Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The Other Side

When DovBear first linked to the New York Magazine article a few days ago, I immediately commented:
:::shudder:::

What's annoying is that a few rants against Jewish practice in general took away from the article - and I'm sure some UO* will point to that and say, "Look, they hate Jews!" and just shrug off the whole thing.
* I shouldn't have written UO.

Over the last few days, I discussed which portions I did not like with a few people, but never bothered to post it. In retrospect, I should have. Today, Steven I. Weiss of Canonist became was the first person to do just that, criticizing the shallow level at which much of the article was written, noting the inherent biases within. Weiss also was good about not therefore shrugging off the rest of the story, noting the fully-sourced Framowitz story.

The one aspect that I specifically would have been interested to see which he did not mention (Weiss was not getting into many specifics in his post) is the allegation that R' Scheinberg ruled that it was not abuse and therefore nothing was wrong. As I said to someone in an e-mail,
A few notes: I don’t buy the R’ Scheinberg part. What I *do* think is possible is that someone asked him a very misleading question, and used that for their own purposes.
There is plenty more to discuss, but please check out Weiss' piece. (You may want to ignore the comments section, however.)

Powered by WebAds