This is all true, and tactically there is always room for improvement.
But tachlis if your children marry out than your jewish roots die. And unless you are OJ there is a good chance they will. Those are the stats, aside from ancecdotal evidence to the contrary.
I think Rushkoff's point about Judaism's obsession with numbers may have some merit (concern with numbers being understandable in post-Holocaust Judaism). However, I'm not sure his conclusion makes any sense. On the contrary, it sounds like Rushkoff has reinvented Judaism as "social action."
This is rank foolishness, and, sadly, reflects the current state of Reform. A visit to the Reform Action Center's website reveals that, as a "religion," Reform Judaism is little more than the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party served on a bagel.
Social action is important. But it's not inherently Jewish, so, almost by definition, Judaism can't survive by raising money for the hungry, saving the environment, or promoting "spay your pet" week.
It all depends what you mean by "Jewish," and whether you have faith that Torah can survive a full-court-press by Jews to enact our *particular* brand of social justice: one inspired by iconoclasm, abstract monotheism, and a commitment to life.
Indeed, sometimes this will mean supporting Judaism and Jews for Judaism's sake - but when it's safe to raise our heads, we've got to take the opportunity to make some universal progress. Otherwise, we'll face the same sorts of idiotic obstacles we've been facing for centuries.
Well, what DO you mean by "Jewish?"
Hopefully, something a bit beyond iconoclastic, life-affirming abstract monotheism. We may have invented monotheism, but never claimed a monopoloy on it. I should hope that we are all committed to "life," as I have generally viewed it as preferable to the alternative. As to "iconoclastic," it's not a word that readily comes to mind with regard to most religious Jews.
As to the Torah (which, I should think, would figure in any definition of Judaism), it's still a best-seller...
Here’s an interesting study about how being Jewish impacts the survival of Judiasm. Not anything surprising, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/
...ldrenBeJews.htm
Actually, I once heard that intermarriage was increasing the global population of Jews. The logic went something like this:
1. It does not matter who Jewish women marry, since they will always have Jewish children;
2. It does matter who Jewish men marry since they cannot determine the religion of the child themselves;
3. Despite not being able to determine the religion of his children, a Jewish man might determine the religion of his partner.
Jewish men marrying Jewish women = x Jewish children in the world.
Jewish women marrying non-Jewish men = x Jewish children in the world.
Jewish men marrying non-Jewish children = y Jewish children in the world (where y is logically higher than 0).
Therefore, intermarriage = x + y Jewish children in the world, where x is the number that exists if everybody did supposedly the right thing.
QED.
Morgan: I think social action can be a Jewish thing. I might write a post on this.
Rushkoff: Thanks for visiting. You views are certainly interesting -- although they may not have all the answers, that's what being open source is all about, isn't it? Collaborating to find the answers?
LittleFoxling: thanks for visiting and for the link. Not sure what category we fit into! There's no skeptish column...
Simon: I have heard this also. There's also the greater effort that married out people may make to keep their kids connected.
But really, the point is that it shouldn't be a numbers game. Rather than focusing on how many seats we fill, we should be focusing on the content that's encouraging people to keep listening.
Commenting by HaloScan
