I would like to take issue with the term HaKatan uses for the army which is shmad, or to destroy. The term has historically meant to make someone not observant anymore. It is probably true that the army causes one to lose his or her chareidi culture (or furthers a decision by one to do so) but it is not fair to call someone who is no longer chareidi as destroyed. I do not mean to minimize the loss of someone’s chariediness as someone who has a deeply-held, sincere, religious belief should not be forced to walk away from it. For someone who is chareidi it is a tragedy to make them no longer chareidi. But it is not shmad or destruction for that person to become an observant non-chareidi. nor do i take any position about the “share the burden” legislation as I hear both sides, am not intimately involved or familiar with the law and am confused about the whole thing myself. but calling it shmad is wrong. i grew up in a chassidishe environment and have rachmunu litzlan seen many of my classmates/friends go on to completely lose their religion. these kids’ parents would be thrilled if their children were now no longer chassidic but observant. what has happened to them is shmad. losing your chareidiness, while tragic in its own way, is not shmad. since so many of those who serve in the army come out observant using the term shmad is offensive because it suggests that anyone who is not chareidi is “destroyed.” this is not fair and inflammatory.
Menu