the obligation to reproduce?

[cellio]

During Torah study we've been discussing the part of Leviticus that covers permitted and forbidden sexual relationships. Twice in the last three weeks someone has asserted that the purpose of sex is procreation. (I disputed it the first time; I didn't do so again this morning.) Then, this afternoon, I read an article in Reform Judaism, from the chairman of the national board, about how our population numbers are dropping and it's because we aren't giving priority to having kids and that's a critical mitzvah because we'll die out otherwise and blah blah blah. (Part of "blah blah blah" was that people are too concerned with their careers and not concerned enough with marrying early and reproducing.)

Nonsense, I say.

First off, there is at least one other halachic reason for sexual intercourse: pleasure. Men are specifically obligated to provide this pleasure for their wives, in fact. The talmud even specifies frequency requirements! The idea that sex is only for procreation is not a traditional Jewish notion.

If procreation were the only motivating factor, then alongside the familial restrictions (don't lie with your inlaws) and the ever-challenging Lev 18:22, we would see something about not lying with people who are infertile. But we don't, because that is not forbidden. (For that matter, the Torah itself doesn't say anything against masturbation, though I don't know about later sources.)

Some people can't have kids, and for some people it would be a really bad idea to have kids, but we don't chase those people off. [1] We do, however, alienate them every time we say things like "sex is for procreation, and why aren't you doing your part to replenish the Jewish people?". I am especially offended to hear that argument from leaders in the Reform movement -- leaders who are not simultaneously saying things like "Shabbat is central to Judaism and why aren't you observing it?". The sages aren't even in complete agreement on whether "p'ru ur'vu" (be fruitful and multiply) is a commandment; some say it's a blessing instead.

Further, appeals based on achieving replacement levels for population (the number that gets kicked around is 2.1 kids per couple) are misguided on their own. What good does it do to produce more kids, if we aren't also doing something to keep them Jewish? More than half the US marriages involving Jews are intermarriages; those Jews are very unlikely to have Jewish grandkids. And even within Jewish marriages, how many kids continue their education past bar/bat mitzvah? How many kids end up as committed Jewish adults? The problem here isn't production; it's retention. And if we can't solve the retention problem first, then increasing production won't solve a thing. In fact, it'll make things worse, by providing more non-religious nominally-Jewish models for kids who might be waffling on whether to stick with it.

Yes, paying attention to demographic studies is important -- but it is also important not to attribute the wrong reasons to the results. I would much rather have a smaller number of more committed members of the community; nominal body count really doesn't matter much if they're Jews only in DNA.

Growth will come from increasing education and commitment, and from converts. We need not, and should not, pressure people into having more children than they otherwise would have. That is a loss, not a gain, for the community.

I'll probably try to distill this down into a letter to the editor of Reform Judaism, so comments would be very welcome.

[1] Yes, I am aware that the talmud teaches (somewhere; don't have the cite) that a man may divorce his wife if they fail to produce a child after ten years of trying.

Comments

[figmo.livejournal.com]

IMHO part of the problem is too many rabbis refusing to marry Jews to non-Jews. If a Jewish woman bears a child, the child is automatically Jewish. If marrying the woman to a non-Jew would guarantee her offspring not being converted to her husband's religion, wouldn't it be worth it?

Also, some mixed couples with Jewish fathers want to raise their kids Jewish, but the hoops they have to jump through are greater. Those kids have to be "converted," and if the parents don't act quickly, the poor kid has to jump through major hoops to be what they identify themselves as being.

[goljerp]

IMHO part of the problem is too many rabbis refusing to marry Jews to non-Jews.

I don't agree with you about this. Is there any reason a Rabbi should perform a marriage between a Jew and a non-jew other than to keep the Jew from feeling alienated from Judiasm? (And to hope that the children will be raised Jewishly?) (This is not rhetorical; I can't think of any). A reason that I can think of not to do so is this: by having Rabbis perform intermarriages, it gives a sort of rabbinic sanction to intermarriage. This is, I think, inappropriate. It's not that I think that people who intermarry are bad in any way. But a Jewish marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony joining two Jews in marriage. It makes no sense to have this ceremony if two non-jews were marrying, or for that matter if a Jew and a non-jew were marrying. If you're not going to have a jewish religious ceremony, why have a Rabbi preside and not a justice of the peace, judge, or ship's captain? Warm fuzzies?[1]

If marrying the woman to a non-Jew would guarantee her offspring not being converted to her husband's religion, wouldn't it be worth it?

I don't think that the fact that a Rabbi was present at the wedding would make the difference for most people about how their children will be raised.

Let's divide Jews into two groups: those who feel strongly identified with Judiasm and not so. It seems to me that the strongly identified person would be likely to raise children Jewish regardless of a Rabbi being present at the wedding. So the question becomes: would it make a difference for a non-strongly identified person? I don't know, but I don't really think so. If you want to make a difference, do outreach after childbirth -- or when the child is old enough to go to school. I think that this is a different issue, actually.

I don't think that a policy of "you must promise to raise your children Jewish for a Rabbi to be at the ceremony" is one that would be particularly effective, either. The marginal people would just have a wedding without a Rabbi. (See, e.g., the number of Israeli Jews who get married outside Israel, because only Orthodox Rabbis are allowed to perform marriages there.)

This is a tough issue. I understand that there are people who feel personally rejected when a Rabbi refuses to perform their intermarriage. I regret that people feel hurt. But anyhow, that's my take, take it or leave it.

[1] If it's warm fuzzies you're after, there are ways of having those without having a Rabbi "do" the wedding. For example, my younger sister married a non-jew recently. The marriage was performed by a judge; however, there were aspects of my sister's Jewish heritage reflected in the ceremony. I think they added meaning to the ceremony for her (and gave warm fuzzies) even though a Rabbi wasn't present.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

It's frustrating when your Catholic boyfriend can get any priest to marry you, but you can't get any rabbi to do likewise, especially when any offspring will be raised in your religion and not his.

[goljerp]

It's frustrating when your Catholic boyfriend can get any priest to marry you, but you can't get any rabbi to do likewise

It's also frustrating that you can go to get your pet cat, dog, or pot-bellied pig blessed by a priest, but not by a rabbi.

OK, that was too flippant. The rest of my comment is more serious. I did have a point though - we're talking about seriously different belief systems here. Remember that according to Judiasm, a Rabbi is totally unnecessary for a wedding to be valid. There are 3 (well, 4) independant ways you can have a binding marriage according to Jewish law: By a man giving a Ketubah (marriage document detailing the responsibilities of a Jewish man to a Jewish woman[1]) and a woman accepting it knowingly. Also, a man giving a ring to a woman and saying a short formula[2] and her accepting it is sufficient. The Rabbis, being belt and suspender-type people, combine both of these into one ceremony. (There is also the need to have two witnesses[3] for both of these ways.) Note that neither requires a Rabbi -- and, in fact, if one has a Rabbi presiding at a wedding, the Rabbi cannot be a witness.[4] Let's leave aside the third way in Jewish law that two people can get married with the brief note that it emphatically doesn't require a Rabbi either. The fourth is to have a civil ceremony, since according to the Rabbis, the law of the land one is living in is binding. (Although I'm not positive about all the ramifications of this last way).

Also note that Judiasm has a very different attitude towards children born "out of wedlock". Judiasm has the concept, however it is rather less broad than the Christian/secular concept: according to Jewish law, the only way you can get a "Mamzer" (Bastard) is if a married Jewish woman has a child whose father is not her husband. So even if I was wrong about the fourth way (and I don't think I am), any children would, according to Jewish law, have the exact same status as if the wedding was recognized by Jewish law.

So, to conclude: I am sorry that you are in a frustrating situation. If you want to marry your beloved, I suggest that you do so. The laws vary from state to state, but I am sure that you can have a non-religous officiant perform your wedding. Quite frankly, I've been to weddings where the judge presiding did a better job than some Rabbis. It won't be a traditional Jewish wedding, but... well... that's a consequence of not marrying a Jewish guy. It's not a value judgement; it's an observation. And if you and your husband then decide to raise your children as the Jews they are, then I think that's terrific and I wish you the best of luck. (Even if you don't, I would still respect your decision and wish you the best of luck.)

[1] The text of the Ketubah has become fixed in the last 400 or so years, but there is evidence from the Cairo Geniza that it used to be pretty flexible. In any case, it's basically a sort of one-sided pre-nuptual agreement, stating some of the man's obligations to the woman.
[2] It's something like "Behold, you are married to me according to the laws of Moses and the people Israel." And the "ring" has to be only minimally valuable. In fact, I think it doesn't even have to be a ring, although I might be wrong about that. Traditionally, an unadorned gold ring is used.
[3] Witnesses for these purposes must be, according to traditional Jewish law, male observant Jews. They must be adults (i.e. over 13) and unrelated to the couple.
[4] I'm not sure why a presiding Rabbi isn't allowed to be a witness, just that that's the case.

[lefkowitzga.livejournal.com]

But a Jewish marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony joining two Jews in marriage.

I disagree with this statement. While marriage is a life cycle event and thus important to Jewish life, it is *not* a religious ceremony. It is a business contract in which two people agree to live a Jewish life together. Being a business rather than religious event is why Jewish marriages cannot be performed on Shabbat.

The reason I was given for why most rabbis will not perform intermarriages is related to 'agreeing to live a Jewish life together.' If one partner is not Jewish, they cannot be expected to know and fulfill the obligations of a Jew, hence no Jewish life. At this point the intentions of the couple provides a gray area, which provides fuel for debate and allows some rabbis to agree to perform intermarriages.

The reason a priest will perform an intermarriage without pause is that the Catholic Church considers all children of Catholics to be Catholic, regardless of which parent is in the religion. Because of the rule of matrilinear descent and an implication that living a Jewish life means having Jewish children, there are more considerations for Jews.

I have to agree with cellio's view of the article in the "Reform Judiasm." The writer implied that Jewish women are personally responsible for the decline of Jewish population by choosing to work and deferring (or declining) to have children. It was a very narrow-minded look at a much larger problem. I am also thinking of writing a letter and assume that we won't be the only ones to do so.

the number of Israeli Jews who get married outside Israel, because only Orthodox Rabbis are allowed to perform marriages there

Really? Judges, reform rabbis and other officials cannot officiate at marriages in Israel? I didn't know that. What are the numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel? Where do they go?

[goljerp]

I said:But a Jewish marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony joining two Jews in marriage.
and you replied:
I disagree with this statement.

You made several very good arguments, and I think I agree with them all, although I think I still believe what I said in the first place. (What, me worry about paradox?)

Really? Judges, reform rabbis and other officials cannot officiate at marriages in Israel? I didn't know that. What are the numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel? Where do they go?

Yup. Only religious marriages, performed by Orthodox Rabbis, are recognized by the state. I don't believe Reform and Conservative Rabbis are even officially recognized as being Rabbis. That's what happens when you don't have separation of church and state, and when the secular majority cedes religous power to the Orthodox... and of course now they have power, they're not letting go.

Numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel: I don't have any hard numbers, but I think it's more than just a few people. They used to go to Cyprus; it sort of became a kind of honeymoon/wedding combo. I'm not sure if that's still the case. (You see, they're exploiting the loophole that Israel recognizes marriages performed in other countries.)

I heard a talk last year by a Conservative Rabbi who lives in Israel, about the state of Conservative (and Reform) Judiasm in Israel. It's kind of ironic; although the Supreme Court of Israel has issued several rulings which theoretically would give power to the liberal movements, these have been blocked in practice by the Orthodox power structure. On the other hand, secular Israelis are enrolling their children in Conservative and Reform schools, and there has been progress in letting Conservative Rabbis perform conversions. And, as I said, many secular Israelis are getting married outside the country... so there's some hope...

The thing is, due to Israeli politics, the Religious parties are pretty strong. For a long time, they were small, but crucial in forming coalitions; recently the religious party Shas has grown so that it is the third largest party. (They're still only something like 17/120 seats, but those are critical seats considering Labor and Likud have been getting around 30-50 seats each recently.)

Also, most Israelis consider themselves "Secular". In practice, they might be more observant than the average Conservative jew, but they don't think of themselves as being religous. (I knew a guy when I was in Israel who was "secular". In talking, it was clear that he was familiar with the bible. He mentioned at one point that his apartment is kosher (so his mom can eat there), and he goes to a little shul near his place almost every Saturday. But he's adamantly Secular!) Then there's the Orthodox. There are some Orthodox Jews who are the equivalent of "modern orthodox" in the U.S. - I have cousins there who fit into this category. They all serve in the Army (or do national service), and have jobs. But most Orthodox are of the "ultra orthodox" variety. And, oh yeah, there are small numbers of Reform and Conservative Jews. Most Israelis think of these as mainly imported movements, and lump them together as "reformim". (As a Conservative Jew I find this a bit annoying... I mean, there are significant philosophical and practical differences between Reform and Conservative, even in Israel where the Reform movement is more "right wing" than in the U.S.)

This is more than I should've written, but... well...

[cellio]

If marrying the woman to a non-Jew would guarantee her offspring not being converted to her husband's religion, wouldn't it be worth it?

Would it have that effect, though? And even if the kids aren't formally converted to the husband's religion, is that enough? In the absence of an active effort to raise the kids as Jews, I'd say it isn't -- those kids will not turn out as committed Jews most of the time, so all the intermarriage did was relieve some guilt on the part of the Jewish member of the couple. Obviously there are exceptions; I'm speaking in generalities here.

Also, some mixed couples with Jewish fathers want to raise their kids Jewish, but the hoops they have to jump through are greater.

This is the issue that the Reform movement's patrilineal descent was meant to address. How well is it doing what it set out to do? Among kids with only one Jewish parent, do those with Jewish mothers have an easier time of it than those with Jewish fathers? I haven't been paying a lot of attention, but in my congregation, at least, the answer seems to be "no".

[figmo.livejournal.com]

As the product of a marriage in which the woman converted to Judiasm to please her husband, you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't. My mother still believes in HailMarys and Novenas (did I spell those correctly?) more than she does anything in a synagogue.

As for the Reform movement's patrilineal descent ruling, in practice most folks don't buy it. My brother married a Catholic gal, and their intent was to raise their daughter Jewish. My sister-in-law didn't convert because she felt she'd be living a lie. In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

One of my (female) first cousins had married a non-Jew. Her teenage son is active in their synagogue.

I've been involved with a Catholic guy for many years. If I marry him, I intend to raise my children Jewish. It'd be nice if I could find a rabbi willing to participate in our wedding. Catholic priests have no compunctions about marrying Catholics to Jews; I know because I was maid of honor at such a wedding over 20 years ago. I don't understand why the reverse holds true on our end.

[cellio]

you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't.

Right. Insincere or indifferent conversions are bad. Also probably halachically invalid, so a pro-forma conversion just for the sake of a marriage really doesn't solve anything.

On patrilineal descent, I obviously only have a limited sample here, but what I'm seeing locally is different from what you've seen. Maybe my congregation is special and I just don't know it. (Well, it is special, but for other reasons. :-) ) We have about 50 b'nei mitzvah a year, and in all cases, including the intermarriages, the parents participate in the service. We do have a rule that non-Jews don't say certain bleesings (including aliyot), but in those cases we either give those people other roles or have the couple do the aliya (so a Jew is saying it). I don't go to the morning b'nei mitzvah services often (I attend a different morning minyan), but from what I've heard it seems to work out. On Friday nights the parents light the candles and the child makes kiddush, and that doesn't seem to vary. (I'm there almost every Friday.) I know we have people who are relying on patrilineal descent for status rulings.

Now that's the official side. Out in the congregation, I don't know if people accept children of Jewish mothers more than they do children of Jewish fathers. I haven't discussed it with people. I haven't seen obvious signs of bias, but I haven't looked for the subtle ones. But near as I can tell, those kids are welcome to fully participate in the congregation, and many of them do.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

Whether someone who converts on paper but not inside is really Jewish is a topic that can be debated and probably is.

The acceptance of patrilineal descent is also highly variable, depending upon where you are. My brother claimed to have had problems with the reform synagogues in his area accepting patrilineal descent. I haven't spoken to him about it in years (heck, I haven't spoken to him in years, and for good reason, but that's another story), and I haven't seen how much of a search he's made. I just know what he has told me.

I also have a friend out here who is Jewish by patrilineal descent, and he has found similar problems of being accepted as a Jew even though he identifies himself as being Jewish.

[cellio]

The acceptance of patrilineal descent is also highly variable, depending upon where you are.

Sounds like, yes. I hadn't realized. I thought this was one of the things congregations/rabbis were required to abide by in order to belong to the movement.

I also have a friend out here who is Jewish by patrilineal descent, and he has found similar problems of being accepted as a Jew even though he identifies himself as being Jewish.

How often do the specifics come up? In my congregation, most people wouldn't even ask: if you show up and say you're Jewish, you're believed. I would not be able to tell you which people in my congregation are Jews by which methods (matrilineal, patrilineal, conversion...), unless they told me or I saw something that made it obvious (like a conversion ceremony). I hadn't previously realized how unusual this might be.

[goljerp]

you can convert someone on paper, but if they don't feel like going along inside, they won't. My mother still believes in HailMarys and Novenas (did I spell those correctly?) more than she does anything in a synagogue.

This is probably why there are more instances of intermarriage now than in the past; in the past people would 'convert' for a wedding and not really get into it, while now they don't. However, as you noted, there are implications for the children in these cases. Also, I should point out that Judiasm (despite Maimonides' best efforts) is (in general) more concerned about one's actions than beliefs.

In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

Even Reform? (Or perhaps there were no Reform synagogues in the area?)

Catholic priests have no compunctions about marrying Catholics to Jews; I know because I was maid of honor at such a wedding over 20 years ago.

It was my understanding that Catholic priests would perform intermarriages of any kind (including to protestants, etc.) only if the couple promised to raise the children catholic. Am I mistaken?

[figmo.livejournal.com]

[me]In practice, my brother found no synagogue in the area would take my niece in because "she's not really Jewish."

[goljerpEven Reform? (Or perhaps there were no Reform synagogues in the area?)

Where he lives (the boondocks of south Jersey), most of the synagogues are reform, with a few conservative ones scattered here and there. The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

It was my understanding that Catholic priests would perform intermarriages of any kind (including to protestants, etc.) only if the couple promised to raise the children catholic. Am I mistaken?

They sign something to the effect that they will "try" to do so, but AFAIK they're not bound to it.

[goljerp]

The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

This makes me very upset. That Rabbi was totally wrong.

[cellio]

I agree.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

[me]The rabbi at the reform synagogue we went to as children had contempt for us because our mother wasn't born a Jew.

[goljerp]This makes me very upset. That Rabbi was totally wrong.

The rabbi from that synagogue is the reason I have problems, to this day, with joining a synagogue. He did lots of other things in Hebrew School that make this pale in comparison. Suffice it to say when my parents pulled me out of Hebrew School when they found out he was teaching the advanced Hebrew classes, it was for good reasons.

[goljerp]

The rabbi from that synagogue is the reason I have problems, to this day, with joining a synagogue.

Unfortunately, a Rabbi can be a worthless scumbags just like any other person. However, in my personal experience, the worthless Rabbinical scumbags are few and far between. Try not to let one scumbag totally ruin Judiasm for you. (Because, in my opinion, Judiasm is best experienced as part of a community. Sure, it's possible to be a Jew on one's own, but it's better with a community.)

Actually, looking at this, maybe the Havurah movement would be more your speed... lay led services might do the trick! :-)

[figmo.livejournal.com]

In more recent days I've been considering joining a congregation. The lack of desire to get massively involved (I feel like I've got too many "irons in the fire" already) and a lack of funds for membership fees have me putting that on hold.

There are a couple of congregations out here that I would seriously consider joining. One has a rabbi with whom I've swapped a few e-mails (he's pretty cool); the other doesn't have a rabbi, but offers free high holy day services (for that alone I'd support them) and at one point had the coolest congregation President I've ever come across (his speech for money at the Yom Kippur service: "You know who we are. You know what we do. You know the rest. Thank you.").

[goljerp]

a lack of funds for membership fees have me putting that on hold.

If you get to a point where this is the only thing holding you back, I'd suggest asking someone at the shul if they have reduced fees for people in difficult financial situations. Many (most?) shuls do.

Catholic Priests

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

It varies. My parents are extremely close friends with a Roman Catholic monseignor who has performed a number of marriages within the extended family. It was sort of assumed by everybody that he would be presiding over mine as well. And then I met my future wife, we 'went steady' for a long time and then announced that we were getting married. We spoke to him about his performing the ceremony, we had no reason to break from family tradition. He gave us one... in spades! He said he would schedule Catholic education classes so my wife could convert, our intended date of a little less than a year away was, of course, to be dis-regarded. He intended to interview us separately and together and then depending on how well Karen did in her conversion, *he* would decide when we were ready to be married. He wasn't sure we were ready for the responsibility of having children. When I told him we didn't want kids, he said I was wrong! As "practicing Catholics" we had an obligation to have children and raise them in the Catholic faith! I couldn't believe his gall! He KNEW that I hadn't stepped foot in a church since I moved out of my parents house, he KNEW I didn't believe in about 99% of the dogma the Roman Catholics preach and he had the arrogance to tell me HE was going decide whether or not I had kids??? We never went to the second scheduled interview. We talked to some close friends and ended up using the Methodist minister they used. This pretty much caused WW III in my family. I simply stated the invitations were sent out, come or not as you see fit, it's our wedding, not yours! Things were 'interesting' at family gatherings for about half a year until people simply got used to the idea. Monica, my apologies for airing a pet peeve in your journal instead of mine. I simply started typing and it all came out.

Re: Catholic Priests

[cellio]

Bah. How unreasonable!

I would have thought the correct thing to do -- for any clergy person, not just him -- would be to say something like "I have certain requirements of the couple before I'll do a wedding. They are X, Y, and Z. Are you willing to meet those requirements?"

He's within his right to not perform the wedding if the couple won't do what he requires, but he's way out of bounds in presuming that he can order people around like that. All he can do (and all he should do) is withdraw.

Re: Catholic Priests

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem was that he himself was throughly brainwashed by his religion. He couldn't conceive the idea of NOT wanting to be married in the Catholic Church. It never occurred to him that we wouldn't want to jump through all the hoops for a Roman Catholic wedding.

Re: Catholic Priests

[goljerp]

Monica, my apologies for airing a pet peeve in your journal instead of mine.

<aol>me too</aol>

I have been rather verbose in your journal the past few days...

Re: Catholic Priests

[cellio]

Verbosity is a sin? I don't see it on the list. :-)

Seriously, verbosity is a sometimes-necessary effect of discussion, and I enjoy discussions. Don't sweat it.

[zzrg.livejournal.com]

Purely formulaic approaches to religion drive me nuts. If God told someone to take an umbrella to someone one day when it was raining, and he did not bother to mention anything about umbrellas the next day when it was sunny, does that mean that all religious men are obligated to carry umbrellas when they go out until God mentions otherwise?

All religions seem in my eyes to be suffering from a lack of purpose in modern times. (And one reaction of many seems to be to adopt foolish causes). I am wondering... (I am someone that believes in organized religion, but is wary of it. I want to belong, but even the relatively moderate Methodist church which I grew up in did not encourage exploring spiritual boundaries. As far as the God thing goes I am pretty open minded.) ...anyway I was wondering if Judaism is suffering from having formed a secular Jewish state and declining persecution. (I've been reading a book about psychology, not religion, and one of the things it mentions is how people and cultures tend to die if their sense of purpose disappears.)

I think the end purpose of most religions is to create a spiritual community, but that is something that has become more and more difficult in societies that are larger, moving faster, and changing more rapidly. Also, fewer people are looking at people in terms of race, skin color, and religion.

respectfully yours
DISCLAIMER: I claim to have no answers, only a lot of questions.

[goljerp]

I was wondering if Judaism is suffering from having formed a secular Jewish state and declining persecution. (I've been reading a book about psychology, not religion, and one of the things it mentions is how people and cultures tend to die if their sense of purpose disappears.)

Sure, those are probably factors. Now that Jews are free to live wherever they like, and can marry whomever they wish (without necessarily converting), there are many avenues for Jews to become assimilated into the culture at large. Also the loss of 6 million Jews in recent history didn't help.

But... much like the famed "Demise of the Internet Predicted: film at 11", this is not the first time that people worried about the decline of the Jewish people. I think that one of the reasons behind the Reform movement in the first place was that the Jews of Germany (in, um, late 19th century?) were afraid that massive changes needed to be made to keep Jews from assimilating into the relatively open German culture. Maimonides wrote several works (including The Guide to the Perplexed) to try to persuade midevil Jews not to assimilate into Muslim culture. I think that it's important not to be complacent about Judiasm, and to work at communicating to our children and unaffiliated Jews why Judiasm is a living religion worth pursuing. (I say living religion, because it seems to me that a lot of Jews are putting emphasis on the Holocaust as a reason to stay Jewish. That's not enough, I think.) But on the other hand, Jews have survived for this long - I think we will continue to survive, even if we aren't persecuted! :-)

[zzrg.livejournal.com]

I think we will continue to survive, even if we aren't persecuted! :-) For some reason this made a bit of cinimatic history pop into my head. (The very end of Mel Brook's 'History of the World Part II') But let me make it clear that I am not presuming to predict the end of anything or anyone.

And I don't know if I am guilty of using stereotypes when I see Jews as a people and a religion that takes some of it's identity from having been persecuted and discriminated against until very recent history. (Even, for purposes of this line of thought only, setting aside the horrible human aberation called the Holocaust.)

I think all religions are guilty of being too conservative when it comes to looking to the past for all the answers to today's problems. I am interested in the ways religion (all religions) and other forces both help bind society together and serve as flash points for problems in society.

[cellio]

And I don't know if I am guilty of using stereotypes when I see Jews as a people and a religion that takes some of it's identity from having been persecuted and discriminated against until very recent history.

I think it's natural for a people -- any people -- to take some of its identity from surviving past attempts to knock 'em down. I mean, look at any country's version of independence day: "we wanted to leave, they fought us, we won". The problems come when the notion moves from a people to a person and from an aspect of the past to a defining momemt of the prsent -- individual members of previously-downtrodden groups who over-personalize it.

I am not talking about people (in any group) who are working against current discrimination or injustices. And I'm not trying to dismiss past horrors; far from it. But yes, some people over-focus on the past, instead of looking at how we can move forward and make things better in the future. Whether Judaism has more than its share of such people, I can't say.

[goljerp]

(The very end of Mel Brook's 'History of the World Part II')

Oooh, you must come from an alternate universe! Is that the one where William Shatner was never allowed to direct a Star Trek movie, and where George W. Bush lost Florida (and the 2000 election) by a very small margin, mainly due to a 'butterfly' ballot in the conservative areas of the state that led to spurious votes for Ralph Nader? :-)

Or did you just make the mistake I've made on occasion and mis-remember the title of History of the World, Part I? If that's the case, I must admit to being a bit vague on the ending. Didn't it end with a "preview" for "Part II", including a Jews in space bit?

I don't know if I am guilty of using stereotypes when I see Jews as a people and a religion that takes some of its identity from having been persecuted and discriminated against until very recent history.

There is a lot of truth to this. However, it's a fairly recent and localized development. I'm no expert, but I'd say it's really only come up in the last 5 or 6 hundred years, among Eastern European Jews. There's a term for it, I think - the Lachrymosal history of Judiasm. Until the founding of the state of Israel, the Jews from Arab lands (aka "Sephardic Jews") weren't affected by this trope. Now there's societal pressure for Sephardic Jews to say that they've been persecuted just as much as any other Jews. But it's not, in my opinion, inherent to Jewish theology or religion. On the other hand, it's been part of Christian theology (especially in the middle ages) for Jews to be seen as dispersed and lowly and wandering. (See, look, those Jews rejected - and continue to reject - Jesus, and look where it got them!) (So it was not only OK, but necessary on some level to keep the Jews down; to expell Jews from Britian, Spain, etc.) When I have children, I will of course want them to know about Jewish history. I won't want to pretend that persecution hasn't occured, but on the other hand I won't want them to think that being Jewish is all about being persecuted. Perhaps I'm too idealistic; perhaps it's because I, personally, am alive in a time and a country where Jews aren't being particularly persecuted - at the moment.

I think all religions are guilty of being too conservative when it comes to looking to the past for all the answers to today's problems. I am interested in the ways religion (all religions) and other forces both help bind society together and serve as flash points for problems in society.

This is a very interesting point. And Judiasm doesn't have an answer. It's got 5. Or 6. Or more, depending upon how you count it. Well, OK, maybe it's more like a spectrum. There are Jews who seem to me to refuse to look beyond Poland in the mid-1800s for answers. There are Jews who use the past as a source of general principles (e.g. the need to be ethical and to be socially active), but not specific answers. The Reconstructionist movement has a catchy saying, "Tradition has a vote, not a veto". And there's lots of views inbetween and even beyond. I'm a Conservative Jew - to be distinguished from a conservative Jew (-: - and believe in the evolution of Jewish law in light of modernity. That's not as pithy as the Reconstructionist saying. Conservative Judiasm is in a difficult place towards the middle of the Jewish spectrum.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Doing something to keep the kids Jewish is *vital*, and that's where, imho, the day school movement is key. Afterschool Hebrew schools are failures - kids hate them and parents regard them as necessary things to get through until bar/bat mitzvah. It's especially bad when the teachers are from one movement and the kids and their families are from another, so the lessons they hate so much don't even reflect home practices.

There are day schools in all three major movements now, at least until the high school level, and this is positive across the board - even if the Reform day school where a Conservadox friend teaches doesn't like it when he leaves early on Friday afternoons in winter (they don't mind that he takes second day holidays off, however.)

If Judaism is taught as positive instead being perceived as a burden that can be tossed off at age thirteen, that can only be good.

[cellio]

If Judaism is taught as positive instead being perceived as a burden that can be tossed off at age thirteen, that can only be good.

Absolutely. If the bar/bat mizvah is the goal, something hs gone wrong. Sadly, in many families it is the goal; look at how synagogue membership drops off after the last kid has reached that goal, for instance.

[goljerp]

I'll probably try to distill this down into a letter to the editor of Reform Judaism, so comments would be very welcome.

This is all very well said. You might want to comment about the implicit anti-feminist tenor of these arguments, the unspoken subtext being, "if these darn women would just stop having careers, then they'd have lots of kids, and everything would be fine!"

[1] Yes, I am aware that the talmud teaches (somewhere; don't have the cite) that a man may divorce his wife if they fail to produce a child after ten years of trying.

True. But I seem to remember this being (or becoming) a reason for divorce, not a requirement for divorce. In other words, a man doesn't have to divorce his wife after ten years of trying if he doesn't wish to.

[cellio]

You might want to comment about the implicit anti-feminist tenor of these arguments,

Good point. (I will reread the article I mentioned to make sure that's what this guy is actually doing, though; if he's really advocating that a parent stay home, raising the sexism flag will cause him to blow me off.)

In other words, a man doesn't have to divorce his wife after ten years of trying if he doesn't wish to.

Correct. It's an option, not a requirement.

[celebrin.livejournal.com]

Mine got long. Go http://www.livejournal.com/users/celebrin/115009.html#cutid1 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/celebrin/115009.html#cutid1) to read my response.