jgw@rabbit.UUCP (Jay G. Wilpon) (07/16/84)
Since, this discussion is starting let me make 1 point. The original reason for considering a child of a Jewish mother Jewish and not a Jewish father, was that you always knew who the mother was (ie. Jewish), but were never 100% sure who the father was. But today technique's are becoming available so as to tell who the father is (that is, if you are given a choice). Therefore, when these techniques are wide-spread then it shouldn't make a difference which parent is Jewish
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (07/17/84)
In article <2979@rabbit.UUCP> jgw@rabbit.UUCP (Jay G. Wilpon) writes:
~| The original reason for considering a child of a Jewish
~| mother Jewish and not a Jewish father, was that you always
~| knew who the mother was (ie. Jewish), but were never 100% sure
~| who the father was.
Really? Can you quote a halachic source (e.g., Talmud, Mishnah)
for this claim? I think not.
The reason that Judaism is inherited from the mother and not the
father is because that is the definition of Judaism. Rationalizations
of the reasons for halachah are largely irrelevant to the status
of the halachah, and should not be used to change it.
Whether the father can be genetically proven to be the father today
is totally irrelevant to the definition of a Jew. Judaism, as
practised for millenia, has only one definition: "born of a Jewish
mother, or converted in accordance with halachah".
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
or
David_Sherman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPAmls@wxlvax.UUCP (07/20/84)
Who is a Jew is defined by Jewish law, just as who is an American citizen, a French citizen, or a Polish citizen defined by that country's law. If I am one nationality and wish to become another, then I must go through whatever process is necessary. I can not decide to call myself an English citizen, walk into the Forign Office and ask for a British passport. I will not be issued a passport until I fulfill the requirements for English citizenship. The same is true within Jewish law: you must be born a Jew by having a Jewish mother or convert according to the Law. Although many people have changed the Law or want to change it, it can only be changed in specific ways. These too are outlined in Jewish Law. Laws can be *interpreted* by experts. Some laws can be changed by the Sanhederen (which no longer exists). Some laws can only be changed by G-d. But, this is no different than national laws, with different powers given to courts, legislative bodies, Kings or Presidents, or the Constitution. It makes no difference if your family came from Germany, Russia, Iran, Moracco, or America: all are Jews. But, is this not the same as people who come from the South, North East or West in the United States? Each region has different cultures, but all are Americans, subject to the same national laws. Each state and local government will have its own laws, but the national law stands above all. The same is true for Jewish law. Each region or national group will have its own customs, but all are subject to the same overall Law. But, what about the situation when others place all Jews in the same catagory? For those who wish to remain Jews, maybe they should look into what it means to practice the religion, maybe they should learn more about the Jewish religion, maybe they will learn that we all are Jews, having the same beliefs, subject to the same laws, involved in each others fate. Michael L. Schneider
dnd@exodus.UUCP (David N. Deutsch) (07/27/84)
The quotation "Mother's baby, papa's? Maybe" has often been used to justify the consideration of a child as Jewish if the mother is Jewish. This is in sharp contrast to the classification of the child (Cohen, Levi or Israelite, not Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. :-)) which is based solely on the father. I asked "my" Rabbi for a suitable reference as to why Jewish law bases the child's religion on the mother's. He directed me to the book of Bereshit (Genesis) wherein Abraham (considered to be the first Jew) had two wives and two sons. Sarah was considered to be Jewish and so was her son Isaac. Hagar was not Jewish nor was her son Ishmael. The father (Abraham) was common to both. We thus have a biblical example where the Jewish religion depends on the mother rather than the father. David N. Deutsch (201-582-2032 or exodus!dnd) (Bell Communications Research, Murray Hill, N.J.)
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/02/84)
>Michael Schneider believes, just as American law determines who is an >American, and French law determines who is a Frenchman, Jewish law >determines who is a Jew. The terminology is incorrect. French law does not determine who is a Frenchman but who is a citizen of France and who therefore has all the rights and responsibilities of French citizenship. >Which Jewish law? Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are not >uniform in their requirements. Thus, we have more than one proposed >standard. With three laws, does that mean there are three distinct >Jewish peoples? Also, someone who believes all Jews are Israelis in >exile can also suggest Israeli law as a fourth possibility. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism are all basically erroneous Ashkenazi developments and should swiftly pass into oblivion. Who selects the law? Who selected the French law or the USA law? People whose primary political affiliation was the French nation or the United States of America. Likewise, people whose primary affiliation is the Jewish nation (I do not say Israeli nation) select the law. Therefor about 95% of Ashkenazim have no right in selecting the law. >Since he refers to "laws that can only be changed by G_d", it is safe >to assume Michael refers to the Orthodox variety. Certainly, appeals to >the divine origin of Mosaic Law is what sets it apart from the >Napoleonic Code. You can't have it both ways: you can claim divine >commandment, or analogy with secular law, but claiming both is a little >too much! Analogy is the often the easiest way to explain to the ignorant. >The statement that Jews of different nations have as much in common >with each other as people of different regions of the same nations is >hyperbole. An American Jew, for example, is very concerned with the >fate and status of a Jew in, say, the Soviet Union, but still has more >in common with his Gentile neighbor or even with a Baptist from West >Texas. This statement just proves my contention that Ashkenazim can no longer be genuinely considered Jewish. USA citizens use terms of national affiliation in two distinct ways. An Italian is someone with Italian citizenship who takes part in the political and cultural life of Italy. But an Italian is also an American whose ethnic roots lie in Italy. Only the former has a right to take part in the national and cultural life of Italy. The latter may now and then have Italian citizenship (just like Americans of Jewish background are sometimes accidentally Jewish) but he would have to alter his primary affiliations (lashub -- to return) before he could legitimately claim the right to affect Italian national and political and cultural institutions. Jews of different nations formed one national culture as little as two hundred and fifty years ago. For example, there are cases of a Jew starting out in Vilna and living various portions of his life in Germany, France, Italy, Algeria, Yemen and India and apparently such individuals never noticed major differences in outlook. The talmudic lifestyle promotes unity. In the 19th century Ashkenazim began to drop out of the Jewish world. The commandment ahabat Yisrael requires a Jew to feel more in common with a Russian Jew or and Israeli Jew than with a Baptist neighbor. Since David Ruben is apparently violating this most important commandment, he certainly has no right to input on the organization of the Jewish people.
sher@rochester.UUCP (08/04/84)
In a jewish philosophy course I took in college I read a passage by Maimonides which defined exactly who is a jew. Unfortunately my copy of Maimonides excerps is in another city. Can someone quote the passage (It is probably the most referenced section of his extremely referenced work so I think it should be no problem finding it.) FLAME: Anyway I also suggest that if Mr Martillo does not want to consider me to be in the same people as he then he is no longer jewish because I am. I often violate talmudic law but that is insufficient to exclude me from Judaism according to Jewish law. (I think that even if I were to be excomunicated I would still be jewish but am not sure.) The fact that Mr. Martillo is ashamed of most of the Jews of the world (or at least a substantial percentage) should not act to confuse people about important facts like just who is a Jew. Otherwise I would not respond to his overemotional postings (In other words I have to be fairly annoyed before I flame). -David Sher
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/06/84)
Mr. Martillo is by far the most arrogant individual I have yet run
into on this net. He has stated that my disagreement with his views
DISQUALIFIES me from any input on Jewishness. When all those who are
deserving of such disqualification are eliminated, only those who
agree with Martillo will be left. (By the way, all of you who feel I
ought to be disqualified need not read this)
Martillo, if the truth is so obvious to you, so writ in stone that no
discussion can be carried on in good spirit, why do you bother
participating in this group? It cannot be for your edification, as you
clearly know it all. It cannot be for our edification, since you respond
to contrary views with insults and rudeness.
There must be people reading this who may hold Martillo's views on
nationality and religion who are capable of disagreeing with personal
opinions without resorting to personal insults. I'd like to hear them
elaborate their views, publicly or privately.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidblenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) (08/10/84)
Mr. Martillo is by far the most arrogant individual I have yet run into on this net. He has stated that my disagreement with his views DISQUALIFIES me from any input on Jewishness. When all those who are deserving of such disqualification are eliminated, only those who agree with Martillo will be left. (By the way, all of you who feel I ought to be disqualified need not read this) Well, I think I understand your reaction, but I might suggest a different context in which you might interpret the comments. Martillo has several time made comments which, I think, reveal his real view of the world. The most recent I can recall was the statement that he could not understand why the media referred to Diane Feinstein, the mayor of San Francisco, as Jewish. This might, on the one hand, be taken as an objection to the media's applying that label. In fact, I think it reflects that fact that Martillo really does not understand why they identify her that way. In his "attacks", Martillo follows a consistant pattern: group A incorrectly concludes P, hence they are either ignorant or lacking of firm moral character. What he means is that he disagrees with P, so that members of A are either ignorant of the facts (Martillo's premises) or indisposed to engage in the rigorous discipline of a (Martillo's) reasoning process. I claim that, whatever facts are agreed upon, Martillo's method of reasoning is not the same as everyone else's, and he is unwilling to acknowledge that there exists any other reasoning process. And that seems like a very rigid, dogmatic view for him to assume. He is, it has been pointed out, consistant. That consistancy can be illuminating of his view, and several readers, as it happens, have expressed the sentiment that it is a worthwhile thing for his viewpoint to be represented. The arrogance arises not from his expressing his viewpoint, but from his rigid assumption that all worthy persons must use his method of reasoning, so that people who disagree with him must be, as mentioned above, either ignorant or (for a variety of reasons he is willing to suggest) unwilling to reason. This dismissal of other peoples' ability to reason competently, as you observe, is not a good basis for an amicable exchange. It is clear Martillo comes from a different culture than I come from. His approach seems very rigid and dogmatic, and to have as a primary impetus the maintenance of cultural identity. For him to do otherwise, he has said, would reflect weakness in his culture. I don't know if he does embody its values (i.e., is a successful product of his upbringing). If so, I would certainly question his assertions about the strength of its intellectual tradition (yet can certainly understand why he makes them :-)). No one knows what the future course will be, or can be, for this world in which an increase in cross-cultural contact appears unavoidable, which is not to say it is a unique, new phenomenon. The assimilation Martillo opposes seems like a likely candidate. But it may be that the old rules, that the strong will conquer, dominate, and multiply, are immutable -- in which case Martillo may have the key to survival. I do find it striking, though, that the greatest atrocities of our (western) civilization may be attributed to the rise of precisely the kind of strong cultural identity Martillo adopts. Perhaps Martillo feels that it was the failure of other groups to be equally vigorous that permitted these excesses to occur. It's unclear to me that we can continue to think about things that way. Anyhow, best to prepend to each of his postings the sentence fragment "It is consistant with the training of Martillo that ". If one party is unwilling to respect the other's ability to contribute, you haven't much of a discussion. For my part, I think Martillo's attitude/policy in dealing with others is, at best, an indictment of his own position. Tom
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/10/84)
Read the damn article! You specifically state: An American Jew, for example, is very concerned with the fate and status of a Jew in, say, the Soviet Union, but still has more in common with his Gentile neighbor or even with a Baptist from West Texas. By definition you are not 'oheb Yisrael if you believe this. Talk about arrogance. Its pure hutspah to suggest that either a 'adish Yisrael or sone' Yisrael has a right to input about the organization of the community even if he does happen to be accidentally Jewish (I did not invent the concept; I believe Cynthia Ozick did but she used the term non-Jewish Jews). This touches one of my main gripes against Ashkenazim. For almost all Sefardim when they hear or read about the sufferings of Ashkenazim, it is like it happened to their own families. When we tell the Ashkenazim about our sufferings, for most Ashkenazim we could have been Martians for all they seem to care.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/13/84)
>Read the damn article! You specifically state: >>An American Jew, for example, is very concerned with the fate and status >>of a Jew in, say, the Soviet Union, but still has more in common with >>his Gentile neighbor or even with a Baptist from West Texas. >By definition you are not 'oheb Yisrael if you believe this. Talk about >arrogance. Its pure hutspah to suggest that either a 'adish Yisrael or >sone' Yisrael has a right to input about the organization of the >community even if he does happen to be accidentally Jewish (I did not >invent the concept; I believe Cynthia Ozick did but she used the term >non-Jewish Jews). Whether it is desirable to consider me Jewish is a subject of legitimate discussion and I did not object to you expressing such an opinion (though I strongly disagree); however, if you are going to discuss MY Jewishness (or lack thereof), it is unjust to also try and exclude me from that discussion! Also, if you read what I did say, you will find no suggestion that Jewish interests be sacrificed for Gentile interests. What I did say was that American Jews held more in common (language, enviroment, politics, etc.) with other Americans than with Jews in other countries. That does not mean American Jews ought to take the part of Americans against other Jews. If there is a conflict, we ought to take the part of whoever is right. Finally, if you wish to impose strict tests of Jewishness, be aware you run the danger of turning Judaism into a Phi Beta Kappa of sorts: an orginization whose primary concern is to decide who deserves the honor of membership. >This touches one of my main gripes against Ashkenazim. For almost all >Sefardim when they hear or read about the sufferings of Ashkenazim, it >is like it happened to their own families. When we tell the Ashkenazim >about our sufferings, for most Ashkenazim we could have been Martians >for all they seem to care. This touches one of my gripes against Martillo. Ashenazim are the whipping boys for all that is wrong in the Jewish world. Which reminds me of a question Martillo did not answer. So I will repeat it, and I would really be interested in a cogent answer: Martillo, why do you participate in this group? If it is to learn something from others on the net, why the authoritarian tone? If it is to teach us something, why the insult and abuse (you can't believe people are ever persuaded by verbal violence)? David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/17/84)
In a jewish philosophy course I took in college I read a passage >by Maimonides which defined exactly who is a jew. Unfortunately my copy >of Maimonides excerps is in another city. Can someone quote the passage >(It is probably the most referenced section of his extremely referenced work >so I think it should be no problem finding it.) >FLAME: >Anyway I also suggest that >if Mr Martillo does not want to consider me to be in the same people as he >then he is no longer jewish because I am. I often violate talmudic law but >that is insufficient to exclude me from Judaism according to Jewish law. >(I think that even if I were to be excomunicated I would still be jewish >but am not sure.) The fact that Mr. Martillo is ashamed of most of the >Jews of the world (or at least a substantial percentage) should not act to >confuse people about important facts like just who is a Jew. Otherwise >I would not respond to his overemotional postings (In other words I have >to be fairly annoyed before I flame). If David Sher had bothered to read my article, he would have noted I was not offering a criterion for Jewishness but rather a criterion for the privilege of taking part within the Jewish community. I have Maltese citizenship. I neither speak Maltese nor do I no anything about Maltese culture. I have also never lived within the Maltese community. I would have a lot a nerve to try to tell true Maltese how to run Malta especially if on the basis of my limited experience I tried to claim there was no Maltese community. Joaquim Martillo
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/19/84)
>Mr. Martillo is by far the most arrogant individual I have yet run >into on this net. He has stated that my disagreement with his views >DISQUALIFIES me from any input on Jewishness. When all those who are >deserving of such disqualification are eliminated, only those who >agree with Martillo will be left. (By the way, all of you who feel I >ought to be disqualified need not read this) I do not mind disagreement with my opinions and I do now and then concede the correctness of other people's opinions. You may write to Sophie Quigley or Larry Welsh for confirmation. Your disagreement with my views does not disqualify your opinions on how the Jewish community should define Jewishness but rather your denial of the existence of the Jewish community which I can affirm does exist. Apparently in your limited experience you have never had contact with the functioning Jewish community -- probably because most Ashkenazim are no longer part of the Jewish community. The denial of the existence of a Jewish community which is so easy to find in New York, Boston, Nashville and many other cities is an interesting example of fossilized Ashkenazi thought patterns. Assimilated German Jews from the end of the 19th century until the Hitler years also tended to deny the Jewish community and the commonality of Jewish experience. Even admitting the obvious differences between the Ostjuden (Eastern European Jews) and the German Jews, I see no other community than the Jewish community in which to place the German Jews. Certainly they were not part of the German community. German Jewish voting patterns were quite different than German voting patterns. German Jewish intellectuality followed many different paths than German intellectuality. I will concede a very low opinion of Hermann Kohn, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Gershom Scholem and their whole crowd but having read them I doubt they could have taken part in the slaughter of a people as easy as most of their counterpart German intellectuals. To me this implies an extremely different world outlook. Later events in fact showed that the German Jews were part of the Jewish community and not part of the German community. I have yet to label individuals on the net idiotic, arrogant or moronic although certainly all these types exist on the net. I have labeled opinions moronic or ignorant. From the standpoint of Judaism limudei torat moshe (studies of the teaching of Moses) are not acts of piety, they are fundamental obligations of all Jews and I have little patience with those Jews on the net who show greater familiarity with intellectual second raters like Thoreau, Emerson, Mills, Jefferson than with intellectual first raters like Maimonides, Nahmanides, Isaac al-Fasi, Abarbanel, Judah ben Betsalel Loewe (Maharal miPrag), the Vilna Gaon -- especially when these Jews show simultaneously no inclination to correct this gross intellectual imbalance. >Martillo, if the truth is so obvious to you, so writ in stone that no >discussion can be carried on in good spirit, why do you bother >participating in this group? It cannot be for your edification, as you >clearly know it all. It cannot be for our edification, since you respond >to contrary views with insults and rudeness. Labeling as insults and rudeness the opinions of those who disagree with you is a common net tactic. This tactic often covers up fundamental ignorance which I suspect is the case here since David Rubin has shown no familiarity with basic Jewish texts. >There must be people reading this who may hold Martillo's views on >nationality and religion who are capable of disagreeing with personal >opinions without resorting to personal insults. I'd like to hear them >elaborate their views, publicly or privately. Joaquim Martillo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/23/84)
>>Mr. Martillo is by far the most arrogant individual I have yet run >>into on this net. He has stated that my disagreement with his views >>DISQUALIFIES me from any input on Jewishness. When all those who are >>deserving of such disqualification are eliminated, only those who >>agree with Martillo will be left. (By the way, all of you who feel I >>ought to be disqualified need not read this) >I do not mind disagreement with my opinions and I do now and then >concede the correctness of other people's opinions. You may write to >Sophie Quigley or Larry Welsh for confirmation. Your disagreement with >my views does not disqualify your opinions on how the Jewish community >should define Jewishness but rather your denial of the existence of the >Jewish community which I can affirm does exist. Apparently in your >limited experience you have never had contact with the functioning >Jewish community -- probably because most Ashkenazim are no longer part >of the Jewish community. I never denied the existance of a Jewish community. To do so would be, as you say, contradicted by fact. What I said was that most American Jews have more in common with American non-Jews than with Jewish non-Americans. To say that this denies this existence of a Jewish community requires that you also believe that any individual can belong to only one community. I do not hold that supposition to be true, and find no contradiction in my asserting my membership in both the American and Jewish communities. >The denial of the existence of a Jewish community which is so easy to >find in New York, Boston, Nashville and many other cities is an >interesting example of fossilized Ashkenazi thought patterns. >Assimilated German Jews from the end of the 19th century until the >Hitler years also tended to deny the Jewish community and the >commonality of Jewish experience. Even admitting the obvious >differences between the Ostjuden (Eastern European Jews) and the German >Jews, I see no other community than the Jewish community in which to >place the German Jews. Certainly they were not part of the German >community. German Jewish voting patterns were quite different than >German voting patterns. German Jewish intellectuality followed many >different paths than German intellectuality. I will concede a very low >opinion of Hermann Kohn, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Gershom Scholem >and their whole crowd but having read them I doubt they could have taken >part in the slaughter of a people as easy as most of their counterpart >German intellectuals. To me this implies an extremely different world >outlook. Later events in fact showed that the German Jews were part of >the Jewish community and not part of the German community. German Jews were always members of the Jewish community, and occasionally members of the German community, too. >I have yet to label individuals on the net idiotic, arrogant or moronic >although certainly all these types exist on the net. I have labeled >opinions moronic or ignorant. From the standpoint of Judaism limudei >torat moshe (studies of the teaching of Moses) are not acts of piety, >they are fundamental obligations of all Jews and I have little patience >with those Jews on the net who show greater familiarity with >intellectual second raters like Thoreau, Emerson, Mills, Jefferson than >with intellectual first raters like Maimonides, Nahmanides, Isaac >al-Fasi, Abarbanel, Judah ben Betsalel Loewe (Maharal miPrag), the Vilna >Gaon -- especially when these Jews show simultaneously no inclination to >correct this gross intellectual imbalance. All you mentioned were intellectual first-raters. >>Martillo, if the truth is so obvious to you, so writ in stone that no >>discussion can be carried on in good spirit, why do you bother >>participating in this group? It cannot be for your edification, as you >>clearly know it all. It cannot be for our edification, since you respond >>to contrary views with insults and rudeness. >Labeling as insults and rudeness the opinions of those who disagree with >you is a common net tactic. This tactic often covers up fundamental >ignorance which I suspect is the case here since David Rubin has shown >no familiarity with basic Jewish texts. You stated that I was not a Jew. You ought not wonder that I took this for an insult. Your implication that I am ignorant of basic Jewish texts is a false one. I showed "no familiarty" with basic texts because discussion is usually hobbled, not enhanced, by reference to "expert" testimony. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (09/02/84)
>I never denied the existance of a Jewish community. To do so would be, >as you say, contradicted by fact. What I said was that most American Jews >have more in common with American non-Jews than with Jewish non-Americans. >To say that this denies this existence of a Jewish community requires >that you also believe that any individual can belong to only one >community. I do not hold that supposition to be true, and find no >contradiction in my asserting my membership in both the American and >Jewish communities. I usually consider a person's community to be those people to whom a person feels closest and with whom a person has the most in common. Ruben's statement here supports my contention that many (probably most) American Jews do not feel very close to Sefardim and that the suffering of Sefardim could be the suffering of Martians for all they care. David Ruben sees no contradiction in a person being both a member of the Jewish community and of the American community. If there should ever be a conflict between these two affiliations, I am curious how David Ruben would resolve it. >German Jews were always members of the Jewish community, and >occasionally members of the German community, too. Given the final fate of the German Jews, I would say rather: German Jews were always members of the Jewish community, and many erroneously thought themselves to be members of the German community. >>I have yet to label individuals on the net idiotic, arrogant or moronic >>although certainly all these types exist on the net. I have labeled >>opinions moronic or ignorant. From the standpoint of Judaism limudei >>torat moshe (studies of the teaching of Moses) are not acts of piety, >>they are fundamental obligations of all Jews and I have little patience >>with those Jews on the net who show greater familiarity with >>intellectual second raters like Thoreau, Emerson, Mills, Jefferson than >>with intellectual first raters like Maimonides, Nahmanides, Isaac >>al-Fasi, Abarbanel, Judah ben Betsalel Loewe (Maharal miPrag), the Vilna >>Gaon -- especially when these Jews show simultaneously no inclination to >>correct this gross intellectual imbalance. >All you mentioned were intellectual first-raters. I studied in Europe and can assert that only one or two American thinkers before the 30s are taken seriously. >You stated that I was not a Jew. You ought not wonder that I took this >for an insult. Your implication that I am ignorant of basic Jewish >texts is a false one. I showed "no familiarty" with basic texts >because discussion is usually hobbled, not enhanced, by reference to >"expert" testimony. I stated that many American Jews are not genuinely Jewish but rather accidentally Jewish (Cynthia Ozick uses the term non-Jewish Jews). You posed the question whose Jewish law should be used to decide who is Jewish. Obviously this question can only be answered in a metalegal sense. I merely suggested that a valid criterion for those Jews who select the legal system should be that their primary affiliation (their community) be the Jewish community. Ruben repeatedly states many American Jews feel closer to American non-Jews than to non-American Jews. This feeling should disqualify their input in the selection of Jewish law. I would hardly suggest someone who feels closest to the French should have input on the choice of legal system to run the USA. I do not understand how using Jewish sources hobbles a discussion of the Jewish legal system.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (09/02/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <265@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 23:48:14 EDT Date-Received: Tue, 4-Sep-84 20:43:12 EDT w Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 69 >I never denied the existance of a Jewish community. To do so would be, >as you say, contradicted by fact. What I said was that most American Jews >have more in common with American non-Jews than with Jewish non-Americans. >To say that this denies this existence of a Jewish community requires >that you also believe that any individual can belong to only one >community. I do not hold that supposition to be true, and find no >contradiction in my asserting my membership in both the American and >Jewish communities. I usually consider a person's community to be those people to whom a person feels closest and with whom a person has the most in common. Ruben's statement here supports my contention that many (probably most) American Jews do not feel very close to Sefardim and that the suffering of Sefardim could be the suffering of Martians for all they care. David Ruben sees no contradiction in a person being both a member of the Jewish community and of the American community. If there should ever be a conflict between these two affiliations, I am curious how David Ruben would resolve it. >German Jews were always members of the Jewish community, and >occasionally members of the German community, too. Given the final fate of the German Jews, I would say rather: German Jews were always members of the Jewish community, and many erroneously thought themselves to be members of the German community. >>I have yet to label individuals on the net idiotic, arrogant or moronic >>although certainly all these types exist on the net. I have labeled >>opinions moronic or ignorant. From the standpoint of Judaism limudei >>torat moshe (studies of the teaching of Moses) are not acts of piety, >>they are fundamental obligations of all Jews and I have little patience >>with those Jews on the net who show greater familiarity with >>intellectual second raters like Thoreau, Emerson, Mills, Jefferson than >>with intellectual first raters like Maimonides, Nahmanides, Isaac >>al-Fasi, Abarbanel, Judah ben Betsalel Loewe (Maharal miPrag), the Vilna >>Gaon -- especially when these Jews show simultaneously no inclination to >>correct this gross intellectual imbalance. >All you mentioned were intellectual first-raters. I studied in Europe and can assert that only one or two American thinkers before the 30s are taken seriously. >You stated that I was not a Jew. You ought not wonder that I took this >for an insult. Your implication that I am ignorant of basic Jewish >texts is a false one. I showed "no familiarty" with basic texts >because discussion is usually hobbled, not enhanced, by reference to >"expert" testimony. I stated that many American Jews are not genuinely Jewish but rather accidentally Jewish (Cynthia Ozick uses the term non-Jewish Jews). You posed the question whose Jewish law should be used to decide who is Jewish. Obviously this question can only be answered in a metalegal sense. I merely suggested that a valid criterion for those Jews who select the legal system should be that their primary affiliation (their community) be the Jewish community. Ruben repeatedly states many American Jews feel closer to American non-Jews than to non-American Jews. This feeling should disqualify their input in the selection of Jewish law. I would hardly suggest someone who feels closest to the French should have input on the choice of legal system to run the USA. I do not understand how using Jewish sources hobbles a discussion of the Jewish legal system.
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/21/84)
Mr BenDavid,
Would that it were so that the U.S. was becoming more of a
Christian nation. What we are becoming is a secular humanist,
statist, pagan mess with materialism as our chief god.
May Jews be spared assimilation into this sludge.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (09/26/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <11@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 02:44:50 EDT w (Mr. Martillo's bark worse than his bite!) Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 96 >From ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 >I think Martillo is wondering why less-than-orthodox Jews would >*WANT* to decide who is a Jew, not stating that they have no right >to an opinion. A good point but not what I am saying. If a Jews main affiliation is the Communist party he might help write the party constitution but he has no right to help choose the Jewish legal system. Likewise, Jewish communists do not ask rabbis to help write their party constitutions. > As one of those contemptible assimilated dreck, >my chief concern about who is a Jew is that the world has decided >that I am one. Martillo's opinion notwithstanding, I'm very proud >of my Lithuanian Ashkenazi roots, especially my grandparents' >involvement in proto-Communist agitation against the czar, and >a few distant cousins who died in Spain's Abraham Lincoln Brigade. A good example of an especially silly fossilized mental pattern among Ashkenazim. We know now that this protocommunist agitation lead to the establishment of a system in Russia which was even worse for the Jewish people than the czarist government. Perlow should be ashamed of this yihus (lineage). As for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, any Sefardic Jew can tell you that this was one of the stupidest activities of Ashkenazim over the past 500 years. After what Spain did to the Jews, only the most moronic or deluded Jew would involve himself in Spanish politics or die for a Spanish cause. Historical note. Despite this mindless Ashkenazi support for the anarchists Franco went out of his way to save ~45,000 Jews during the Hitler years. Also after the establishment of the state of Israel, Franco was particularly active in helping Jews get out of Arab countries. Of course in both cases most of the Jews saved were mostly Sefardim, so that the typical Ashkenazi leftist would hardly be aware of Franco's service to the Jewish people and might even hold this service against Franco. >Martillo believes Jews have an obligation to live off by themselves, >that we must accept the inevitably disastrous consequences of >muscling into the rest of society. Well, you can steer clear of >bigotry, or you can fight to eliminate it. It's not clear to me >that either strategy makes life any easier, not to mention more >fulfilling. No, I believe Jews should be true to themselves. Sefardi attitudes about commitment as a Jew and contributing to a state are different and more correct. I suggest you acquire a biography of Don Yishaq Abarbanel. The idea that all individuals who live in a state must have the exact same culture, ways and outlook on life is a modern totalitarian aberration which most Jewish leftists have stupidly accepted with hardly any serious thought whatsoever. The constant attempts of Ashkenazim to prove themselves as Frenchmen or Germans or Russians show a lack of pride in their heritage and is self-abasing and probably invites non-Jewish contempt. No other group puts itself through such self-contortions. My family would never want anyone to think of them as Arabs. >Yes, heritage is important. Martillo is proud that he has dined >with kings. And I'm proud that I haven't. I noted the people whom my family entertained merely to point out that kashrut does not cut Jews off from the world but rather guarantees that the convivial setting, which could most easily lead to assimilation, occurs only on Jewish terms so that assimilation is prevented -- this is the real reason Europeans have objected to kashrut -- it prevents assimilation i.e. the destruction of the Jewish people. Just a note about leftist Ashkenazim and social commitment in Eastern Europe. The Ashkenazim who were involved in leftist and particularly communist movements were typically members of the most privileged class of Jews (unlike my mother's family who were impoverished in Libya). These Ashkenazim genuinely wanted to assimilate into Slavic society but could not bring themselves to convert to Christianity. Therefore, they converted to Marxism or some other leftist movement which gave these Jews entry to a segment of non-Jewish society without the psychological trauma of conversion. Granted this segment was a minority, but there were so few Jews in these countries that numerically there were more non-Jews who would approve of this break with traditional Jewish society by conversion to Marxism than there were Jews who could give encouragement and support to a Jew who wished to uphold the tradition. The leftist Jews in Eastern Europe had no genuine commitment to help the poor. If they did they would have worked with the many Jewish poor (who were worse off than the non-Jewish poor because of Slavic antisemitism). Instead, the leftist Ashkenazim ignored the existence of Jewish poor. In fact, Rosa Luxemburg denied that there was any special Jewish sorrow in Poland which in fact had the largest fraction and number of utterly destitute Jews of any country in Europe. So Ken, I know your not a bad fellow but don't give me any of this smugness about your family's leftist traditions. They are a sham.
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (10/02/84)
From Yaqim Martillo: > These Ashkenazim genuinely wanted to assimilate into Slavic society but > could not bring themselves to convert to Christianity. Therefore, they > converted to Marxism or some other leftist movement which gave these > Jews entry to a segment of non-Jewish society without the psychological > trauma of conversion. > > Granted this segment was a minority, but there were so few Jews in these > countries that numerically there were more non-Jews who would approve of > this break with traditional Jewish society by conversion to Marxism than > there were Jews who could give encouragement and support to a Jew who > wished to uphold the tradition. > Somewhat off the topic (I'm getting bored with the topic) It was my impression that Eastern Europe had a great many Jews at the turn of the century. I believe that the old Jewish Encyclopedia (not the Encyclopedia Judaica, but the one published around 1915) quotes an 1890's census showing Poland to be 35-40% Jewish. Can anyone corroberate? I don't have a copy of that encyclopedia available to check. I usually find your historical fact to be quite accurate, Yaqim. That's why I'm surprised at the "so few Jews in these countries" statement. On the other hand if you're picking and choosing among Jews in 1890 Poland in the same way that you pick and choose among 1984 American Jews, (which is what started this whole line of articles, isn't it) I suppose you could come up with a significantly smaller proportion of "real" Jews. And speaking of history, I hope you're all watching "Civilization and the Jews," a series narrated by Abba Eban. Yesterday was the first episode. Lots of great photography of the Sinai. The second episode will be aired tonight. It will start from the building of the Second Temple. (The first started from Sumer) It's on PBS. Susan Slusky mhuxv!segs -- mhuxv!segs
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/02/84)
Martillo is very wrong in asserting that Soviet Communists have treated
their Jews worse then the Tsarists did. Jews in the Soviet Union are
persecuted and surpressed, but Tsarist Russia was only exceeded by
Nazi Germany in its virulent and violent attacks upon Jews. The worst
Soviet leader (Stalin) was, from a Jewish perspective, equivalent to
one of the less hostile Tsars. Pogroms do not take place in the
Soviet Union, and nothing apporaching a pogrom has ever taken place
there with the exception, again, of Stalin.
You also commented that Spanish persecution of the Jews following the
expulsion of the Moors makes it stupid for any Jew to involve himself
in Spanish politics. Would you ignore the plight of a righteous child
because of his father's wickedness? Perhaps it WAS foolish for Jews
to die for Republican Spain, but the answer lies in that generation,
not half a millenium ago. For example, while France has a long and
venerable anti-Semitic tradtion, it was very much in Jewish interests
that the 1789 revolution succeed.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (10/02/84)
> Martillo is very wrong in asserting that Soviet Communists have treated > their Jews worse then the Tsarists did. Jews in the Soviet Union are > persecuted and surpressed, but Tsarist Russia was only exceeded by > Nazi Germany in its virulent and violent attacks upon Jews. The worst > Soviet leader (Stalin) was, from a Jewish perspective, equivalent to > one of the less hostile Tsars. Pogroms do not take place in the > Soviet Union, and nothing apporaching a pogrom has ever taken place > there with the exception, again, of Stalin. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Well, I am glad to here that pogroms do not take place in the Soviet Union, Stalin was not as bad as some Tsars, and currently Jews are only "persecuted and surpressed." Maybe I'll take my next vacation in Siberia, I here that the skiing there is pretty good. Oh, by the way, do you know where I can get a good corned beef sandwich this Saturday? Now I really know what Yaqim means by ignorant-assimilated- askenazim-dreck. Shalom, David S. Green {ihnp4}!mhuxi!dsg phone: 201-564-4468 "Of Course I'm Sure... I read it in PRAVDA!!!"
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/03/84)
In response to a request for information by S. Slusky:
In the 1920's, Poland was about 15% Jewish (according to my historical
atlas), so I doubt the figure of 35%-40% for the 1890's is correct.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (10/03/84)
[] My apologies to anyone I may have offended with my last posting. I just believe that the current conditions in the USSR are horrid vis-a-vis Jews. I believe that the USSR is trying to destroy the Jewish population, at least spiritually. I believe that the cultural destruction of the Soviet Jews has as much, if not greater, impact upon Klal Yisroel as the pogroms did. I regret my sarcasm and lack of sensitivity in responding to David Rubin. I *do* have facts ( statistics ) that tend to support my belief Soviet Jews are being oppressed. Whether you, as the reader, agree with my beliefs is a matter of opinion, not fact. Again, sorry for my sensitivity, or lack of it. Shalom (Peace), David S. Green ..mhuxi!dsg 201-564-4468
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/04/84)
I'd like to reemphasize a point I made in an earlier article.
I did not suggest that Soviet Jews were not oppressed. What I did say
was that the degree of oppression is less than under the Tsars. I do
not dispute that Soviet policy is to destroy Jewish identity in the
Soviet Union (note that it is Soviet policy to destroy the identity of
all constituent peoples (a.k.a. Russianization); Jews are more
severely treated than most because of Jewish persistence), but the
Communists, unlike the Tsarists, are not using slaughter as a tool.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmartillo@mit-athena.UUCP (10/07/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houti.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <21@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Sat, 6-Oct-84 23:14:04 EDT w (Mr. Martillo's bark worse than his bite!) Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 30 I do not like to reply out of order, but I feel compelled to point out ignorant, assimilated ashkenazim dreck is not an epithet which I have used. In fact, if I used it, I would have used ignorant, assimilated ashkenazi dreck which I would not say either since I try to avoid Yiddishisms. I have a low opinion of Ashkenazi behavior over the past 300 years, but I will not label the majority of the Jewish people dreck. One of my grandparents was an Ashkenaziah. While that branch of my family is the lowest and crudest, they have lately proven susceptible to levantinization (some of them have become Ba`alei Teshubah and have renounced their leftest VusVus Mapam immorality). Vocabulary: Ashkenazi -- refers to Jews whose ancestors accepted the authority of Rab Moshe Isserles, I consider many Ashkenazi practices Christianizing an opinion also held by Jacob of Emden and Rabbi Moshe Haim Luzzatto -- which gives a partial explanation for Jewish assimilation in the USA -- if you are 3/4 there why not go all the way? dreck -- Yiddish for garbage. ba`alei teshubah -- returnees [to the normative practice of Judaism] -- means something different to Ashkenazim than to Sefardim. VusVus -- derogatory epithet for Yiddish speaker or descendent of Yiddish speakers. Mapam -- mindlessly leftist party in Israel -- used to consider Israel and the Soviet Union Jewish homelands.
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (10/07/84)
I think we have a confusion here between reported and unreported brutality and slaughter. The Czarists were brutal but were not particularly interested in covering their tracks. The worst Czarist slaughter I have read was the Kishenev massacre (~30 people). Compare this to the Damascus massacre (~25 years earlier) of ~50 people in a city with 1/20 the Jewish population. The point is in Kishenev many witnesses survived to tell the story. With the Soviets as with the Muslims earlier there were hardly ever any surviving witnesses. By the end of Stalin's regime, there were almost no surviving Rabbis outside of oriental provinces. Almost all Jewish intellectuals (including all major Yiddish writers) had been shot by 1952. Almost every Synogogue outside of oriental provinces had been destroyed. To this day Hebrew instruction is illegal and no school is permitted to function in Yiddish or Judeopersian. At least at all time periods under the Czars Jews were free to leave. The Soviets and Czarists have hated Jews and would kill Jews for that hatred but the Czarists never considered maintenance of Jewish identity an executable offence. The Soviets have and seem to be moving in that direction once again. Once again David Rubin shows his fossilized mentality, and is unable to accept that the enemies of enemies of the Jews might also be enemies of the Jews. In terms of dissemination of antiSemitic propaganda and aid to peoples who want to kill Jews the Soviets have surpassed all enemies of the Jews except for Hitler.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (10/07/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <23@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 11:19:35 EDT w (Mr. MartilSun, 7-Oct-84 08:19:35 PDT Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 24 I think we have a confusion here between reported and unreported brutality and slaughter. The Czarists were brutal but were not particularly interested in covering their tracks. The worst Czarist slaughter I have read was the Kishenev massacre (~30 people). Compare this to the Damascus massacre (~25 years earlier) of ~50 people in a city with 1/20 the Jewish population. The point is in Kishenev many witnesses survived to tell the story. With the Soviets as with the Muslims earlier there were hardly ever any surviving witnesses. By the end of Stalin's regime, there were almost no surviving Rabbis outside of oriental provinces. Almost all Jewish intellectuals (including all major Yiddish writers) had been shot by 1952. Almost every Synogogue outside of oriental provinces had been destroyed. To this day Hebrew instruction is illegal and no school is permitted to function in Yiddish or Judeopersian. At least at all time periods under the Czars Jews were free to leave. The Soviets and Czarists have hated Jews and would kill Jews for that hatred but the Czarists never considered maintenance of Jewish identity an executable offence. The Soviets have and seem to be moving in that direction once again. Once again David Rubin shows his fossilized mentality, and is unable to accept that the enemies of enemies of the Jews might also be enemies of the Jews. In terms of dissemination of antiSemitic propaganda and aid to peoples who want to kill Jews the Soviets have surpassed all enemies of the Jews except for Hitler.
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (10/10/84)
Now all you VusVusim, let's stop beating around the bush about this
"Who is a Jew" business.
Yaqim won't tell you this because of his natural reserve, good
breeding, and politesse, so I'll just have to.
To be a real Jew you have to be
1. Sefardi (bet you guessed that already)
However, just being Sefardi is insufficient. We don't mean descendants
of any of the garbage who hung around Spain too long or became
Maranos we mean
2.Separdi tahor (pure)
i.e. out of Spain before the inquisition really got going. But then
also it's important that one fully understand the breadth of
Jewish experience. Therefore, one must be descended from several
branches or Sefardi culture for example
3. Of Libyan-Turkish-Italian descent
In addition, in order to really grasp the depths of depravity to which
VusVusim have sunk, one should be
4. Of Ashkenazi descent in some small fraction
This is an unfortunate but true requirement for being really Jewish.
In a similar vein, to really be Jewish one should have been
5. Educated at some of the best secular schools in America
and have been
6. Employed for some time at the crown jewel of the Bell System
('alev has:alom)
These are necessary to truly come to grips with the enemy and its ways.
Also, both #'s 5 and 6 are effective at honing one's sense of self
importance and arrogance, as anyone who's worked here can tell you.
In addition, it is important not only to know a lot about Judaism
and anti-Judaism (read westernized Judaism) but also to be involved in
educating the world about J and anti J. Therefore, one should be an
7. Active publisher of normative Jewish thought.
Publication in net.religion.jewish will, of course, suffice.
A last but very important requirement is that one be
8. A real person.
which lets me out.
Unfortunately, the Jewish population in the world today has dwindled
to such a small group that it is impossible to forsee how it will
continue into the next generation without incest or cloning.
Now that you have been properly informed, I hope that you VusVusim will
go away and form net.religion.vusvus and leave this news group to the
Jews.
Estrallita Nassim Hmessa Albez
--
mhuxv!segsmartillo@mit-athena.UUCP (10/11/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Message-ID: <16@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 01:02:05 EDT Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 22:39:44 EDT w (Shame on [detractors of] Mr. Martillo!) Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 149 > = David Rubin >> = Yirmiyahu ben David Anything Else = Yehoyaqim Martillo >The following is in response to an article by Yirmiyahu Ben-David. >>Exception must be taken to some overly simplistic views. To imagine >>that loyalties to the various stated entities are always in harmony is >>indeed most superficial and simplistic. Are the interests in American >>culture and Jewish culture always in harmony? >Nations have interests. Neighborhoods have interests. Communities have >interests. However, I don't see how a CULTURE can have an interest. I think Yirmiyahu ben David was simply careless in translating klal Yisrael which means the Jewish World. The Jewish Community has a culture. It is not merely a culture. In fact, as I understand some of the recent Teshubot from `Obadyah Yosef, a non-Jew who held David Rubin's view and claimed to wish to convert to Judaism could not validly convert to Judaism. > I >also do not see why any culture should be unavailable to anyone. If >you can only participate in one culture, then millions of liberal arts >majors have wasted their lives... There is a world of difference between participating in a culture and appreciating a culture. I appreciate Japanese culture and find it very attractive but as a Gaijin (non-Japanese) I could never truly participate in Japanese culture even if I went to live in Japan and succeeded in getting Japanese citizenship -- which is very hard. Historically, Jews have been excluded from tenured professorships in English literature because the current wisdom held that as oriental aliens Jews could neither truly participate or appreciate English literature. In fact, European Jews achieved incredible feats of assimilation in order to participate, but even had they not, they could have brought an especially new understanding of English literature because such Jewish scholars would have had a different perspective. >>Are the interests in >>American traditions always in harmony with Jewish traditions? >"Tradition" is a catch-all phrase, which just about covers everything. >It is also extremely imprecise, especially when discussing American >"tradition". If the Census asked each American to list the ten most >important aspects of American tradition, they'd probably get 180 >million different lists. Actually, from a European perspective there are some readily obvious American traditions which are inherently in conflict with Jewish traditions. Neither Yirmiyahu ben David nor David Rubin understand the distinction between official and civic religion but the USA has always had particluarly strong tradition of a civic religion which is a benign expression of Northern European Protestantism. This civic religion is in conflict with Jewish tradition. >>Are >>American interests always in harmony with Israel? >The implication here is that one cannot be a good Jew without >consistently supporting Israeli interests. I do not understand the logical transition. > However, as has been made >clear over the last few years, a majority of the Israeli political >body wishes to exercise national interests as every other state does >(something like wishing to have a King placed over them, like other >nations), and consequently Israel, like the U.S., often takes actions >which I consider to be misguided or immoral. I can be a good citizen in >the U.S. and still condemn my government's actions, and I can be a >good Jew and condemn some of Israel's actions. I am curious which actions of Israel David Rubin considers immoral. Most American Jewish critics of Israel consider Israeli actions immoral when the actions disturb Jewish assimilation. In such cases, condemnation of Israel is an expression of not being much of a Jew at all. This is the case for Noam Chomsky, Nat Hentoff, Philip Klutznik, Arnold J. Wolf, Leonard Fein, Arthur Hertzberg and many others. >A counter question, then: >Can I be a good Jew and accept Israel's policies unconditionally? >One final point: Jewish interests and Israeli interests may not >coincide all the time, either. Example: in this election, it may very >well be in Israeli interests to have friendly administration >reelected, and to increase the influence of the New Right (who are >strong supporters of Israel). However, Jewish interests may be that >the New Right be weakened (to prevent public action based on >peculiarly Christian principle), and thus to defeat Reagan. Jewish assimilationist are disturbed when the importance of religion is stressed. Actually, while I have a low opinion of Christianity in many of its aspects, some aspects of Christianity like some of Islam are praiseworthy. And making assimilating American Jews aware of the importance of religion may encourage them to alleviate their massive ignorance of their own religion. >>Certainly not. Like it >>or not, this country is becoming increasingly a Christian nation. Those >>who blend in and adapt just don't have such a keen awareness of the >>seriousness or scope of these problems. (I believe the other term for >>blending in and adapting is called assimilation.) >I have a keen awareness of being different. However, it does not >bother me in and of itself. In this country, one is free to be >different (that, by the way, would lead my list of things I consider >to be part of the American "tradition"). >The increasing "Christianity" of this nation is an illusion. >Fundamentalist Christians have become more vocal, not more numerous. >>Lest the reader try a simplistic reply again, please note that the >>questions listed are merely representative examples, and are in no way >>intended as an exhaustive listing of the myriad permutations of potential >>conflicts among the various interests vis-a-vis Israel, Jews and Judaism. >>In the event such a conflict arises, where will you stand? >As I have said before, I will stand with whoever is right. If both >parties positions are equally legitimate, then I support compromise. >My opinion is that it is those who cry "My ___ right or wrong!", who >equate loyalty with servitude, are the ones who are guilty of the >heinous crime (:-)) of oversimplification. Given the tendency of leftist assimilated American Jews to slobber sympathy over the suppression of Arab Muslim nationalism in the Land of Israel shows that many American Jews do not support Israel even when Israel is almost correct (the Israeli government dominated by non-Orientals probably errs in leniency). I increasingly admire Greeks who stand 100% behind Greece even when Greece is wrong as in the conflict over Cyprus. >>Unfortunately, I didn't see Mr. Martillo's original article - so I'm not >>defending it. I am taking issue with some of the criticisms raised. And >>I also suggest that he must have said something good - and described a >>shoe which fit and made some wearers mighty uncomfortable? Wherever the >>reader stands, at least give it some serious thought in formulating your >>stand. The issue of where you stand in these matters certainly merits >>that much. >Shoes which do not fit are the ones which are most uncomfortable. Best >not to assume.
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (11/30/84)
From Ken Wolman
Bellcore, Livingston
whuxe!ktw
(201) 740-4565
I've observed the discussion of Charlie Wingate's comments
for some time now. Those comments were at best crass and
insensitive. What I find infinitely more interesting is the
fact that Wingate's comments about "Jew-baiting" drew people
into/back into the net who implicitly felt themselves
attacked. Is there a moral here? If so, could it be this:
That no matter how far away we allow ourselves to move away
from Judaic belief and practice, what is in our blood will
draw us back. Also known as: an attack on all is an attack
on one.
I recall around Tisha b'Av suggesting that Zyklon-B and its
purveyors did not differentiate between a talmid chochem
from Kovno or Vilna and a Parisian boulevardier or
assimilated German who assumed he was "Jewish by religion
only." All suffered equally; perhaps the completely
assimilated Jew even more than his frum counterpart in
Eastern Europe because the latter might at least have had
the concept of Kiddush Hashem in his heart and mind. The
assimilationist would have had only fear and confusion. In
any case, a Jew was a Jew was a Jew.
If anything coming out of the Shoa can be called "positive,"
it might be the lesson that a Jew by birth remains a Jew in
despite of conversion, non-observance, or scorn of his or
her roots and birthright. The legacy remains even if the
inheritor has no interest in claiming it.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Jews exist who can remember
their faith and people only when the insensitivity and
unacknowledged prejudices of gentiles force remembrance upon
them. But that is better than no remembrance at all. It is
better than acting as the Wicked Son at the seder and asking
"What do YOU mean by this?" When crisis looms, there is no
YOU, only US. This identification with a people, history
and faith transcends the sectarianism that so often divides
correspondents on this net. We are and remain Jews even if
we identify ourselves as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform,
Reconstructionist, atheistic, agnostic, socialist, or
anarchist.
There are those reading this who may argue that the Negative
Judaism of the Jew-by-Reflex is inauthentic, is of the "When
Attacked I'm A Jew" variety without depth or substance, and
responds only to the threat to Judaism, not its enduring
promise. Perhaps it is sentimentalism, smacking of the kind
of stupid romanticizing of "Jewish suffering" perpetrated by
the poets Sylvia Plath and John Berryman, who identified
with the suffering but not the faith that made it bearable
and transcendable. Nevertheless, it is a place from which
one may begin if one has the will and desire. Reflexive
Jews can often embrace the positive, affirming aspects of
Yiddishkeit if they--and we--allow it.
Many have already learned that there is no escape from one's
blood and heritage. Many have also learned that there may
be no reason to ever want to escape.sam1@hounx.UUCP (#E.OBERER) (12/07/84)
a it is only the orthodox who refuse accept other definitions of jewish . w :w :q
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (12/11/84)
> it is only the orthodox who refuse accept other definitions of jewish
I think you have it reversed. It is only the Orthodox who refuse to
redefine the meaning of Jewish.
David Esan (!moscom!de)teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (12/13/84)
> a > it is only the orthodox who refuse accept other definitions of jewish > . > w > :w > :q to what is this comment referring? could someone please post the original article. besides, why is it the orthodox who refuse to accept te definition of jew. the reform don't accept the orthodox view. it depends on whose side you look from. Eliyahu Teitz.