” Try to avoid the too frequent use of such Latin words as juxtaposition, animadvert, salutation, recapitulate. They tend to make your style heavy, dry, and pedantic. Short Anglo-Saxon words have force–gift instead of donation; poor instead of impecunious. The Latin and Greek words are important to know, but should be used with discretion, and never to overwhelm a reader or listener. Simplicity and directness in language are always effective . …”(30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary , page 86).

Two additional points:

1) Note the European connection between “Anglo Saxon” and Norway. Lashon Nofel al Lashon? Perhaps a language scholar on this blog can tell us if they both share the same Indo European derivation.

2) It seems that your only, quibble, disagreement, and difference of opinion, is regarding my choice of words in the very last paragraph. What do you think about my substantive, essential and entirely more salient point in the directly preceding paragraph, i.e.–err, that is, the idea of one or more Charedie discussion forums ?

I respect everyone who uses the term, but think “Weltanschauung” could easily be replaced by “world view” in English language discourse, for greater clarity.

Also, people often say “i.e.” in conversation, which is the Latin “id est”, which means “that is”. So say “that is” ! And instead of “e.g.”, try “for example” !

Some might feel that the above represents a blurring of lines, and that only the AJC or Edah(now defunct) is permitted to maintain any sort of an \”outward-focused\” approach. In truth, however, we see from Neveim and from the Aleinu prayer that Hashem is concerned with the spiritual development and progression of the non-Jewish world , and that by implication, we in turn need to emulate this, as appropriate.

On a different level, my impression from the J-blogs is that that there are sincere Jews that have as one of their \”taynos\” on the Charedi world, the idea of inappropriate \”bittul\”. We need to make clear that the ideas held by a few do not represent the attitude of the Torah, of Gedolie Torah, or of the overwhelming majority of the Charedie World(see March, 2004 issue of the Jewish Observer for some positive and amazing stories).

There have also been at least three articles about this topic that have appeared in the past two years in the Jewish Press, read by non-Jews, including an entire Christian congregation in the Midwest! I am not even speaking about newspapers like the Forward. I think that we still have more work to do in representing our public image. If the Torah Community leaves a vacuum regarding the issue, and does not project a nuanced view regarding \”Particularism vs. Universalism\”, then the views presented to the media will de facto be of an unbalanced nature, and not in keeping with the topic\’s sensitivity.

This is a shame because the situation needn\’t be like this. It hurts me that an Orthodox movie producer felt that the only way he was able to express his disappointment with a speech which didn\’t properly reflect the nuances and sensitivity of the topic, was by producing a documentary filmed by an Emmy-nominated team, which resulted in significant negative press-coverage. More generally, there needs to be a healthy forum for Charedie laymen to openly bring up issues and differences in opinion(other than blogs and newspapers), so that we are not left with playing catch-up in hasbara.

I therefore see plenty of room and value in a proactive approach, as illustrated by the Mel Gibson post. Note, that there have already appeared balanced and sensitive discussions on the general issue of Bein Yisrael L\’amim in both this month\’s and the March 2004 Jewish Observer, as well as in the Fall 2004 Jewish Action. May we see an accurate public attitude expressed about our weltanschauung, which causes people to reflect positively on Hashem and his People!

1. “Herzl, it is said…” Said by who? Said where? I’d like a source for that story. Neither half of that statement sounds at all like Herzl, and the response sounds not at all like a European Jew used to pogroms. In fact, it sounds like one of the standard stories commonly told, unfortunately, in charedi circles today to disparage early Zionist leaders, and like you’re trying to polish up your credentials with Hillel.

Of course, Jabotinsky did go around Poland warning of a Holocaust in the late 1930’s. It is obscene to suggest that he was somehow responsible for what followed, or that he would have welcomed it.

2. It may help to recall that many Europeans are decent enough people. Parties that support Israel regularly do well in elections- the leader of the National Alliance, the right-wing Italian party that is the distant successor of Mussolini, actually spoke at a pro-Israel rally recently.

The problem, however (apart from Muslim minorities) is the elites. And although they may be a very small slice of the population, they have the power to shape both opinion and policy. An ordinary Englishman who votes Labour because of his working-class roots may have nothing in particular against Israel or the Jews, and may even approve, but he’s hardly the person who’s going to be sitting in Parliament, or editing a newspaper. Indeed, one may well wonder how a country which traditionally was one of the most tolerant toward Jews in Europe could, in less than ten years, turn to killing six million of them. I think we know now.

And this is not limited to Europe. While I freely admit that the US is a much different place, both at the level of the common people as well higher, I read about the mayor of your city apologizing to Muslims for not coming to their rallies, or about the nutty anti-Semites who support Lamont in Connecticut, and worry about the power of elites here as well.

http://bariveshema.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-europeans-hate-israel-theory.html

It’s an expression of cowardice. Every single one of his complaints about Israel apply in large multiples to the US war in Iraq. But the author is only offended by the relatively powerless and hated Jews. He puts himself in the traditional pose of the civilized white european, looking in horror at the orientals lack of humanism. A citizen of one of the worlds richest nations, wallowing in oil wealth while half the world starves, smugly decries the barbarity of someone else. All the pompous ignorant blather about the bible only makes it worse.

I suggest you read one of Rabbi Adlerstein’s earlier articles. This was anti-Semitism at its most sophisticated level of vulgarity. “Oh, we know how culpable we Europeans are, and of course they need a State — but to defend themselves against those who wish to massacre its civilians… why, that’s unconscionable.”

Thanks for the clarification–I still think the title of your piece is overly provocative. There may be a City Councilman or two in your audience who might repeat it.

Herzl, it is said, would deliver fiery speeches in his travels through Europe, speaking about what disasters the future was going to bring upon Jews. Leaders in some of the towns protested that he was instigating anti-Semitic violence. He responded that this was not so terrible. If it happened, it would spur more Jews to move to Palestine!

No Jew (other than a halachically authorized leader, like a king) has the right to take risks with the safety and well-being of other Jews, even when well intentioned. The higher up the political food chain, the greater the risks and responsibility. Elected leaders, politicians, frequently quoted spokespeople (self-appointed or otherwise) have the greatest responsibility, because more of the public hangs on to more of their words. A Jewish City Councilman who announces that he believes that Iran should be nuked might very well be irresponsible to the interests of the 25000 Jews remaining in Iran. A shul rov who says it might have some more leeway – unless one of his congregants is the City Councilman who will repeat it.

Hillel’s application to the situation at hand is inapposite. Gosh, we’re talking Andrew Sullivan on Time.com! Nobody was going to stuff this cat back into the bag. The forecast of foreboding had already been made and splashed in public. All my piece did was connect it to more vicious quotes from the Gaarder piece than Sullivan cited.

I disagree thoroughly and entirely with Hillel’s second point. Seeking the welfare of your city, and praying for peace within your country are not a recipe for political quietism. We have to remind ourselves of our restrictions and limitations in galus (i.e our attitude should never be the complete assertiveness of entitlement that Alan Dershowitz argued for in Chutzpah), but that does not mean that we have no hishtadlus obligation in the spheres of political action – at the ballot box, and behind the scenes – and in shaping public opinion. We must definitely be mindful of Hillel’s first point while doing this, but silence has its risks as well. Pressure applied directly upon French government officials did succeed in getting them to take more forceful measures to protect French Jews, and recognize the huge anti-Semitism problem they have. (No Chirac will never get it, and Sarkozy always has.) Pointing out governmental and media bias has also been a frequent item in the haredi press, even outside the parameters of a strategy to influence people in positions of power.

The Kuzari only lists two approaches to galus and neither is the one you list.

The first is absolute acceptance of it as a divine PUNISHMENT - which the kuzari interprets as living a temporary life lacking ALL permanence (no fancy houses, nothing that shows we have and roots in galus, c”v) and showing Hashem that we are dedicated to correcting the sins of the past and starting over.

The second flows from the first and involves ACTIVE-HUMAN-PHYSICAL effort to return to the land and leave the galus far behind us.

Your approach advocates neither and should be rejected.

All European life died in Auschwitz:

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
This is a translation of an article from a Spanish newspaper.

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent.

We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

Smell the REAL coffee!

By definition, Golus is an impossible situation: “SheBeChol Dor VADor, OmDim AleNu LeChaLoSenu.”

Our survival in Golus is always a miracle. in fact, according to Rav Yaakov Emden, ZT”L, it is the greatest miracle of all.

We do not rely on anyone’s goodwill to survive: “VeHaKodosh Boruch Hu MatZeiLenu MeYaDam.”

Notwithstanding this, we are commanded to do our best to live in harmony with our non-Jewish neighbors, regardless of the latent feelings of anti-semitism that may suspect lurking beneath the surface.

From:
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:44 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Emailing: adlerstein_gibson.htm

You are very welcome. When a person lives his life in the way (learning Torah, and living life according to it) which results in being strongly attached to the ultimate reality (G-d), he grows to perceive reality clearly :-).

________________________________________
From:
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:37 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Emailing: adlerstein_gibson.htm
Thanks. That was a very insightful article.

I don’t think Christians and Jews are very far apart in their understanding of repentance. But I have never heard it expressed as clearly.

________________________________________
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:41 PM
To:
Subject: Emailing: adlerstein_gibson.htm

This may be interesting for you:
>

Jewish Refugees in Cyprus

Zionism in Regression
By Shifra Shomron

14th of Av 5766/ 8 August 2006

Nitzan Caravilla site
How things have changed: Haifa and Krayot residents are buying ‘refuge apartments’ in Cyprus according to Ynet news (7 August 2006). Four families have already purchased furnished apartments in Limassul and other towns. If more rockets fall in Haifa, these families are packed and ready to move.

So, the secular Zionist dream has failed: Israel is not a refuge for Jews. Israel is not – but Cyprus is. The lovely island of Cyprus to which Holocaust survivors were dragged kicking and screaming. They reached there and were placed in encampments surrounded by barbed wire, British soldiers at the entrance, and wooden bunks in the rooms.

But after all, now Cyprus is modern and developed: high rise apartments, English fluency, inducted to the European Union… Forward! To Cyprus!

And what about Israel? What about our torn and bloodied country?

Our country is torn, because we have been tearing pieces off to fling to the jackals surrounding us.

Our country is bloodied, because the jackals keep lunging, snapping and biting… and we restrain.

Since Israel is restraining itself from properly defending the residents of Haifa, Krayot, Tsfat, S’derot etc… perhaps the Israeli government should reach an agreement with Cyprus permitting building large encampments.

We’ll provide the barbed wire. –