Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Open Orthodoxy › Reply To: Open Orthodoxy
Lul: “If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”
GAW: “If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.”
I was referring to halachos that are not dependent on standards.
Lesschumras, GAW, and anyone else who seemed to be questioning my definitions of MO:
I want to clarify that I was giving definitions of MO based on how I have heard the terms used by those who call themselves MO. I was not giving a personal opinion regarding how I think the term should be used. I also listed a wide range of usages.
The part about tznius was not meant to apply to all of those who call themselves MO. I have a friend who considers herself MO who I consider to be one of the most tznius people I know (just for the record, GAW, she wears things that would not be considered acceptable in Yeshivish communities, but she dresses far more tzniusly than many Yeshivish people who would not wear those styles). I know many others like this as well.
But, there are also MO people who use the term to refer to the fact that they keep some halachos and not others. For example, I once saw an advertisement looking for someone to work in a bungalow colony that was described as MO and in parentheses it said mixed swimming. They were calling themselves MO BECAUSE they had mixed swimming. That was their definition of MO. I have yet to see someone advertise that they are Yeshivish and write in parenthesis after the word Yeshivish that they engage in civil crimes and this is the definition of Yeshivish.
Again, to be clear, this is one way that the term MO is used by people who refer to themselves as MO. There are many others. Many of the people and definitions even overlap with the definitions of Yeshivish or Chareidi (certainly my defintion of Chareidi :)). There are definitely many ehrlich people who are makpid on halacha who refer to themselves as MO. Some of them are probably here in the CR.