I would define modernity a bit more broadly than simply the advancement of technology. For example, I would include feminism, the democratisation of knowledge and social structure, amongst other things.

Clothing, though not the most important aspect of life, is somewhat symbolic of the differences between groups in this way. Whereas modern Orthodox wear any clothing they like as long as it satisfies the halakhic requirements or tzniut (modesty), blending modern values of individual expression with traditional law, ultra-Orthodox have much more rigid dress requirements that are not required by halakha.

Chabad is a special case, though certainly not modern-Orthodox. Perhaps David is using Orthodox as a seperate classification to ultra-Orthodox and modern-Orthodox?

If so, then perhaps my question is not just about secular Jews going to ultra-Orthodox synagogues, but also Orthodox (not modern-Orthodox).

Although Orthodox (not modern-Orthodox) shules might seem more ‘authentic’, I would think that someone who, for example, values individual expression in their ‘normal’ life might end up getting more out of a religious service where the rabbi/leader shares that value.

I am excluding the significant minority of once-secular Jews who clearly do end up finding meaning in Chabad, and make significant lifestyle changes.

Sorry Rachel: no more off topic

From my perspective, I’d call Chabad Orthodox, not ultra-.

There are definitely smaller “ultra-orthodox” groups who seem to me to disconnect from secular society and outsiders rather than modernity. How many haredim have a (kosher) mobile phone?

My comment related to your assertion that “Ultra-Orthodoxy is the least modern stream of Judaism”, but I didn’t mean to draw attention from your main point. Just to respond, however, to Chaim: Chabad is a bad example of ultra-Orthodoxy in this regard because Lubavitchers are very fond of their connection to the modern world. They, alone of the “ultra-Orthodox” Jews, have embraced television (granted, in order to play DVDs only) and are specifically attempting to utilise technology as a means of building a kingdom on earth (a dirah betachtonim).

But what about the Ohr Somayach crowd, or those who learn in Mirrer or Brisk? What about Adas in Melbourne and Sydney?? Many of these people actively reject modernity and see themselves as disconnected from the modern world, without regard for the fact that they reflect a very specifically post-Holocaust attempt at self-isolation, with an aim to rebuild what they believe that they lost. The whole kollel movement, for example, is of very recent historical development.

Sorry, Rach

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/978160/jewish/Finding-Ourselves-Through-Others.htm

It is an interesting paradox. The case of Canberra is interesting as it only has one shul (combined Orthodox/Reform – in separate areas) and most of the members do not live within walking distance of the shul so they are obliged to drive if they wish to attend any time of the year.

I suspect though, like you have suggested, that an aspect of quality falls into the equation of those spoiled for choice.
(When you look at preference for Reform and Orthodoxy it is, to me, sort of like that old saying – the sequel is never as good as the original!)

e.g the Amish would reject modernity in general.

I specifically didn’t say that ultra-Orthodoxy was the most authentic, or closest to Judaism of ancient times, but only that it seemed so.

On the other hand, even though I would argue that ultra-Orthodoxy has been influenced / changed through modernity, it rejects modernity (to greater or lesser degrees depending on the particular community) whereas other streams embrace modernity.

In any case, this is a topic for another article. Here I was just giving reasons for the prevalent (but strange) custom of largely secular Jews going to an ultra-Orthodox shule three times a year.