Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

One of the defining features seems to be that it has no text messaging facilities, and can only make and receive calls, because texting apparently leads to "immodesty"[0]:

> Texting is not only a waste of time, the [rabbinical] authorities found, it encourages "immodest" exchanges which would not happen on the telephone or face to face.

I just... I know religion is a difficult topic for many people. I was raised Catholic (CCD once a week through 8th grade, completed all the sacraments, attended Mass nearly every weekend until I was 18 and left home), but became an atheist when I was in my early teens (privately, as my parents would have punished me had they known). I found a lot of things wrong with Catholicism, but one of the big issues I had was many parishoners' blind adherence to dogma, and their sudden inability to think critically where any aspect of religion was concerned. This struck me as something that could be -- and it turned out, is -- easily abused by religious leaders.

So this prohibition on texting just seems like a method of control to me. It feels cherry-picked, and the reason for banning it seems contrived. There are so many other ways to be "immodest" that it feels weird to focus on something like this. Where do these things come from? It seems so arbitrary and capricious.

Orthodox Judaism seems full of things like this, especially the prohibition on doing certain things on the Sabbath. I remember reading about how it's not ok to use an elevator on the Sabbath, and workarounds like elevators that automatically always stop at every floor, or waiting for a non-Jewish person to use the elevator to piggyback on their usage. It just feels so intellectually dishonest, like finding ways to follow the letter of the rules while completely ignoring their spirit.

[0] https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-01-25/kosher-phones-britain... (linked as a source from the posted Wikipedia article)

Worked with a bunch of Orthodox guys at an older job. Christianity, including Catholicism, tends to talk about the "spirit" of the rules. After all, most Christians ignore a huge swathe of very clear, very explicit rules in the Bible. Like eating pork, which you can't get much clearer than how it's stated in the Bible.

Orthodox Jews aren't like that. The book is the word of their deity. What is written is the law. The spirit doesn't come into it. If the deity didn't want you working around it, he'd have written that into the law.

  > After all, most Christians ignore a huge swathe of very
  > clear, very explicit rules in the Bible. Like eating pork,
  > which you can't get much clearer than how it's stated in
  > the Bible.

The law against eating pork was only put in place for the nation of Israel. Non-Israelites are not obligated to avoid pork – even the ones that follow Yahweh. Jews and Christians both agree on this.

There is actually a whole group of people who believe in Orthodox Jewish teaching but don't adopt a Jewish identity or follow Jewish laws. The Rabbis teach them that it's enough just to follow the 7 Laws of Noah – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

The Commandments were in place for the people of the nation of Israel; that is, for the members of the Twelve Tribes. At this point, some 3000 years after the diaspora began, most people should be eligible for the Commandments due to pedigree collapse. It's not clear what Covenant is extended in return, though.

eh...the original Christians were jews. Yet they still abrogated these laws.

> Judaism seems full of things like this, especially the prohibition on doing certain things on the Sabbath

Specifically Orthodox Judaism. Most Jewish people (at least the ones I know) don't bother with all that stuff.

Same as Christianity, there are a lot of non-religious Jews. They follow Jewish culture (e.g. holidays, cuisine, and tradition), but don't adhere to strict dogma. Most of my Jewish friends will eat pork if you offer it to them, even if they wouldn't usually eat it at home because it's not a cultural norm.

I get that (and updated my post to qualify with "Orthodox"); that's not really the point. I of course am aware of many people who joke they're "the worst Jew ever" and such like that, because they identify with the group, but don't practice any of the religious aspects.

But that's not really the point. There exist people who do strictly follow the religious aspects, and that's what I'm confused about.

With regard to elevators on Shabbat, you have to understand what the prohibition is in order to understand the workaround. There is no prohibition towards using elevators on Shabbat, not is there a prohibition towards going from floor to floor quickly. However, there is a prohibit towards pressing normal electrical buttons. Therefore, using an elevator that is programmed to stop on every floor is not dishonest. It avoids the narrow prohibition of pressing normal electric buttons.

Specifically, the prohibition is against doing “work.” And the rabbinical interpretation around electronics is that pressing a button constitutes completing or “building” a circuit i.e. “work.”

Close but the real reason is that you're not allowed to make fire and pushing an button that switches electricity is compared to making a spark, ergo fire, ergo not allowed :)

I do understand that. And that doesn't change my bewilderment one bit. This goes back to what I said about dogma: it breaks people's ability (or desire) to ever ask "why?". Why is there a prohibition on pressing electric buttons? Is it a prohibition on making "fire"? Why? Does that stem from a prohibition on doing "work"? Why?

When you keep going down the "why chain", you just end up with "I dunno, the holy book just says not to do it", or the more creative among believers will invent something they think isn't arguable, like "we do this to show our respect for our god". Which, to me, just reduces to people willingly allowing religious leaders -- fallible, corruptible humans -- to control them for whatever purpose they desire. And no matter how much I see how religious people get to where they are (indoctrination from birth, followed by unconscious fear of being rejected by their in-crowd), it still utterly puzzles me why so many people still go along with these systems of control that are largely there for the benefit of the leaders, not the followers.

I never understand how people think it's "intellectually dishonest" to "break" rules that were meant to be broken.

I feel like people don't understand how mitzvos work, and therefore can't understand why we can sometimes "break" them.

Oftentimes one is allowed to use the loophole and still is rewarded for adhering to the mitzvah, even if they didn't do it (e.g. other comments here use examples of shabbos goy, shabbos elevator, selling chametz etc.). These cases are built into the mitzvah itself inherently, allll the way from way back when.

Jewish law is extremely complex, and we're allowed to use loopholes that the rabbis find, AND STILL we get rewarded for it if done properly and within the confines of Jewish Law.

That all said, I have no position in the kosher cell phone debate, let them have it if it makes them feel more comfortable. Besides the anti-porn arguments for it, it's less of a religious thing.

If there is a rule that's meant to be broken, why bother having it in the first place?

Basically the entire reason for kosher laws is to force “advisable” behaviors on people. Pork is banned because it can cause trichinosis. Shellfish are banned because they can have red tide poisoning. The knowledge was far less, so many of the laws don’t actually make sense, but basically it was the educated leaders making decisions about how people should behave and then creating religious rules to ensure compliance.

In this way, yes, the ban against texting is cherry picked, but only as much as everything else. The rabbis have basically decided that texting is bad, but being available for calls is good (a not unreasonable opinion), so they’ve called it “kosher” to invoke the authority of G-d to support their decision.

Right. And that's what I find disturbing about most organized religion.

It is possible to think critically even if you are Catholic. For example, here is a book that goes through some logical arguments for God's existence: https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp...

You can listen to Edward Feser on youtube for some the reasoning behind Catholic dogma.

I haven't read that book, but I'd argue that it's pointless, as god is not provable scientifically (or disprovable), so it's meaningless to attempt to do so.

I never said it was impossible to think critically when you are Catholic (or any other religion). But I do believe people willingly (or unconsciously) shut off their critical thinking centers whenever many topics surrounding their religion come up.

I think you are subscribing to a view called scientism[1]. If that is so, I would encourage you to read books like "Alchemy of Finance" by George Soros [2] which contains serious arguments against that position. You could also listen to David Wood or Edward Feser on YouTube if you are pressed for time.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Finance-George-Soros/dp/81265...

Interestingly a significant portion of buyers are seculars who “want a simple phone”. So it’s not just people who (blindly?) follow doctrine, but others who find benefit in the respite it gives them.

Sure, and I think it's great that someone is serving that market need, if indirectly, but the kosher phone exists for religious reasons; purchases by non-Orthodox Jews is incidental.

Reminds me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

It's (usually) dangerous to discuss things like this in as small / low bandwidth-medium as a discussion thread, but I'll give it a shot.

First, I would suggest that many things which seem "arbitrary and capricious" could be seen as signal to the listener that perhaps they don't quite understand the reasons behind the "arbitrary" thing (related: Chesterson's Fence [0]). Orthodox Judaism has a tradition of intense discussion and debate on _every single_ law, precept, and injunction, which leads to very few wholly arbitrary results. You may not agree with the outcome, but it's extremely unlikely that a law was enacted due to arbitrariness or malicious intent.

Regarding Shabbat ("Sabbath") elevators, do you understand the spirit of the law? What is the intent (spirit) of prohibiting usage of electricity on Shabbat? It is, broadly, to preserve something known as the "spirit of Shabbat" – a feeling of rest, calm, and cessation from weekday productive, creative, or goal-oriented, pursuits. I can tell you that in today's hyper-connected tech world, lack of active electronics on Shabbat is one of the nicest parts of my existence. It feels so good to turn off, disconnect, and spend time with people who are similarly focused on what's in front of them: food, family, friends, and deep discussion. When nobody is using devices, everybody is wholly present, and interactions are much more satisfying.

Halakha ("Jewish law") is very sensitive to the psychological state of its practitioners. Allowances which may appear as arbitrary "sneaky" loopholes are, in fact, carefully considered balances between necessities of life, psychology, autonomy, and community. To ignore any of those elements is to miss the point of the balance that halakha strives for. For instance, the Kosher Phone was produced for _some_ Orthodox Jewish communities whose constituent decisors (TFA: "by some interpretations") decided that children texting was harmful to the character of their kids.

To state that conversation style and allowances change with the medium (ie. text vs voice) is, I think, a fairly reasonable assertion. Children will communicate differently via voice vs. text. Whether you want kids in your community (or your own children) to engage in that style of conversation is up to you, and your community's values and perceptions, but to state that disallowing such discourse is "arbitrary" "cherry-picked" "dogma" is to say more about your own understanding than the decision itself, and the thinking that went in to making it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Historical reasons are always arbitrary. Because it's arbitrary to keep an old law that's past its usefulness alive. I understand attempts like Amish, where there is a clear social goal, but in Orthodox Judaism it's nowhere near as clear. It feels like a culture isolate kept to be a culture. This was important when the diaspora was new, dispersed and persecuted.

Prohibitions against work were made because Jewish people have been exploited to exhaustion by enslaving Egyptians and additionally to make a day for worship. It's self-serving, though. not altogether bad. The exact rules made were quite arbitrary though, less exacting rules suffice to keep a day off and as "work" gets easier, the prohibitions should be delicately relaxed without essentially cheating around strict letter.

The thing about both (some) Amish and (most) Orthodox Jews is the scorched earth approach. If they wanted to prevent the problem such as the excess, there are better solutions like limits. Time and amount.

Perhaps that's it, maybe I just disagree with the end result, and have somehow wrapped that up in a belief that the decisions are arbitrary. I guess I'm also using "arbitrary" differently, perhaps incorrectly. I don't mean it in the sense that people aren't thoroughly exploring the options and deciding on a course of action; I mean that the result isn't actually logically consistent and just flows from people being practical and needing to find a way to justify new things inside an old framework, whatever the cost. To me, that's "arbitrary". If that's not actually what that word means, I apologize, and will try to find a better word.

From my perspective, I see the idea of the "Shabbos goy" to be, at best, weird, and at worst, acting in bad faith. To me, an Orthodox Jew is saying "I'm not allowed to do these things, and do not want to do them because I prefer the comfort and equanimity of being disconnected", but then turning around and using the fruits of others who do not adhere to those restrictions.

Essentially people who use a Shabbos goy, to me, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to benefit from the existence of the technology they are taking a break from, while pushing responsibility for that technology on others. Perhaps acting in this manner allows a practitioner to feel like they're preserving the spirit of Shabbat and gain benefit from the whole things, but to me, it's just dishonest. Obviously practitioners disagree, as is their prerogative. Just as it is mine to believe that people will often go through as many mental contortions as needed to justify their actions.

Why do you care? Has anyone ever tried to convert you to Orthodox Judaism?

He literally just finished telling you about how he was negatively impacted by religion when he was a child and under the control of his parents. Children and teenagers have to deal with this stuff whether they want to or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com