Leora Batnitzky.
There is no end to the conundrums involved in defining what it means to be a Jew. Must a Jew be someone who believes in the Jewish religion, in the way a Christian believes in Christianity or a Muslim in Islam? That can't be the case, since many devoted Jews are atheists. Is a Jew necessarily someone who acknowledges membership in a Jewish ethnic group, people, or nation? That definition would exclude people who believe in Judaism but feel little kinship with other believers, and it would read out Jews who are anti-Zionist. Should "Jewish" be seen as a cultural identity? If so, it would cover people who are stirred to their souls by Fiddler on the Roof, live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, enjoy Jewish food, appreciate Jewish humor, and believe—like the woman who once told me she was Jewish because she subscribed to the New Republic—that Judaism mandates liberal politics. But there are certainly non-Jews who meet all these criteria and significant numbers of Jews who don't.
Professor Leora Batnitzky writes about the birth of these modern concepts and their consequences for Jewish thought. In her new book, How Judaism Became a Religion, which grew out of her undergraduate course at Princeton University on Jewish thought and modern society, she argues that modern Jewish thought began at the moment in the late 18th century when Moses Mendelssohn declared Judaism a religion. In doing so, he renounced the type of communal dominance that Jewish authorities had traditionally exercised. He ceded cultural and political authority to the rising secular nation-state.
Batnitzky argues that in the years since Mendelssohn drew the then-unprecedented distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish peoplehood and culture, his idea has run like a scarlet thread, sometimes overt and at other times subterranean, through the discourse and contentions of Jewish thinkers up until our own time. Some of these thinkers assumed the accuracy of Mendelssohn's definition of Jews as co-religionists. Some refined and redefined the notion. Still others rejected it in favor of one or another form of ethnic, political, or cultural Jewishness.
The book uses the combined rubric of religion, nation, and culture as the key to understanding the past two centuries of Jewish thought. This sweeping construct illuminates scholars and their debates, revealing ironies that have heretofore gone largely unnoticed. For example, in the latter half of the 19th century, Samson Raphael Hirsch was the chief Orthodox antagonist of Abraham Geiger, the leader of early German Reform Judaism. The two were poles apart in their understanding of Jewish religion. But Batnitzky's analytical framework helps us see that the two men were in total agreement in believing the Jewish religion had no collective national dimension. Indeed, it was the Orthodox Hirsch who was more radical in this respect, leading his followers out of the official Jewish community in a doctrinally based secessionist movement.
In the same way, Batnitzky points out an irony closer to our own time. Separatist ultra-Orthodox communities in the United States, she notes, reject modernity in principle and claim to have restored a pre-modern synthesis of community and faith. Yet they are able to enjoy the autonomy that is necessary to their separatist communalism only because the U.S. legal system treats them as members of a religion—that newfangled idea—and, therefore, as entitled to expansive First Amendment protections.
It would be too much, perhaps, to expect a framework this broad to account for all of the significant features of modern Jewish thinking. Batnitzky defines "religion" much as the German Protestantism of Mendelssohn's time did—as an inner spiritual experience particular to the individual. If one defines religion in this way, one tends to see manifestations of group identity not as religious but as political. This dichotomy may be appropriate in describing the relationship of Christianity to modern politics and culture, but it leaves unexplored some complexities of modern Jewish thinkers and schools of thought.
For example, Hasidism is discussed in a chapter titled "The Irrelevance of Religion" because Hasidism had its roots in the collective identity of East European Jews. Yet a defining feature of Hasidism was its emphasis on the religious experience of the individual; and Martin Buber, who popularized the movement in the modern West, is quite properly labeled a "religious" thinker. Similarly, the great champions of the analytical study of Talmud, also East Europeans, are called "collectivists" despite their intense, sometimes competitive pursuit of individual insight and innovation. But Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the best known 20th-century exemplar of this analytic school, is called a "religious" thinker—in spite of his famous collectivist teaching that all Jews, religious and secular, are bound by a "covenant of fate."
Batnitzky notes that German Jews, in emphasizing Judaism as a religion and devaluing Jewish culture, showed a marked lack of appreciation for one of cultural Judaism's chief gifts to modern civilization—its sense of humor. The modern arrival of cultural Jewishness and its ironic vision had to wait, she says, for the great secular Yiddish writers of late 19th-century Russia and their satirical treatment of everyday Jewish life. But surely the original propagator of the idea of Jewishness as culture, separate and apart from religion, was the German apostate Heinrich Heine, whose satiric wit helped drive him out of Germany in 1831. That Heine is not mentioned in this fine book is only another sign that modern Jewishness is a house of many mansions—so many that it may be too protean, complex, and multifaceted to be confined within the bounds of even the most ambitious and carefully argued thesis.
Lawrence Grossman is the director of publications at the American Jewish Committee.
COMMENTS
Hershl on November 29, 2011 08:41 am:
Judaism is a religion and a noun. Jewish is an adjective and does not necessarily equal the noun.
kaye on November 29, 2011 10:17 am:
Hershl, if Jewish is an adjective, and Judaism a religion, then what is a Jew?
Manny jakel on November 29, 2011 10:33 am:
"[M]any devoted Jews are atheists . . . ." Devoted to what?
steve from raleigh on November 29, 2011 11:46 am:
In mathematics, there's a concept of "stiff functions," having to do with the stability of a solution around a finite step interval. The problem is that there's no useful empirical definition of what stiffness is or what the difference between more stiffness and less stiffness looks like. It's more of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing. Judaism is like that.
dmmd on November 29, 2011 11:49 am:
The headline is as foolish as it is eye-catching. Perhaps it would be more suitable to ask whether most Jews believe in Judaism as it has evolved over the last 4000 years. Asking whether Judaism is a religion is a non-starter.
Robert Spitalnick on November 29, 2011 11:57 am:
Your premise--that Judaism is not a religion because many Jews are atheists--is illogical and incorrect. Judaism is unique in that it is both a religion and a nationality--or, more accurately, a "peoplehood." The common thread is adherence to the belief in the one
G-d who gave us the Torah. The fact that some Jews do not have this faith does not mean they are not Jews; it simply means they do not adhere to the religious component. They are still Jews.
Tito on November 29, 2011 12:15 pm:
"Batnitzky defines 'religion' . . . as an inner spiritual experience particular to the individual. If one defines religion in this way, one tends to see manifestations of group identity not as religious but as political." I don't grasp why a group of people who have in common a spectrum of spiritual experiences cannot be thought of as having a religious group identity, and I totally fail to see why that identity is political (perhaps it is communal). Professor Batnitzky's emphasis is on inner spiritual experience. On some level, each individual is a "community of one." Still, why eschew the idea that people of similar spiritual orientation share a religious group identity? I am a Jew. Among other things, that means to me that I feel an ethnic and communal identity with other Jews. But when I encounter Jews who seem to have spiritual or religious experiences similar to mine, I also feel a religious sense of group identification with them. Why is this a problem for Mr. Grossman and (perhaps) for Professor Batnitzky?
micha on November 29, 2011 12:45 pm:
"Religion," "ethnicity." "people," "nation," and every other English word are products of a culture other than our own. So, why assume that Jews have historically seen ourselves in any of those terms? Perhaps being Jewish is being a member of something for which the Christian majority of English speakers never needed to coin a word.
SW on November 29, 2011 01:10 pm:
God or no God? Check. Culture or no culture, check.
Religious observances or none, check. Vocabulary entry without any specific meaning, check. Eugenic or pro-life, check. Hebrew-based or not, check. Yiddish-based or not, check. Ladino-based or not, check. Israel-centered or not, check. A "sense of humor" is what it takes to be Jewish? Like Bill Cosby? Sophie Tucker? Chris Rock? Homer Simpson?
So, we come to a watered-down pablum of "maybe-yes-no" and/or not, so "multi-faceted" that it now means everything and, therefore, nothing in particular. How sad for us. Whatever "us" means. Now that Heine has become part of Judaism's definition, we may safely say that baptised Christians are also to be considered as Jewish. So protean and so complex a picture.
Bklynguy on November 29, 2011 02:59 pm:
Jewish atheists can be devoted to Jewish culture and peoplehood. The Arbeiter Ring, the Workmens' Circle, comes to mind. No one could deny that the Arbeiter Ring is a Jewish organization, but most of its members are secular, if not downright atheist.
John Langell on November 29, 2011 03:08 pm:
This article doesn't mention the important role of the transmission of ritual and belief. Before print and general literacy, and in the diaspora after the destruction of the temple, ritual, prayers, and belief were trasmitted by repetition (orally) from memory, within the family (and to some extent within the community). Therefore, the religion, as a set of beliefs and rituals, was inextricably bound up with blood and culture, the latter defined by whatever similarities the communities of Jews shared. Once transmission by writing became more common--say, in the Middle Ages--wider-ranging discussions, and hence differences, arose. Influences like classical Greek philosophy shaped some of the ensuing evolution of belief. Possibly at this point ritual and culture, so ingrained and slower to change, began to diverge from the different emerging schools of belief.
Ms. K on November 29, 2011 03:09 pm:
Does the book deal with the complexity and contributions of the vast Sephardic and otherwise non-Ashkenazi world? Or is scholarship as couched in cultural context as "religion" seems to be?
Shlomo on November 29, 2011 03:41 pm:
Was it Confucious who said that we should start with the "rectification of names"--assigning more accurate names to different concepts and entities? Today, there is a Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora. Their historic national religion, since the Second Temple Period, has been called (Rabbinic) Judaism. Yet many of them no longer subscribe to Judaism. Perhaps we should call the religion "Torah-ism" ("Toranut" in Hebrew) and end the confusion between Jewish people and Jewish religion. I think we all know what Herzl, a modern European, intended when he titled his Zionist pamphlet "Der Judenstaat"--i.e., "The Jewish State"--but the German and English are ambiguous. He probably meant a State of the Jews, Medinat Yehudim.
Today's Greeks no longer believe in the gods of ancient Greece. Many modern Japanese no longer believe in the nature gods of Japan. Yet those old beliefs still permeate their respective national histories and cultures. Similarly for the Jews. Critics may argue that "secular" Jewishness is not a program but is merely a transitional identity on the path to cultural oblivion and assimilation into the surrounding national cultures. Yet, in the State of Israel today, there is a situation analogous to that in Greece and Japan. There is clearly a national people with a language and culture derived from Diaspora Judaism and the Jewish kingdoms of 2,000 years ago, even if they don't believe in the historic religion. They may be atheists or even Buddhists, though it is questionable, I admit, whether Jewish peoplehood can accommodate Christianity or Islam, as they are understood today, without doing violence to the historic experience of Jewish peoplehood.
Billy Kravitz on November 29, 2011 04:40 pm:
The unitarian (as opposed to trinitarian) faith of Judaism is a religion. It developed "ethnic" traits during centuries of ghetto/pale-of-settlement incarceration, when Christians denied us the right to interact with the general culture. If we do not subscribe to that viewpoint, or one similar to it, we'll go right on struggling in every generation to reinvent the wheel--namely, how a perennially "foreign" people can achieve security and acceptance. It's time to reach out and take back the spiritual voice. "Love thy neighbor" started with us. Resurrection of the dead started with us. Yet most people (even some Jews) credit those things to others. The list is a long one. We were "called" to be earthly vessels for the Divine Presence. Don't be embarrassed by that. Go do it.
Jerry Blaz on November 29, 2011 10:38 pm:
Being Jewish began at a time when religion, nationality, family, even clan and, needless to say, culture formed an unbroken skein of reality for the Jew. We have remained Jewish like this through the millenia even though we were dispersed over much of the earth. I still like Rabbi Mordechai M. Kaplan's definition of Judaism, which he said was the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people. Make of it what you want.
SW on November 30, 2011 02:59 am:
"No one could deny that the Arbeiter Ring is a Jewish organization, but most of its members are secular, if not downright atheist." The long historical view shows that the modern Arbeiter Ring is a shrunken shell of its former self, devoted first to a form of parcipatory socialism and, as such, primarily political. That a "secular" bar mitzvah is offered to replace the synagogue's shows that it is in competition with religious and even some secular Jews. It, like other secular, atheist "Jewish" organizations, politicks first and thinks "Jewish" afterwards, in something like the employment of camouflage. Nonetheless, holding out the Arbeiter Ring as example for Jews is like suggesting that Greece is an example of fiscal probity.
Paddy Monaghan on November 30, 2011 04:20 am:
Lawrence, this is a facinating article. As a Catholic Christian, I fully support the return of the Jews to Israel in fulfillment of some 120 prophecies in the Old and New Testaments. Cardinal Schoenborn put it very beautifully when speaking at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem some years ago: "Only once in human history did God take a country as an inheritance and give it to His chosen people. Christians should rejoice in the return of Jews to the Holy Land as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.” Many Catholic Christians are in dialogue with Messianic Jews and we see them as a bridge between Judaism and Christianity. Yet many Jewish people completely disown them as not being Jews any longer. If Lawrence's perspective is accepted, as it should be, Messianic Jews are as much part of the Jewish people as the ultra-orthodox are.
SW on November 30, 2011 10:33 am:
Mr. Monaghan's reply proves the point about this issue of definition. It is the ultimate stretching of words until they include their opposites, thereby making such words devoid of specific meaning. Some historical note needs to be made. In 1843 Marx wrote, "The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion. As soon as Jew and Christian recognize that their respective religions are no more than different stages in the development of the human mind, different snake skins cast off by history, and that man is the snake who sloughed them, the relation of Jew and Christian is no longer religious but is only a critical, scientific, and human relation. Science, then, constitutes their unity." Ergo the "Jewish" secular atheist--also, so often, some form of political socialist--relies on the "critical, scientific and human" and therefore follows Marx's proposed, "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world."
Mr. Monaghan adds not only secualr atheism to the definition, but also the other chameleon, Messianic Judaism, which is of course a form of Christianity. So the new "protean" definition begins to emerge more clearly, and proves Marx's dark forecast. As Judaism means both atheism and Christianity, Judaism becomes "impossible." That was Marx's vision. Welcome to the vision as it becomes more real--through secular atheism, through Christianity, and through plain ennui and assimilation. As the demographic truths evolve, we will likely see a larger percentage of the Orthodox as compared to other Jews, for all the others will have cleverly defined themselves into demographic demise--as being Jewish as a Messianic Christian or secular atheist. The Christian "abolishes" (Marx's verb) Judaism by converting it to Christian belief, while the atheist abolishes it by converting to a belief in NoGod. And both call themselves Jews. For the time being.
Bklynguy on November 30, 2011 11:13 am:
The Arbeiter Ring is not what it used to be not because it is too political or secular but because many of its functions have been taken over by the modern welfare state and trade union benefit programs. Neither of these existed when the Ring was founded, and it filled that gap. It was a valid way for secular Jews to express their Jewishness and to a more limited extent it still is, promoting such things as Yiddish study and providing certain sevices to Jewish communities, like burial services. I know some people who worked at the Ring, and my wife once worked there. To question their Jewishness or the Jewishness of other secular Jews is ignorance.
bob.at.large on November 30, 2011 01:47 pm:
Jews and Judaism sprang from a world in which a nation was not defined by strict territorial boundaries and every nation had a national religion, even if not everyone practiced it. The Jewish nation and culture originally centered in Canaan evolved into a decentralized Jewish nation dispersed across numerous cultures around the world. The Jewish nation, in the absence of a central national authority, became a Jewish national identity that nearly every other nation recognized (and many still recognize) as a foreign nation residing within its homeland. Judaism is the exclusive religion of the Jews, the dispersed Jewish nation. Along the way, numerous other peoples and tribes sought to become Jews through marriage, individual conversion, and even mass conversion. Jews have always been concerned that too many converts would destroy the Jewish character of the Jewish nation, so we set up numerous barriers to assure that only the most dedicated would become Jews. Jewish conversion is as much a naturalization process as a religious rite. But, to become a Jew, a member of the Jewish nation, you must embrace the Jewish religion and and prove yourself by practicing Jewish tradition. In short, a Jew is one who identifies with the historic Jewish nation, whereas Judaism is the national religion of the dispersed Jewish nation and Jewish is an adjective describing both. In order to distinguish the idea of the Jewish "nation" in its traditional meaning from more modern ideas of a nation-state such as France, we have evolved the notion of the Jewish "people."
SW on November 30, 2011 02:59 pm:
To judge by the article and the response to it, the subject of questioning the "Jewishness" of "secular Jews" has hit a nerve. Marx said in the mid-19th century that the "god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world." Ergo, the complaint of the secular atheist is not substantially different from the one uttered more than a century-and-a-half ago. Without God, there is no Torah--and no Talmud, in which God plays a rather central role. Without the Torah, there is no Jewish religion. The religion of NoGod wants very much to call itself Jewish by reason of nostalgia but then complains that questioning it amounts to "ignorance." At least they have nostalgia, politics and, as Marx so clearly said, "the god of the world." In lower case letters, one notes.
Jerry Blaz on December 1, 2011 02:26 am:
In the mid-19th century, as the European states were developing their national consciousness, the status of the Jew in Central and Eastern Europe vacillated between tenuous and tragic. The Jews didn't fit in because they were of a different nationality, and their tragedy was their extraterritoriality. There were doubting Jews then, and there are doubting Jews now. Not everyone was a rabbi or Tevye the milkman.
Michael Tupek on December 2, 2011 10:23 am:
The divinely-intended relationship with the Hebrew people is historically unique because Yahweh honored them with an unprecedented calling to them to be his own people through sincere loving-reliance on, or biblical faith in, the revelation and will of Yahweh, so that they would be a people who, contrary to the grain of the world, would actually love him and hate a life-style of disobedience and sin. This will of God was expressed through the Torah's mitzvot at the inception.
However, it is one thing to be honored with an offered calling; it is another thing to accept and fulfill it. The Torah narrative makes clear that the Hebrew covenant at Sinai was experimental. It was broken and annulled by the majority of the called ones. An honest reading of the Torah's plain sense requires this confession. The covenant's requirement of faith in Yahweh's revelation for both moral justification and moral conduct (congruent with sincere repentance from a life of sin) was violated. The people were generally indicted by Yahweh through his servant Moses and consequentially cursed (which is the source of the dispersion and protean agony). A Hebrew person who really fulfilled the divine calling was one who both trusted in Yahweh's revelation and obeyed his servants the prophets (Is 50:10). Disregard of the message of the biblical prophets is the same as disregard of Yahweh's will.
The prophets said significant new things. They confessed that the Sinai covenant was broken (not the Abrahamic covenant) and announced a new and better covenant of devotees, produced by the inner changing of individual hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit, the very thing which was lacking in the merely external call of the Sinai covenant. They announced that a better sacrificial atonement would be provided through the giving of another Hebrew son, who would be known as Yahweh himself, and that this same servant would die in the place of those Hebrews (and receptive gentiles) who believed in his atoning self-sacrifice. They plainly said that this servant would come and be put to death before the destruction of the current (Second) temple.
These new things are disregarded by the Jews generally, and so the current (protean) definition of Judaism is merely the rabbinic, uninspired, concretized, cultural expression of a generation of people who have not yet believed their prophets and fulfilled the honor of their original Abrahamic calling.
Bklynguy on December 2, 2011 02:17 pm:
On the basis of what what's being thrown at us here by Christian missionaries, I am more sympathetic to SW's concern that too loose a definition of Jewishness could lead to the disappearance of the Jews. On the other hand, we cannot limit the definition of who is a Jew only to those who fully observe Halakha. Far too many people with a definite commitment to Jewishness or Jewish identification would be excluded. Some middle ground is needed. Perhaps those who adhere to religions or philosophies that are inimical to Judaism, like Christianity, Islam, or Marxism, could be placed "beyond the Pale." This is a huge contentious issue. My proposed solution is far from conclusive, but it's a start.
SW on December 2, 2011 03:11 pm:
It seems Judaism is very difficult to define--including, in this set of exchanges, Christianity on the one side and absolute atheism on the other. Both Christians, employing Jewish themes to support messianic "Jesus" beliefs, and atheists can an easily adapt their discourse to avow "Jewishness or Jewish identification." It comes down to a definition's being clear and concrete or so amorphous as to be no definition at all. The comments that followed this article and a thousand like them over the years have merely retraced the steps to a "middle ground," which itself cannot be defined. This demonstrates the sad power of Marx's reasoning, that in time all arguments would come to self-destruction through an inability to define. Marx chose the verb "abolish." With Christianity and atheism now inside the "Jewish" tent, Marx may have been cynically correct: The definitions have been "abolilshed," and the words have become ever less important.
Billy Kravitz on December 2, 2011 04:16 pm:
To all who want to remain a tiny group: It ain't gonna work. Increase the numbers. Foster outreach programs. Don't compromise the Orthodox, but make room for other movements, too. Let it be possible to be an adherent of the faith in all vernaculars. Today, people believe anybody can be a Christian but only a Jew can be a Jew. That ghettoizes us, and it's wrong. Our morals are exemplary. Our teachings arguably the best. Don't be embarrassed by the spiritual component. Many misguided "contemporary" Jews abandon it altogether, morphing into something like Rotarians with kugel. If we go that route, we will disappear. So, let's keep all the good stuff we already have. Support a strong, secure Israel. Work for the betterment of all. But start some new things--actually, a revival of long-forgotten forms. Open the doors. Make it possible for others to come in. Plant some seeds. Grow new fruit. We've done so in the past; we can and must do so again. The percentage of Jews in the world is shrinking, and we just repeat the same arguments and do nothing. Time to wise up.
David Aharon Lindzon on December 4, 2011 12:48 pm:
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch explains that Judaism is not a religion. He defines religion as man's view of what G-d is. He then defines Torah as G-d's view of what man can become. Judaism's many rules are not explained in terms of time or place but rather in terms of the concepts behind these rules. To list the six categories to which Hirsch assigns the commandments: (a) Toroth: fundamental laws related to mental and spiritual preparation for life. (b) Edoth: symbolic observances related to the truth forming the basics of jewish life. (c) Mishpatim: laws of Justice towards human beings. (d) Chukim: laws of Justice towards human beings as well those things under man, plants and animals. (e) Mitzvoth: commandments of love. (f) Avodah: divine service. Source: Table of Contents of Horeb (Soncino Press, 1962), trans. Isidore Grunfeld.
With respect to the Sinai covenant, recall that after the people broke the first covenant, G-d told Moshe to prepare two new stones and G-d would write the words on that second set of luchos, the exact same words that were on that first set. G-d did not alter the covenant; and the ark contained both sets of luchos, along with the scroll at the end of Moshe's life. According to tradition, there were 13 torah scrolls, one given to each tribe and the thirteenth placed in the Aron. There are in existence handwritten scrolls, copied from earlier copies, dating back to Second Temple days. In all the scrolls extant today there are fewer than ten discrepancies (you can compare an Ashkenaz scroll with a sephard or a yemenite scroll).
SW on December 6, 2011 11:44 am:
Given Lindzon's clever argument, if one extends the "man's view of God" definition, Buddhism is not a religion; neither is Islam. Kravitz's argument that we should "make room for other movements" leads directly to Monaghon's Christian "movement" and the atheists for whom Torah and a thousand years of commentary are trumped by Marx, Darwin, or both. The question was, "Is Judaism a religion?" The "tent-like" definition has apparently become so large as to include everyone and so small as to parse away many. There have been so many stances that they have, in Marx's cynical term, simply "abolished" each other. There is no longer much chance to define Judaism. With the Orthodox demographics growing dramatically and the "liberal" demographics crashing just as dramatically, this question will be answered by the Orthodox worldwide. But on the way there, how will the liberal parts of Judaism celebrate their being correct in all this?
John Langell on December 6, 2011 03:05 pm:
Quite right, SW: Before one can answer the question of whether Judaism is a religion, one needs a definition of what a religion is. (One could also ask how to qualify a body of belief and practice as not being a religion.) As you say, a certain parsimony is required In answering the question, so as not to include too much or to exclude legitimate religions. Can we nonetheless have a reasonable discussion of the original question? The second paragraph of Lawrence Grossman's review indicates that it is possible, on historical, empirical grounds. I tend to agree.
Lynne Arons on December 6, 2011 04:27 pm:
I like Mordechai Kaplan's idea of Judaism as a the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people. It encompasses everything that marks any other civilization--musical styles, regional cuisines, politics, languages, art, drama, world view, spirituality, peoplehood. Many people connect with Judaism in many ways--some purely cultural, others spiritual, some strictly intellectual. As Jews we usually live in two civilizations, the Jewish one and the surrounding one. Each generation adds to the Jewish civilization on the basis of the tension between the two overlapping experiences.
Susan on December 7, 2011 02:34 am:
The answer is, "Yes, and more." The problem arises when we let outsiders try to define us, and we then get caught up in their games. Judaism is a religion, a culture, a people, a nation. It is only when people stray from the values of Judaism that there is room for these semantics. A case in point is the comment about how "Messianic Jews" are as much a part of Judaism as the ultra-Orthodox. No, not quite: Most of them aren't Jews and never were. But to someone who does not grasp what makes a Jew a Jew--birth or sincere conversion to Judaism, not to a false Christian-created Jewishly dressed version of Xianity--it seems that way.
Paddy Monaghan on December 7, 2011 04:58 am:
As a gentile follower of Jesus, the Jew, I am thankful to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for the ingathering of the Jews in their homeland, Israel, for the blessing the Jewish people have been to the world, and for their faithfulness to the covenant. But over the centuries, persecution against the Jews took place whether they were faithful to the G-d's covenant or not. Thousands of Messianic Jews also died in the Holocaust. Let us consider the Nazi definition of who is Jewish. As published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, on November 14, 1935, the Nazis issued the following definition of a Jew: anyone with three Jewish grandparents; someone with two Jewish grandparents who belonged to the Jewish community on September 15, 1935 or joined thereafter; was married to a Jew or Jewess on September 15, 1935, or married one thereafter; was the offspring of a marriage or extramarital liaison with a Jew on or after September 15, 1935. Those who had some Jewish blood but were not classified as Jews were treated by the Nazis as Mischlinge (hybrids)and were divided into two groups: Mischlinge of the first degree (those with two Jewish grandparents) and Mischlinge of the second degree (those with one Jewish grandparent). Mischlinge were officially excluded from membership in the Nazi Party and all Party organizations. Although they were drafted into the Germany Army, they could not attain the rank of officer. They were also barred from the civil service and from certain professions. Nazi officials considered plans to sterilize Mischlinge but never did so. During World War II, first-degree Mischlinge were deported to the death camps.
SW on December 7, 2011 09:19 am:
So, for secular atheists who self-identify as Jews, the question becomes, "Is secular atheism itself a religion?" I tend to think it is, with its own credo and history. Like Christian "Jews" who masquarade as Jews to convert others, secular-atheist Jews are in Jewish garb to assist in their proselytization to secular humanism and its belief in No-God. As to Christians' "connecting" with Judaism, does this make them Jews, per Mordechai Kaplan's idea? Such definitions become confusions. As to "people and faith," what "faith" do Jews have today? The Orthodox exhibit theirs partly by having five times as many children as liberal Jews; the liberals evidence theirs by continuing on a self-extinquishing demographic trajectory. Therefore, the "people and faith" in future generations are already apparent. They will answer Marx's challenge-- by surviving and thriving against a backdrop of loathing by the outside world, and by being "abolished" by a component of the current population of Jews worldwide. Am yisraeil chai.
Michael Tupek on December 7, 2011 02:56 pm:
In response to the ridiculous scorn toward Messianic Jews who only "masquerade" as Jews: Traditional Jews are the product of a rabbinic re-steering. These Hebrews have decided to not believe and obey the plain-sense revelation of the later prophets concerning new things, such as the better atoning sacrifice through the sent Messiah Yeshua. The small portion of Hebrews who have been changed in their hearts by the Holy Spirit so as to take the revelation of the prophets seriously are the ones who actually remain within the unbroken spiritual current of biblical Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism reflects the actual "masquerading" group, who pretend to be covenant-keepers but have no regard for the plain sense of the prophets’ message.
Jerry Blaz on December 7, 2011 03:21 pm:
So, when push comes to shove, a Jew is a good Jew as demonstrated quantitatively, by one's progeny.
Bklynguy on December 7, 2011 07:09 pm:
Atheism is no religion (adding "secular" is redundant): Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color. There is an enormous difference between secular Jews who identify as Jews and work to preserve Yiddish and other aspects of Jewish culture and others who could care less about being Jewish or who adopt philosophies that are explicitly anti-Jewish, such as Christianity and Marxism. One does not do Jews any favors by working to exclude thousands, perhaps millions, from the fold.
Empress Trudy on December 7, 2011 07:14 pm:
Jerry, to some extent, yes. At least in terms of people who are Jews by virtue of the fact they had Jewish ancestors.
SW on December 8, 2011 03:26 am:
As Mr. Blaz says, "When push comes to shove." One such shove is the complaint of scorn toward some Jews--he likes to say "Hebrews"--who might actually not believe in the "true" religion. Secular atheists make their version of the same complaint when God-believing Jews complain back at them. Mr. Blaz's observation will be proven correct, because the Jews for Jesus and the secular humanists will leave the fold in time, as they always have in the past. Oddly it is these groups to which Marx's "abolishing" statement will apply. When attacks on Jews come again, those who want to be even minimally associated with Jews will be in the crosshairs, as Catholic nuns, absolute atheists, and more have been.
SW on December 9, 2011 03:25 am:
Atheism is most assuredly a belief system. It has its hierarchy and writings, and there are some alternative synagogues that now openly espouse everything Jewish except Judaism's theology. For example, the Arbeiter Ring offers a secular bar mitzvah celebration. One may read about their Secular Bar/Bas Mitsve Program at http://www.circle.org/?page=class.
The article asks, "Is Judaism a religion?" To many, apparently not. So, while they like to refer to "Bible stories," they find in them either a shoehorn to Christianity or a slipperly slide to secular socialism--but no Jewish "belief" in a Jewish God. Why? Because, as Marx predicted and Brklynguy writes, "thousands, perhaps millions, from the fold" are "abolishing" themselves, slowly and surely, by becoming by increments something else. And each is a religion--one Christianity and one atheism, both testifying they are Jewish.
Bklynguy on December 13, 2011 06:29 pm:
If atheism is a religion with a hierarchy, then who is its Rebbe or Rebbitzin? Would it be Karl Marx? Would it be Ayn Rand? These two devised philosophies that could not be more divergent, yet they were both atheists. There is in fact no hierarchy among atheists, let alone any commonality of belief other than the belief that there is no God. As to who is more Jewish, I would define the Arbeiter Ring members, as secular as they, most of whom are very are pro-Israel, as more Jewish that the Satmar members of Neturei Karta, who claim to be "Torah Jews" yet participate in seminars on destroying Israel and killing Jews.
SW on December 15, 2011 01:49 pm:
"If atheism is a religion with a hierarchy, then who is its Rebbe or Rebbitzin?" There is a plain answer on the Arbeiter Ring's own site. The leaders of the secular Bar/Bas Mitsve Program are that group's Rebbes. Perhaps those who officiate at other life cycle events at and through the Arbeiter Ring are? As the site says, "Expert teachers and talented artist/educators guide students through our rich curriculum, addressing questions of Jewish identity, history and values." Expert and "master" teachers are your rebbes. Your belief "that there is no God" is shrouded in Yiddish culture formed by generations of Yiddish speakers for whom their belief was the antithesis of today's secular atheist's belief. Got heyst oykh keyn nar nit zayn.
David Aharon Lindzon on December 19, 2011 10:26 am:
May I raise the possibility that Nimrod was the world's first atheist? He led his generation to build that fancy tower in Babel that was supposed to do away with G-d. The great philosopher, Aristotle, pulled the trunp card when he said that there is a first cause that is uncaused. So I ask atheists, is there a first cause or not? For those of us who believe in G-d, the universe could have been created one of several ways that allow for science to come to its conclusions by observing the facts. For those who deny the existence of a G-d, evolution then becomes a religion to replace G-d.
John Langell on December 19, 2011 03:35 pm:
Religions, as most understand them, comprise several essential elements: (1) a G-d or gods, which interact(s) with mankind and intervene(s) in earthly affairs and whose intervention may be influenced by prayer or ritual; (2) moral and/or ethical systems which are transmitted from generation to generation and from believers to converts; (3)prescribed prayers and/or rituals, likewise transmitted. Many religions include notions of judgment and reward/punishment, perhaps a last judgment and a reward or punishment in an afterlife, this is not essential element. Evolution--or, more properly, the theory of natural selection--fails on these criteria, as does science generally. Further, some scientists believe in G-d; of those who don't, some deny G-d's existence while others judge it to be "not proven." So, I would be careful not to put science or scientists in opposition to religious believers.
SW on December 20, 2011 02:26 am:
A few linguists would suggest an understanding in which God "bade" the universe come to be. In this sense of the verb's use, there is an odd and wonderful consistency that skips over the Aristoltean "cause without a first cause." It is possible to reimagine the arguments of Darwin (though not those who followed him into social Darwinism) along these lines: There are laws of the universe that cannot be "big banged" away. Darwin wrote, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." In this passage, one finds "Creator" clearly used alongside a discussion of science(s). The issue, then, is not one of a "God of evolution" but rather the fact that atheists turn to Darwin--ignoring what they so easily ignore--as some sort of evidence of their belief system.
"Descent through modification" does not challenge God-believing people but does deeply challenge those who flee from first cause issues. For one, this Jew believes in God and finds Torah instructive yet is not disturbed by notions of natural law at work in the world. Rather, I find them to be those "invisible hands" at work, of which we are and will continue to be beneficiaries. We are blessed by so much that the atheists' rancor against belief becomes an amusement to us at the same time it becomes a flashpoint of argument to them, for it is they--unlike those holding the normal attitude toward proselytization in Judaism--who wish to evangelize and convert.
Jerry Blaz on December 20, 2011 03:35 am:
Does a religion have to have a god? While I am no expert on Buddhism, many sources inform me that it does not have a god. Buddha was a mortal person; and, while he is revered, it is not as a god. Since there is no god in Buddhism, there is no interaction by a god with people or history. As I understand it, it is a system for achieving a state of spiritual perfection (whatever that might be) called Nirvana. Gnosticism is another faith system that not only has God, but Gods upon Gods, an entire heirarchy or table or organization of different levels of gods, yet it is not a polytheistic faith system, but probably closer to henotheism. Never undersell mankind's ability to search for salvation, which I believe is the prime objective of religions.
John Langell on December 20, 2011 10:50 am:
Buddhism is, arguably, not a religion.
David Aharon Lindzon on December 20, 2011 02:18 pm:
While i agree with SW, it all boils down to whether a person believes in G-d or does not believe in G-d. For a person who believes in G-d, there are no questions. For a person who does not believe in a G-d, there are no answers.
SW on December 21, 2011 03:12 am:
Mr. Blaz writes, "Never undersell mankind's ability to search for salvation, which I believe is the prime objective of religions." The central verb is "believe." All people hold beliefs; the question is, "which beliefs." The atheist "believes" in NoGod. The Buddhist also "believes" many things. Even the henothist "believes," in his mid-19th-century fad-like manner of cultural inclusion of the relativists.
This thread moved from the central question of "Is Judaism a religion" into many avenues, directed for the most part by self-described Jews who deny God, as do atheists, and other belief systems using Judaism as a cloak through which to pursue evangelization. I have tried to highlight Marx's argument that as one "abolishes" a religion, one attacks it through many ways, the most important being to encourage its self-abolition. The arguments on this thread have been about forms of Judaism that sever portions of traditional, historical Judaism in favor of atheism, Christianity and, apparently, polytheism and henotheism. This rather well answers Grossman's interesting question.
Traditional, historical Judaism is indeed a religion, which has been targeted by many for extinction. To abolish God from Judaism is the atheist abolishing himself while hugging Yiddishkeit as enough or the Christian abolishing Judaism by "proving" it all leads to Jesus. Marx foretold both avenues, as "we" abolish ourselves by rushing in these opposite directions for the sake of some belief system which lures "us." Judaism in Torah and Talmud, across centuries, has had God as a central theme. Inscribed on arks is, "Know before whom you stand." For the atheist or Christian, "before whom you stand" is something quite different from what rabbis l'dor vador have imagined, in subtleties that these threads barely touch. But we may rest assured that a new "Humanist Bible"--see the other JID article--will save "us" from the old. Ah, the evangelical fervor of today's new prophets crying in the media.
David Aharon Lindzon on December 21, 2011 02:51 pm:
SW, substitute "tears" for The L-rd in Psalm 23 and you'll have the best humanist version of the shepherd Psalm.
kaye on December 21, 2011 03:13 pm:
We cannot be sure there is a God, we can only hope so. But if God is, explaining the universe becomes much harder because of the internal inconsistencies between the things we believe about God (compassionate, just, merciful,forgiving, pardoning)and the way the world works. People who axiomatically believe in God do not understand people who axiomatically believe there is no god. Listening to a discussion between an atheist and a non-atheist is like listening to people who speak different languages even though they use the same words. To admit that the existence or non- existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable should be the first premise in the discussion. After that, we can start to talk about what and who is a Jew, what Judaism is, and whether to accept people as Jews or not.
SW on December 21, 2011 09:09 pm:
Kaye writes, "To admit that the existence or non- existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable should be the first premise in the discussion." Wholly correct, in my estimation. The notion of proof is the world of "supportable propositions," while the world of belief is a world of "non-supported propositions," to use the lingo of artificial intelligence research and brain science.
Mr. Lindzon's comment made me chuckle: Living in Germany, one is cognizant of other languages as well as one's mother speech; "tears" can be a plural noun or a verb. When first I read his comment, I thought the latter: "Tearing (away) is my shepherd" seems quite the evangelical creed for today's modern world, in which the ostensible humanist sometimes tears beliefs away from others while not acknowledging his own beliefs as beliefs, unsupportable propositions, rather than knowledge, supportable propositions. "Tearing" is my shepherd might also be a cultural relativist's psalm, as he tears away at specifics in culture and religion.