Abba Kovner once asked Amital how he could still believe in God after the Shoah. Amital replied, “And how can you still believe in humanity after the Holocaust?”

Atheist Critiques of Religion, Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust, Meimad and the Religious Peace Movement in Israel, Religious Moderates Criticize Fundamentalists No Comments

Biography / The making of a dove – Haaretz, October 12, 2008
By Yair Sheleg

Be’emunato: Sipuro shel harav yehuda amital (Be’emunato: The Story of Rabbi Yehuda Amital), by Elyashiv Reichner
Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 301 pages, NIS 98

Over the years, Rabbi Yehuda Amital, head of the Har Etzion hesder yeshiva (where students combine compulsory military service with their Talmudic studies) in Alon Shvut, has become one of the rabbis that even secular Jews (including those on the left) love to love. There are two reasons for this. For one, he has a sunny personality. Even more critical, however, are his political views.

It was Rabbi Amital who in the late 1980s founded the Meimad movement, which, from its inception, has advocated moderation in both the religious and political spheres. Nor is he afraid to attack his colleagues, who are rabbis affiliated with the right-wing religious Zionist camp, for their views.

Journalist Elyashiv Reichner’s biography of Amital, 83, unfolds the fascinating, complex story of this man. For many years, he taught at Yeshivat Hadarom in Rehovot, which was headed by his father-in-law, until, in 1965, he decided to move to Jerusalem. Two years later, he was offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It was in the period immediately following the Six-Day War, and the leaders of the movement to renew Jewish settlement in Gush Etzion, in the West Bank south of Jerusalem, were inviting him to head the yeshiva that they were establishing there. (I myself studied at that yeshiva under Amital’s leadership.)

The book speaks extensively of Amital’s personality and educational approach, for good reason. These are the real reasons he is so beloved by students and friends alike, including those who disagree with his views. Amital is an open-minded, original thinker, difficult to pigeonhole, and his character is reflected in his work as an educator.

Unlike so many rabbis and yeshiva heads, Amital explicitly discourages his students from following in his footsteps. Students frequently pepper him with questions unrelated to issues of Jewish law, and he always responds, gently but firmly, that they should think out the matter for themselves. Even on issues of Jewish law, he has been known to advise the inquirer to investigate the problem independently by consulting the sources. He always emphasizes that he is not interested in producing “Amital look-alikes.”

He has the reputation of being a determined optimist. Reichner relates that, on one occasion, when the rabbi’s daughter earned a score of only 50 percent on an exam, he consoled her: “Don’t feel bad. At least you knew half the material.”

As a Holocaust survivor (Amital was born in Hungary in 1924, and lost his entire family in Auschwitz), his attitude toward that subject is sincere and does not smack of self-righteousness: For instance, he has no difficulty acknowledging that he cannot answer why the Holocaust occurred, and he is furious with those who try to do so. The late Israeli poet Abba Kovner, himself a Holocaust survivor and a leader of Jewish resistance forces in the Vilna Ghetto, once asked Amital how he could still believe in God after the Shoah. Amital replied, “And how can you still believe in humanity after the Holocaust? After all, no one pretends to be able to understand God, yet we supposedly understand other human beings.”

Berlinerblau Criticizes Militant Atheists

Atheist Critiques of Religion, Religious Moderates Criticize Fundamentalists, Religious Responses to Atheist Critiques of Religion, Secularization No Comments

On Faith: Georgetown Blog, July 16, 2007

Query: Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than thirty seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists, pedophiles, bearers of false consciousness, authoritarian despots, and so forth? Is that possible?

First, some basic definitions. Politically speaking, American secularism is made up of two overlapping, albeit distinct, constituencies. The first is comprised of the aforementioned nonbelievers whose best-selling spokespersons are fast becoming the soccer hooligans of reasoned public discourse. The second is much larger and much quieter. It encompasses religious Americans who favor strict Church/State Separation this they share with the nonbelievers.

Nonbelievers of late have been churning out loud, unsubtle, anti-religious manifestos. The world would be a better place, they all seem to suggest, if religion and all of its associated personnel were simply to disappear. In this regards the new nonbelievers seem stuck in the ‘90s—and by this I mean the 1890s. This calls attention to one glaring problem with atheism and agnosticism today: it lacks new ideas. The movement abounds in polemicists, but has not produced a thinker of real substance since perhaps the days of Jean-Paul Sartre.

Charles Marsh, God and country, The Boston Globe, July 8, 2007

Christian Right, Christian Right and the Military, Militant Fundamentalists versus Moderate Evangelicals, Religion and Nationalism, Religious Moderates Criticize Fundamentalists, Soldiers Willing to Die for God and Country No Comments

Marsh, Evangelicals against the Iraq war, The Boston Globe, July 8, 2007

Burg, The “army of God” must not be permitted to gain control of the institutions of state power, Ha’aretz, 8/15/2007

Culture Wars, Holy Wars: The Clash within Civilizations, Fundamentalism, Hebron, Israeli Religious Right, Religious Moderates Criticize Fundamentalists No Comments

Burg, Those who say that “God’s law is first” are no different from one another, whether they wear a rabbi’s skullcap, Hezbollah’s turban or the cloak of a North American spiritual leader, Ha’aretz, August 15, 2007