# Idiotic Orthodox Jewish Tradition Leads to Death of Seven Children **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 22, 2015, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666 "2015-03-22T05:39:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/321 "2015-03-30T00:03:05Z")
To add to that thought, when you look at groups who today oppose gay rights and generally are homophobic, you wonder how these people don’t realize they’re on the wrong end of history, right? We’re living the civil rights era all over again. Younger people are less hateful and more tolerant than older ones. You can see the demographics shifting towards a better, less hateful society. And so you wonder how the people who fight so hard for it don’t realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the hate vs tolerance debate. The best places in the world in this regard - the places that are most tolerant and least hateful - are also among the least religious places in the world. People who give up on age old prejudices and pre-modern thinking are the most humanism oriented cultures. Meanwhile, the most devoutly religious places, the places where religion is so dominant that it’s codified into law and wields the greatest amount of power, are the most miserable, backwards, and hateful places. It makes me wonder when religious people are going to realize they’re on the wrong side of history. Just like people desperately keeping their racism, homophobia, and other regressive cultural traits alive, it should be immediately apparent that part of why a place like the Netherlands is better than a place like Saudi Arabia is the degree to which they’ve evolved. The rate at which you throw away your hatred and prejudicial views tends to match the rate at which you either leave religions, or water them down. To be clear, I’m not saying that all religion is as hateful as racism or homophobia - some certainly is, but (fewer) religious people can be motivated by love and charity. Some have evolved into simply throwing off religions as unneeded anymore, and others have responded by softening their religion, focusing on the positive and less primitive factors to try to modernize their views. Those others who feel the power base of their traditional beliefs slipping while others modernize their view fight back and become even more regressive, just as you saw with the civil rights movement and the early part of the gay rights movement. I do think that in a hundred years people will look back at the people who fought so hard to maintain their religious identity even as the rest of us evolved past them and think “didn’t these people realize they were on the wrong side of history?” just we look back on people who fought against civil rights. Again, to be clear, I’m not saying religion = anti-civil-rights. I’m just saying that the demographics and humanism-oriented thinking that allows us to become less hateful also seems to alleviate the need and motivation people feel towards religion. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/322 "2015-03-30T00:11:10Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And no one really gives a shit if you do or don’t. Or shouldn’t anyway. It is none of their business … so long as you are not imposing your beliefs upon others. You are happier without a God concept and without religious ritual in your life. Great! I am happy with my soft Spinoza inspired pantheism (closer to atheism than to deism) and the few rituals I do because I like doing them. Great for me too! > > None of us care that you don’t want to join a religion. None of us care if you choose to not associate with people of faith socially. None of us care that you lack curiosity about the beliefs of others. > > It’s the arrogant bug up your ass about wanting to impose your beliefs upon others who you understand are getting something out of their beliefs, beliefs which you do not understand and have no interest in understanding, that irks the shit out of the rest of us. It’s **Locrian** ’s “HUGE hate for religion in general” that strikes the rest of us, as well … hateful. Why the tirade? I understand much of it. Anyone can, they’re very basic concepts. Except being touched by the divine. I’m left to wonder if it happens by choice, or has god decided to exclude me, and if so if it’s my fault. I’m not imposing anything on anyone and I certainly didn’t intend to upset you. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/323 "2015-03-30T01:52:17Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I know of no religious group, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise, that teaches that their god will always personally intervene to protect the lives of its followers. No, but many believe that the one true God will save their souls and ensure they go to paradise. That’s a much more rewarding promise than the saving of a life. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/324 "2015-03-30T02:06:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Religion _is_ wrong. The very fact that religions with millions and billions of adherents are all mutually contradictory proves that at least some religion is wrong, right off the bat. … You have I am sure heard of the blind men and the elephant, each one sure that an elephant is a rope, a wall, a snake … does the elephant not exist because each blind human, limited in their ability to perceive, concludes an elephant is something other than another blind human does? Or is there _something_ to said that all of them were sure that there was _something_ there? Now mind you in the case of religion I am _personally_ not convinced that the something to be said is that any God exists, but minimally that the tendency to believe in God is heavily selected for in our brains by evolution, that the tendency to belief has served some vital function in our evolutionary history. But the fact that there are different perceptions of God is not evidence against God. > [@SB more](#): > > … I am using what influence I hold by my ability to communicate and reason out of a desire to help humanity become better and transcend magical thinking. I use these same faculties and motivations when I attack other forms of magical thinking. It’s just that you get your panties in a bunch if I attack magical religious thinking and you wouldn’t if I attacked magical thinking about biology or medicine. This is because you think that religion is privileged above other magical belief systems, that you can’t hold religion to the same scrutiny that you can for the four humors model of health … Amazingly enough your (and others posting in this thread) hateful diatribes do a piss poor job at helping humanity transcend magical thinking and at getting people to stop beliefs that they experience as adding value to their lives. As a physician I have no problem with keeping an open mind to the possible efficacy of, say, Chinese herbs, even if I personally do not believe in the basis of the Chinese medical system. First sometimes they turn out, upon study, to actually work. Second, there is nothing wrong with a placebo effect. Someone having a belief in a system that I consider not science is not a problem in and of itself. Most of the time I can get better compliance with evidence-based approaches if I do not disrespect those beliefs. > [@SB further pontificating](#): > > … Furthermore, you insult me by implying that I am more like the violent, militant religious people trying to suppress your religion. This is not only obviously false, but it’s insulting. This is part of the whole “militant atheist” nonsense that I’ve been attacking during the thread. Do you know what a militant Muslim is? Osama Bin Laden. Do you know what a militant atheist is? Richard Dawkins. … Oh poor baby is insulted. I’ve called you intolerant, contemptuous, arrogant, and a jerk. All of which I stand by. And when Dawkins went beyond a full throated defense OF atheism to attacking the beliefs of others he also was those things. Not militant, but as Professor Higgs (y’know, of the Higgs boson) expressed: “embarrassing.” I’ve not accused you of violence or being militant. Not of being a madman or of having excessive spittle. Your drool is your business. Putting words in the mouths of others is a good sign of the poverty of the position. But no, it is not true that the only intolerance that matters is that manifested by physical violence. Now if you want to attack particular times when religion is used by some as a tool of intolerance and oppression I will be with you on that. And I would not exempt the Haredim from criticism in that regard. It would be hard to find a fundamentalist portion of any faith that not deserve criticism for that. Of course I can also find people of faith who have specifically worked for the rights and freedom of others based on their religious beliefs. The Abolitionist movement anyone? Again, not personally a believer in God as most would recognize the concept, and in general someone who finds much more to blame upon the _institutions_ of religion (not the same as faith itself) than positives to credit them with. But again, we have [evolved with](http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982) a strong [biologic tendency to believe](http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf) … I think that rumors of the impending death of religion are somewhat exaggerated. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/325 "2015-03-30T02:11:44Z")
Upon review … okay, I have pointed out that the intolerance shown by some in this thread is a similar mindset to religious fundamentalists. Still not quite the same as saying you are violent or militant yourself … you just share the same intolerance to others’ beliefs and desire to see them eliminated. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/326 "2015-03-30T03:10:32Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You have I am sure heard of the blind men and the elephant, each one sure that an elephant is a rope, a wall, a snake … does the elephant not exist because each blind human, limited in their ability to perceive, concludes an elephant is something other than another blind human does? > > Or is there _something_ to said that all of them were sure that there was _something_ there? No, of course not. I bet most if not all of ancient cultures had some sort of explanation for why the sun moves across the sky that involves some sort of agency. The sun is a god who walks around the world, or he’s a fireball pushed by an invisible dragon, or other such explanation. Does that mean that even though their explanations differ, they must be onto something, because they all agree something is there? If you were writing a fictional story about the culture and practices of a long lost tribe of people on some forgotten island who hadn’t had contact with anyone else for 10,000 years, would they have a religion? Almost certainly. Does that mean their god, the one you just made up, is real? Because there’s a cultural need to have some sort of religion - to the individual to provide some sort of comfort towards uncertainty (with fear of death being the greatest driving motivator) and from a leadership/cultural perspective because it allows some people to control society and create the rules. Religion adapts to the level of knowledge of its adherents. Early religions were primitive and typically gave agency to all sorts of unknown things. Why do the rains come sometimes and not others? What are the sun and moon? What is lighting and thunder? We explain these by creating primitive religions that give explanations and a sense of control to these things. As we learn more about the world, our religions adapt to move to areas that are still unknown. “Advanced” monotheistic religions no longer needed for there to be a sun god and a moon god - I’ve speculated actually that monotheism is a defense against knowledge. Multi-god/pantheistic systems where god-like agency is given to all sorts of natural forces have a hard time adapting when the need for a god runs out because we now know what’s behind the process we once created a god to explain. Monotheism is much more liquid. God did everything. When you learn something, you just tack “God did it” to the end and it still stays consistent with your religion. God can be exactly as big or as small as you need to fill the gaps in your psyche left by the unknown and by empowering you to feel like you somehow have control over uncontrollable factors, or to be able to find meaning in meaningless ones. Or, to give you a very concise way of understanding why you’re wrong: let’s say we lived in a universe that had no god. Would you expect, in this universe, that people would create religions that featured a god? > [@](#): > > Now mind you in the case of religion I am _personally_ not convinced that the something to be said is that any God exists, but minimally that the tendency to believe in God is heavily selected for in our brains by evolution, that the tendency to belief has served some vital function in our evolutionary history. As you’re a physician I’m a little perplexed by your flippant use of this attempt at evolutionary psychology. What evidence do you have that evolution selects for religious belief, or that evolution, rather than cultural and memetic factors are responsible for the creation and spread of evolution? Even if you were right, our brains have evolved to spot patterns that do not exist. Evolution isn’t some sculptor of perfection. Would you say “a belief in ghosts or ancestor spirit is extremely common through different societies, therefore ghost-belief is selected by evolution”, right? And even if you did, you wouldn’t present it as some sort of evidence to suggest that ghosts are real. > [@](#): > > But the fact that there are different perceptions of God is not evidence against God. If religions are mutually contradictory, then yes, that’s evidence that at least one of those belief systems isn’t true. Maybe you can say that Islam/Judaism/Christianity are similar enough since they do have some cultural inheritance are similar, but are you suggesting that those, Hinduism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, and the hundreds of different variation on pagan beliefs are all just different takes on the one true god? > [@](#): > > Amazingly enough your (and others posting in this thread) hateful diatribes do a piss poor job at helping humanity transcend magical thinking and at getting people to stop beliefs that they experience as adding value to their lives. To the contrary, I’ve written at length about religion and I’ve had a number of people personally tell me that it was what I said or wrote that gave them the tools or motivation they needed to critically reform their views. I’m not going to say this thread is my best work or anything, but I absolutely have made a difference. Tell me, in my last post, the one you’re replying to, what was the “hateful diatribes”? If I take any other position than “all religions are unique and beautiful and should be respected”, is that a hateful diatribe? > [@](#): > > As a physician I have no problem with keeping an open mind to the possible efficacy of, say, Chinese herbs, even if I personally do not believe in the basis of the Chinese medical system. First sometimes they turn out, upon study, to actually work. Second, there is nothing wrong with a placebo effect. Someone having a belief in a system that I consider not science is not a problem in and of itself. Most of the time I can get better compliance with evidence-based approaches if I do not disrespect those beliefs. Yep, and if we suddenly got some new compelling evidence for god, I’d want to know what it was, and then I’d believe in that god if it were the best explanation. Herbs are drugs. There’s a plausible mechanism for them to work. Most of them do not simply because ancient Chinese folk doctors were not versed or interested in proper test methodologies. There’s no plausible mechanism by which we know of god except indirect reports on some third party’s personal revelation thousands of years ago. Even if you thought that there must be some sort of creator of some sort, how do go about knowing about him? How do you decide that your god hates gay people, wants you to wear silly hats, and wants you to eat ice cream with every single meal? “This guy said he was a prophet and here’s what god wants” is the only explanation, and as someone who understands how to evaluate the quality of evidence, you know that this is worthless. > [@](#): > > Oh poor baby is insulted. Here’s the thing. In this thread, I haven’t personally insulted anyone over religion in this thread. I’ve only insulted to people saying insulting things to me directly. And of course I’ve attacked the idea of religion. And in fact I explicitly apologized to someone who felt that I was targeting him personally with an insult aimed a group, because it wasn’t my intent to insult people personally here. On the other hand, you’ve called me scum and repeatedly insulted me saying that I’m an intolerant asshole because I can’t stand that people have beliefs different from mine. But you have attacked me on that same basis, and much more personally, and you were the initiator of all the attacks. You have been less civil than I, initiated all of the personal insults, and seem completely oblivious to the fact that your criticisms about getting angry over someone believing differently from you applies more to you than it does to me. You call me scum, but your behavior towards me has been far more scummy than mine towards you. > [@](#): > > I’ve called you intolerant, contemptuous, arrogant, and a jerk. All of which I stand by. And when Dawkins went beyond a full throated defense OF atheism to attacking the beliefs of others he also was those things. Not militant, but as Professor Higgs (y’know, of the Higgs boson) expressed: “embarrassing.” I’ve not accused you of violence or being militant. Not of being a madman or of having excessive spittle. Your drool is your business. Putting words in the mouths of others is a good sign of the poverty of the position. Will you at least admit that you would never call me intolerant, contemptuous, and arrogant if I made the exact same attacks I’m making on religion if I made them on some other magical thinking like homeopathy, psychic mediums, vitalism models of health care, or astrology? Would you admit that you demand special treatment of religion compared to other magical belief systems? As for Dawkins, how does one make a defense of atheism without attacking the idea of religion? Saying “Hey, there’s no reason to think religions are correct, they’re arbitrary explanations with no evidence” is one of the core premises of atheism, but how do you express that without “attacking” religion? Also, your appeal to Professor Higgs is one of the weirder appeals to authority I’ve ever seen. Who cares what Professor Higgs thinks about Dawkins? Was that meant to be some sort of “see, even a scientist thinks atheists are wrong!” attack? Very silly. Other people in this thread have used the word “spittle” and “hysterical” and other such things thrown at me. Did you use those words? Maybe not, I’m not going to look back on every post you made to this thread. But by calling me scum and likening my attitude to ISIS, you have certain used hyperbole to describe the positions I’ve stated in this thread. One of my central points is that apologists for religion will consistent label atheistic arguments as being more aggressive and hostile than they actually are as part of their attempts to suppress them. Accusing me of having a poverty of position is absurd. I’m sure you’re a smart guy, but I could easily crush you on a debate on the intellectual merits of religion in almost any context because you’ve got the disadvantage of attempting to defend an absurd position that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Similarly, I could destroy even a really smart, excellent debater who felt the need to defend the practice of astrology. The best intellectual defenders of religion can come up with is shit like the ontological argument, or some variation of "there must be some kind of god out there… therefore it must be my hate-gays, silly-hats, ice-cream god. Religion has never held up to scrutiny, it has only suppressed it. Through most of history, questioning it or rejecting it would get you killed or exiled. Some places in the world today this is still true. In more advanced societies, like our own, you’re merely ostracized and shouted down. People will use the fact that religion has been sincerely believed by most people who ever lived, played a pivotal role in the development of our society, and has been a constant factor for a long time as special pleading that it not be held up to the same scrutiny as other beliefs. Maybe in 2000 years, after scientology has killed and conquered and forcibly converted untold millions of people, it can demand the special privilege of the Judeo-Christian religions too. > [@DSeid](#): > > Upon review … okay, I have pointed out that the intolerance shown by some in this thread is a similar mindset to religious fundamentalists. Still not quite the same as saying you are violent or militant yourself … you just share the same intolerance to others’ beliefs and desire to see them eliminated. I’d like to see racism eliminated too. I’m intolerant of the belief of racism and think that the world would be a better place if it didn’t exist. I guess I’m just like ISIS. They murder non-believers and bulldoze shrines, and I’m intolerant towards racism. Same thing, more or less. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/327 "2015-03-30T03:45:41Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > Yes, I have a HUGE hate for religion in general. (send a Kewpie doll to puzlegal, please). I don’t think the sabbath is stupid due to uneducated participants burning the house down, it’s stupid to believe it should be done at all because your storybook said so. Cool. This particular tragedy doesn’t do anything to advance your belief, however. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/328 "2015-03-30T05:35:58Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Dude. You clearly haven’t been reading my posts or links. I mentioned long ago that this fire wasn’t an outlier, that the exact same thing happened in the same community in 2010: that is, a fire caused by an unattended hot-plate. > > What you and your like-minded fellows continually fail to appreciate, for the upteenth time, is that cooking unsafely has nothing specifically to do with religion; it is no different from driving unsafely or doing any other activity unsafely. > > That isn’t a “pattern of apologetics” for the religion, that’s just a basic feature of logic, causation and rationality. Personally I have no time for Orthodox Judaism, but this attack on the religion is just - plain - dumb, which ought to be evident to the religious and non-religious alike. There are far better and more convincing attacks on Orthodox Judaism. > > The basic mistake you guys are making is that you are mixing up notions of causation with motivation. Sure, the activity was “motivated” by a religious motive, but it was not “caused” by a religious cause, any more than an accident suffered driving unsafely to church was “caused” by religion - as the religion does not mandate doing the activity in an unsafe manner that, in the sense of legal negligence, was the “cause” of the accident. > > Put it this way: assume the Orthodox family had been heating their food unattended in a proper crock-pot, a utensil specifically designed and sold for the purpose of heating food unsupervised - and, due to a manufacturer’s error, the crock pot shorted out and burned the house to the ground. Was that tragedy still, in your opinion, “caused” by religion? Yes or no? No. If you setup a blind test between a haredim family and a secular one, both heating food or whatever, and you can’t tell which is which, I don’t think an accident can be blamed on religious beliefs, like I don’t think it can be blamed on their taste in music. Does that invalidate saying sabbath played a roled in this particular tragedy? Crock pots were not mentioned a single time in the two NYT articles I read about the community. Besides maybe sometimes the Haredim wish to eat other things besides stews on sabbath. Everyone seems to recognize that current practices for observing sabbath have problems: namely the community itself and fire safety officials. Not you though. Something about driving. I tried explaing the concept of causal chains, without much success. Can you at least stop implying that anyone thinks that these people must use unsafe cooking practices because of religion? I actually didn’t think the risk statistically significant because I assumed the problem was self-correcting in such a close knit community. It may still be but it’s difficult to assume much from people “not allowed to ask why” but who believe “god has a plan” in the face of tragedy. Let me guess, of all the billion valid reasons to criticise Orthodox Judaism, I managed to miss the mark again. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/329 "2015-03-30T14:35:11Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > No. If you setup a blind test between a haredim family and a secular one, both heating food or whatever, and you can’t tell which is which, I don’t think an accident can be blamed on religious beliefs, like I don’t think it can be blamed on their taste in music. Then that ends your participation in this thread - clearly, if you believe that, then you believe religion isn’t the problem here. > [@](#): > > Does that invalidate saying sabbath played a roled in this particular tragedy? > > Crock pots were not mentioned a single time in the two NYT articles I read about the community. > Besides maybe sometimes the Haredim wish to eat other things besides stews on sabbath. Do you even know what it was they were heating? From the stories, the hot plate was being used “… to heat a stew known as cholent …” Know what was item was specifically invented to heat cholent? The crock pot. > **[Cholent: The Original Slow-Cooked Dish](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/22/280231765/cholent-the-original-slow-cooked-dish)** > > A stewed dish cooked very low and slow, cholent has roots in the Jewish Sabbath. This ancient stew directly inspired the Crock-Pot – and maybe the French cassoulet and Boston baked beans as well. > [@](#): > > Inventor Irving Naxon came up with over 200 patents, for everything from washing machines to sending data over telephone wires. But one of his most popular ideas was inspired by his mother’s stories of making cholent in Lithuania. > “She would walk it over to the village bakery, where, as the ovens were turned off for the Sabbath, the pot of cholent would be put in the oven,” explains Naxon’s daughter, Lenore. “And that slow residual heat over the course of the 24 hours would be enough to cook the cholent.” > After the Saturday religious services, the kids would pick up their pots for a warm Sabbath meal. > “So my father heard that story, and thought, hmm, well how can I take the crock and electrify it with some slow, even heat?” Lenore Naxon remembers. > The resulting invention was first called the Naxon Beanery — but you might know it better as the Crock-Pot. It’s an idea that went from the Middle East, to a little shtetl in Lithuania, to millions of American homes. And in some of them, it’s still being used to make cholent. In summary, the exact same dish that was involved in this fire, was the direct inspiration for the invention of a utensil used for the exact purpose - to safely heat the stew known as cholent. These are all verifiable facts - and that the stories you happened to read did not mention them, makes no difference. > [@](#): > > Everyone seems to recognize that current practices for observing sabbath have problems: namely the community itself and fire safety officials. > > Not you though. Bullshit. Guess who mentioned, repeatedly, that the exact same hot-plate fire scenario happened in 2010 - and so the community ought to have known that it was unsafe? That’s right - that was me. > [@](#): > > Something about driving. I tried explaing the concept of causal chains, without much success. You lack success because you don’t understand it. Yes, everyone knows that these folks made stew on an unsafe hot-plate because of Shabbat. Just like a driver may drive unsafely to Church because of Mass. In both cases, the actual risk-factor implicated in the accident is the unsafe practice - not the religious motivation. > [@](#): > > Can you at least stop implying that anyone thinks that these people must use unsafe cooking practices because of religion? I’m not implying that at all. I’m outright stating that if religion doesn’t actually mandate an unsafe practice, it makes zero logical sense to blame the outcome of an unsafe practice on religion. Somehow, you can’t seem to wrap your head around that notion. It is like you are compelled, by the existence of a tragedy casually connected to a religious practice, to hold the position that this demonstrates religion = bad, in spite of that position making no logical sense whatsoever. If a similar tragedy happened beacuse single moms were using hotplates to heat food while they were out working, I somehow doubt you would be saying “single working moms = bad” because of “casual chains”. Or would you? > [@](#): > > I actually didn’t think the risk statistically significant because I assumed the problem was self-correcting in such a close knit community. You were wrong - and if you’d read my posts, you would have known you were wrong. > [@](#): > > It may still be but it’s difficult to assume much from people “not allowed to ask why” but who believe “god has a plan” in the face of tragedy. > > Let me guess, of all the billion valid reasons to criticise Orthodox Judaism, I managed to miss the mark again. Yup, you miss again. The article posted above as to reactions in the community quite clearly outlines that the Orthodox are, as a result of the publicity and scale of this disaster, questioning their practices - such as buying up smoke-detectors and switching to what they perceive to be less-risky cooking methods. In short, that they are reacting much as non-religious people would react to such a tragedy - that is, seeing if they can do what they always have done, only safer. Hell, you yourself reference this: "Everyone seems to recognize that current practices for observing sabbath have problems: namely the community itself … " Again, why worry about minor details like the facts or logic when you can just make shit up? ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/330 "2015-03-30T15:30:05Z")
Why is it so hard to believe that someone might gain something from religious belief? ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/331 "2015-03-30T15:58:42Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Then that ends your participation in this thread - clearly, if you believe that, then you believe religion isn’t the problem here. Really? Then you’d expect that 24 hour crockpot simmering would be evenly distributed as a heating method among orthodox and secular families. Because that’s not the world I live in. Seems pretty fucking wasteful and inconvenient, but then I’m the one who has a problem with logic. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/332 "2015-03-30T16:16:00Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > Really? Then you’d expect that 24 hour crockpot simmering would be evenly distributed as a heating method among orthodox and secular families. So you think there is some religious reason why the Orthodox don’t use a crock-pot? Odd - as the links already posted indicate that _some_ do in fact use a crock-pot. > [@](#): > > But amid the sleepless nights and impossible-to-answer questions about God’s purposes, there was also a sense of urgency, because on Friday, it will be the Sabbath again, and tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews will do exactly what Gayle Sassoon, the children’s mother, did in the hours before the fire. Before sundown, they will turn on a stove burner, a crockpot or an electric hot plate and leave it on overnight, so they can provide their family with a warm Sabbath meal without violating ancient prohibitions on lighting a flame on the day of rest. [emphasis added] > **[Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn Rush to Buy Smoke Detectors Before Sabbath...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/nyregion/orthodox-jews-in-brooklyn-rush-to-buy-smoke-detectors-before-sabbath.html)** > > After a fire in Midwood, Brooklyn killed seven children on Saturday, there was a sense of urgency about buying smoke detectors and re-examining routines such as the way hot plates are used. As for the relative distribution of these devices between religious and non-religious families - I really have no idea. I would be very surprised if you did. Yet, you are making this the cornerstone of your argument? I rather suspect some use one device, rather than the other, out of habit, beacuse a crock-pot costs money and they are poor, or an incorrect perception of relative safety. Just like secular people. > [@](#): > > Because that’s not the world I live in. Seems pretty fucking wasteful and inconvenient, but then I’m the one who has a problem with logic. Well, that, and simply making up facts. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/333 "2015-03-30T16:49:19Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > If a similar tragedy happened beacuse single moms were using hotplates to heat food while they were out working, I somehow doubt you would be saying “single working moms = bad” because of “casual chains”. Or would you? I already answered this several times. You repeating it does not make it any smarter. I’m getting bored so I’m skipping a lot of the nonsense. Let me break it down for you. 1. Is this tradition idiotic? 2. Did it lead to a tragedy? Can single momness lead to tragedy sometimes? Yes. Each cause does not deserve equal scrutiny. It’s unlikely you’d see that news story in the NYT. That caricature of “Oh! Accident! Death! Religion bad!” is pathetic. Whether the religious beliefs are good or bad, you can keep believing they are neither, for all I care. I know its bad for energy efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/334 "2015-03-30T17:37:21Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > I already answered this several times. You repeating it does not make it any smarter. I’m getting bored so I’m skipping a lot of the nonsense. > > Let me break it down for you. > > 1. Is this tradition idiotic? > > 2. Did it lead to a tragedy? 1. Did 1 have anything to do with 2? Oh, that would be a “no”. If the tradition was “sensible”, it would have lead to tragedy just as easily as if it was “idiotic”. So what exactly is the significance of 1 and 2, in your mind? Yeah, I see the temptation to take a cheap shot at “idiotic” religious tradition, but it was dumb to give in to that temptation, much less attempt to justify it at length. > [@](#): > > Can single momness lead to tragedy sometimes? Yes. Each cause does not deserve equal scrutiny. It’s unlikely you’d see that news story in the NYT. Really? A family’s kids burn to death, and it would not make the news? BTW, in my hypothetical, “single momness” no more leads to tragedy than orthodox Jewness lead to tragedy in this case: unsafe cooking lead to tragedy in both. Your position is exactly the same as that of an antifeminist raising much-needed yuks by poking some fun at “idiotic” single working moms, whose cooking habits “lead to” tragedy. It doesn’t follow for them, and it doesn’t follow for you. > [@](#): > > That caricature of “Oh! Accident! Death! Religion bad!” is pathetic. I agree. So why are you guys still acting out that caricature? 😕 > [@](#): > > Whether the religious beliefs are good or bad, you can keep believing they are neither, for all I care. > > I know its bad for energy efficiency. I have expressed no opinion on whether these beliefs in particular are good, bad or neither. I am merely poking some scorn at the absurd logic exhibited by you and others in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/335 "2015-03-30T19:32:00Z")
I am pretty much ready to quit banging my head against the serious SenorBeeefing going on in this thread but a few comments deserve responses. > [@SB](#): > > … let’s say we lived in a universe that had no god. Would you expect, in this universe, that people would create religions that featured a god? … Yes. Precisely. I am reminded about a comment in a GD about Free Will: Free Will may or may not be a delusion but if it is it is a necessary delusion. > [@SB](#): > > I’m a little perplexed by your flippant use of this attempt at evolutionary psychology. What evidence do you have that evolution selects for religious belief Well you didn’t click on my other links so probably won’t on [this one](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/784.full?sid=9d9373e4-4fc5-4ae6-89b9-a4e863465651) or [this one](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full?sid=1b71a71c-80d3-40b8-ac5e-1732fbd11775) either. > [@Science](#): > > … A moral community has a set of shared norms about how members ought to behave, combined with means for imposing costs on violators and/or channeling benefits to cooperators. … several theorists realized that human groups engage in cultural practices that modify the circumstances under which genes are selected. Just as a modified gene for adult lactose tolerance evolved in tandem with cultural practices of raising dairy cows, so modified genes for moral motives may have evolved in tandem with cultural practices and institutions that rewarded group-beneficial behaviors and punished selfishness. Psychological mechanisms that promote uniformity within groups and maintain differences across groups create conditions in which group selection can occur, both for cultural traits and for genes … Humans attain their extreme group solidarity by forming moral communities within which selfishness is punished and virtue rewarded. Durkheim believed that gods played a crucial role in the formation of such communities. He saw religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them” (30). D. S. Wilson (35) has argued that the coevolution of religions and religious minds created conditions in which multilevel group selection operated, transforming the older morality of small groups into a more tribal form that could unite larger populations. As with ants, group selection greatly increased cooperation within the group, but in part for the adaptive purpose of success in conflict between groups. > > Whatever the origins of religiosity, nearly all religions have culturally evolved complexes of practices, stories, and norms that work together to suppress the self and connect people to something beyond the self. Newberg (37) found that religious experiences often involve decreased activity in brain areas that maintain maps of the self’s boundaries and position, consistent with widespread reports that mystical experiences involve feelings of merging with God or the universe. Studies of ritual, particularly those involving the sort of synchronized motor movements common in religious rites, indicate that such rituals serve to bind participants together in what is often reported to be an ecstatic state of union (38). Recent work on mirror neurons indicates that, whereas such neurons exist in other primates, they are much more numerous in human beings, and they serve to synchronize our feelings and movements with those of others around us (39). Whether people use their mirror neurons to feel another’s pain, enjoy a synchronized dance, or bow in unison toward Mecca, it is clear that we are prepared, neurologically, psychologically, and culturally, to link our consciousness, our emotions, and our motor movements with those of other people. … God concepts are not the only possible means of establishing and maintaining moral communities. We can also accept, _just as axiomatically_, truths that we hold to be self-evident. Funny thing though, most atheists (and virtually atheist pantheists like me) still behave _as if_ someone or something is watching us. > [@SB](#): > > … Tell me, in my last post, the one you’re replying to, what was the “hateful diatribes”? … How about if I start with your _first_ posts? > [@SB's setting the tone of the discussion](#): > > fucking white knighting of religious stupidity … Jewish religious stupidity … Hardcore Jews do all sorts of ridiculous shit … All of you fucking liberal douchebags … Shocking you were not smothered with hugs and kisses! I guess “you liberal douchebags” does not count as a personal insult but AGAIN insults lobbed personally at me are less offensive than hate aimed at entire groups of people. > [@SB](#): > > … how does one make a defense of atheism without attacking the idea of religion? … Takes some lessons from [these people](https://vimeo.com/77049516). You can witness and proselytize for what you do believe without attacking the beliefs of others. As annoying as I find witnessing and proselytizing to be, what you do is worse. Again, the difference is the same mindset that motivates militants to violence. You are not explaining why you believe what you believe, you are wanting to attack the beliefs of others for no reason other than that the fact their believing it somehow offends you. Many here who find the religion bashers posts to be hateful and idiotic are more commonly arguing on the side that religious institutions are more often used by those in power for oppressive purposes than for the betterment of humanity and have a significant distaste for fundamentalism of any stripe, Haredim inclusive. The difference is that we still do have some respect and curiosity for our friends’ beliefs and feel no need to insult our friends (be they going to Mass or not lighting fire on Shabbat or kneeling towards Mecca or not eating beef) just because it is incomprehensible (or even magical thinking) to us. It serves a purpose for them and adds value to their lives, as they judge it. I find learning about their beliefs and how they feel it adds value to their lives to be much more interesting and useful than mockery … unless they behave with their beliefs like you do with yours. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/336 "2015-03-30T19:45:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 1. Did 1 have anything to do with 2? > > Oh, that would be a “no”. If the tradition was “sensible”, it would have lead to tragedy just as easily as if it was “idiotic”. > > So what exactly is the significance of 1 and 2, in your mind? > > Yeah, I see the temptation to take a cheap shot at “idiotic” religious tradition, but it was dumb to give in to that temptation, much less attempt to justify it at length. Do you believe that leaving a hot plate working overnight to keep food warm is logical? An act guided by reason? What would be the purpose for a rational person to do that? Why would someone who wants to heat food using a hot plate not turn it on 15 or 30 minutes prior to eating, instead of say 12 hours overnight? Please don’t tell me they had other methods available, or that it could have been a clothes dryer short, or that space heaters also cause fires, or that some dishes require one month cooking time, or that people can also slip and break their necks. I know that already. I answered you questions directly and concisely, can you answer at least one of mine? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/337 "2015-03-30T19:47:09Z")
Good post, and those Science articles look awesome … but you have to be a subscriber to read 'em. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/338 "2015-03-30T20:33:31Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > Do you believe that leaving a hot plate working overnight to keep food warm is logical? An act guided by reason? > > What would be the purpose for a rational person to do that? Why would someone who wants to heat food using a hot plate not turn it on 15 or 30 minutes prior to eating, instead of say 12 hours overnight? > > Please don’t tell me they had other methods available, or that it could have been a clothes dryer short, or that space heaters also cause fires, or that some dishes require one month cooking time, or that people can also slip and break their necks. > > I know that already. I answered you questions directly and concisely, can you answer at least one of mine? It was an act guided by a ritual purpose: to conform with the laws of Shabbat. The “purpose” of conforming to the ritual was to subscribe to a community of belief, which at the post immediately above yours reasonably points out, as apparently described in a Science article, has all sorts of possible benefits to the member. Now, I don’t believe that most folks join a community of belief because they sit down and think “gee, it would be really a good idea to join this here community - look at all the logical and rational benefits derived from that”, no. Most are simply born into it and accept it without much question. However, there is a pretty basic “logic” at work: conform to the ritual if you wish to be a member of this particular community. Rituals don’t have to have any “logic” higher than that: ultimately, that’s the point of most of 'em. Same with, say, bowing towards Mecca 5 times a day, or a wedding ceremony, or a funeral, or a flag-raising, or whatever. None of which do I think are “idiotic”, “illogical” or “irrational”. They are rituals. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/339 "2015-03-30T20:57:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It was an act guided by a ritual purpose: to conform with the laws of Shabbat. Ok, so no, it was not an act guided by rational thought. I assume you are not playing a semantic game that ritual is a logical reason. I would call that significant. I would say that fact sets it apart from the act of “using” a car guided by reason, an analogy invoked by you. I would say I am justified in allowing such an irrational act to inform my judgement of the tragedy. > [@](#): > > The “purpose” of conforming to the ritual was to subscribe to a community of belief, which at the post immediately above yours reasonably points out, as apparently described in a Science article, has all sorts of possible benefits to the member. > > Now, I don’t believe that most folks join a community of belief because they sit down and think “gee, it would be really a good idea to join this here community - look at all the logical and rational benefits derived from that”, no. Most are simply born into it and accept it without much question. However, there is a pretty basic “logic” at work: conform to the ritual if you wish to be a member of this particular community. > > Rituals don’t have to have any “logic” higher than that: ultimately, that’s the point of most of 'em. Same with, say, bowing towards Mecca 5 times a day, or a wedding ceremony, or a funeral, or a flag-raising, or whatever. None of which do I think are “idiotic”, “illogical” or “irrational”. They are rituals. We can have that discussion, but the question was yes or no, in long form. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666/340 "2015-03-30T21:04:17Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > Ok, so no, it was not an act guided by rational thought. I assume you are not playing a semantic game that ritual is a logical reason. Huh? > [@](#): > > I would call that significant. I would say that fact sets it apart from the act of “using” a car guided by reason, an analogy invoked by you. I would say I am justified in allowing such an irrational act to inform my judgement of the tragedy. My analogy was about driving a car to Mass. Going to Church is as much a “ritual” as conforming with Shabbat. > [@](#): > > We can have that discussion, but the question was yes or no, in long form. Never have I seen a better example: [False dilemma - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-orthodox-jewish-tradition-leads-to-death-of-seven-children/715666.md?page=18)