And all this from the guy who says about Democratic Jews that they are just "ethnic Jews". As long as you're on his side politically, you're Jewish enough, otherwise you ain't Jewish at all.
This is a distortion of what he says. He says that in the context of values and political views, most non-religious Jews are not getting their values from Judaism, and therefore cannot be said to be representing the "Jewish perspective" on whatever issue it is.
The fact that his single example is MO’s stance on the LGBTQ+ issue is proof positive that his issue is with how his perception of their stance differs from what he’d prefer. The rest is just framing it in a objective moral standard to make BS appear to be standing up for what’s right and the MO community compromising.
Is his entire argument on the failings on MO only predicated on their opinion of homosexuality?
He is writing a response to an issue that is now at the forefront. I'm not sure why you are surprised that a political commentator is commenting on how MO is dealing with a political issue. I don't want to hear Ben Shapiro's opinion on education in the MO world. I want to hear (and he was probably asked to write) about his area of expertise.
It’s typical frum drivel of “not just is my opinion correct but I’m also in the right morally, Hashem is on my side of this issue”. Keep g-d out of this and just state your opinion as what it is, your personal opinion.
Are you suggesting that Torah does not have anything to say about this issue?
Like @AsherO was saying, his obsession with LGBTQ issues is a huge tell
Do you think the Jewish Press asked him for his opinion on Modern Orthodoxy in general? Or did they ask him to write about MO's response to the LGBT issue?
as is lumping together the entire spectrum of modern Orthodoxy, which spans from being indistinguishable from Yeshivish to being indistinguishable from "frum" Conservative.
All of those groups have something in common (which is why they are all called MO...) They are all based on a specific philosophy, even if they have differed in the application of it. It makes sense to talk about all the ways MO is dealing with the issue.
He divides the MO take into three artificial buckets, and labels them by what he sees as the shortcoming in their response to the issue at hand. A divide-and-conquer approach that is intellectually dishonest and doesn’t actually hold water.
He divides MO by their response to the issue that he is writing about.
