Will your grandchildren be White? Will your grandchildren be Democrats? Will your grandchildren be American?
Who cares? Hope that your grandchildren are happy and healthy.
I care.
I love Judaism and love my children. And I will love my grandchildren when they come along. I think living a life where Judaism plays a major role is a good thing, and I hope my children and grandchildren agree.
But more to the point, the title is a variation of the title of the Orthodox article.
The interdenominational switching is important because it shows Orthodoxy really isn't doing much to stem the decay of Jewish numbers.
Even modern Orthodox have dwindling numbers.
The only people who can keep Jews committed are those groups who seperate themselves from rational thinking and the like in cults such as the Satmar and other ultra-orthodox. But frankly I don't want tax dollars supporting these clowns. They need to adapt to the real world.
But don't you think this is a good thing? Essentially this means Jewry is purging itself of disloyal adherants. Anybody who values Jewish life remains, and everyone who doesn't, moves on. People who value Judaism stick with it, and who better then them to continue its legacy
Though on the other hand you may just have to accept that maybe Judaism is just false, hence its end is evident. After all at one point Zorastrianism (where all the pharisee ideas were plagarized from), was one of the world's dominant religions. And today it is in fast decay where you here things like it the world's fastest dying religion, which Judaism tagging along the list.
Even Christianity is now headed to a coming collapse: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/03...09s01-
coop.html
Anyway consider this alternative for the skeptics, atheists and agnostics:
"No people on earth has suffered more from religious prejudice than the Jewish people, and no people on earth has made a greater contribution to the spread of rational, secular thought. But Jewish atheism is not merely a reaction to persecution; it is also an expression of attitudes and values embedded deep within Judaism itself. Most of the founders of the state of Israel did not believe in "God", but they did believe in the Jewish people and in our right to live in peace in the land where Judaism was born. Faith in the Jewish people is at the heart of Jewish atheism and Jewish religion alike.
It follows that understanding Jewish atheism requires understanding the Jewish people. We were not chosen by an invisible entity for any destiny but evolved naturally out of bands of runaway slaves and other fugitives who gained control of the greater part of Canaan in ancient times. Throughout all the subsequent ups and downs of our history, we have never lost sight of the egalitarian values incorporated into the laws and customs of the nation of Judah founded by those runaway slaves. It is precisely because of our egalitarian traditions that we have been subjected to such intense persecution by the advocates of autocratic rule throughout our history."
http://www.kofersite.com/
This person is biulding a strong, solid foundation on being Jewish, yet being a non-believer.
Such foundations may be the key to keeping the non-believing Jews tied to Judaism
I think Judaism is a good religion. It offers meaning, purpose, guidance, a good way of life, great lessons, etc. And it has produced generation after generation of decent people. However, it still have a lot of ancient baggage. Most other institutions (e.g., law, science) evolve in some way, and thereby discard the problematic things and retain the good things. But the particular ideological form in which traditional Judaism has found itself makes chance difficult if not impossible. It is those restrictions that need to change.
I think most atheists are fundamentalists. That is, they accept that a fundamentalist view of religion is the only proper form of religion, and then they reject that.
But I am not a fundamentalist. My view of things like God, revelation, and how to read the Torah are not based on hostility towards science and modern knowledge; to the contrary, I embrace them.
Hazakh u' Barukh!...I was actually checking out your original post 'grandchildren' post when I commented on a post at haemtza.blogspot.com - when I found that you wrote this just yesterday...much thanks...I intuited much of what you've said but it's so good to hear someone else articulating these things. It's quite ironic - the Charedi Kiruv who discuss love to say "The real threat is not Jews for Yeshke - it's Jews for Nothing"... of course Jews for Being Jewish are very much whom are described as this intra-denominational contingent! I think Prager and Telushkin in their "9 Questions" book also made the insight about Committed Jews.
Bruce ...you said recently at DH, "If you assume that (1) some version of Judaism is worth preserving, and (2) you need to be on the side of the truth, you are left with CJ and RJ. So I'd rather be in the right place and try to solve the problems."
I think the choice as a community might be more tragic...Jews can go with the truth as they see it and see Judaism go down, or choose some version which goes counter to the truth, but see Jewish life and its traditions flourish? It is almost an impossible choice to make, which is a big part of the problem.
Claims of Zoroastrian influence are not simple; if you're actually curious about such influence aside from what you already have seen, you can give R. Yaakov Elman a call, and read Edwin Yamauchi's "Persia and the Bible" and Charles Isbell's pieces;
"Minimalism: The Debate Continues (Part II)," Jerusalem Bible Quarterly 32 (2004), 211-23.
"Minimalism: The Debate Continues (Part I)," JBQ 32 (2004), 143-47
"Zoroastrianism and Biblical Religion." JBQ Vol.34:3,2006
EJ - you make a good point, and one that I have thought about a bit.
Ultimately, I don't think the choice to believe something false is tenable. You get XGH-like angst, or the difficulties that Little Foxling wrote about.
Your other option is "go with the truth as they see it and see Judaism go down." The key normative issue is what you mean by "go down".
If you mean that Judaism as a whole will become extinct, I disagree (as explained below).
If you mean that certain practices will decrease, I think that it likely but good. I think cutting away the erroneous factual underpinnings of some of Orthodoxy Judaism would help it evolve. The result might be a very high level of traditional practices or some lower level. Chazal made all sorts of beneficial changes by choice (restrictions on the death penalty, limitations on the "rebellious son" mitzvah) and by necessity (replacing sacrifices with prayer), and they worked out for the good. The same could happen now.
Bruce ...what you should explain is how we can rationalize the dogmas and practices and not be in the position of non-Orthodox American Jewry as a whole who are quickly disappearing. What would enable such a reconstructed Orthodoxy or Conservadox to have a better outcome than the Conservatives? It's not just the intermarriage, it's the less than replacement birth rate as well.The saved, to wit the truth seeking committed Jews, could easily become insignificant without intermarriage. Truth probably goes hand in hand with other rational ideals, like waiting until the 30's to marry, worrying how to pay for the chilren's education and looking for an affluent comfortable life.
These issues on high on my mind --- my kids are 8 and 5. In a very real sense, the choices I make now will have a big influence on their Jewish lives.
The solution might be path-dependent.
The Orthodoxy world needs to deal with its problematic factual underpinnings. You have offered an outline of one way of doing this; Kugel has another; there are doubtless many more. I can't speak to the particulars --- this is not my community --- but I think an openness to these ideas without labeling someone "not Orthodox" is an absolute requirement.
The Reform and Conservative world needs to revitalize Judaism as a religion, Not as a culture, or an ethnicity, or a people. Americanism is rapidly taking over all those roles. So things like musical services at a synagogue cannot be central. They may be a nice peripheral activity, but Judaism simply cannot compete with American culture on the musical level. But it can successfully compete with (properly) secular American culture on the religious level.
I think the way to do so is to take religion seriously. Not in a fundamental way, but as a way of life, or derech, or tao. Judaism as a religion provides a set of broad values, and ways of thinking about important things in life (marriage, family, friends, business, death, children, ethics, social action, money, etc.) Its theology, at a minimum, focuses on brining goodness into the world. It does so through a large and rich set of texts, stories, rules, practices, holidays, rituals, values, and attitudes. Some of these are in tension with others; some are in tension with western culture. Resolving these tensions is the process of clarifying ones goals and values and making sense and meaning in one's life. There may be many other good paths, but Judaism is a particularly good one, especially for Jews.
I think someone who took those ideas seriously would be a strongly committed non-Orthodox Jew. There's obviously a lot of details to work out, but that's the big picture.
And I think your type of neo-Orthodoxy and my type of neo-Conservativism would get along great.
I understand why you would want to deflect our attention from demographic hardball to questions of how to create new possibilities. And that's fine. We can't even make a slight impact in the future demographics without creating a way that is appealing and of interest. Orthodox gloating (see my back and forth with Rabbi Maryles) makes the problem worse.
I would like to see how you work through this problem given your values. My own instincts are not to worry much about truth, and promote as a unifying theme the idea of Judaism as a people with a culture, where religious language and traditions constitute essential aspects of the culture. The difference is far from clear since your list of important things where religion helps with values and thinking (marriage, family, friends, business, death, children, ethics, social action, money) are also central to all anthropological investigations of a society's culture.
I sense however your idea of serious religion is non consequentialist. You would I gather be opposed to thinking of the problem in terms of branding and marketing. I would be most appreciative if at some time, not necessarily now, you can explain a little more deeply what it is to take religion seriously or be seriously religious without accepting dogmas that seem implausible.
Thanks EJ. I'll try to write something next week - I'm a little swamped now.
By non-consequentialist, I assume you mean that there is no independent external compulsion (jail, divine wrath) for violations of social norms. Is that right?
If so, that is my sense of religion, but that does not mean that actions have no consequences. More details next week.
By non-consequentialist I mean that you would not emphasize one change in or one aspect of Judaism if it turns out it has better consequences than another; i.e. it's not consumer driven. Using your example musical services cannot be central even if they are more successful than other reconstructions.
Bruce,
"Contrary to the Orthodox claims, the "solution" to the "problem" of Jewish continuity is not for Jews to become Orthodox; it is for Jews to become religiously knowledgeable, committed, and involved."
Of course! It's good to see this found on in the statistics but I've been saying this for years. Jewish literacy and 'doing Jewish' (aka some form of orthopraxy) are the keys to maintaining Jewish continuity.
Bruce the real problem is that there is no middle ground for today's Jewry to choose from.
The only people who are proselytizing to keep Jews Jewsish are Orthodox groups, particularly Chabad. That involves anti-woman, anti-science, anti-evolution, 6000 years old world, and anti-gentile brain mush.
Thus the average Jew is left with two choices. A Judaism that is fundamentalist (Orthodoxy), or a culture/religion that lacks zeal (reform/liberalism).
There is nobody fighting for a middle-ground here, one the combines rationality and science with theology.
And personally I feel Orthodoxy (or at least the attitude inherent in it) is largely to blame for these dwindling numbers. Rather than tackling the challenges of modernity and science, they chose to ignore it, instead prefering the model of 10 babies per family to make up for whatever numbers they lose to the rational world, though we don't know how long they will be able to keep this up.
And sadly when the average non-religious Jew thinks about Judaism, the image that immediately pops in his head is that of the Orthodox. Few are willing to avail the middle-ground offered by Conservatism, which is where I feel the future and indeed the salvation and preservation of the Jewish people lies.
I agree. One of my purposes of this blog is to help develop my thinking about this serious "middle ground" while defending it against the (quite welcome) intellectual attacks from the right and the left. I welcome these attacks because they help clarify the issues.
I think this middle grounds requires balancing between tradition and modernity, and this means some sort of evolutionary approach. (Many specific ideas there, to be covered in future posts.) This approach is essentially what Conservative Judaism advocates, although I don't place too much emphasis on labels. The Reform movement elevates individualism and individual choice to a virtue, and as such makes it conceptually impossible to have serious community norms, although the Reform movement is advocating specifically that. Orthodoxy is too static and too unaccommodating to western ideals, although the left wing of Orthodoxy is doing exactly that. So maybe my ideal form of Judaism will be derived from the right wing of Reform or
the left wing of Orthodoxy.
MD - just a quick related question for you. What do you see as the future direction of Islam? My perception of Islam is that it does not have a very widespread or effective "Reform" wing, and so the fundamentalists dominate the ideological spectrum. Do you see it this way?
Is there a lesson you can take from the Judaism, and is there a lesson Judaism can take from Islam?
>That involves anti-woman, anti-science, anti-evolution, 6000 years old world, and anti-gentile brain mush.
Muslim dude, have you actually been approached by kiruv workers that are anti- (fill in the rest)??
I got to shul with many BT's. None of them treat their wives any different let alone are anti science.
Holy Hyrax:
Let it be clear I'm NOT here to attack Judaism, but since you asked here are a few examples:
-http://onionsoupmix.livejournal.com/126303.html
-http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?
t=10389
-http://onionsoupmix.livejournal.com/120910.html
-http://onionsoupmix.livejournal.com/117979.html
-And I know I am not speaking with a chabadinik here but the Tanya is particularly interesting coz it says non-jews can never be altruistic (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/
7880/jewish/Chapter-1.htm)
But I don't like to stereotype.
However even you have to admit this is something that runs on the Orthodox spectrum. I have been keeping up with Shalmo's exchanges with Garnel as well, and as I recall even you said you had issue with some of the anti-gentile laws such as the "its ok to steal from non-jews" part.
this is why I look favorably to the conservative approach; an approach that is willing to question these laws and attitudes. The problem with Orthodoxy is that there is this unwritten rule that Chazal could no wrong, and its that attitude that keeps halacha stagnant.
Rabbis like Michael Lerner have talked about this as well.
Bruce:
Its true that there is fundamentalism dominating the islamic wing (something our prophecies warned us about). But I think its important to bear in mind that the fundamentalists are a small minority. But ofcourse when the media showcases nothing but the fundamentalist wing, then ofcourse the average person is convinced that is what the majority is about.
One of the main problems is education. Sadly nowadays there is a severe lack of educated scholars. In the average muslim country any average joe who learns a few words of arabic can start a mosque. This is particularly true in post-colonial poverty stricken countries like Pakistan. In countries like Malaysia where the scholars are actually people who know what they are talking about (phDs, etc) then we see drastically different climates.
Though I do not want a "reform" wing for Islam. When you say is there anything muslims can learn from Jews, I think it is precisely that; not to have a reform wing. Essentially what it does is produce scores of agnostics and atheists who really just see Judaism as a culture, which isn't really much of a religion. The 50-85% attrition rate alone says why I would prefer we not follow this path.
While this may sound shocking, in truth I think the real problem with the muslim world is that they aren't following Islam to the core. Take my home country of Pakistan for example, the constitution (contrary to popular opinion)is secular with religious flavoring thrown on top to make it seem religious. Almost all the problems in the arab world for example aren't originating from the religious wing, it comes from british sponsored sickness called pan-arabism. Saddam started it, and within a decade turned muslim arabs into arab nationalists. In islam nationalism is haram (forbidden). Essentially the baathists replaced Islam with a secular religion on worshipping all things arab. And when you worship all things arab, then clearly you cannot unite with other muslim countries because it takes away from arab nationalism. this is how Saddam's war on Iran got started in the first place, he removed religion and replaced it with arab pride. And we have seen what this philosophy, baathism, does to non-arab minorities such as Jews.
But over all things are getting better. Its happening slowly, but it is happening.
Countries like Iran, Turkey and Malaysia are likely going to be leading the movement for pan-islamic unity.
Iran is an interesting experiment. It is run under a political model called Wilayet-e-Fiqih. Basically it combines democratic elections with a religious government. Though I believe they don't quite have achieved the proper balance between too much religion and too little religion in power.
Turkey is the opposite. Its an aggressively secular government, yet with a population that is in increasing demands asking for religion to have more and more say in politics and laws. Just recently the Islamic party got elected.
And I believe t
argh! the other half of my message got deleted
I was gonna say Turkey has a radical secular government with a population that is in increasing demand for more religion in politics
In my opinion the ideal muslim government should be something between what Iran and Turkey have.
One amazing thing that is happening is the rapid growth of Islam in the world.
Here's an example of recent studies done on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...h?
v=Rfx4glTU5JQ
According to the christian science monitor around 20,000 people convert to islam annually in the US alone. In Canada the annual rate is around 3000 (though this stat comes from Time magazine so I don't know how reliable that is)
But suffice to say this means lot of new muslims who have taken on the religion for what its worth, without the cultural baggage that born muslim carry with them. Many of us believe these new converts are the ones who will lead the way to reclaiming our rational, tolerant, and egalitarian heritage. I hope so at least.
As for what Jews can teach Muslims and what Muslims can teach Jews, well here's how I see it:
Shema: Here oh Israel, the Lord is your god, the Lord is One
shahadah: There is no god but the one God
we have a lot to agree on. Judaism and Islam are the only absolute monotheisms on this planet to begin with. And many Jews geniunely do believe that muslims are part of the covenant made with the blessing on Yishmael in the Tanakh. So let's start from there.
MD - interesting comments, thanks. This is all way out of my league, and its interesting to hear a Musim insider's perspective. A few thoughts.
Much of the benefit of having denominations within a religion is the effect each one has on the other. So classical 19th Century Reform Judaism is pretty much dead as an ideology. Contemporary Reform Judaism has moved very far away from the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform. But the existence of Reform Judaism forced traditional Orthodoxy to deal with some of the issues it was raising, and in some ways Modern Orthodoxy is an Orthodoxy response to Reform. Actually, charedi Orthodoxy is also a response --- it noted that the western world produced heretics and Reform Jews and all sorts of other problems, and it responded by shutting out western culture.
It might be that a Reform wing in Islam would not be successful (although maybe it would) but that its presence would force other parts of Islam to deal with some issues.
Commenting by HaloScan
