I want to talk a bit more about why I support internal #reform in #religion, even if I disagree with the underlying religious ideology. Since this is a subject I often find myself encountering on Twitter, I decided to try elaborate a bit. /1

A number of people have been upset and even blocked me because I stated that conservative (small c) Orthodox Judaism is essentially sexist. I would add that it is also homophobic. /2

I would say the same for other conservative religions but I am going to talk in terms of my own which I understand best. We can call this #Hareidi #Chareidi Judaism. (I say small c, to distinguish from Conservative Judaism, a distinct stream.) /3

At no point did I say (nor do I believe) that all practitioners of said faiths are sexist/homophobic - I do certainly believe that many if not most religious people are better than the (worst) tenets of their faith. My criticism was purely directed towards an ideology. /4

I understand that this upsets people who have invested their entire lives in this #ideology, but my criticism was of #ideas, rather than people. /5

Indeed it is essential to be able to distinguish between the two, although it can often be difficult, in order to avoid falling into traps of bigotry, and on the other end of the spectrum, to avoid whitewashing the worst aspects in religion. /6

I also believe that #religion is created by human beings, and therefore elastic to a certain extent. #Judaism in particular has a rich body of literature and #interpretation and has been re-interpreted over and over in history to meet the challenges of the time. /7

Religions that do not adapt this way have not survived. Some may find this a surprising statement, but from a historic perspective the longevity of #Rabbinic Judaism is a testament to its flexibility, not rigidity. /8

You only need compare it with the more rigid sects of the Second Temple era to see that this is true. /9

So what I mean by stating that a religion has a certain essence, is that although all religions can be stretched to a certain extent, there are outer limits, beyond which it will no longer be recognised as that religion (or version of.) /10

This form of Judaism will never accept same-sex marriage, women being part of a quorum, or patriarchal Jews as halachically Jewish. If they did, it would cease to be #Hareidi Judaism and it would be something else. /11

Now as to reform. As I previously stated there is much flexibility within the framework and for the wellbeing and benefit of human beings these frameworks should be stretched to their furthest limits. /12

Progress in all forms very often happens in small steps (sometimes punctuated by massive protest) and therefore ideological purity, religious or anti-religious often stalls progress. /13

I place #human wellbeing above ideologically "honest" representations of religious texts, whether that comes from religious fundamentalists, or those so strongly anti-religious that they will oppose any reform that takes place within a religious framework for being dishonest. /14

On a purely pragmatic level, religion is here to stay for at least a while. /15

Secularism has a long way to go before it can satisfy some of the human needs addressed by religion: a sense of purpose in life, a sense of justice (in the afterlife), reasons for suffering, strong community networks, to list a few examples. /16

Therefore there is not much to gain and a lot to lose by opposing in-religion reform. /17