Debate over whether Jewish identity has meaning without religious practice or observance, with disagreement over whether cultural and historical connection suffices.
What's the point of having "jewish" status if you dont' belong to Judaism?
People have said here many times, you don't have to be a practising Jew to be a Jew; you can be an atheist, do all the non-Kosher things, belong to another religion, and yet still have Jewish heritage.
What the hell is the point? :)
** Well, my Uncle Julius retired early and spent about
fifty years studying Jewish texts, and he did not believe
in God. He appreciated the wisdom of the texts, he
identified strongly with the community, and part of
its history was part of his life. There's a famous remark by a Jewish atheist: "Moshe goes
to the synagogue to be with God. I go to the synagogue
to be with Moshe."Nosnivel
You didn't answer my question. There are plenty of people who don't go to the synagogue at all but to whom the Jewish label is applied. What's the point?
** What's the point of a fellow named O'Halloran calling
himself Irish if he's never lived in Ireland? Identification
with a history and a tradition. Moreover, there are a number
of people (including an active group here in Israel) who
believe that Jewish values can and should evolve in a way
that leaves religious ritual behind and concentrates only on
moral philosophy. Thus you don't have to be Jewish to be
Jewish.
NosnivelAh, again, you miss the point. Clean out your brain. If a person WANTS to identify himself with a certain culture, by all means, do it!
but again, there are those who portray NO vestiges of Jewish culture, and who may have switched to Islam long ago; but their Muslim descendants (female side) will be considered Jewish even 10,000 years later even if they had no knowledge that some great-grandmother in the year 1967 was Muslim converted from Judaism. Why apply the Jewish label to these people when they don't know about that 1 tenuous Jewish link. We're talking about 10,000 years of births, marriages, and deaths all to Gentiles, and yet these descendants are Jewish?
Gussel Timer wrote
:Ah, again, you miss the point. Clean out your brain. If a person WANTS :to identify himself with a certain culture, by all means, do it! : :but again, there are those who portray NO vestiges of Jewish culture, :and who may have switched to Islam long ago; but their Muslim :descendants (female side) will be considered Jewish even 10,000 years :later even if they had no knowledge that some great-grandmother in the :year 1967 was Muslim converted from Judaism. Why apply the Jewish label :to these people when they don't know about that 1 tenuous Jewish link. :We're talking about 10,000 years of births, marriages, and deaths all to :Gentiles, and yet these descendants are Jewish?
Nosnivel, I'm still waiting for an answer to my reply. You seem knowledgeable on this issue, and hoped you could shed some light.
** No, my knowledge has reached its limit. I know that by the
laws of the State of Israel, you cease to be Jewish if you
embrace another religion, but the state laws are not always
identical to the religious laws. Someone else (was it
you?) claimed that if you can prove Jewish descent and you
feel like returning to the religion after many generations
of practicing another religion, then you do not need a
conversion ceremony. I do not know whether that is true
or not true. Moreover, unlike for example the Roman Catholics, the Jews
have no single living authority on the law whose word is
universally recognized. There is, for example, a movement
called Jews for Jesus. Many people say that since these
folks worship Jesus as the Son of God, they are not practicing
Judaism. The Jews for Jesus claim they are. There is no--
if you'll pardon the expression-- King of the Jews who can
make a ruling that everyone in every community of Jews
must accept.Nosnivel
In article , [email] says...
Jumping in, I would like to add that making sense never had much to do with this issue, in my opinion. Whether it makes sense was pretty much irrelevant to me as I thought people were just discussing what was the case or not according to certain laws or beliefs (objective fact), regardless of whether it made sense (subjective).
Your last question reminds me of the tree falling in the forest question from philosophy. If none of the descendents is aware of the link, then who would be in the position to consider the link?
The fact is, I believe, is that Jewish law (I'm not sure if this is the religious law or the official law) apparently makes a claim about Jews being more than just a religion. That is the fact. Whether it makes sense -- that's up for you to decide and apparently you have...
Gussel Timer wrote:
In Judaism, a person is automatically Jewish by circumstance of birth: a child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. There is no such thing as converting out of Judaism, per se; a Jew who "converts" to, say, Christianity is still considered a Jew, although he/she is also considered to be an apostate. If a non-observant Jew, or even a Jew who "converted" to another faith, decides to become an observant Jew, he/she is considered to be a Bal Tsuvah, or one who returned; there is no formal ceremony (such as a conversion) because the person never ceased to be Jewish.
I'm not sure what rules apply to a non-Jew who converts to Judaism and then decides to "convert" back; under Jewish law, converts have the same status as hereditary Jews, but the case of a convert who becomes an apostate may be a special case.
---Alvin H. Nichter
Doesn't this contradict other people's observations that a women is considered a Jew until she converts?
Intersting stuff. Thanks for the info. In other words, if a girl is descended from a great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand-mother from the 15th century who was Jewish, but converted and married a Muslim, and who's descendants were all practising Muslim after that, she'd still be considered Jewish. Heehee. If you ask me, that's really stretching it. She would fully consider herself Muslim (not even knowing about her 15th century Jewish great-grandmother, and the rest of the world's population would rationally and rightly consider her Muslim.
In article , [email] says... ->In Judaism, a person is automatically Jewish by circumstance of birth: ->a child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. There is no such thing as ->converting out of Judaism, per se; a Jew who "converts" to, say, ->Christianity is still considered a Jew, although he/she is also ->considered to be an apostate. If a non-observant Jew, or even a ->Jew who "converted" to another faith, decides to become an observant ->Jew, he/she is considered to be a Bal Tsuvah, or one who returned; ->there is no formal ceremony (such as a conversion) because ->the person never ceased to be Jewish. -> ->I'm not sure what rules apply to a non-Jew who converts to Judaism ->and then decides to "convert" back; under Jewish law, converts ->have the same status as hereditary Jews, but the case of a ->convert who becomes an apostate may be a special case.
You speak like one who has some support for what he says. I informally posted such, but for me it was simply referring to what I thought I heard combined w/ a simple dictionary definition. I am glad to see that I was not imagining that I heard this line of thought regarding "hereditary Jews," etc. From what source is what you posted acquired? I would like to know so that I can consult it myself.
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Gussel Timer wrote:
Cultural identity.
Surviving as a group 3000+ years in a hostile environment.
Bob Roman
What I mean is that there are those who don't seem to have any vestiges of Jewish culture. Again, they don't eat kosher foods, they don't practice the religion, they don't speak Yiddish, etc. They could be Catholic or Muslim, and yet still people will still regard them as Jewish (in the non-religious sense).
So this would apply to a fellow who has let's say an Ethiopian, Muslim father who for some reason married a Jewish woman. The kid is a totally devout practising member of the Islam faith, and yet he will still be regarded as being Jewish. His culture is that of Ethiopia/Africa and the Muslim faith. His mother may even have converted to Islam, yet people will still call both he and his mother Jewish. It seems strange.
Naturally, cultural identity of course is to be recognized for people who want that identity. But what about those who don't?
Understood. Growing up in a Catholic school, I encountered anti-semitism for the first time while in Grade11 when I heard a fellow student remark on someone's cheapness by saying, "Hey, don't be Jewish". I didn't quite get the comment until a couple of years later when my supervisor at a mining plant starting outlining his "proof" of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. I couldn't believe the acidness of his beliefs...especially since he was otherwise a pleasant fellow. Even after hearing his rantings, his and other's reasons for hating Jews never made sense to me; same with WWII and the Holocaust...never made sense. It still doesn't to this day.
But what I also find confusing are some people's desperate efforts (I assume rightly or wrongly that they are Jewish) to ascribe Jewish labels to people/characters who aren't Jewish (like Elaine). I also find it confusing that the Jewish label is given to people who neither share nor want the culture nor religion of Judaism.
Shalom
In article , [email] says...
That is a point to ponder, I suppose. IF one ascribes to the view that there is an aspect of Jewishness that does not involve religion, one that involves simple hereditary, that aspect is akin to a ethnic identity.
I am Vietnamese. I do not share any cultural aspects of being Vietnamese. That doesn't mean that I have any shame about it, but I just don't. I came to the U.S. when I was 4 and now I am 26. I have lived all my life in Madison, WI since the age of 4. I was brought up Lutheran, though I am now a staunch atheist. I don't have any problem w/ being called Vietnamese, though. That is hereditary. I don't identify w/ Vietnamese culture or heritage. But, the "Vietnamese" label is still applied to me. That's fine w/ me, because that's what I am. I most definitely identify most w/ American culture, whatever that may be. But, I am, and always will be, Vietnamese. At no point, since this is a *hereditary* trait, will I ever not be Vietnamese.
That is what people are referring to, I believe, in respect to Jewish being a label that is, according to one aspect of the definition of Jewishness, that the label is not able to be changed. I know the analogy to being Vietnamese is not a perfect one, but there is really no perfect analogy since there is no other label I can think of such as Jewish that refers dually, yet independently, to religion AND descent.
Huckleberry wrote:
[snip]
Your analogy is flawed on several levels, but most importantly that your descendents would not inherit the Vietnamese label, particularly if you and they married caucasian spouses only. So let's look at your descendents (all of whom have married white folks) in the year 3000. They won't be considered Vietnemese. But if a Jewish girl today converts religions, her female descendants (and their children) in the year 3000 will still be considered Jewish even if all the descendents for a thousand years practised Islam!
In article , [email] says...
How can something make sense when there's nothing sensory to base it on? That works both ways; I've had plenty of experience with Jews who hate Gentiles and treat them disdainfully as inferiors; it's the same difference, but for some reason there's no equivalent label to "anti-semitic." "The new tyranny" refers to supressing opinions which aren't considered to be politically correct, and it's a complete double-standard against those in the majority.