Is Judaism a religion or some sort of nationality?

[eman77]

Me and my father have been debating this for too many years now. Me being Jewish and an Atheist firmly believe that I am no longer Jewish because I do not believe in any Torah and Talmud or whatever other stuff I learned many years ago. My father insists that because I was born a jew I will always be a jew and must have a much higher respect for jews than anybody else. He also feels it is not only a religion but a culture and a nationality which is similar to saying your American or Russian.

We ran into a serious problem many years ago because all my life I promised him I'd marry a jewish girl. Me being the player I was had no interest in jewish girls because I've seen with my own eyes they were no different than non-jewish girls. And because I got myself into a situation where I now had a child with a Christian girl and wished to propose to her, my father threatened to disown me if I did and to make a long story short we didn't get married and I now have a son which I only see on the weekends.

Now me and my father have always had a good relationship and he is a very nice and smart man. He taught me everything I know and is basically an Atheist himself, but I feel he is painfully ignorant in this matter. So I'm not sure if this is a debate or an obvious answer so please explain to me whether or not one of us is wrong.

[Zagadka]

Both.

More specifically, it is a religion and an ethnicity, and a culture, to boot, which is quite distinct from "nationality"... you can be an Israeli Jewish Atheist if you want, or an German Jewish Jew, or whatever.

One of those tricky words with two meanings O_o

Though some people will debate how far the "ethnic" definition of "Jewish" goes, since you have "ethnic" Jews spanning thousands of miles across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East (well, a tiny part thereof), and, of course, the Americas. But generally, as you experienced firsthand, Jews tend to marry other Jews due to strong cultural and religious motivations.

That's how I understand it. I've had several Jewish friends try to explain how Jewish is Jewish, but it ends up with everyone being quite confused.

Incidentally, I have one friend who is a American French Jew whose last name is "St. Martin," which is endlessly hillarious after a few drinks.

[cmkeller]

eman77:

My father insists that because I was born a jew I will always be a jew

From a religious standpoint, he's right. Obviously you no longer believe in G-d, but official Jewish religious doctrine does in fact say that in the eyes of G-d, once you become a Jew - whether by birth or by conversion - you cannot un-become.

He also feels it is not only a religion but a culture and a nationality which is similar to saying your American or Russian.

In some ways, all religions are similar to nationalities in that way, as said religion involves a community sharing common interests and in which membership is automatically conferred based on lineage.

However, it's always a bit dodgy to separate Jewish "religion" from Jewish "culture" and "nationality." Pretty much every Jewish cultural element that one could attempt to isolate from the religion probably has its roots in the religion, even if those who are not actively religious still maintain it.

We ran into a serious problem many years ago because all my life I promised him I'd marry a jewish girl. Me being the player I was had no interest in jewish girls because I've seen with my own eyes they were no different than non-jewish girls...my father threatened to disown me if I [married the non-Jewish mother of my child]

Be that as it may, if you promised your father something, you shouldn't have been so cavalier about it. That's a simple matter of honesty, not necessarily of Judaism.

He taught me everything I know and is basically an Atheist himself, but I feel he is painfully ignorant in this matter.

He's not ignorant, but what he is is inconsistent. Not intermarrying is one of those things that might have meaning to "cultural Jews" but is in essense a religious prohibition. He needs to make clear to himself - and, in turn, to you - why maintaining Jewish lineage means anything to him if other aspects of the Jewish religion don't.

[GilaB]

The SDSAB column on this (popular) question is here .

[Dog80]

Is it a common practice for Jewish people to disapprove inter-cultural marriages?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Dog80

Is it a common practice for Jewish people to disapprove inter-cultural marriages?

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a way not to say 'common' for fear of overgeneralizing, but I guess common is the right word. I expect you'll find it more among older Jews. The attitude is definitely not unique to Orthodox or very religious Jews. Of course it's not unique to Judaism either (the fact that there aren't that many Jews has a lot to do with the 'ethnicity' thing). Anyway there definitely is a specific and out-in-the-open social pressure to marry within the faith in order to preserve the religion and culture.

Though some people will debate how far the "ethnic" definition of "Jewish" goes, since you have "ethnic" Jews spanning thousands of miles across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East (well, a tiny part thereof), and, of course, the Americas.

I think for precisely this reason it doesn't go very far. It can't be much of an ethnicity if the people aren't really related. The Biblical tribe might be considered a nationality; 'Israeli' is a nationality, Jewish is not. I think the two things have been divorced.

Just to make my vested interests or biases in this discussion clear, my family is (mostly) Jewish, I'm an atheist and I'm not. And to make clear how confused this issue is and why the debate will probably never go away, one of my brothers is also an atheist - a Communist, no less - and he apparently identifies himself as Jewish for cultural (not ethnic) reasons.

[Noone Special]

Israeli Jewish Atheist here (Thanks, Zagadka! - nice turn of phrase )

Think about an Irishman. He's certainly Irish. He's probably Catholic. And let's say he actually lives in Ireland.

Now lets start taking some characteristics away. Can he be Irish if he's an Atheist? I think so. Can he be Irish if he lives in Boston or in NY (and his family has lived there for centuries)? Just go out to St. Patrick's day parades in either city... Can he be an Atheist living in Boston and still consider himself Irish? Even if only his Maternal Grandmother's Grandmother was actually on the boat from Ireland? See any reason why not? So - you now have a American Atheist with maybe 10% Irish blood. But he's still Irish because he identifies as such. And his identical twin may actually be Catholic, move to Dublin, and consider himself to be a transplanted Yankee....

Same for Jews. The word "Jew" literally means "Judean" - it was originally a geographical descriptor, just like "Irish", but, again like "Irish", has come to mean much more than that.

Bottom line, people intermarry; move; find and lose religion. In the end, they are what they identify as. This goes for you as well as for your brother.

As to your spat with father - I really don't think this has anything to do with either of you being Jews or not. It's a promise you made... and which you aren't sure you want (or are obliged) to keep. I really can't help you there, except to say that the situation would be the same had you promised to marry only a College Graduate or a Republican. It has nothing to do with the question of whether you are Jewish or not!

Dani

[DSeid]

Repeating lots of what has already been said, the answer to your question is "yes" - it is a religion and a nationality and ...

The best phrase is "tribe" with the recognition of its historic roots as a tribal identity that became spread out across most of the world but still united by that tribal identification. Of course shared religious beliefs are part of any tribal identity, even though it is sometimes hard to believe that Chiam and I have religious beliefs that are shared (I was raised Reform, am now part of a Conservative schul and am quite secular - a soft theist at most; he the observant Orthodox) - yet we both accept each other as mishpacha, as members of the Jewish extended family. Of course shared cultural attributes and history is part of a tribal identity. Of couse birthright is one way to become part of a tribe and of course former outsiders can become part of a tribe by undergoing some tribal initiation - they are then full fledged members just as if they had been born into the group.

What is so confusing about Jewish identity is the manner in which the tribal identity has spread itself amongst and betwixt other cultural identities, variably absorbing and transforming aspects of host cultures into itself and sharing parts of such absorbed/transformed bits with other parts of the tribe spread elsewhere, and contributing bits of itself (and the transformed bits from other cultures) to new host cultures along the way. Yet never being totally absorbed by any other identity. This exposure/absorbtion/transformation of cultural concepts and ideas that has been such an integral part of a tribal Diaspora has done more to define Jewish identity (and to encumber defining Jewish identity) than any other single feature. The Diaspora and forced rootlesssness left the Jews as a people with only those ideas as their resource to develop and trade with. But rich with that resource as the ideas of many other cultures mixed together in many novel combinations.

So yes, you can reject the religion and still have your tribal birthright. You can reject the religion and still care about being a good member of the tribe and about passing that identity on to your children. You can be a member of the tribe and be Chinese or African or Arab or Indian or Irish or Aboriginal by ethnicity. It has become a very diverse tribe in many ways. But still the question is "M O T?" (Are you a member of the tribe?) for good reason.

[Marley23]

Nice post, Noone Special.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Dog80

Is it a common practice for Jewish people to disapprove inter-cultural marriages?

Not intercultural marriages. Just anybody who is Jewish marrying somebody who is not. If I marry a woman from Japan, Iceland, Argentina, or Ethiopa, my family's concern will be 'But, is she Jewish?'. If the answer is yes, my relatives will do a happy dance. If the answer is no, there's a chance some of them will say 'I have no son/brother/nephew/cousin! From this moment, you are dead to me!' this would be followed by rending of clothing and recitation of mourning prayers.

Is this disapproval common among Jews?

Do matzoh balls go well with chicken soup?

[Homer Simpson] mmmm Chicken soup with matzoh balls . . hhahalalalh[/HS]

[Krokodil]

Originally Posted by Dog80

Is it a common practice for Jewish people to disapprove inter-cultural marriages?

Irish-American (lapsed) Catholic weighing in here.

Many Jews express a fear that the Americans, through intermarriage and assimilation, will succeed at doing what the Germans, through Shoah, failed at: Extinction of the Jewish people.

If you're Jewish and your son marries outside the tribe, the child born of that union will ultimately have to choose between two identities. Most children, being weak-willed, choose the one that has skateboards, rock stars and shiksa cheerleaders associated with it. And even the ones who stay true to the Tribe are half goy and a bit suspect for that.

There was a brutal story early on in Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint where the narrator's cousin fell in love with a blonde shiksa drum majorette and fought bitterly with his father over it. Cousin wants to elope with this girl, but his father engineers some discord in the relationship (At one point luring the girl into a car and offering her $500 in 1940 money to break up with the guy; she doesn't take it). Cousin winds up joining the army and getting killed in short order. At his funeral, lots of relatives tell his father it's a good thing he didn't get the girl pregnant so there'd be a half-goy bastard in the family.

So yeah, interfaith marriages are a sore point to lots of Jewish families. Gentile ones, too, really.

[Splanky]

I'm agnostic. I also am Jewish. I look at being Jewish very much as an ethnicity- the same as an African American, Italian, or Irish person may feel strongly about their cultures.

[Tenar]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

Many Jews express a fear that the Americans, through intermarriage and assimilation, will succeed at doing what the Germans, through Shoah, failed at: Extinction of the Jewish people.

I am aware of this belief, and I wouldn't disagree, except that I would think that this brings you right back to what is meant by the Jewish people.

I could see the US ending up with two groups -- the relatively insular observant "Black Hat" Orthodox, who are determinedly fecund by tradition, and secular cultural Jews, with little middle ground in between.

Just a thought.

[holdmytail]

Originally Posted by Splanky

I'm agnostic. I also am Jewish. I look at being Jewish very much as an ethnicity- the same as an African American, Italian, or Irish person may feel strongly about their cultures.

Same here. It's definately a cultural identity as well as a religion. Just because we've been through so much together, I guess.

[DocCathode]

Tenar I've thought the same thing for a long time. I've wondered if the same might happen to Christianity.

I often think we'll end up with an America where everybody exchanges presents in november or december, but nobody remembers why.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

So you and your father both feel it is more important to honor a promise you made many years ago than to marry your child's mother? You wanted to marry her, but you didn't because of your dad? Is that the case?

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

If you're Jewish and your son marries outside the tribe, the child born of that union will ultimately have to choose between two identities. Most children, being weak-willed, choose the one that has skateboards, rock stars and shiksa cheerleaders associated with it.

But they don't have to make that choice! What, there is a shortage of Jewish celebrities? Just ask Adam Sandler...

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.n...2569960017FD3D

(Reform-raised culturally Jewish agnostic here - I'm all about preserving cultures of every sort, but I have never believed it should keep apart people who are meant to be together, which is an endless source of consternation to the older generations of my family. Of course, then you get to argue over who is "meant to be together," which provides endless hours of fun.)

[zephyrine]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

... Can he be Irish if he lives in Boston or in NY (and his family has lived there for centuries)? Just go out to St. Patrick's day parades in either city... Can he be an Atheist living in Boston and still consider himself Irish? Even if only his Maternal Grandmother's Grandmother was actually on the boat from Ireland? See any reason why not? So - you now have a American Atheist with maybe 10% Irish blood. But he's still Irish because he identifies as such. And his identical twin may actually be Catholic, move to Dublin, and consider himself to be a transplanted Yankee....

Same for Jews.

No, I don't think so. This idea of cultural identity irrespective of nationality seems to me to be uniquely American. Does your hypothetical Irishman still have Irish nationality? If he does, then yes, he is nominally an Irishman. If he has American nationality, then no, he's not Irish, he's American, with Irish ancestors. My grandfather came from Ireland, and I have an Irish surname. That doesn't make me Irish.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who knows any Jews that there is a huge difference.

[Noone Special]

Originally Posted by zephyrine

No, I don't think so. This idea of cultural identity irrespective of nationality seems to me to be uniquely American. Does your hypothetical Irishman still have Irish nationality? If he does, then yes, he is nominally an Irishman. If he has American nationality, then no, he's not Irish, he's American, with Irish ancestors. My grandfather came from Ireland, and I have an Irish surname. That doesn't make me Irish.

You must be the identical twin I mentioned.... I think there are Americans (and possibly others) of Irish ancestry who consider themselves Irish still. And I know that there are people of Jewish ancestry who do not consider themselves Jewish. My point is that it's an individual choice

Dani

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

My point is that it's an individual choice

Except when it's not. If you're living in some place where Jews or the Irish or whoever is discriminated against, either legally or de facto, and then you're a member of that group whether you choose to be or not, based on the outside world's definition.

[zephyrine]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

My point is that it's an individual choice

Dani

My point is that it's not. Whether or not you are Irish is a legality. Of course, people are free to consider themselves whatever they wish: Irish, Japanese, Martian, etc. We're arguing at cross purposes. How many people have 'Jewish' on their passport as their nationality? The point that I agree with is that someone can decide that they do not consider themselves Jewish, even if they are recognized as such, just as a non-religious Jew who has never been near Israel can consider themselves a Jew. As has already been pointed out in this thread, other conventions of recognizing ethnicity do not apply here.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by zephyrine

Whether or not you are Irish is a legality.

Whether or not you're a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is a legality, whether or not you're "Irish" is more nebulous.

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Both.

More specifically, it is a religion and an ethnicity, and a culture, to boot, which is quite distinct from "nationality"... you can be an Israeli Jewish Atheist if you want, or an German Jewish Jew, or whatever.

Just as in any proper shell-game, one needs three shells to deceive the mark.

Of the many Jews that came from Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Brooklyn that settled in Palestine and founded the modern-day State of Israel, many were athiest, especially among those within the government. But yet, these Zionists had the chutzpah to lay claim to the real estate of Palestine through a covenant that God made to Moses.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Just as in any proper shell-game, one needs three shells to deceive the mark.

Of the many Jews that came from Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Brooklyn that settled in Palestine and founded the modern-day State of Israel, many were athiest, especially among those within the government. But yet, these Zionists had the chutzpah to lay claim to the real estate of Palestine through a covenant that God made to Moses.

Actually, we lay claim to it through the barrel of an Uzi.

[Noone Special]

Originally Posted by zephyrine

My point is that it's not. Whether or not you are Irish is a legality. Of course, people are free to consider themselves whatever they wish: Irish, Japanese, Martian, etc. We're arguing at cross purposes. How many people have 'Jewish' on their passport as their nationality? The point that I agree with is that someone can decide that they do not consider themselves Jewish, even if they are recognized as such, just as a non-religious Jew who has never been near Israel can consider themselves a Jew. As has already been pointed out in this thread, other conventions of recognizing ethnicity do not apply here.

To elaborate: I think that Zagadka's model is correct - every person has a Nationality (which is a legal term refering to the color of their passport), an ethnicity or culture (which is semi-self-described - i.e., a Mexican immigrant [legal!] will probably be considered Mexican by other Americans, whether or not (s)he self-identifies that way) and a religion (or the lack of one) - which is completely self-determined. Confusion ensues when two of the terms use the same word. Thus "Irish" is both a nationality and an ethnicity. "Jewish", OTOH, is both an ethnicity and a religion. The OP is clearly about ethnicity/culture, which is the meeting point between the two examples we have been using. And, as Captain Amazing has rightfully pointed out, it is the fuzziest of all three characteristics, because it is neither completely self-determined nor completely externally imposed. It also need not necessarily have anything to do with either nationality or religion - I dare say that many black people probably consider themselves part of some larger ethnic and cultural whole by virtue (or detriment) of the color of their skin alone.
And of course I agree that it would be ludicrous for me to claim to be part of the, say, Chinese Ethnicity or Culture... but the OP (and my discussion) were more about claiming or denouncing ethnicity/culture when a connection - even a tenuous one - does clearly exist.

Razorsharp - this not being the Pit, I will restrain myself and say only that your allegations are both irrelevant to the discussion at hand and just plain wrong. If you wish to continue the debate, start another thread (Israel/Palestine has been bashed to death around here anyway, but I'm always game for one more round )

Dani

[Eva Luna]

Originally Posted by zephyrine

How many people have 'Jewish' on their passport as their nationality? The point that I agree with is that someone can decide that they do not consider themselves Jewish, even if they are recognized as such

In the Soviet Union, Jews had "Jewish" listed at their nationality. To be fair, the Russian word "natsional'nost' "has a meaning closer to the English word "ethnicity," but people with other religios beliefs (even in an officially atheist state such as the USSR) were not required to list any religious affiliation, even ethnicities which had almost 100% overlap with a particular religion in practice. (Denial is a powerful force.) People would go to great lengths to hide their Jewish background; bribes to change the entry on the "fifth line" to something less likely to call attention (usually "Russian") were fairly common.

When I worked with Soviet refugees, those who were Jewish used to remark bitterly that they had to leave the Soviet Union before anyone would consider them Russian.

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Actually, we lay claim to it through the barrel of an Uzi.

Right, otherwise known as armed robbery.

You know, it's that type of attitude that leads me to believe that if Moses were to decend Mount Sinai again today, he would be just as pissed-off as he was the first time he came down.

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

Razorsharp - this not being the Pit, I will restrain myself and say only that your allegations are both irrelevant to the discussion at hand and just plain wrong.

Well, being that it has already been established that one can be Jewish and an athiest, there is no irrelevancy present.

"Plain wrong"?? Wrong about what, that there were no athiest Zionists within the movement creating the modern-day State of Israel? Wrong about the founding of the modern-day State of Israel being premised on the Mosiac covenant? If not, how then did it come about that the new country would be named "Israel"?

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Right, otherwise known as armed robbery.

Only in the sense that the American Revolution was an illegal insurrection. The United States was taken from its rightful rulers at the point of a Kentucky rifle

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Wrong about the founding of the modern-day State of Israel being premised on the Mosiac covenant?

Absolutely wrong. The whole "God gave us this land" crap came much later. The founding of Israel was based first and formost on necessity, and seondly on the historical basis of the Judean kingdom destroyed by the Romans - a cultural fact, not a religious belief.


C'mon - give us something new.

[cmkeller]

Alessan:

Absolutely wrong. The whole "God gave us this land" crap came much later. The founding of Israel was based first and formost on necessity, and secondly on the historical basis of the Judean kingdom destroyed by the Romans - a cultural fact, not a religious belief.

Isn't that second part a bit revisionist, Alessan? Was Herzl's Uganda suggestion really shouted down because of an attachment to ancient Roman-era nostalgia? Heck, Babylon was (at the time of the earliest Zionist congresses) more recently a home to the majority of world Jewry than Israel/Palestine was.

Even amongst the non-religious Zionists (of that time), the notion that the Torah/Tanakh could be considered as distinct from "Jewish culture" was laughable. Whether or not they believed in an actual divine covenant with Abraham et al, it was certainly the Biblical-era history - Joshua, David, Solomon - that formed the historical basis for Zionist insistence on Palestine as the location for their homeland. Not Roman-era.

All of which kind of gets back to the point I made in my first post to this thread - it's darned near impossible to isolate any element of "cultural Judaism" that is not somehow rooted in "religious Judaism." You can be a Jew without observing the religion, but that doesn't mean that Judaism is not a religious designation - it just describes an ancestral religion rather than a personal belief.

[Alessan]

Chaim, by "Judean kingdom destoyed by the Romans" I was referring to the entire historic Jewsih presence in Israel, from Joshua Bin Nun to Bar Cochvah, a presence eliminated in the second century, including David and Solomon.

However, our keen-edged friend here was referring to Israel's "Founding Fathers (and Mothers)" such as Ben-Gurion and Weizman, who were, indeed, largely atheists and agnostics. He doesn't seem to realize that although they ddd not believe in God, they probably believed in David, and definitely believed in the Maccabees - in other words, they believed in a historic right to the country, if not a religious right. That's one reason why they regected Uganda.

The othe reason (besides the climate) was that they knew that they were the exception, and the majority of European Jews at the time were religious to some degree or another. They knew the conceptually, any place besides Palestine would be too hard a sell.

[Noone Special]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Well, being that it has already been established that one can be Jewish and an athiest, there is no irrelevancy present.

Well, the OP was about being culturally Jewish in the U.S., with no connection whatsoever to Israel, so I thought starting a discussion about the roots of Modern Israel was irrelevant to this thread and would be better placed in another. But I seem to be in a small minority here, so....

"Plain wrong"?? Wrong about what, that there were no athiest Zionists within the movement creating the modern-day State of Israel?

No.

Wrong about the founding of the modern-day State of Israel being premised on the Mosiac covenant?

Yes. See below.

If not, how then did it come about that the new country would be named "Israel"?

Precisely because the connection was cultural more than religious. If the connection were religious, the country would have been named Judea rather than Israel. In the Jewish religious tradition, the ancient kingdom of Israel (the "Northern Kingdom") symbolized all that was antithetical to the naescent "Jewish" (that is - Judean) religion. Also, the Israeli Declaration of Independence Begins with the words

The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people.... (bolding mine)

(Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948.) Again, the context here is national and cultural, rather than religious.

Originally Posted by cmkeller

All of which kind of gets back to the point I made in my first post to this thread - it's darned near impossible to isolate any element of "cultural Judaism" that is not somehow rooted in "religious Judaism." You can be a Jew without observing the religion, but that doesn't mean that Judaism is not a religious designation - it just describes an ancestral religion rather than a personal belief.

This is, I think, almost exactly the point I made a few posts back - that "Jewish" is both a religious and a cultural designation - which causes a lot of confusion, especially because there is a fairly wide, yet far from complete, overlap between the two!

Dani

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

Precisely because the connection was cultural more than religious.

In 1948, what cultural similarities were shared by Europeon Jews and the indigenous Jews of the Holy Land other than practices and observances both groups would have shared through their common religion?

The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people.

And the name "Israel" gets its origin from where?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Incidentally, I have one friend who is a American French Jew whose last name is "St. Martin," which is endlessly hillarious after a few drinks.

One of these days I'll get around to writing a book about the uncle of a Jewish friend of mine. The children's book, Bubba the Jew, will be about the guy who runs a fish camp out of the back of his gas station in Rural North Carolina.

(My friend's uncle actually isn't Jewish, but the book title is too good to pass up).

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

And the name "Israel" gets its origin from where?

From the Jews' legendary eponymous ancestor, Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham, who changed his name to Israel after he spent a night wrestling with an angel and got his thigh put out of joint (whatever that means). And from the ancient northern kingdom of Israel which the Assyrians destroyed. And from the Jews' custom for at least the past two millennia of referring to themselves as "the children of Israel" or "Your [God's] people Israel," and of saying, when a male baby is circumcised, "Let his name be called in Israel _______." What is your point?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What is your point?

His point is that the State of Israel is illegitimate because those darn Jews who founded it were atheists who tricked everybody into thinking they were the same Jews who are in the bible.

Is that a good summary of your viewpoint, Razorsharp?

[Alessan]

Which, of course, makes no sense, because if these atheists didn't think of themselves as Jewish, why would they take the very big trouble of founding a Jewish state in the first place? Where's the angle? And if they did think of themselves as Jewish, then obviously it means more than just in the religious sense, because these people weren't religious, right?

[eman77]

Originally Posted by bluethree

So you and your father both feel it is more important to honor a promise you made many years ago than to marry your child's mother? You wanted to marry her, but you didn't because of your dad? Is that the case?

No, my father felt it was more important to honor a promise than to marry my child's mother. And yes I didn't marry her because of my dad, at the time being disowned would've been the worst thing that could possibly happen to me.

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

His point is that the State of Israel is illegitimate because those darn Jews who founded it were atheists who tricked everybody into thinking they were the same Jews who are in the bible.

Is that a good summary of your viewpoint, Razorsharp?

Now you're catchin' on.

Another thing that bugs me. While supposedly the American government is bound by a Constitutional seperation of church and state, the American taxpayer has been forced to contribute to the founding and maintenance of a country based on the Book of Genesis.

While, on the otherhand, communities across America, whose citizens have a tradition of Christian observance, are forced, at the point of a government gun, to remove plaques of the Ten Commandments from their local courthouses.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Where's the angle?

Wheels within wheels, Alessan. Wheels within wheels.

[cmkeller]

eman77:

No, my father felt it was more important to honor a promise than to marry my child's mother.

Since the promise pre-dated your involvement with her, he's right in the pure moral sense, although in the practical sense, from the standpoint of the child, it obviously isn't beneficial.

Someone who takes his promises seriously shouldn't put himself in the position where he's likely to break them. You say that you got involved with the mother of your child because you'd "seen with my own eyes they were no different than non-jewish girls." But in one very significant way, even to you, they were different. That is, that getting too heavily involved with one would/would not lead to breaking a promise made to your father.