I do not see public funding as the key. In my opinion, removing public funds would not solve the problem.
I suspect the majority can require children to go to school. I also think it is probably a good idea for the majority to require a certain basic level of teaching go on in the schools. If a yeshiva does not meet the educational minimum, then the children are truants.
I am not Hasidic (although I am of Jewish descent) and I am merely a neighbor of Amish people, not Amish myself. So take all of the following with a grain of salt.
The Amish are another insular religious sect that wish to shield their children from the outside world, and they, too, run their own schools. The Amish fought all the way to the Supreme Court over educational issues and the deal eventually agreed upon boils down to this:
Amish children are educated in Amish schools. Amish children must attend through 8th grade. Amish children must be able to read and write (in their case, in both English, their own German dialect, and some schools yet another variety of German), perform basic math, and study history, geography, and other subjects. I’ve yet to meet someone Amish who is not fluent in American English. Amish people who leave their community generally opt to get a GED, which, given their basic grounding in education, they usually manage without undue difficulty, and some then go on to higher education. Although the Amish might start the day with a prayer the emphasis in their system is not teaching religion (that is done in the home and at church services) but rather academics needed both to fit into their society AND to do business with the outside world.
There are some major differences between the Amish and the Hasidics.
To engage in business with the outside world or to not do so. The Amish are astute businesspeople. They have plenty of their own businesses, of course, but also run businesses explicitly catering to those outside their community. On the other hand, the Hasidics try to live wholly isolated (despite living in New York City) and engage in business just within their own community.
To accept or not accept government help. The Amish do not accept government help - not social security (they’re excused from participating, in fact, even when working for “English” employers), not medicaid, not medicare, not unemployment insurance, not foodstamps. This means their communities have to be self-supporting to cover those unable to self-support like the elderly and disabled. On the other hand, the Hasid accept any and all government help they can, as detailed in the New York Times article, which is part of what funds their communities and allows them to be so insular.
How many people leave the communities and what happens to them. About 1/4 of the Amish children leave the Amish communities. The Amish would prefer they stay, of course, but for them being a member of the community is a choice - that’s why they don’t baptize people into their church until said person is a full adult and able to make a choice with lifetime consequences. The Hasid do not give their children a choice, they view them as members from birth.
The end result is that the Amish see a definite need for a base level of education. They can’t be self-supporting and/or do business with the outside world without that base education. Their dispute with the government was never about educating their children at all, it was about how that education would be delivered, and exactly how much would be required. Amish children who leave their communities do have adjustments to make, and cultural shock to deal with, but they can read, write, do math, and have some knowledge of the outside world.
The Hasid do not see a need for teaching their children anything about the outside world. Their ideal is that the boys study the Torah and pray all day (though of course many men have to work at a job of some sort) and for the women to run the households so the men can do the study and prayer. That’s why the girls actually get a better education than the men (although it’s still woefully inadequate, merely horribly inadequate instead of absolutely abysmal). Women actually have to do things like shopping and bill paying which require at least a minimal interaction with the world. Also, things like cooking might require some actual math skills. Also, sign the family up for government aid, which allows the community to be less than self-supporting. Because the kids are so isolated and educationally stunted very few leave, and those that do face enormous obstacles. This is by design. No one has a choice, by birth one is Hasid/Jewish, so there is no point in learning to cope with the outside world.
So while there are parallels between the two communities there are also some major differences. The Amish never had to be told the value of secular subjects, their own culture finds value in them and thus they are motivate to provide their children with basic literacy/numeracy and knowledge of the Outside. The Hasid do not value secular subjects, their “education” is mostly about studying religious texts, and thus they are NOT motivated to educate their children as we would see fit.
That is a depressing article.
My own personal view is that, should an educational establishment take a single penny of government money there are two criteria they must fulfill.
a) That a minimum curriculum is to be adhered to
b) That admittance cannot be restricted by religious affiliation.
It incenses me that in my own country (UK) my own taxes go to funding schools that select on the basis of religion. I assume from the article that the USA is the same
I don’t mind the Hasids or the Amish preserving their cultures. I do have a problem with neglect or abuse of children. Failing to provide a basic education so children have no choice in whether to stay or leave is, in my mind, abusive and neglectful.
Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, of which Hasidism is a branch, is not all terrible nor is it without its attractions to some people. I know a woman who converted from Baptist to one of those groups and has been very happy and fulfilled, is a fully accepted part of her community, and is thriving a half century down the road. But she chose that lifestyle, she wasn’t forced into it. The article is certainly highlighting the downsides and problems of that community, which, IMHO, is entirely appropriate as not group should be immune to criticisms.
You can be OK with people preserving their cultures but still have a beef with them being abusive, neglectful shitheads about some things.
You can be Orthodox Jewish, even Ultra-Orthodox, without being ignorant. The only reason for leaving their children uneducated is fear they will leave the community if the kids learn there is another way to live. It is possible to be both educated and a highly observant Jew.
As a general rule, no.
With the caveat that the Amish, like everyone, do have some developmentally disabled children, and that the rule only applies through 8th grade because Amish children usually don’t stay in school past that, they start working in their communities.
It doesn’t require ignorance, but in practice some groups utterly fail to provide their children with that knowledge because in their view knowing those things aren’t necessary and potentially dangerous in regards to children being tempted by the outside world.
The Amish, in contrast, don’t live in the “outside world” but, because they do interact with it, they do see a value in knowing the basics of those things.
I think it is reasonable for society at large to demand a certain level of knowledge even for insular groups.
I’ll just note here that Amish schools take NO government money. Which is part and parcel of their attitude towards government help. They do, however, adhere to government standards of how much basic education a person should have.
In contrast to the Hasidic yeshivas who seem happy to take government money but deliver shit education.
Depends on how you define “religious subjects” - I suspect the schools are doing exactly what the people running those communities want them to do. They make compliant members who have little choice about remaining in the community and conforming to its strictures. The boys know torah and religious texts, the women can run a household and raise kids.
^ This. They want to live in the shetls of Eastern Europe from the 19th or earlier centuries. Except I suspect it’s a fantasy notion of what that was like. And they’re doing it in a huge, urban center rather than a tiny farm village that at least had a potential of being self-supporting.
I thank Og my ancestors left that environment 130 years ago, even if the reason and method of their leaving was terribly traumatic.
^ This.
And it’s in many ways a slap in the face to other Jews who, by and large, highly value education of all sorts.
My father’s family was so Orthodox they pre-ripped sections of toilet paper before sundown on Friday so they wouldn’t violate the “no work” rule on Sabbath when wiping their backsides after taking a shit on Saturday. And, as I said, they have roots in the shetls of Eastern Europe, too. But they didn’t have an issue with Grandma getting a degree in accounting, and she managed to work as one while keeping a properly kosher household. Both her boys went on to be college educated. Education is NOT incompatible with being a highly orthodox Jew. Except in a few backward, nasty little enclaves.
To say the quiet part out loud, what is being described here is a cult. One tends not to think of groups as cults when they have a certain longevity and cultural acceptance, but they conform to the definition.
I would have thought a cult is a religion one does not like.
As is the nature of religious schisms and rivalries, Hasidism was certainly not universally culturally accepted by Jews (up to and including excommunications) when it came out in the 18th century, and I do not imagine it is now.
No the classic definition is a religion that actively seeks to cut its members off from the outside world.
The classic classic definition refers to forms, systems, and rites of religious worship and implies no further distinction or judgement. If anything, “sects” carry a hint of heterodoxy, except when they don’t.
I probably should have said that a classic point of distinction between religions in general and cults is that the latter seeks to cut its adherents off from the outside world
Nah. Way back when, we read the section on cults in a sociology textbook. While OTTOMH Scientology is a cult by any sane definition, Messianic Judiasm is not. The leaders of Messianic Judaism are lying liars who lie. But, it’s not a cult.
Also OTTOMH Rabbi Schneerson’s followers are lobbying hard for cult status.
Your ire surprised me, as I don’t see this as anything unique to Judaism or even minority groups.
Every group of people has to denounce the people who claim to be part of their group but do bad things. As a Christian, I have to be sure and denounce Christians who are homophobic, racist, etc. As an Arkansan, I make sure to call out the state government. As a cishet white man, I call out the misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, and racists.
We expect Republicans to call out MAGA supporters and racists. We expect both parties to call out those who commit sexual assault. We expect feminists to call out TERFs. Fan groups (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters) etc. have to call out their bigots.
It’s not that anyone needs to prove they’re “one of the good ones.” It’s that our silence is what enables these things to happen. And it’s not like calling out evildoers is some huge burden–it’s something we all do anyways. You even did in post 33.
You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, but thank you so much for explaining my obligations to me.
No. They are strong supporters of basic education skills . . . to the 8th grade. They have a special religious exemption to take their kids out of school after 8th. They also speak English as well as Pennsylvania Dutch. Plus there is that rumspringa thing. Imagine turning Hasidic kids out into New York City to fend for themselves for a year.
So like monks, nuns and hermits?
Those are not religions, those are options within religions that a small minority chooses. Almost the opposite from a cult, in that they are difficult to join, not leave. Moreover, in the monasteries I’ve been familiar with, there is no coercion nor obligation to stay. Nor will anybody ‘cut you off’, although if you are leaving a cloister (these are rare these days), you will have the same restrictions about communicating with the remaining inhabitants that everyone else does.
I think this is the crucial point, that a lot of people probably aren’t even aware of. The Amish choose to live a low-tech lifestyle, but are self-supporting. These Hasidim’s entire way of life is totally dependent on gaming the social welfare systems of their surrounding, non-Hasidic host societies. It’s a total fraud. Subsistence farming is a real thing; it’s what 90% of the population used to do with their lives. A way of life in which the men do nothing but study the Torah all day, and the women are all housewives and full-time mothers, could not exist unless SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8, etc. were all there to bilk.
Were we to cut off the Othodox from all forms of public assistance, would you then permit their schools? I think I would not.
What @Ulfreida said. There are many different brands of monks, nuns and hermits but those I’ve heard of don’t discourage people from leaving.
Additionally, given that they are single sex, by definition they don’t bring up children in the group and deliberately do things to make it hard for them to leave.