By Jonathan S. Tobin, COMMENTARY
A new survey of the Jewish population in the Greater New York area contradicts the conventional wisdom about the subject. It has long been assumed that any portrait of American Jews must tell us a story about an aging, liberal population that is rapidly assimilating. But, as the New York Times reports, the latest results show that the population of the largest center of Jewish life outside of Israel is actually growing. The survey’s estimate of New York City’s Jewish community pegs it at about 1.1 million, with 1.54 million being counted when you include the surrounding suburban counties on Long Island and Westchester (Jews in Northern New Jersey who would also be considered part of Greater New York were not counted). Of even greater import is that the rapid expansion of ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic Jewry are the sole reason for this population growth. By contrast, the numbers of Jews who identity with the heretofore much larger non-Orthodox movements have declined precipitately. The only other sector that is growing is made up of those Jews who reject all the denominations or eschew religion entirely.
If, as the survey tells us, 40 percent of Jews in New York City and 74 percent of all Jewish children are Orthodox, then this must inform our conclusions not only about what American Jews believe but also about its future. When combined with the nearly one-third of Jews who are abandoning Jewish identity altogether, this paints a picture of an American Jewish population that is comprised of two ships passing each other in the night — one becoming increasingly Orthodox and the other on the brink of not being Jewish at all. Because the Orthodox have radically different views on political issues from those of the non-Orthodox as well as generally identifying more thoroughly with Israel, this will inevitably alter the political balance of the community. Though the numbers may be different elsewhere in the country, with about one-third of American Jewry located in Greater New York, there’s little doubt this means the Jewish community of the future will be far less liberal.
More than 20 years ago, the organized Jewish world was shaken by the results of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey. It painted a sobering picture of an aging and shrinking community, but the number that galvanized discussion about the results was 52 percent. That was the survey’s estimate of the number of Jews marrying outside their faith and constituted a stunning rise above previous studies on the subject. Some experts, including Steven M. Cohen (the leader of the group who conducted the current survey about Greater New York), who later wrote that a more accurate estimate would have put the figure at 41 percent, disputed that figure. But whether it was 41 or 52 percent, there was no longer any doubt about the fact that the American Jews were undergoing a radical change. More to the point, the impact of such a high intermarriage rate as well as other indications that much of Jewry was rapidly assimilating and thereby shedding their Jewish identity, would ultimately lead to a very different looking community in the future.
These numbers scared Jewish organizations badly. But much of the concern was wrongly focused on a symptom — intermarriage — rather than the cause of the problem that was rooted in a communal culture that pinned identity on external factors such as memory of the Holocaust and support for Israel rather than on building identity via education. Nevertheless, the furor about intermarriage was enough to cause Jewish philanthropic groups to begin to focus their efforts more on causes that promoted “continuity,” fearing a future in which a dominant liberal American Jewish identity would find itself on the verge of extinction.
But 20 years later, it is more than obvious that the demographic chickens have already come home to roost for liberal Jewry. As the new study points out, even as the numbers of Orthodox Jews grow by leaps and bounds, Jewish observance is declining among the non-Orthodox. While nearly half of young Jewish adults in the region have a attended a Jewish day school of some kind, most of those who do not identity with a denomination aren’t giving their kids any sort of Jewish education. And it should also be noted that half of the non-Orthodox who marry have a spouse who is not Jewish. Because studies have shown us that the children of intermarriage are far less likely to get a Jewish education or to marry a Jew, the ominous conclusions to be drawn from these numbers are obvious.
The fact that a large proportion of the growing ultra-Orthodox sector is also poor and not connected to the rest of Jewry also complicates efforts to provide Jewish services or to unite these disparate groups into a coherent community.
But above all, this means the Jewish community of the future will be even less politically and religiously liberal. The assumption that Jewish life could be built on a largely secular lifestyle in which liberal politics would provide a substitute for faith was as foolish as the notion that it could persist on identification with the Yiddish language or certain ethnic foods. The assumption that most American Jews will always be secular liberals is a myth that has just been exploded.
@ Viiit:
Viit,
I see that this topic has been consigned to the fate of all blogs, getting buried in history. Just as well, since I’m literally about to head down the road. Thank you for a stimulating discussion.
@ BlandOatmeal:
The same logical error again and again.
Even if we assume that there was a creation based on intelligent design, this doesn’t in any way whatsoever prove that the Biblical story is true.
You can invent infinitely many competing stories that all involve the “Intelligent Design”, neither of them can be proven.
So as for the intelligent design itself, I do assume that to be true, and still hold the story of creation in Genesis to be a fairy tale.
@ BlandOatmeal:
Well, let’s put it this way. The story of creation in the Bible is much easier to comprehend. It is beautiful and poetic, while totally useless for all practical purposes. However on the good side, it does not require years of rigorous study of physics and mathematics. Anyone can read that story and understand it. Not so with relativity and quantum mechanics.
I just want to leave some quick notes to respond to Viit’s probable retorts (I will be away for a few days):
1. I believe in SOMETHING (His name is “I AM”, or, if you will, “VERY EXISTENCE”) created all things FROM HIMSELF (because there is room for nothing else, not even a concept of “nothingness”, outside of His presence). This makes sense from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, in that it accords with ALL observed phenomena. Pseudoscience, as presented by the great atheist “thinkers” of our day, offers no hypotheisis of equal validity.
2. The “six days”: In simple terms, before the creation “moment”, there was no such thing as “time” and no such thing as “space” — PRECISELY BECAUSE God, who “pre”-existed these things, being absolutely infinite and filling everything with His own being, cannot be constrained by such concepts. From our BIBLICAL understanding of God, we know this to be true. Pseudo-science cannot even deal with the concept of existence outside of time, which is why there is no explanation of what happened BEFORE the Big Bang. Moreover, pseudo-science’s insistence that we got “something from nothing” is the same old “free lunch” theory, repackaged in a new brown bag. TIME was not invariant, during the “time” it was created: Six days can easily be billions of years, from the right frame of reference. The Theory of Relativity is just a stepping-stone for quantifying this phenomenon.
3. The “Big Bang” was certainly “big”, in that the whole universe as we know it was contained in it; though it was exceedingly small — some miniscule quantum in diameter; in which case pseudoscience might be equally served by calling it the “Small Bang” theory. It also was ANYTHING but a “bang”. Net disorder comes from net order, but not the other way around: As Phoenix aptly pointed out, “War and Peace” was not the product of ink randomly falling on paper. I am a chemist, and I guarantee to you that there are NO conditions that could have produced life by random occurrence. If there were any, the chemist with the “secret formula” would have it made in the shade. It’s just yet another variation on the “free lunch”.
That ought to be enough. I won’t even touch on the concept of “mind”, of which Schroder has a better understanding than any other scientist I have ever heard.
Bye bye 🙂
Viit, you certainly invite ad hominem attacks, with your nonesense. The fact that, as Schroder has demonstrated, the “seven days of creation” is accurate when the Theory of Relativity is figured in, shows that the Bible is WAY ahead of the pseudo-science that passes for science nowadays — and far more reliable! By the way, the “Big Bang” Theory, which is the reluctant admission by the pseudo-scientific community that there actually WAS a creation moment, is a vote AGAINST pseudo-science and FOR the Bible.
For decades, pseudo-science has held dogmatically to the “steady-state” theory, in which the universe had no beginning and no end. Now it has both: It has a beginning (the “Big Bang”), and an end — the heat death of the universe, expanding into a state of “tohu vbohu”, and ensuring that no “big bang” can ever happen again. The LOGICAL conclusion of these latest pseudo-scientific discoveries is that either our physical existence is either a unique, completely improbable fluke of ______ (I’ll let you fill in the blank with your own pseudoscientific god. What do you call himherit? “Nature”?), or the handiwork of an Intelligent (read, not driven by random happenstance) Creator (read “something”, as opposed to the “nothing” pseudoscientists illogically imagine everything comes from).
The Steady State theory was very tidy, because it accorded, in rough outline, with Newtonian physics. The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, not only accords with the observed facts, but also with Relitavistic physics and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, the math doesn’t fit properly, and the String Theorists are pseudoscience’s latest attempt to reconcile the various regimes wherein different algorithms line up with the facts, AND every time a new theory is formulated to line up with the facts, it seems, a new “particle” is born; and when that mathematical concept of a “particle” is discovered, literally at a cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, even MORE particles are postulated to explain the facts.
Meanwhile, by applying the Theory of Relativity to the Big Bang theory, Schroder has calculated that the world, FROM THE INERTIAL TIME FRAME OF THE BIG BANG was created in six days. Which do you prefer? The ANSWER to your quest, which has been in the Bible for thousands of years? Or an endless, frightfully expensive treadmill to obtain what you ought to know by now will be the same result?
Get hep, Viit. Your pseudo-scientific philosophy is frightfully out of date.
Yamit, I have removed three or four of your posts because of you ad hominem attacks on Viiit. Next time I will put you on moderation.
@ Viiit:
If you think you are capable in challenging Jewish sages, their understanding insight and knowledge you had better come armed with at least those traits: understanding, insight and knowledge.
Even from a scientific point of view the Rabbinical computations cannot be dismissed as unreliable.
http://www.science.co.il/Hebrew-Calendar.asp
The difference between NASA and the Hebrew Calendar is only 00.000001!
Maybe NASA is wrong?
I request that we keep a minimum standards in this forum, and don’t permit language like Yamits latest comment: “you are an Asshole you do that with each of your comments.”
@ yamit82:
Red Sea Crossing: Nuweiba Beach?
More with comments
@ yamit82:
Yamit,
Your post is a long personal attack and at the same time you are trying to prove your intellectual superiority. This is indeed empty conversation, my own perception of your intelligence is that while you certainly not a total idiot you are rather mediocre.
As for Schroeder, I explained this in a different post: Even if the Intelligent Design is indeed true, this does not in any way prove the Biblical story of Genesis. The last point is most likely beyond your ability to comprehend.
And as I said, you are a plagiarist and I can prove it.
@ yamit82:
dear yamit,
looking forward to view this video as well sometime this weekend.
for the record, being “ecclectic”, as you say, i DEFINITELY believe in “GOD”, and creation by design. to my thinking it is IMPOSSIBLE for all that we witness in nature to have occured ‘by accident’. just like no accident occured at the print shop causing ink to splash and voila! the oxford dictionary was ‘created’.
@ yamit82:
Yea, sure, and if the Bible said the Universe was created in 7 or 100 days, then the author would have found equally plausible explanations for how this is exactly what the modern science is saying today after scaling the mountains of ignorance.
The truth however is that the scientific theory of Big Bang is highly useful for discovering new astronomical and astrophysical facts, as well as for organizing the existing body of observations. On the other hand the Biblical description of God creating the world in 6 days is absolutely counterproductive to all science.
Whenever religion contradicts science, religion will lose, it is only a matter of time.
It took the Catholic church 450 years to take Copernicus’ book of their index. After another few hundred year they will take Darwin’s book off too, if the church still exists by then.
@ the phoenix:
Scientific Proof of God! (Beyond Intelligent Design) By Dr. Gerald Schroeder
@ Viiit:
Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory
@ Shalom ben Zahar:
I have a suggestion: If you don’t want to talk to me me, then don’t.
Saying “I don’t want to talk to you” is talking to me.
@ the phoenix:
>i am FOR israel being a jewish state, jewish education
Me, too, however to me Jewish is not the same as Judaism.
I believe that kids need to raised with healthy patriotism and nationalism. They also need to know our history. Religious education should be optional.
>israel’s enemies must be DEFEATED and NOT accomodate
Agreed. They are honestly trying to defeat us, and if they succeed, there will be no Jews left in Israel.
>there should be ZERO tolerance for arab AND liberal disloyality,
Again agree. Israel is facing existential threat and must for self-preservation.
>and as sincerely as i can say it – to have a leadership that believes in god.
I don’t care if my leaders believe in God, or not. Jabotinski would be just fine with me, though by mane he was considered “atheist”.
@ Viiit:
Sorry, but I no longer want to talk to you. You scream about some kind of “discovered truth,” but then go on to spit out a real vile, stupid, and unsubstantiated non-sense.
@ yamit82:
Rational Approach To Divine Origin of Judaism promises to be totally up my alley ( 🙂 )
looking forward to viewing the story of the Jews in the 20th Century.
thank you
@ yamit82:
sigh…
you know yamit,what to me is maddening, is that i do not see any conflict between what you are saying, and the person i think you are, and what i am saying, and the person that i know i am.
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases (wikipedia)
you are absolutely right!
i DO enjoy listening to mozart,vivaldi, gregorian chants AS WELL as zohar argov, eyal golan arik einstein etc.
i hope you understand the parallelism and thus no need to elaborate further.
a very good friend of mine, back from the elementary school days, was as secular as one can be. following a bitter divorce, he became chozer b’tshuva and is leading a VERY halachic life with his 2nd wife and their reconstituted family.
some 20 odd years ago they came to visit us. they were catered to the best of our abilities and they led their life as best they could in our home.
indeed it was a great time where he entertained my curiosity with what he knew, and answered as best he could (not as detailed or voluminous as you would…:) ) BUT there was NO ANIMOSITY and i did not have to convince him that ‘anachnu shneinu me’oto hakfar’….
i don’t know if you read this book by amos oz ‘black box’ (regardless of the political inclinations of amos oz, it IS a great book)
it is written in the form of exchanges of letters and memos between the characters.
not unlike what is unfolding here at israpundit….
anyways, i have said in the past and i’ll say it again. i am truly impressed by the ecclectic (?) knowledge that you obviously possess and i have learnt quite a bit from your numerous posts.
you think that my beliefs are ‘phoenixism’, and not judaism?…to me it is semantics. i will not argue this point.
what i WILL say though, is that i am FOR israel being a jewish state, jewish education (chosing to practice or not is another issue, but the child knows his roots),israel’s enemies must be DEFEATED and NOT accomodate and be nice to them,there should be ZERO tolerance for arab AND liberal disloyality,and as sincerely as i can say it – to have a leadership that believes in god.
@ Shalom ben Zahar:
I am not against art and I said the same thing above that fairy tales can convey truth.
However what does that have to do with distinction between discovered and “revealed” truth?
The stupidest people on Earth are Muhammadans precisely because they believe that all truth was revealed in Quran.
Jews are the most intelligent of all nations because they are most inclined to doubt and question, rather than believe.
@ the phoenix:
the story of the Jews in the 20th Century.
@Viiit
You can’t be more wrong. Some of the greatest “truths” are brought to us by writers of fiction and not by hard-facts science.
As for “holy books” they are treated as “holy” precisely because their content was demonstrated over and over… through many generations and under all kinds of different conditions… to be “true.”
@ yamit82:
To Yamit 2+2=4 is a “belief system”.
To intelligent people it is a verifiable fact.
Truth is not revealed in “holy books”. It is discovered by using the senses and the brains.
@ the phoenix:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/46672/comment-page-1#comment-169095
That amounts to eclecticism, cherry picking what you like and don’t like. Chinese menu That’s what reform un-Jewish movement has done and look what it got them and the American and German Jews. You and viiit, are certainly entitled to your own beliefs but you are not entitled to call them Jewish or to misuse the term Jewish in both your definitions and contexts, You may call your beliefs in turn Viiitism or Phoenixism but not Judaism.
Rational Approach To Divine Origin of Judaism
The Torah is aware of its uniqueness and unabashedly offers this challenge to every Jew who has lived since Sinai:
Viiit Said:
well!
thank you!
i could not have said it any better.
it is this nonesensical internal strife that is by far, our worst enemy. and god knows we have no shortage of them!
it is narrow mindednes to the nth degree when someone (obviously religious/observant) opines that “If a “Zionist” has no kippah and no beard, he is worthless.”
his post was a one time hit and run and there was no way to try to reason with him.
anyways, i definitely related to your mathematical post.
@ Yidvocate:
>But you are G-dless because you worship yourself and not G-d.
Hmm, How do I warship myself?
>If it is G-d’s will that you don’t turn on lights on Shabbos,
I have no evidence for God not wanting me to turn lights on Shabbos.
I assume that the Almighty could have easily convinced me to not turn lights on Shabbos if he wanted to.
>You differentiate Judaism from Islam and Catholicism for the wrong reason.
Did I differentiate Judaism from Islam and Catholicism? Don’t recall doing that. I recall saying that Jews have a tradition of doubting, questioning, inquiring. To me that’s not necessarily “Judaism”.
>These religions are based on faith, ours is one of truth. Knowing as apposed to believing.
That’s exactly what all religions say. Ask the Christians, to them the Gospels are “truth”.
>Mass revelation as occurred at Sinai is a matter of fact
Really? I have not seen any convincing evidence of that mass revelation. To me it is a myth, not different from Krishna revealing himself in front of the millions of soldiers assembled on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, or Jesus feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. Here you can read a Christian myth, that they consider “Truth” every bit as much as the Sinai revelation is “truth” to you:
“Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. Jesus then took [5 small] loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the [two small] fish. When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.
Great truth, ha? 🙂
>If you think its fairy tales, you are not a Jew.
OK, to you I am not a Jew, however to the antisemites I still am a Jew.
Now for each Jew, there are 1000 antisemites in the world.
The stupidest thing we Jews can do, is to split ourselves and quarrel religious versus non-religious. I give you and other religious Jews every space you need to live according to your beliefs, if you and other religious Jews did the same back, Israel would be very strong.
@ Viiit:
But you are G-dless because you worship yourself and not G-d. If it is G-d’s will that you don’t turn on lights on Shabbos, who are you to call that a “fairy tale” and pretend to know better? You differentiate Judaism from Islam and Catholicism for the wrong reason. These religions are based on faith, ours is one of truth. Knowing as apposed to believing. Mass revelation as occurred at Sinai is a matter of fact and that’s why we can question and those other religions can’t. If you think its fairy tales, you are not a Jew.
@ yamit82:
It’s a lot of work to have a conversation with you yamit82, mostly because you are incredibly arrogant.
You start with qualifying my post as “Gibberish”. After having discounted my statement, you start discussing it from a imagine position of better knowing. Not very conducive to joint investigation.
Your arrogance is not just an attitude, but deep belief that you “are right”. No space for inquiry, you want to be a teacher, or perhaps a preacher rather than student or investigator. Still, some your post are worth reading, perhaps they are plagiarized from other sources. Still, it goes to your credit that you plagiarize worthwhile sources such as your frequent plagiarisms from sasmonblinded.org.
I will answer you anyway, knowing well that you will not understand, but perhaps someone else will read:
As you see, there are 10 verses below. They all are logical propositions. Some of them are false some are true.
verse 1: 2+2=0
verse 2: 2+2=1
verse 3: 2+2=2
verse 4: 2+2=3
verse 5: 2+2=4
verse 6: 2+2=5
verse 7: all of the above statements are true
verse 8: all of the above statements are false
verse 9: some of the above statements are true
verse 10: God himself wrote all the above statements
================================================
According to your “logic” if I accept one of the above statements, I have to accept all of them. According to my way of thinking, I can accept verse 5 and verse 9, while rejecting the other verses. With some goodwill anyone can understand the analogy between this and the Bible.
As for my statement about Jews being more intelligent then non-Jews, it refers to the IQ tests, Jews on average have by far the highest IQ scores of any nation.
As for the fairy tales in the Bible, I have already referred to two: Samson, and Jonas. There are hundreds more, perhaps thousands. Here are some for you: The story of creation, the Story of Flood and Noah, the Balaam and the talking donkeys, and hundreds of other wonderful stories.
===========
By the way, fairy tales can convey truth, they can also teach justice and goodness.
Anyway, I am wasting my time with you.
@ Viiit:
What Gibberish!!!
If a Jew is to accept one tenant of the Torah, he must, in order to be logically consistent, accept the whole of Torah.
As G-d is the source of truth, and the Torah is the repository of truth, its commandments must be objectively true and unchanging.
As truth is objective and monolithic, so must the commandments be monolithic.
There can be but one halakhic option.
Test: List some or even one “fairy tale”…..
Explain where your understanding of “truth, justice and goodness” are derived from if not from that book of fairy tales?
Where is your evidence and proof? I think most Jews are as stupid or more stupid than any non Jew.
@ Viiit:
Viit,
Until now I thought that you were intelligent rational person,, however after your statement “That’s why Jews are more intelligent than Muslims and Christians” I am changing my opinion.
Also, you call my beliefs “obvious fairy tales” and “the nonsensical rules” without seeing that it is “nonsensical rules” like for example the observance of Shabbat not only preserved our people (no thanks to “honest” Jews like yourself) but also made a gift of every seven day of rest for entire humanity.
And by the way I have no idea what you mean by “truth” and my G-d is the G-d of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob and between your idea of it and mine there very well may a huge distance and difference.
@ Shalom ben Zahar:
The Biblical account of the engagement between Ezra and various intermarried families serves to illustrate that matrilineal views were held after the return of the exiles to Judea from Babylon. Ezra 10:11 and Nehemiah 10:31, 13:23 relate the decision given by Ezra concerning intermarriages. “You have trespassed by bringing home foreign women, thus aggravating the guilt of Israel. So now make confession to the L-rd…and separate yourselves from the people of the land and from foreign women.”
What Constitutes Jewish Identity? : The Halakhic Definition
The halakhic definition of a Jew is that of a person who is born of a Jewish mother or is halakhically converted to Judaism. The exact meaning of the latter definition is of course, the issue in question, but for now we will leave this definition without further elaboration. For the world of rabbinic jurisprudence the halakhic definition is of course quite sufficient. The argument from traditional Judaism is simply that both biblical and rabbinical law define Jewishness on the basis of matrilineal descent.
The Biblical account of the engagement between Ezra and various intermarried families serves to illustrate that matrilineal views were held after the return of the exiles to Judea from Babylon.[2] Ezra 10:11 and Nehemiah 10:31, 13:23 relate the decision given by Ezra concerning intermarriages. “You have trespassed by bringing home foreign women, thus aggravating the guilt of Israel. So now make confession to the L-rd…and separate yourselves from the people of the land and from foreign women.” There appears to be little evidence, however, to suggest that such views were held or enforced during the existence of the first Temple. Moreover, the extent of agreement on this matter across “party lines” during the Second Temple era is unclear. Even if the idea of matrilineal descent is accepted as having existed during the Biblical era, the basis for acceptance in the community of Israel is not explicitly discussed and must be established by further investigation outside our present scope.
Apart from the Ezra passage, the Bible never approaches the subject of Jewish identity quite as directly as the Mishnah and only addresses it circuitously. On the question of converts, the Bible is also arguably silent in many ways, though some indirect references to resident aliens are found throughout the Torah. The story of Ruth is perhaps the most poignant in relating an outsider’s adoption of both the people of Israel and it’s G-d.
Beginning of Jewish Identity
The patriarch Abraham, the founder of Biblical faith, does not appear until the end of chapter eleven in the book of Genesis. The first eleven chapters of Genesis view the various people groups introduced as aboriginal peoples defined by their location in a specific land. Egyptians are those who lived in Egypt, Chaldeans, those who lived in Babylon, etc.
Abraham breaks this model and journeys to a land where he is not an aboriginal. Abraham and his descendants are the first non-aboriginal peoples and are defined by different set of criteria. They are instead a people brought into being by the establishment of a covenant.
The parameters of the covenant establish the definition of who is a Jew; hence the definition is a theological one. Jews are Bnai Brit, the sons of the covenant and are a chosen group. This issue is of particular importance to the subject of conversion since it establishes the idea that membership in the Jewish community is not simply a genetic issue, but instead is accessible to anyone willing to embrace the covenant.
This is clear since from a theological perspective, the concept of the “chosen people of G-d” as the basis for Jewish identity is also an extension of the idea of a covenant. The term used in the Bible is the word bachar which scholars have noted as implying an exclusive choice as in the case of marriage. Chosen means exclusive chosenness and holiness of a differentiating sort. Deuteronomy 7:6 reads “You are a people holy to G-d” and explains this holiness in the context of the observance of the mitzvoth. In rabbinic literature, Israel’s creation is not a rational choice since it is based on G-d’s love and is not based on conditions or on merit. Nothing Israel does can abrogate the covenant and this relationship cannot legally end in divorce.
The descendants of Jacob are known as the Bnai Israel and so the Bible remains cognizant of both a theological as well as “genetic” kinship between its members. The emphasis however remains on the theological aspect centered on adherence to the covenant. They are members of the group of Israel which indicates class membership -a same class membership reflected in the Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony of today.
The dual nature of Israelite identity reflected in the Bible can also be found in the case of Jonah. Jonah is asked who he is and responds that he is both a Hebrew and a G-d fearing man. His definition is national and religious in nature and not simply a halakhic one.
The best understanding of who a Jew was in the biblical period was that a Jew was a partner or member in a covenant community
@ Shalom ben Zahar:
Then again I did not say I was “Godless”, I only said I was not a Judaist (or any other “-Ist”).
In my opinion, what you call “Godless Jews” may well have been doing God’s work. Many have rejected the beliefs in obvious fairy tales, many have rejected the nonsensical rules such as not taking elevator, or turning off the light on Saturday. That does not make them “Godless”.
If we by “God” mean the ultimate truth, then claiming that fairy tales are “truth” is against God.
Jews have been committed to truth, justice and goodness longer than any other nation. It is our deepest inheritance, this is our true religion.
Part of our “religion” is questioning, doubting, discussing. This is quite different from Islam and Catholicism where doubting and questioning is punished. That’s why Jews are more intelligent than Muslims and Christians.
A person certainly does not need to be a believer in G-d or anything else to be a Jew, if his or her father (or even only mother) is Jewish. He is simply a G-dless Jew and of such Jews there millions throughout our history… many making very important contribution. There would not be Israel today if not for G-dless Jews.
@ yamit82:
One more thing:
I am Jewish and I have nothing to do with Judaism.
Judaism is a belief system. I don’t subscribe to Judaism.
All -isms are mental. Being Jewish is existential. I cannot change that even if I wanted. The very way I look at life, the way my thinking process works, is all product of 100s of generations of Jewish experience.
I could call my self “non-Jew” just to please you, that would however not change anything.
@ yamit82:
Are you asking me according to which definition I am Jewish?
I am a part of the Jewish nation.
Both my parents, all my grand parents, all my great grand parents were Jewish, as were all their brothers and sisters and children.
By what definition?
1 by their own identity they considered themselves Jewish
2 by the community of fellow Jews, other Jews considered them Jewish
3 by the surrounding Polish and Ukrainian community who also considered them Jewish
4 by the Nazis who also considered them Jewish and killed those of them.
Personally I have not yet run into a Jew who would claim that I am “not Jewish”, however even if I were to run into persons, it would not make much difference.
So here is the essence of being a member of a group: A person recognizes him/her-self as the member and the group also recognizes the membership.
With nationality the membership is deeper than with most others. Firstly it is the identity statement: “I AM a Jew” is stronger than “I am a member of Rotary International Club”.
Secondly this cannot be changed, even if I convert to both Christianity and Islam, I will still be a Jew, there is no escape at least the overwhelming majority will still consider me a Jew and the Nazis will still murder me. If I become successful, the antisemites will dig out my Jewish descent and will try to use it against me.
===========
As for the strength of identity, I believe that a person who’s father is/was Jewish is likely to be much stronger identified with being Jewish than someone who has converted. We inherit big part of our personality from our parents. The collective experience of our ancestors is given to us through our parents. We may chose to identify more or less with one of the parents. An important and interesting thing to consider is that in many, perhaps most cases a woman that marries a Jew is (consciously, or unconsciously) attracted to the unique Jewish traits that this man represents. So she is most likely not an average woman. Interestingly in many cases it happened that a woman who married a Jew, later discovered that she herself had Jewish ancestors.
We are a small nation and the last thing we need is a fight between the religious and the non-religious sections of our people. Our enemies would love for us to quarrel among ourselves and fight each other. I don’t think we should oblige them.
I think we should allow the religious to be religious and viceversa:
Let’s assume for a second that we make laws that allow people to become Jews in much the same way as other nations allow outsides to become members of their nations. We then could have a Jewish and democratic state of Israel. Non-Jews would not be citizens. They may be residents, but not citizens and have no right to vote in the national elections. Of course in order to become a Jew == citizen o Israel, one cannot be an antisemite. Therefore a Muslim cannot be a Jew, because Islam is an antisemitic religion. Likewise Christian cannot be a Jew, unless they reject all the antisemitic statements in the bible including the slander that Jews have killed Jesus.
@ Viiit:
According to whose and what definition?
If a person is to accept that he is Jewish then he must define this concept upon viable and authentic Jewish sources and render precise his own actions accordingly. Any other alternative to this is something other than Judaism. That is, a person may, given free-will, live according to what is right in his own eyes, however, he must be rationally forced to understand that it is of his own devise and should be so called as such.
Where are your Jewish source material that entitle you to call yourself Jewish?
:
Shalom ben Zahar Said:
I believe you have face-planted on a slippery slope.
Viiit Said:
Please prove to me what Tefilin are from reading the Torah. Good luck!
Pre-Sinai, yep.
Post-Sinai, nope.
I feel sorry that there are people who qualify as Torah observant rabbis who cannot give you a clear-cut answer.
Or perhaps they really did but your insistence on knowing better than the standard 3500 year old halachah made you oblivious to what any rabbi would have responded to you.
Pre-Sinai. There’s a pattern here.
The Torah mentions converts numerous times. It also mentions Tefilin several times. Details of how they become what they become are not written. Can you figure out why?
Viit,
I believe you are on a very solid ground on both of these counts in many ways.
@ Shy Guy:
I did not call all rabbis “liars”.
However even if one were to assume that Torah is divine and infallible (which I don’t), one will still not be able to prove that a Jew is one who is born from a Jewish mother rather than father. There is substantial evidence to support quite the opposite point that mother’s nationality does not matter as long as the father is Jewish. I have discussed this issue with Orthodox rabbis and they could not produce any convincing evidence for the metrelinial nationality. While there is strong evidence for patrelinial nationality. People who try to defend the matreliniality, even Jacob – Israel was not born from a Jewish mother.
Neither is there any religious conversion described in the Torah.
@ BlandOatmeal:
The only evidence you can support the belief in the historical Jesus is the Gospels themselves. There is no historical corroboration of the fact that Jesus was real as described in the Gospels and Christian beliefs from any contemporary Jewish or gentile sources of the time Christians asset Jesus lived. Strange that the earliest Christian documents discovered to date, are dated from the time of Constantine.
Then read: “The christianity cult and its deceptions”
“We Jews are not a religious community that keeps its G-d to itself and posits places for other religions. We are liberal enough to allow other religions their belief, but not so overly liberal that we credit them with the label “truth.” We do not concede the possibility of a different Gate to heaven … therefore Our Temple’s gateways to Heaven are open to all.”