abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (07/19/84)
<> Hoshen commented on the horrors of German persecution of Jews and inadvertently (it appears from his later submission) annoyed Braude who took exception to the idea that the persecution would have been less onerous if Jews had had an opportunity to declare their Judiasm or lack thereof. I believe Braude feels that the effect of Germans inducing Jews to renounce their religion to survive would have added even more horror to the German persecution. Another point of view is possible: In all major historical examples of mass persecution of Jews since the destruction of the Second Temple, we have been given the choice of converting from Judiasm to another religion. The messages from the persecutors to the Jews were, in effect, that the Jewish religion, not the Jewish people, was anathema to them. The fact that those Jews were given the choice of converting and did not do so made them martyrs in the truest sense--they endured great suffering rather than renounce their principles. This conferred a timeless dignity on them, because they held ideals which they were permitted to display until their last moments. The holding of an ideal is the essence of human achievement. Following such an ideal is what makes life worthwhile, even until the end. But the Germans did not allow the Six Million the dignity of displaying their idealism, their commitment to Judiasm. The Six Million were slaughtered regardless of whether they practiced atheism, Judiasm, or Christianity. They were not asked whether they adhered to the precepts of Judiasm. They were not asked anything; they were not treated like human beings with minds and hearts and capabilities. They were treated as objects to be removed. The German persecution was spiritually more inhumane than any previous persecution because it alienated the people's just right to give meaning to their lives and, ultimately, to their deaths. ------- Who is a Jew? A Jew is whomever the dominant culture chooses to designate so. If Y. Martillo's culture were dominant, his definition would be the operative one. There is serious doubt, Mr. Martillo, whether your definition or any of the traditional definitions are going to be perpetuated. Maybe traditional orthodoxy, be it Sephardic or Ashkenzic, does not carry within it the seed of the future of the Jewish people. On the other hand, there is likewise serious doubt whether the watering down of Jewish traditions by Reform, Reconstructionist, and left-wing Conservative groups (and their counterparts elsewhere than in the United States) permits retention of the idealism and content necessary to perpetuate Judiasm. These groups do, however, constitute the vast majority of Jews today in spite of predictions of their demise from the orthodox for the last 100 (one hundred!) years. In the struggle to define who is a Jew, various competing groups within Judiasm can be seen attempting to exert their dominance over others. We are witnessing not a display of ideals so much as a power struggle! As internecine battles threaten to shatter us into shards for study by archaeologists of the future, we would do well to avoid conflict among ourselves (the prototypical conflict of "man against man") but rather direct ourselves to overcoming individual limitations as best we can (the prototypical conflict of "man against nature"). There can only be one winner among millions of a contest in the first case, but all can hope to succeed in the latter.