irishgirl: Indeed, my point being that religion appears to be the only common factor between Jews since “race” or “culture” are as different amongst Jews as between Jews and non-Jews.
A parallel might be American, Lebanese and Keralan Christians whose ethnicity and culture (apart from those cultural traits which intersect with said common religion) are more different from each other than local non-Christians.
I was attempting to find out if the OP’s “Jewish identity” or “Jews as a distinct group” was speaking solely about Judaism the religion.
I must say that the heading for this post is very poorly chosen:
“why should jews survive?”. It opens up to a whole lot of holocast associations, quite unnecessarily i would say after having read the rest of the OP.
“Will jewish ethnicity / culture survive?” or “Why should jewish ethnicity / culture be preserved?” would have been more appropriate in my book.
I’m assuming you mean “now that forces have changed and the Jews are beginning to assimilate themselves into the general population, is there any reason for them to remain as a distinct identifiable group as Jews, or is there any reason for the rest of the world to want to preserve them as a distinct identifiable group?” If that’s not your actual question, then never mind the following response.
Firstly, what you say is partly true. Judaism in North America and many other parts of the world is being threatened by assimilation, intermarriage and low birth rates. A recent study showed that among non-Orthodox Jews, these factors will lead to a rapid decline in Jewish population. Out of 100 Conservative Jews today, only 24 Jews will remain four generations later. The number is even lower for the Reform and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism. (Source)
That being said, has Judaism’s time come? Is it time for Judaism to go the way of the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the Model T? Is Judaism today an anachronism which is simply a historical curiousity, a reminder of the roots and origins of the much larger religions of Christianity and Islam, but obsolete in it’s own right, much as the obsolete Commodore 64 is a forerunner of today’s PCs?
The answer, I feel (probably to no one’s surprise) is no. The time has not come.
Firstly, to say that Judaism’s time has come is to state that Judaism, as a culture and a religion has nothing more to contribute to human society. That is to say that while Jews have produced works of religion, philosiphy, art and culture for the past three thousand-odd years, their unique contribution to the fabric of human society is at an end, and nothing more could be gained from having the Jews around, nothing more could be learned from them; or that there is no reason to allow them to further influence human society. That idea, to me, is simply not true. The Jewish religion and culture are still churning out works of philosiphy and religion. Within the Jewish religion, there has been an explosion of books in the English language about the religion and it’s laws and precepts within the last twenty years. Jewish newspapers are still around today, and Jewish writers are still typing away at their keyboards, putting works into production. The Jewish role as a “light unto the nations” has not ended. There is still plenty of oil left in the lamp.
Secondly, the Jews today are a testament to the human spirit and the human instinct for survival as individuals and as a culture and religion. The Pharrohs have come and gone, and yet we’re still here. The Babylonians have come and gone, but we’re still here. The Syrian-Greeks have tried to destroy us, but we’re still here. We’ve been persecuted by Christians, Muslims, Crusaders, Turks, Nazis and the modern-day Soviet Union. And yet we’re still here. The fact that we have survived stands as a monument and a testament to other oppressed groups. It stands up and tells them that there is hope for them. They can survive the oppression. One day they will be able to carve out a niche and survive and prosper.
As for the internal question (i.e. “is there any reason for them to remain as a unique identifiable group?”), the answer is again yes. We survive as Jews because that is who we are. “To thine own self be true,” the Bard said. As Jews (and admittedly, I’m speaking from the Orthodox perspective) we are on this earth to perform God’s commandments. We are here to make the world a better place. We are here to be a “light unto the nations.” These are serious responsibilities which we cannot lightly shirk. If we abandon our role as Jews, then we abandon our responsibility to ourselves, to God and to the rest of the world.
Lastly, it must be borne in mind that many of histories most reviled people have made it a priority to see to it that the Jewish people have been eradicated from the earth. If for no other reason than that, the Jews should be preserved as a people. Just knowing that Hitler made it a priority to wipe out the Jews makes me think that keeping them around is on the right track.
But, are you trying to imply that religion is not a significant factor? Religion is more than an idle opinion, it is a belief and behavior system that shapes one’s worldview from top to bottom (well, for those who are serious about it, that is). That’s a pretty basic factor that can very well unite otherwise disparate sub-groups, as defined by cultural/racial trappings.
cmkeller: Having read my posts again, I struggle to see where I implied that religion was insignificant in uniting such ethnically and culturally diverse peoples as Ethiopian, Ultra-Ortodox and Ukrainian Jews in a “distinct group”.
I stated categorically that the “culture” of such diverse peoples would intersect with respect to those traits defined by the common religion (nevertheless leaving many cultural traits shaped by local history, politics, dialect and economics). These local characteristics are why I see “Judaism the religion and culture” as rather simplistic a conflation, and “Jewishness as a race/ethnicity” as an outright misconception.
Isn’t it just a little bit arrogant to go about making statements about the status of Judaism as an enlightener of the world?
Plenty of ideas in Judaism are incredibly valuable, and directly or indirectly they’ve served to fundamentally change the nature of global civilization.
So? Most of it is still junk, just like everything else.
The Jews borrowed as much as they created. The emphasis on reason, logic, and scholarship often associated with traditional Judaism was adopted from the ancient Greeks – who in turn noted the worth of some Jewish customs and traditions but discarded others as being worthless and even barbaric.
IMO, it’s long past time for the insular and tribal aspects of Judaism to pass away. They serve to preserve the valuable aspects of the culture, yes – but they also prevent the removal of the worthless aspects and limit the spread of the positives. The beneficial effects have happened more because of the Diaspora and the intermingling of cultures than anything else, in my view at least.
Cultural hybridization is a good thing, and it’s one thing Judaism has never been good at.
which I agree with. Judaism has changed a lot over the years, from intermixture with other ideas, and to fulfil the needs of Jews at the time.
But then you go on to say:
and that seems to contradict what you just said, and I don’t think it’s true. Judaism has been very good at adapting to the culture around it, which is one of the reasons it still exists.
Adapting to them, yes. Joining them – allowing its ideas to spread throughout them, and incorporating their ideas into itself – no.
Overall, even considering that the majority of every culture is worthless junk, Judaism rejects far more than it accepts. Although there have been sociocultural mutations in the past (the different branches of Judaism, Christianity, etc.), as a whole it’s rather stable.
That’s one of the sacrifices Judaism makes – in retaining stability and distinctiveness, it’s forced to deal poorly with change.
If pragmatism wasn’t one of the most important principles Judaism is actually based on, it wouldn’t have survived the destruction of the Temple. Historically, Judaism has often been extremely intolerant of dissent and heresy in its own ranks. (Looks like those Samaritans were right after all, eh?)
Judaism can adapt when it’s forced to. I’d like to see it adapt because it can…
Ok, TVAA, I rarley have time to post, but this requires some clarification.
First, you assert that:
I’d like to ask what you consider “worth” to be. Is cultural element x worthwhile because those in the culture find x adds significance to their lives? Is it worthwhile because it helps them decide whether to do a or b, whether they be take a particular job or eat a particular food? In short, TVAA, what is “worth?” Is there some objective standard of “worth” that you’d care to enlighten us with? I’m patiently waiting.
In my view, though, I’ll continue waiting, for I think it’s impossible, barring your discovery of Absolute Truth, to assign some sort of objective worth to cultural elements. In “American culture” we assign worth based on how we define “worth” in our culture – which makes the even the question “Is worth worthless” non-contradictory.
Next, you say:
Again, I must ask you to clarify what you would consider “dealing well with change” is. A culture that has managed to continue for nearly 2000 years while being dispersed throughout the globe as a tiny minority of many “great cultures” seems, in my view, to adapt to change well without losing its identify. Certainly, the individual Jews might have had “easier” lives if they assimilated, but the culture itself is lost by “dealing with change” that well.
So, TVAA, I await a clarification of your terms, and then will deal with the substantive assertions.
Oh, and in general, I find the day before Yom HaShoah – Holocaust Memorial Day – a particularly bad time for asking “Why should Jews survive.”
OK, TVAA, so you think that most of Judaism is junk and you think we should abandon parts of it. OK, which parts? Should we abandon kashrus? Should be abandon shabbos? Should we abandon our rich heritage of literature? Should we abandon our synagouges and yeshivos? Becuase you see, those are the very things that make us Jewish. And before you start to tell me that there are plenty of Jews who don’t keep kosher, and don’t keep shabbos and don’t go to shul, I will tell you that they are still identifiable as Jewish because they had parents and grandparents within living memory who did do these things. It is usually after three generations or more that the most assimilated and intermarried fall off and are no longer identifiably Jewish anymore. IOW, it is precisely when Jews abandon the very things that make them Jewish that they begin to disappear.
So, IOW, by telling us to abandon that which you term as “junk,” you are, in effect, asking us to cease being Jews.
Well, yes, basically. That’s the whole point. “The acorn that is not afraid to become the oak” and all that.
The things that need to change are the ways a culture thinks about the world. Why are some customs kept? What is their function? What does it mean to belong to this culture? What other ways are possible? Are these ways better? Why are these ways better?
Memetic associations change and evolve the same way genes do. Judaism eventually became the progenitor of religion-cultures that mutate at a much higher rate (Christianity, for example). Change can bring error, but some error is improvement. Prevent change and you stop growth.
It’s that strong identification with collections of ideas (the “things that make the Jews the Jews”) that is itself a weakness. It’s a denial of the possibility that it’s possible to not do those things and remain Jewish, which limits what Judaism is capable of becoming.
Yes, but when the reason we keep the commandments are because we believe that God said to, then what better way is there? Or are you telling us now to give up our belief in God too?
**
Do you think most of the U.S. Constitution is junk? Do you think most of the Bill of Rights is junk? Do you think most of the U.S. Code is junk? Do you think most of Shakespear’s works are junk? Byron? Shelley? Keats? Picasso’s works? Da Vinci’s? I think the statement “Most of everything is junk” is quite dubious at best.
Maybe. Would that be a good thing? How else can we know but by trying it?
Yes, actually. The same with the Bill of Rights. The ideas ennumerated therein are often good, but they could be phrased better, and the systems they describe have fundamental weaknesses that might be corrected.
YES!
A lot of it is. The difference is that people tend to remember the good bits, and the good plays, and the clever and thoughtful books and poems, and the oracular ideas and successful devices.
Most of what they produced is junk.
I’m not suggesting we should go around burning da Vinci’s notebooks any more than I’m suggesting we should go burn the Torah. They should be preserved for historical reasons if nothing else. But they should not be revered!
That’s what happened to the works of Aristotle throughout the Dark Ages.
First of all, no religion or culture changes just because it can. It changes because it finds itself forced to, and Judaism has adapted new ideas pretty steadily throughout history, through contact with the outside world. Jews use the Babylonian calender and use Babylonian names for the months. There are some people who argue that the stress that Judaism puts on monotheism comes from Persian Zoroastrianism. The idea of the synagogue (and even the word synagogue) comes from the Greeks. Maimonides, probably the greatest Jewish thinker, is most famous for his synthesis of Jewish thought and Aristotelian philosophy. Kabbalah was probably influenced by Muslim Sufism, and Hasidism might have been too. Reform Judaism has roots in 18th century French and German Rationalism and Liberalism. Zionism has roots in 19th century Nationalism. Historically Judaism has been influenced by the outside world all over the place.
You mention the Samaritans, but they’re a good example of a belief system not changing. Some Jews come back from Babylon and say, “Hey, we’ve changed some stuff, this works better, come on”, and the people who had been left behind say, “Nope…we’re staying the way we were.” and therefore become Samaritans. If the Jews were as resistant to change as you claim, every Jew would worship like the Samaritans.
And Judaism has historically been tolerant of dissent within it. You know the old joke? “Two Jews, three opinions?” For most of its history, Judaism has lacked any formal mechanism to enforce conformity of belief. In fact, Judaism doesn’t even mandate conformity of belief…just conformity of acts (and doesn’t even always agree what acts are important)
I might not know that flies taste delicious, but you know, I’m in no hurry to try it.
I might not know the high of smoking crack, but you know, I’m in no hurry to try it.
I might not know that certain substances are harmful? Should we simply “try them” to find out.
In any event, this simply reverts back to my previous point. If you are asking us to give up our belief in God and our ability to perform the commandments, then you are, in essence asking us to stop being Jewish.
**
Agreed. But that’s a far cry from saying that most of it is junk, isn’t it?