Any carefully prepared program for the religious education of our children must take into cognizance the realities of the adult world into which they are growing. Only by first analyzing the basic religious weaknesses of their elders can we possibly prevent these weaknesses from being imposed on the youngsters, from having the sins of the fathers visited upon the children. On the one hand, we have the painful phenomenon of Jews who are ritually observant but who are ethically, and perhaps morally, deficient. And on the other hand, we have the equally painful phenomenon of the Jew who is intellectually or sentimentally committed to the ethics of Judaism, but is ritually unobservant. This is the breed of “good heart” Jew, whose self-righteousness and ignorance are legend by now. Actually, both these opposite types are symptoms of the same disease: the splitting of the body of Judaism, the justification of a dichotomy between the ritual (mitzvos she-bein adam la-Makom) and social–ethical (bein adam la-chaveiro), between Religion and Character. The nub of the problem is the false assumption that one can practice one-half of Judaism and still be entitled to the honorific title of “good Jew.” The problem of a religious training geared to the present realities is, therefore, one of teaching the values and practices of the rituals and the social ethics of Judaism as one and indivisible, of showing their interpenetration and interdependence. There must be a unified approach. In order to prevent this fragmentation of the Jewish body, and present both aspects of Torah to the child as indivisible and inseparable parts of one integral whole having equal validity, we must make the child conscious, at all times, of the very basis of all mitzvos: the presence of God Himself. This should be the compelling reason for loyal observance of either the mitzvah to daven or the mitzvah to respect parents. Without this God–consciousness, the entire matter of observance cannot have lasting v…

The profound change that has come over parent-child relationships in the last decade or two, and which has been ably documented and explored by perceptive sociologists, should be of more than casual interest to Orthodox Jews. If indeed the child is father to the man, then the radical transformation of these relationships is bound to have a tremendous impact on the kind of Jew who will soon build the synagogue, pay for them, pray in them, preach in them and perhaps stay away from them. More important, this change today will determine what kind of synagogue will be built and what kind of "Judaism” will be practiced tomorrow.What is of concern to us here is not the upbringing of Jewish children per se. Our problem is solely, how will this affect their religious character as mature adults. Will the training they now receive—training, not necessarily education—predispose them to the genuine form of Jewish piety called Orthodoxy, or to a watery modernism with its progressive dimunition of Tradition to the vanishing point?The Father “Image”There is no doubt that, generally speaking, there is a carry-over from the child's attitude to his parents, par-ticularly his father, to his attitude to G-d. We disagree vigorously with the Freudian psychologist who concludes that Religion is nothing more than a “projection” of childhood fantasies and G-d is a “mere” father-image.There is nothing fantastic about Religion, and the fact that its emotional strength is often enhanced by “projec-tions” from childhood does not detract from its validity. Albert Einstein’s inclinations for mathematics may have come from childhood fantasies and projections, but that does not give us cause for repealing the Theories of Rela-tivity. And neither is there anything “mere” about G-d as a father-image. G-d, in Judaism, is many things: Judge, Liberator, Beloved, Lawgiver, Warrior—and also, perhaps primarily. Father. The fact that we graft onto our reli-gious attitudes the feelings we had for our human f…

Every action, the physicists tell us, has a reaction. This rule holds true for man and society as well as nature. Thus, there was a time when parents sheltered their children much more than was necessary or advisable. The reaction in our times is – to expose them prematurely to the rigors and risks of adult life. And we rationalize our deeds with pious expressions, such as: "I have confidence in my children." Of course, over-sheltering growing children is both unnecessary and harmful. But ought we not also refrain from over-confidence, which results in pushing children unprepared into the maelstrom of adult life in our complex society? Are we not wronging them with our misplaced and excessive faith in them?What brings on this thought is the recent news concerning a speech by the dean of one of the nation's foremost women’s colleges concerning the moral character of the student body. Whatever rhe propriety or exactitude of the dean's speech, this much is certain: the lack of morality that prevails on the nation’s campuses is shocking to anyone of sensitivity.Let us be frank about the temptations open to a young High School graduate suddenly thrust into a new environment away from home. Unless parents have investigated the kind of general standards that prevail on the campus, sending a youngster to an out-of-town college canRABBI’S STUDIESUnless Jewish parents have made sure that there exists in that school a group of conscientious religious Jewish students and proper facilities for observance, and hence the proper society. for the young Jew or Jewess, they may be guilty of undoing years of Jewish upbringing and education.There are those who justify this policy by pleading the necessity for exposing young people to "real life." Forgetting the question of what "real life” really means, it should be remembered that there is nothing magical or mystical about the age of eighteen, when most young people enter college. Maturity does not _ .erupt fuILhl0wnwi1h_a__H1gh_Sch0…

Every action, the physicists tell us, has a reaction. This rule holds true for man and society as well as nature. Thus, there was a time when parents sheltered their children much more than was necessary or advisable. The reaction in our times is – to expose them prematurely to the rigors and risks of adult life. And we rationalize our deeds with pious expressions, such as: “I have confidence in my children.” Of course, over-sheltering growing children is both unnecessary and harmful. But ought we not also refrain from over-confidence, which results in pushing children unprepared into the maelstrom of adult life in our complex society? Are we not wronging them with our misplaced and excessive faith in them? What brings on this thought is the recent news concerning a speech by the dean of one of the nation’s foremost women’s colleges concerning the moral character of the student body. Whatever the propriety or exactitude of the dean’s speech, this much is certain – the lack of morality that prevails on the nation’s campuses is shocking to anyone of sensitivity. Let us be frank about the temptations open to a young high school graduate suddenly thrust into a new environment away from home. Unless parents have investigated the kind of general standards that prevail on the campus, sending a youngster to an out-of-town college can become a criminal act of over-confidence. Unless Jewish parents have made sure that there exists in that school a group of conscientious religious Jewish students and proper facilities for observance, and hence the proper society for the young Jew or Jewess, they may be guilty of undoing years of Jewish upbringing and education. There are those who justify this policy by pleading the necessity for exposing young people to “real life.” Forgetting the question of what “real life” really means, it should be remembered that there is nothing magical or mystical about the age of eighteen, when most young people enter college. Maturity does not erup…

Discussions about children, no matter how well-intentioned, often leave me depressed. We frequently regard our youngsters as segmented functions rather than as full, valid human beings who happen to be younger than the rest of the race. Considered as our peculiar responsibilities, they are usually thought of as our problems; but viewed as human beings possessing their own integrity, it is just as legitimate to view ourselves as their problems. That we are as much a burden to our young children as they are to us is evident from the fact that just as they identify with us, we identify with them – and in this manner we limit them. We often consider them as an extension of ourselves, and feel exposed through them. How nervous we are when they first go visiting friends for dinner or overnight! Inwardly we are apprehensive, wondering whether our private failings, our innermost secrets, our hidden weaknesses, the questionable quality of our domestic relationships, will not somehow be disclosed not only by what they will say but by how they will react and behave. Similarly, we feel injured when our children are criticized—much more so than when we are directly assaulted. It is astounding how Ire- quently intelligent parents prove blind to their chil- dren’s faults. I have often thought, in lighter moments, of proposing “anonymous group therapy” for parents, whereby congenial friends would gather and write down unsigned evaluations of each other’s children. We might leave such sessions dejected and angry— but with the consolation that our children will bene- fit from the revelations! My premise, then, in discussing the particular (pies- tions assigned to me, is that children are not a special class apart from the human race, but simply younger human beings with their own rights, values, and validity as humans, and subject to the same cultural pressures that we are. Their problems are human problems, frequently our very own problems expressed in forms peculiar to the condit…

Eleven years ago, in this very hall, it was my privilege to participate in the ceremonies at which the first award for Jewish Family of the Year was presented to the late and much lamented Samuel W. and Rose Hurowitz. Since then, and until this day when I happily participate in similar ceremonies conferring this same award upon my very dear friends Larry and Ruth Kobrin, the health and stability of the American Jewish family has not at all improved. If anything, it has considerably worsened, reflecting the general deterioration of family life in this country, both as a result of the accumulated corrosion afflicting all our social institutions, and the frontal attacks upon the family by spokesmen for certain avant-garde pressure groups. This is not the occasion for a probing analysis of what is wrong with the American Jewish family. Moreover, not being a social scientist, my credentials for such an analysis are considerably less than impeccable. Speaking only as a rabbi who has some passing acquaintance with the Jewish tradition, and on the basis of my limited experience in counseling Jewish families, permit me to dispense with diagnosis and prognosis, and concentrate on prescription. Here too, I cannot and will not presume to be comprehensive, but rather suggest a number of essential ingredients in the effort to restore family life amongst American Jews to what it once was, or to what we would like it to be. The first requirement for a stable family is, of course, love. I am almost embarrassed to speak the word, because it has been overused, abused, and misused to the point where it has been semantically debased and emotionally voided of all content. Furthermore, there is a danger of over-romanticization and over-idealization of the traditional Jewish family as bound by mutual love. We do no good in holding up for young couples an unrealizable ideal–two people who agree on everything, who love their children without resentment, and who receive, in return, unquestio…